>YJkLH«¥MWIEIESirirY'

"R«.

Gift of

19^

:¦-: >>- * ^//,t.-,y ;

LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

BY THE LATE

REV. JOHN DICK, D.D.
MINISTER OF THE TTNITED ASSOCIATE CONGREGATION, GREYFRIAES, GLASGOW, AND PROFESSOR
OF THEOLOGY TO THE UNITED SECESSION CHURCH.

PUBLISHED UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF HIS SON.

WITH A

BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION,

BY AN AMERICAN EDITOR.

CINCINNATI:
APPLEGATE & CO.,
PUBLISHERS. 1858.

INTRODUCTION.

The author of the following Lectures left behind him neither Preface nor Introduction thereto.
Hence it is inferred that he did not contemplate their publication. To those who had heard them
read in the theological hall, they seemed a treasure too precious to lie buried amid the waste paper
of the author's study-room.
The Rev. John Dick, D. D., was born on the 10th of October, 1764, in Aberdeen, Scotland.
His father, for thirty-four years, the pastor of a secession church in that city, though not distin
guished for brilliancy of talents, or varied and extensive literary acquirements, was a man of exem
plary piety, untiring application to the duties of his office, and great purity of life. His mother
possessed a vigorous, discriminating and cultivated mind. To her kind and judicious attention he
was deeply indebted for his early moral and religious education, and he ever cherished her memory
with enthusiastic affection. He devoted himself so sedulously to learning while in a grammar school,
that upon his admission into the university of his native city, in his twelfth year, he gained a bursa
ry, or the prize of a scholarship, by his proficiency in the latin language. His progress during his
collegiate years fully satisfied the high expectations which his early attainments had excited. He
outstripped, by a lengthening distance, most of his compeers, and was a favorite of all the professors
In 1780, immediately after the completion of his course in the university, he commenced the study
of Theology under the care of the Rev. John Brown, of Haddington, and in 1785 was licensed to
preach by the Presbytery of Perth and Dunfermline.
Of the events of his ministerial life our space will allow us to state only, that in 1786 he became
the pastor of a church in Slateford, a village near Edinburgh — that during his residence in that place
he twice received and declined an invitation to settle in the Church in Aberdeen, which his father's
death had left vacant in 1793 — that in 1801 he was translated to the important church of Greyfriars,
in Glasgow — that his high reputation on this side of the Atlantic procured him, in 1815, the degree
of D. D. from Nassau Hall in New Jersey — that in 1819, at the death of Dr. Lawson, Professor of
systematic theology in the secession theological seminary in Scotland, he was chosen his successor,
and that he continued to discharge the duties of that office, and also those of the pastor of Greyfriars
church till his death. On the 23d of January, 1833, he addressed, in a lengthy and animated speech,
a large meeting which was held in Glasgow for the purpose of petitioning parliament to adopt certain
resolutions relative to the sanctification of the Sabbath. After his return home he complained of an
ear ache, and passed a sleepless night. He rose next morning about 10 o'clock. The Lord's supper
was to be administered in his church on the next Sabbath, and he spent a short time in committing
to memory a discourse prepared for the occasion, from the text, " The Father loveth the Son and
hath committed all things into his hands." About noon he took a chill. Medical aid being then
obtained, copious bleeding was used with apparent success, and he conversed freely and cheerfully
with his friends till 5 o'clock, when he sunk into a lethargy, in which state he continued until his
death the next day. A suppuration had taken place in the ear, and the matter had been discharged

iv INTRODUCTION.
upon the brain, and produced inflammation and effusion. Thus suddenly was he removed from the
earthly to the heavenly sanctuary. The garment of mortality easily dropped off, and he entered into
the joy of his Lord. Long will he be remembered by those to whom he has spoken the word of God.
In the nearest relations of private life, as a son, brother, husband, and father, Dr. Dick's character
was eminently lovely. His manners were characterized by grace and dignity, yet remarkably unos
tentatious. There was about them no distance, no reserve, no visible consciousness of superiority.
Deeply impressed with the truth that the priest's lips should keep knowledge, he seldom preached
without having previously written and memorized his discourses. In the desk he aimed at testifying
the whole counsel of the grace of God and rightly dividing to every man the word of truth. In the
performance of the private duties of his office, visiting the sick, and teaching from house to house,
he was laboriously diligent. As a theological professor, he taught and governed with unusual success.
Few of his cotemporaries possessed equally extensive stores of biblical and classical knowledge.
All these he judiciously applied to the illumination of the scripture, and the instruction of his class.
By his students he was venerated as a teacher and loved as a man. In the language of Shakspeare,
he grappled them to his soul with hoolJS of iron.
His published works, omitting a few single discourses, are An Essay on Inspiration ; Lectures
on select portions of the Acts of the Apostles ; and Lectures on Theology. The last mentioned
were read by their author in the discharge of his professional functions, and embody the substance
of his Essay on Inspiration, and the peculiar views on church government which he advanced in his
Lectures on the Acts.
After the recommendations of the work already submitted to the public, the publisher would only
say, that at a period when Romanism is striking deep its roots in our country, and the theology of the
Protestant churches is becoming infected with Pelagianism, he believes its publication to be an im
portant service to the religious community.

LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

LECTURE I.

ON THEOLOGY.

Introductory Observations — Theology defined : Its Object and
Importance — Natural Theology — Supernatural Theology :
Its Divisions into didactic, polemic, and practical — Qualifi
cations of a Student of Theology : Piety, a competent Share
of natural Talents and Learning, and a Love of Truth.
Theology embraces a' great variety of topics, some
of which are abstruse and difficult, and all have been
perplexed by controversies, which commenced as soon
as our religion was promulgated, and have been carried
on from age to age, with all the arguments which in
genuity and learning could supply. It is like an im
mense field, thickly covered with briers and thorns,
which impede our progress, and through which we
must force our way with toil and pain, in the pursuit
of truth. The private Christian, ignorant of the subtle
disputes which have arisen concerning almost every
article of faith, humbly takes up the Bible as the Word
of God, and by a short and easy process, acquires that
measure of knowledge which, through the teaching of
the Divine Spirit, makes him wise unto salvation. But
the minister of religion proceeds more slowly, encoun
ters obstacles at every step, and often is compelled to
assume the character of a polemic, because he must
study theology as a science, and be able not only to
instruct the simple and illiterate, but also to contend
with the wise and learned, whether as infidels they op
pose revelation in general, or as heretics they impugn
any of its doctrines. To superintend and assist your
studies in a subject so extensive, so complicated, and
so embarrassed with difficulties, is a task which I
should not have willingly undertaken : but as it has
been imposed upon me for a time, I must attempt to
perform it, although I know beforehand, that I shall
neither do justice to you, nor give satisfaction to my
self. I commit myself and you to the Father of lights,
from whom comes down every good and perfect gift, —
earnestly beseeching him to prevent me from handling
his word deceitfully, or in any instance misleading
your minds, and to bless such instructions as you may
Teceive, for advancing your progress in divine knowl
edge and in personal religion.
There are various departments of human knowledge,
to each of which a degree of value ought to be attach
ed, according to its intrinsic worth, or its nearer or
more remote connexion with our business and our in
terests. The objects of knowledge are, mind and mat
ter ; the sciences and the arts ; man himself under his
different aspects, as an animated being, as the subject of
moral obligation, and as a member of civil society ; the
history of human opinions, inventions, and transactions ;
and many other particulars which it would be tedious
to mention. To these, individuals are led to direct their
attention, in some instances, it would seem, by a natu
ral predilection or an original disposition of mind, by ac
cidental circumstances, by imitation, by a regard to inter
est, by the love of glory, or by the principle of curiosity,
which prompts us to inquire into what is unknown, and
is gratified by the enlargement of our views. As man

has been endowed by his Creator with intellectual
powers, he acts conformably to his will when he exerts
them in the acquisition of useful knowledge ; and the
knowledge which is thus acquired must be considered
as a divine communication, not immediate, indeed, like
the revelations which were made to the prophets, but
proceeding as certainly from the Father of lights.
Whatever blessing is obtained by the use of means
with which Providence has furnished us, is as truly a
gift of our Maker as was the manna which, being pre
pared by his own hand without, as far as we know, the
intervention of any natural cause, fell every night
around the camp of the Israelites. I do not therefore
mean to undervalue those parts of knowledge to which
I have referred, and which in their place are as neces
sary as revelation, when I add, that however worthy
they are of attention, and however great are the advan
tages which they are calculated to impart, they yield
in importance to the subject which alone will constitute
the business of this course.
Theology literally signifies, a discourse concerning
God. By the ancients, the term was used in a more
restricted, and a more extended sense. In the writings
of the Fathers, mention is made of the Theology of the
Sacred Trinity, and of the Theology of the Son of God,
or of the Divinity of our Saviour ; while the word, at
other times, denotes the "general system of truth con
tained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament,
or these. Scriptures themselves. It may be defined to
be the science which treats of God, his nature, his at
tributes, his counsels, his works, and his dispensations
towards the human race. I call it a science, because
it is equally worthy of that designation with any of
those departments of knowledge to which it is applied
by common consent; for, although its authentic records
do not deliver theology in a scientific form, it is foun
ded on first principles, from which its subordinate parts
are deducible ; and, throughout all its ramifications,
there is a connexion, a mutual dependence, constituting
a harmonious whole. Reflection upon the subject of
theology will convince us that it claims the preference
to all other studies. In God, we behold an assemblage
of all conceivable excellencies, existing in the highest
degree, and in the most perfect accordance ; the union
of grandeur and loveliness, of every thing fitted to
awaken solemn and pleasing emotions, to impress us
with veneration, to gain our confidence, to inspire us
with hope. He is invisible to mortal eyes, but this is
not a reason for suspending our inquiries, because we
are furnished not only with external senses, by which
we communicate with the material creation, but also
with mental faculties, which qualify us for holding in
tercourse with the intellectual or spiritual world. The
mystery which envelopes his nature might discourage
us, if we entertained a presumptuous wish to compre
hend his infinite essence ; but it presents no obstacle
to the attainment of that degree of knowledge which
will serve as the foundation of religion, since he has

6

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

been pleased to grant such manifestations of himself as
are suitable to our limited capacity and our present
state of existence. His remoteness from us, who are
separated from him by an interval of infinite extent, has
been urged by some men as an argument for dismissing
him from our thoughts, and confining them to subjects
more nearly allied to us ; but it will have no weight in
the estimation of those who consider, that independent
and self-existent as he is, he stands in the closest rela
tions to us, as our Maker, our Lawgiver, and our Judge.
To know this mighty Being, as far as he may be
known, is the noblest aim of the human understanding ;
to love him, the most worthy exercise of our affections ;
and to serve him the most honourable and delightful
purpose to which we can devote our time and talents.
To ascertain the character of God in its aspect towards
us ; to contemplate the display of his attributes in his
works and dispensations ; to discover his designs to
wards man in his original and his present state ; to
learn our duty to him, the means of enjoying his favour,
the hopes which we are authorized to entertain, and
the wonderful expedient by which our fallen race is
restored to purity and happiness ; these are the objects
ef theology, and entitle it to be pronounced the first of
all the sciences in dignity and importance. Ignorant
of the other sciences, and of the »rts which minister to
the ornament and amusement of life, a man who can
sustain himself by mechanical labour, may spend the
short time of his earthly pilgrimage, not without com
fort, nor without the honour which honesty and inte
grity may procure, especially if religion has shed some
rays of its celestial light upon him ; but he who has
stored his mind with every kind of knowledge except
the knowledge of God and divine things, lives, like a
fool, and shall die without hope.
Theology may be distinguished into natural and su
pernatural. By natural theology, is understood that
knowledge of God which the light of nature teaches,
or which is acquired by our unassisted powers, by the
exercise of reason, and the suggestions of conscience.
It is not meant, that there is in the human mind an
innate idea of God, a supposition manifestly absurd,
and contradicted by experience, for individuals have
been found in a savage state, in whom there was no
such idea; but that man, by contemplating the objects
around him, is led to infer the existence of an invisible
Being by whom they were created, possessed of cer
tain perfections, the signatures of which are perceived
upon his works ; and from this first principle deduces
other doctrines of religion, as that this God governs the
world ; that it is our duty to honour and please him, by
the practice of piety, and justice, and benevolence ;
that the soul is immortal; and that there is a future
state, in which the righteous will be rewarded, and the
wicked will be punished. These are the great articles
of natural theology ; and much reason and eloquence
have been employed in illustrating them, and demon
strating their truth in opposition to the objections of
atheists. Upon this subject, however, there is a diver
sity of sentiment. It has been disputed, not only
whether these are the only articles, but also whether
there is such a thing as natural theology ; or, in other
words, whether the system, which bears that name, is
discoverable by unassisted reason. There is no doubt
that its truths, when proposed, are approved by reason,
which supplies the most convincing arguments in sup
port, of them ; but the question is, whether men, left to
themselves, could arrive, by the observation of external
things and the reflections of their own minds, at the
conclusion that there is one living and eternal Being
who created and governs the world, and would connect
with it the other doctrines in a regular series. The
discussion of this controversy does not belong to this
introductory lecture.
Supernatural theology is the system of religion

which is contained in the Holy Scriptures ; and_ it is
called supernatural, because the knowledge of it is not
derived from reason, but from divine revelation. It
incorporates the truths which have been enumerated as
the articles of natural theology; but it comprehends
many other truths, which it could not have- entered into
the mind of man to conceive, and which exhibit new
manifestations of the divine character, suitable to the
new situation into which we have been brought by the
fall. It is the religion of sinners, and consequently the
only religion with which we are concerned. What is
called natural religion, is not adapted to our circum
stances. It holds out no hope to the guilty; and, in
the present enfeebled and corrupt state of our moral
powers, its duties are absolutely impracticable. Chris
tianity has been said to be a republication of the law of
nature. The assertion is true, if it only mean that it
teaches the doctrines which are supposed to be discover
able by reason, and teaches them more clearly, and ful
ly, and authoritatively ; but it is obviously false to affirm,
that this is the whole design of Christianity, the dis
tinguishing character of which arises from its superad
ding to those doctrines the discovery of the remedial or
mediatorial dispensation.
Christian theology may be arranged under three divi
sions, distinguished by the titles of dogmatic, or didac
tic, polemic, and practical.
It is the province of didactic theology to state and ex
plain the several doctrines of religion, and to point out
the proofs. In treating this part of the subject, the the
ologian proceeds in the same manner as a teacher of
any other science, who lays before his pupils its con
stituent principles, and the conclusions which have
been drawn from them, together with the train of reason-
ing upon which they are founded. Having examined the
subject with attention and patience, and, as he trusts,
with success, he imparts to others the result of his in
quiries, to facilitate their progress, and to lead them to
the same views which he has adopted from conviction.
I will add, that it is his business, not only to bring for
ward the several doctrines of religion, and the proofs, but
also to exhibit them in their order and connexion. It
is granted, that the Scriptures do not deliver religion to
us in that artificial form which we find in the writings
of the schoolmen, and of those modern divines who
have trodden in their steps, although there is certainly
an approach to it in some parts of the Bible, particular
ly in the Epistle to the Romans; but no man, I think,
who (is in possession of his senses, and) understands
what he is saying, will deny that religion is systematic.
The word of God is not an assemblage of writings which
have no other relation to each other but juxtaposition, or
collocation in the same volume, but a continued revela
tion of his eternal counsels, " in which he has abounded
towards us in all wisdom and prudence." There is ar
rangement here, as well as in his other works, although
it may require time and patience to discover it. Reli
gion, if I may speak so, has a beginning, a middle, and
an end. It has first principles, and secondary truths
derived from these principles, and precepts founded upon
both. The study of the Scriptures is not recommended
to us, that we may load our memories with a multitude
of unconnected ideas, but that we may bring together
and combine the truths which are scattered up and down
in them, and thus "understand what the will of the
Lord is." In the mind of every intelligent reader of
the Scriptures, a system is formed, the parts, of which,
by their union, reflect a new light upon one another;
and certainly, the utility of this system is not destroyed
or diminished by its being committed to writing, or be
ing communicated to others by oral instruction. I am
at a loss to understand the declamations which are so
common against systematic theology ; and am disposed
to think, that they are often as little understood by
their authors, unless it be their design, as, in some

ON THEOLOGY.

instances, we have reason to suspect, to expose to con
tempt a particular set of opinions, to cry down, for ex
ample, not the system of Socinus, or Arminius, but the
system of 4 Calvin. Were their objections pointed
against a particular system, as improperly arranged, as
too technical in its form, or as encumbered with a mul
tiplicity of useless distinctions, we might concur with
them, on finding the charge to be true. But to admit,
as they must do, that religion is not a mass of incohe
rent opinions, but a series of truths harmonized by the
wisdom of God, and, at the same time, to exclaim against
its exhibition in a regular form, as an attempt to subject
the oracles of Heaven to the rules of human wisdom, is
conduct which ill befits men of judgment and learning,
and is worthy of those, alone, who " know neither what
they say, nor whereof they affirm."
In the department of polemic theology, the contro
versies are considered which have been agitated in the
church, with respect to the doctrines, and precepts, and
institutions of religion. The term is derived from a
Greek word, which signifies warlike. A polemic di
vine is a warrior ; he goes forth into the field to encoun
ter the adversaries of the truth. The word has an
odious sound, and seems to accord ill with the charac
ter of a teacher of religion, who ought to be a minister
of peace. On this ground, polemic theology is often
held up as the object of scorn and detestation, and it is
loudly demanded, that the voice of controversy should
bo heard no more within the walls of the church, that
the disciples of Christ should bury all their disputes in
oblivion, and, without minding differences of opinion,
should dwell together as brethren in unity. There
is much simplicity and want of discernment in. this pro
posal, when sincerely made. It is the suggestion of in
considerate zeal for one object, overlooking another of
at least equal importance, accounting truth nothing,
and peace every thing, and imagining that there may
be solid peace, although it does not rest upon the foun
dation of truth. Often, however, it is intended to
conceal a sinister design, under the appearance of
great liberality ; a design to prevail upon one party
to be quiet, while the other goes on to propagate its
opinions without opposition. Every man who has
observed from what quarter these cries for peace
most frequently come, must have noticed that they
are as insidious as the salutation of Joab to Amasa,
whom he stabbed under the fifth rib when he took him
by the beard, and said, — "Art thou in health, brother?*
Nothing is more obvious, than that when the truth is
attacked it ought to be defended ; and as it would be
base pusillanimity to yield it without a struggle to its
adversaries, so it would be disgraceful, as well as crim
inal, in one of its professed guardians, not to be quali
fied to sustain the dignity of his office, and to uphold
the sacred interests of religion, by his arguments and
his eloquence. He should be " ahle, by sound doctrine,
both to exhort, and to convince the gainsayers." If
controversial theology be accounted an evil; it is a ne
cessary one ; and let the blame be imputed to the men
who have laboured, and are still labouring, to pervert
the oracles of God, not to those whom a sense of duty
has compelled to come forward, and defend them against
the rude assaults of presumption and impiety.
Practical theology states and explains the duties
which are enforced upon us in divine revelation. The
way is prepared for it by the two preceding departments
of the science, under which the doctrines are illustrated
and vindicated, upon which these duties are founded,
and which supply the only motives that will lead to the
proper and acceptable performance of them. Some con
sider this as the only part of theology which is worthy
of attention, speaking slightingly of faith, and pronounc
ing high panegyrics upon virtue as the one thing need-
*2Sam. xx. 9.

ful ; and in doing so, they display much the same wis
dom as a husbandman would show, who should think
only of the produce of his fields, without concerning
himself with the quality of the soil, and the means of
calling forth its vegetative powers. By others, it is
looked upon as of inferior importance ; and they are apt
to suspect those who are of a different opinion, of be
ing perverted in their taste, and corrupted in their prin
ciples, and to accuse them of bestowing that admiration
upon a cold and uninteresting morality, which should
be reserved for the' sublime mysteries of faith. Both are
chargeable with mistaking a part for the whole, and
disjoining what God has united ; with forgetting that
religion, in all its parts, is an emanation from the Foun
tain of wisdom and purity ;. and that it is alike necessary
that its doctrines should be believed, and its duties
should be practised. Religion is a barren speculation
when it is treated merely as a theory. It should uni
formly be represented as a practical system ; the ten
dency of its doctrines to promote holiness of heart
and life should be pointed out, and the nature of ho
liness explained, that men may know what are the
good works which it is incumbent upon them, as the
professed disciples of Christ, to maintain. " A scribe
well instructed unto the kingdom of heaven," a minis
ter who would declare all the counsel of God to the
people under his charge, must be an able expounder of
the law, as well as a zealous preacher of the gospel.
Theology is not one of those recondite subjects,
which it is left to the curious to investigate, and in the
contemplation of which, speculative and reflecting men
may spend their hours of leisure and solitude. Its
claim to universal attention is manifest from the succinct
account which has now been given of its nature. Its in
structions are addressed to persons of every description,
to the learned, and to the unlearned, to the retired stu
dent, , and him who is engaged in the bustling scenes
of life. It is interesting to all, as furnishing the knowl
edge of God and his Son, which is the source of eternal
life. But in your ease, there is a particular reason, be
sides a regard to your personal welfare, why it should
not only engage a share of your thoughts, but be made
the principal object of your inquiries. Theology is
your profession, as medicine, is that of a physician, and
law of a barrister. It should be your ambition to' excel in
it, not, however, from the same motives which stimulate
the diligence of the men of other professions, the desire
of fame, or the prospect of gain, but with a view to the
faithful and honourable discharge of the duties of the of
fice with which you expect one day to be intrusted.
"These men are the servants of the most High God, who
shew unto us the way of salvation."
In the sequel of this lecture, I shall briefly point, out
the qualifications which are indispensably necessary
to a student of theology.
The first which I shall mention is piety. I have
called theology a science, but I did not mean to insin
uate, that like the other sciences, it should be regarded
merely as. a subject of cold speculation and philosophi
cal inquiry. As the conscience should be deeply im
pressed with the authority of God in this revelation of
his will, so the heart should be affected by the views
which it gives of Him and ourselves, and all its move
ments should be in unison with the manifestations of
his character and attributes. While the student of theo
logy is assiduously labouring to store his mind with
knowledge which is to be communicated to others, it
should be his first care to convert it by faith and prayer
to his own use, that he may be nourished with the
heavenly food which he is preparing for the household
of God. If we are destitute of piety, we cannot enjoy
the divine blessing on our studies ; and although, by
the exercise of our natural faculties, and the common
assistance of Providence, we may acquire the knowledge
of the Scriptures as well as of any other book, what will

8

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

it avail t It will minister no consolation to our minds,
and will serve to aggravate our guilt and condemnation;
for " the servant who knew his master's will and did it
not, shall be beaten with many stripes." The knowledge
which we do attain will be superficial and only literal,
the unrenewed mind being incapable of discerning spir
itual truths, and supernatural illumination being neces
sary to clear and impressive conceptions of doctrines,
which reason is too dim-sighted to discover. We may
think and speak of the wisdom and love of God in re
demption, but we shall feel no holy admiration of the
one, no animating and melting sense of the other. The
want of piety may even prove an obstacle to the fairness
and success of our speculative inquiries ; for if our
hearts remain under the influence of their innate enmity
to God, we cannot cordially assent to those parts of the
system which exalt him so highly, and degrade us so
low ; and we may be tempted, as others before us have
been, to accommodate them to our prejudices, to mould
them into a shape more pleasing to our taste, more ac
cordant with our feelings. Those who indulge in per
verse disputes, and resist the truth, are represented as
" men of corrupt minds."* You ought therefore to
begin, and to carry on your studies, with fervent prays*
for the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowl
edge of Christ, who will lead you into all the truth, and
fill you with joy and peace in believing. He who
mingles humble and devout supplications with his stu
dies, cannot fail to succeed.
But piety, although indispensably necessary, is not
the only qualification. The study of theology demands,
if not the powers of genius, yet certainly a compe
tent portion of intellectual ability, a mind capable of
attention and patient investigation, of distinguishing
and combining, and of communicating the result of its
inquiries by accurate arrangement, and perspicuous ex
position. It is a strange and unfounded notion, that
theology is an inferior study, and that those may suc
ceed in it who are disqualified for any other profession.
Irreligious men may think that the lame and the blind
are offerings good enough for the altar of God, but his
service is worthy of the noblest talents ; and although
the ministrations of weak men have been frequently
blessed, while those of some others far superior to them
have not been attended with equal success, yet there is
no doubt, that upon the whole it has been by the labours
of persons properly furnished for the work by nature
and education, that the edification of the church and the
general interests of religion have been chiefly promoted.
The mention of education leads me to remark, that as
a competent portion of natural talents is requisite to
success in the study of theology, it is farther requisite
that these should be improved by previous discipline.
You know what are the preparatory studies which our
church prescribes to those who are looking forward to
the office of the ministry. Whether their time is em
ployed in acquiring the knowledge of languages, or in
cultivating the sciences, the object is not only to enlarge
their stock of ideas, or to open the sources from which
ideas may be derived, but to exercise and invigorate
their faculties, and to form their minds to habits of re
flection and inquiry. Individuals may sometimes be
found, who have not enjoyed the advantages of a regu
lar education, but are so eminently gifted by nature as
to be able to perform, in a creditable manner, the duties
of public teachers of religion. But such instances are
rare ; and nothiog is more absurd, than upon the author
ity of a few extraordinary cases to establish a general
rule. In general, an unlearned ministry will be neither
Tespectable nor useful. The experiment was made
some years ago in this country, but its success was not
such as to encourage its patrons to persist in it long.
They soon discovered the incompetency of illiterate

* 2 Sam. iii. 8.

preachers, and found it expedient, for the credit of tnei.
party, to furnish them with a portion of human learning,
which was once represented as useless and pernicious.
It has been sagely asked, what need is there of Greek
and Latin and philosophy, to qualify a man for pro
claiming the good news of salvation ? Why should
he waste his time in schools and universities, where
nothing is to be learned but the vain wisdom of the
world 1 Let him take the Scriptures into his hand, and
then declare to his fellow-sinners what he has read and
believed. To these reasoners, or rather, declaimers,
for of the crime of reasoning they are on this occasion
guiltless, I would reply in the words of the prophet,
" What is the chaff to the wheat?" Bring forth your
self-taught haranguers, and place, in opposition to them,
an equal number of preachers of man's making, as you
sometimes call them, that we may judge of the utility
or worthlessness of human learning, by the self-suffi
cient dogmatism, the enthusiastic rhapsodies, and the
perpetual recurrence of a few favourite topics, on the
one hand ; and by the good sense, the lucid arrangement,
and the varied illustration of truth, on the other. Learn
ing, then, is necessary to the study of theology ; and
without its aid, our knowledge must be very incom
plete. Can he be called a divine, whose accomplish
ments are little superior, if they be superior, to those of
many pious mechanics ; or can he expound the Scrip
tures, who is unable to consult them in the original lan
guages, and is unacquainted with the histories, and
laws, and manners, and opinions, to which they so often
refer T In this view, it may be justly said, philosophia
theologice ancillatur, — philosophy is the handmaid, al
though not the mistress, of theology. I conclude this
topic, with a familiar scriptural allusion, for which we
are probably indebted to Origen, the father of allegori
cal interpretation, who, recommending to his friend
Gregory of Nazianzum the study of the Grecian philo
sophy as a means of preparing him for the study of the
Christian religion, adds, that as the Israelites employ
ed the spoils of Egypt in the construction of the taber
nacle and its furniture, so we should consecrate our
learning to the service of God.
I shall take notice only of another qualification, the
love of truth, which is to be found in every mind imbu
ed with piety. Whatever is the subject of inquiry,
men are always desirous to discover the truth, unless
it happen that error will be more soothing, or more con
ducive to their immediate interests ; but here, it should
be sought with greater diligence and care than in any
of the sciences, on account of its superior value. The
constant aim of a student of theology, must be to ascer
tain the mind of God in the Scriptures, by reading, and
reflecting upon them. He should come to the study,
not with a view to find out arguments in favour of the
system which he may have been previously led to
adopt, but to learn what is the system which has pro
ceeded from the Father of lights by the ministry of his
inspired messengers. I do not mean to concur with
some (declaimers,) who would dissuade the student
from having any recourse to human aid, and call
upon him to make his own understanding his only re
source, and to commence his inquiries as unprovided and
as helpless as if not an individual had gone before him
to point out the way. I do not so undervalue the la
bours of pious and learned men, who shine as lights in
the firmament of the church ; and I have little doubt,
that nothing would be more mortifying to those de
claimers, than our adopting their advice in its full ex
tent, and treating their own writings with as little regard
as they wish us to express for the writings of others.
But I mean, that while we consult the opinions of
others, we should remember that they are fallible, and
in themselves of no authority ; and that our ultimate
appeal should be to the Scriptures, by which alone the
question of truth and error can be decided in religion.

owuxiCES OF THEOLOGY: REASON.

9

Follow them whithersoever they shall lead you. Re
fuse not to follow them, although it should be necessary
to part from those, whose dictates you have been hitherto
accustomed to reverence as oracles. He who holds the
office which I have undertaken must deliver a particular
system, because it is the system of the church which
has appointed him, and because he believes it to be
true. He must say also, that if you will be ministers
\of that church, you must adopt her creed, because she
Vllows no other to be taught to the people. But farther
le has no right to proceed. He is not the lord of your
rath. . He does not claim to teach authoritatively, and,
li\e Pythagoras, to substitute his own affirmations for
whdom. He calls upon you to inquire for yourselves,
witV earnest prayer for divine illumination, and to em-
braes the truth wherever you may find it. " Prove all
things ; hold fast that which is good."

LECTURE II.
SOURCES OF THEOLOGY : REASON.
Sources ofTheology, Reason and Revelation — Reason defined :
Extent otits Discoveries respecting the Being" and Attributes
of -God ; Man's Relation to God ; Creation ; Providence ;
Morality;iand the Immortality of the Soul — Reason insuffi
cient to establish the Doctrines of natural Religion : totally
silent respecting those of supernatural Religion — The just
Office of Reason in Theology.
In the preceding lecture, I endeavoured to give you
a general v/ew of the nature, of theology, and pointed
out its superiority to every other subject of study. As
it treats of God and divine things, of our duty and our
hopes, it is equally interesting to the learned and the
unlearned. I showed you that it is. distinguished into
natkral, and supernatural or revealed theology ; and that
of the l-atter there, are three divisions,— didactic, polemic,
and practical theology. Didactic theology explains the
doctrines of religion, and states the proofs, or the argu-
ments'.by which their truth is evinced. Polemic theo
logy considers the controversies respecting those doc
trines, ind replies to the objections of adversaries. It
is the business of practical theology to point out the im
provement which should be made of the doctrines, by
detailingthe duties incumbent upon those who profess
to receive them as true, and the motives which they sup
ply to_the faithful performance of these duties. I con
cluded by laying before you some of the qualifications
for the stuiy of theology ; and I mentioned piety, with
out which (he study, if not unsuccessful, will certainly
be unprofitable ; a competent share of human learning,
which is indispensably necessary to eminence in your
profession ; ind the love of truth, or a sincere desire to
know the wil\ of God, leading to candour and diligence
in your inquiries.
Let us now proceed to inquire what are the sources
of theology; er, in others words, what are the sources
from which o\i knowledge of it is derived. These
are reason and revelation. Here our attention is de
manded to such, questions as these — Whether reason
and revelation are both necessary 1 If only one, wheth
er is it reason or revelation 1 and, lastly, if reason alone
is insufficient, how far its discoveries extend, and what
are its defects, which are supplied by revelation ?
Reason signifies, in this place, the. intellectual and
moral faculties of man, exercised without any superna
tural assistance in the investigation of religion. Wheth
er under its guidance he can attain all the knowledge
which is necessary to conduct him to virtue and happi
ness, is thegreat subject of controversy between infidels
and Christians, TheTe is another dispute, among
Christians themselves, with respect to the degree of its
ability ; while some maintain that it can discover the
doctrines of what is called natural religion, others
B

affirm that these could not be known without the aid of
revelation. Nothing is more unphilosophical, and a more certain
source of error, than to indulge in vague speculations
andbarren generalities upon any subject, when itis in our
power to enter into a close investigation of it, and to
bring it to the test of experience. It is easy to pre
sent to us a system of religion, containing a variety of
articles supported by a train of arguments, which seem
to amount to demonstration ; and to tell us, .that reason,
being the gift of God, must be perfectly sufficient to di
rect men in all the parts of their duty ; that religion being
a general concern, they would not be responsible, unless
they were all furnished with the means of acquiring the
knowledge -of it ; that the supposition of supplementary
means is a reflection upon the wisdom of God, as if he
had not originally adapted man to his situation, and was
hence compelled to devise a new expedient for correct
ing the error. Without examining these assertions one
by one, and showing, which we might do, that they are
mere gratuitous assumptions, it may suffice to observe,
that not a single fact in the history of rrtankind can be
adduced in confirmation of them. They are an Utopian.
description of an imaginary state, not a sober relation
of things which really exist. They are a priori argu
ments, or arguments deduced from our own previous
conceptions, not arguments, a posteriori, or founded
on observation and experience. The question is not,
what should be, according to our ideas of justice and
fitness, but whatactually is ; not what purposes reason,
abstractly considered, may be presumed to accomplish,
but what purposes reason, as existing in men, is found
to have actually accomplished. It is preposterous, first
to give an arbitrary definition of reason, and then to con
clude that it is capable of exerting all the power which
we have been pleased to ascribe to it ; it is mpre conso
nant to sound philosophy, to judge of the power of rea
son by its effects. In a word, we must not waste
our time, and impose upon ourselves, by endeavouring
to show beforehand what reason can do ; we ought to
proceed according to a different and a safer plan, and
inquire what it has actually done.
It may be proper to remark, that there are two senses
in which reason may be understood, and consequently,
that what is true of it in one sense, may not be true in
another. First, reason may signify the high intellectu
al ability with which man was endowed at his creation ;
and which we may conceive to have been as sufficient
to direct him in his original state, as instinct is to di
rect the lower animals, both being perfect in their land.
I would not affirm, however, that even then reason was
his only guide, because it appears from the sacred his
tory that he lived in familiar intercourse with his Ma
ker, and was favoured with occasional communications
of his will. Secondly, reason may signify the intel
lectual powers of man in his present state, when he
feels the effects of the fall in all his faculties, and both
his mind and conscience are defiled. It is with reason
in this sense alone that we have at present to do. It
is no more an impeachment of the wisdom and good
ness of God to affirm the incompetence of corrupt rea
son in matters of religion, than it is to say, that an eye,
which in consequence of disease does not see at all, or
sees imperfectly, is unfit for the purpose which.it was
originally intended to serve.
From the preceding observations, we perceive that
it is not from theory but from experiment, not from con
jecture but from fact, that we can ascertain what assis
tance may be expected from reason in the study of the
ology. Let us, then, review some of the doctrines of
what is called natural religion, and is supposed prop
erly to lie within the province of reason, that we may
see what has been the result of its researches.
The first principle of religion is the existence of God,
who made us, and to whom we owe homage and obe-

10

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

dience. No doubt seems to be entertained that this
fundamental truth is demonstrable by reason; and, ac
cordingly, there are many books in which it is evinced
by arguments so strong and conclusive, that it is not
easy to conceive how any man who has attended to
them can continue an atheist. The metaphysician, we
should think, would be overpowered by the profound
reasonings of Clarke ; and the man of a plainer under
standing, by the more obvious proofs collected in the
writings of Ray, and Derham, and Paley. There is
one thing which ought not to be overlooked, that this
triumphant demonstration, as it may be justly called,
is found only in the writings of Christians ; for although
a similar train was pursued by some of the heathen
philosophers, — as Cicero in his work concerning the
nature of the gods, and Socrates in the dialogues of
Xenophon, — the- illustration was not so ample as it is
now made by the discoveries of modern philosophy,
nor was the conclusion to which it naturally led, drawn
with equal clearness and confidence. The cause of this
difference we are at no loss to divine. To the Gentiles,
the existence of God was a point involved in doubt, an
inference to be . deduced from premises ; and they
who saw some steps of the process, were not always
able to see with equal distinctness the result. When
Christians sit down to discuss the subject, they are ful
ly convinced of the fact; and how different it is to dis
cover an unknown truth, by a slow induction of particu
lars, and to find out proofs of a truth already admitted ;
how much easier the one process is than the other, you
will perceive upon the slightest reflection. The former
is like the voyage of Columbus, who did not know
whether there was such a country as America, and had
nothing but probability to support him amidst the diffi
culties and perils of the enterprise ; the latter is like
the same voyage now, when the place being known, the
sailor can shape his course to it by his chart and his
compass. Nature, it is acknowledged, cries aloud in all her
works that there is a God ; " but she spoke in
vain," as a late writer observes, "to the sages of
antiquity, who either altogether failed to interpret her
language, or suffered the still whisper of ' divine
philosophy' to be lost amidst the various bustle of the
world." " The ancients, imperfect, as their sciences were,
knew more than enough of the harmony and design of
the universe, to draw out an unanswerable argument
from final causes ; and in point of fact, they did draw
out both that and other arguments so far as to leave us
indisputable proof, that the God of natural theology
will never be any thing more than the dumb idol of
philosophy; neglected by the philosopher himself,
and unknown to the multitude, acknowledged in the
closet, and forgotten in the world."* This truth
made no impression upon their minds, and it is not
surprising that it did not, as their notions of it were
exceedingly imperfect and erroneous. " The idea
of what has been called the personality of the Deity,
or his distinct subsistence, was in a great measure
unknown to them. The Deity was considered not
so much an intelligent being, as an animating pow
er diffused throughout the world ; and was introduced
into their speculative system to account for the motion
of that passive mass of matter, which was supposed
coeval and co-existing with himself." In practice, they
adopted the polytheism of their country, and paid reli
gious honours to the endless train of gods and goddesses,
who were acknowledged by the vulgar. There was
not a nation upon earth but the Jews, in which
the living and true God was adored. Every object was
mistaken for him; every part of the universe was
deified, and fancy exerted its creative power in superad-

* Sumner's Records of the Creation, preface.

ding a multitude of imaginary beings; insomuch, that
the gods of Greece, that seat of refinement and philo
sophy, amounted to thirty thousand. In modern India,
where science has been long cultivated, the number is
still greater, and we are astonished at the information
that its gods are estimated by millions.* Such are the
achievements of reason with respect to the first princi
ple of religion.
In the second place, it is the office of religion to in
form us of our relation to God, because this is the foun
dation of our duty to him. Although we should conceive
the existence of an all-perfect being, if there subsisted
no connexion between him and us, how much soever Ms
excellencies might excite our admiration, he would have
no claim to our homage and obedience. By us, Grd is
regarded in the characters of our Creator and Gove'nor;
and these ideas are so familiar to our minds, so inter
woven with our sentiments and feelings from ourinfan-
cy, that they appear to us almost self-evident, ind we
can scarcely think it possible that they should not oc
cur to every person of reflection. We believe that all
things were created by the almighty power of God;
and, although the production of the universe out of noth
ing is an event of which we can form no conception,
because experience has not made us acquainted with
any thing similar, yet we consider the cause as ade
quate, omnipotence being able to do every tning which
does not imply a contradiction. But men, having
the light of nature alone as their guide, entertained
different sentiments. Unassisted reason never ar
rived at this conclusion, that the universe had a
beginning; nor when it was suggested, did it obtain
its assent. Ex nihilo nihil fit, nothing is made out of
nothing, was a maxim received without dispute by all
the sages of antiquity. In the detail of their systems,
they differed from each other; but they all concurred
in rejecting as absurd the idea of a proper creation.
Some of them believed, that the universe was eternal
both in matter and form ; that the sun, moon and stars
in the heavens ; plants, animals, and minerals on the
earth, had always been ; and that the human race had
no beginning, and would have no end. Others maintain
ed, that the present order of things had a beginning;
but they attributed it to accident, to the fortuitous con
course of atoms, which, dancing up and dovn in in
finite space, united themselves at last in ths present
regular system. Of those who acknowledged a deity,
some, instead of considering him as the Creator, con
founded him with his works ; and imagined him to be
a soul or vital principle diffused throughout tie universe,
and giving life and motion to its various parts, as the
soul of man animates his body ; while others, although
they distinguished him from the universe, did not be
lieve that he made it, but only that he red-iced the wild
chaotic mass into order. According to all of them,
matter was co-eternal with the deity, and only thus far
dependent upon him, that his power vas exerted in
moving and arranging it. Their notion, therefore, of
the relation of man to God must have been very differ
ent from ours, who believe that he made us, and the
earth on which we dwell, and the heavens which shed
their influences upon us, and that " in him we live, and
move, and have our being."
We could not expect those who were so much mista
ken, or so imperfectly informed with respect to the
character of God as the Creator of the world, to enter
tain just ideas of his government of it. It was natural
for such philosophers as attributed the present system
to chance, to deny a providence; and accordingly, the
followers of Epicurus represented the gods as indo
lently reposing in their own region of undisturbed feli
city, and beholding with indifference the concerns of
mortals. The sentiments of some other philosophers
* 330,000,000.

SOURCES OF THEOLOGY: REASON.

11

were different ; and we are delighted to hear them ex
pressing themselves in a manner approaching;, in ac
curacy and sublimity, to the discourses of those who
have derived their knowledge from the high source of
revelation. " Of religion towards the gods," says Epic-
tetus, " this is the principal thing, to form right concep
tions of them as existing, and administering all things
well and justly; to obey them, and acquiesce in all things
that happen, and to follow willingly as being under the
conduct of the most excellent mind." But the elevated
language of the Stoics loses much of its value, when we
reflect upon their doctrine of fate, which meant some inex
plicable necessity by which all things were controlled,
and to which gods as well as men were compelled to
yield. The world, then, was not properly governed by
'.he gods : but they, as well as their nominal subjects,
were governed by fate, and bound by the eternal and
inviolable chain of causes and effects. The opinion
of the vulgar was more simple. The dominion of the
gods was acknowledged by their prayers and thanks
givings, and other religious services ; but even in their
creed, the power of the gods was circumscribed by stern
irresistible necessity, or was exercised with all the
wantonness of caprice, and, as they did not hesitate to
say, in some instances with injustice. The idea of a
Providence floated in the minds of the heathens, but
they were not able to give it a distinct and consistent
shape. All that reason could do, was to point out the
general truth ; it failed in its attempts to illustrate it,
and to erect upon this foundation the superstructure of
rational piety.
Let us, in the next place, inquire what have been the
discoveries of reason in morality. Here it must be ac
knowledged that its success has been greater. There
are admirable treatises upon morality, which were
composed by heathen philosophers, and may be perus
ed with pleasure and advantage ; but he is very igno
rant indeed, who imagines that he shall find in them a
perfect system of duty. Lactantius, indeed, has some
where affirmed, that everything delivered in the Scrip
tures on this subject, is contained in the writings of
one or other of the philosophers ; but Lactantius, al
though a fine reasoner, and an elegant writer, is not
entitled to much deference in questions of theology, of
which he has shown himself to be an incompetent
judge. What he has affirmed is not true ; for in the
moral systems of the philosophers, some duties of
great importance are omitted, and some things which
they call virtues, when brought to the Christian stand
ard, turn out to be vices. According to Cicero, " vir
tue proposes glory as its end, and looks for no other
reward." Zeno maintained, " that all crimes are equal,
and that a person who has offended or injured us should
never be forgiven." It was his opinion, as well as
that of other philosophers, " that the crime against na
ture is a matter of indifference," The Cynics held,
" that there was nothing shameful in committing acts
of lewdness in public." Aristippus affirmed, " that as
pleasure was the summum bonum, a man might practise
theft, sacrilege, or adultery, as he had opportunity."
Humility, which is the first of Christian virtues, was
despised as an indication of a mean, dastardly spirit ;
and the tendency of their moral lessons was to inspire
a notion of personal dignity, a feeling of self-approba
tion, a consciousness of worth, which of all tempers
the Scriptures pronounce to be the most offensive to
our Maker. Besides the morality of the heathens, im
perfect as it was, wanted authority. Being rather a
deduction of reason,, than a law emanating from the
Author of our being, of the communications of whose
will they were ignorant, it had little or no power over
conscience; and the motives with which it was enforc
ed, were not of sufficient efficacy to counteract the in
nate propensity to evil, and to overcome the strong
temptations to which men are daily exposed. Hence

a general depravity of manners prevailed among the
ancient Gentiles, and still prevails among modern
heathens to a degree, of which, corrupt as Christian
countries are, we can hardly form a conception ; a de
pravity which extended not. only to the lower and un
educated classes, but to the higher and better informed,
and even to the very men who professed to be teachers
of wisdom. We are apt to impose upon ourselves, or
to be imposed upon by others, when we are thinking
of the heathen philosophers. We look upon them as a
set of sages, who spent their days in the study and
practice of virtue. But the particulars of their history
which have come down to us, and the testimony of
some of their own order, will correct this mistake, and
show us that they were unprincipled declaimers, whose
infamous conduct daily gave the lie to their eloquent
harangues. Suspicion rests upon the most celebrated
names; and with respect even to Socrates, the visit
which he paid to an Athenian courtezan to see her
beauty, and to teach her more perfectly the arts of se
duction, and the profane oaths with which his conver
sation was interlarded, with some other particulars in
his history, place him at an immense distance from the
lowest member of a Christian church. Were this
wisest of men according to the oracle, this pattern of
every excellence according to the nonsensical panegy
rics of pedants and fools, now to appear among us, no
man with correct ideas of piety and morality would
choose to be seen in his company.
Lastly, what was the result of the inquiries of reason
with respect to the immortality of the soul T a doctrine
of primary importance in religion. The common peo
ple generally believed, that the soul survived the death
of the body, and that there was a future state of re
wards and punishments ; but they could assign no rea
son for the belief, but the authority of their ancestors
and popular writers, especially the poets, the theologi
ans of the vulgar. The doctrine had not been adopted
by their ancestors in consequence of a process of rea
soning from which it was the legitimate inference, but
they also had received it without examination, upon
the testimony of others. When thus traced back from
age to age, it appears that it was a tradition, or a frag
ment of revelation, preserved amidst the general wreck ;
and consequently, that it is unfair to produce this arti
cle as a proof of the sagacity of reason in the investi
gation of truth. The philosophers, not content with
implicit faith, endeavoured to prove the immortality of
the soul by argument ; but although they enjoyed this
advantage, that the fact was known, and it was left to
them only to bring evidence in support of it, they had
no great cause to congratulate themselves on their suc
cess. Some of their arguments may be admitted to be
good ; but this praise is not due to them all. In the
Phajdo of Plato, the reasoning is often exceedingly
obscure, and arguments are employed so fanciful, and
so manifestly false, that while we cannot avoid pitying
those who groped their way by the dubious twilight of
nature, we are not surprised that they should have pro
duced no permanent conviction in the mind. " I know
not how it happens," says Cicero, " that, when I read,
I assent, but when I have laid down the book, all that
assent vanishes." After all the arguments which the
philosophers could muster up, suspicion haunted their
minds, that there was some step in the process which
weakened the force of the conclusion. Socrates him
self died in doubt, as we learn from the close of his
Apology, as given by Plato. " It is time," he says to
his judges, " for us to depart, that I may die, and you
may live ; to which of us shall it be better, is unknown
to all but God." This uncertainty, this hesitation, we
should take into the account, when we light upon some
passage, in which the confidence of hope is expressed,
and death seems to be longed for as a dismission " ad
illud divinum animorum concilium ccelumque, ex hoc

12

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

Uirba et cottuvione,"* from this vile and worthless
crowd into the divine council and assembly of souls.
Their thoughts were as changeable as some of our
days, which are alternately darkened by clouds and
rain, and cheered by gleams of sunshine.
This induction of particulars will serve to prove the
insufficiency of reason to acquire the knowledge of the
principles of natural theology. Let no man presume
to tell us that it is sufficient, till he can point out an
instance, in which, without any assistance, it has dis
covered and established, by satisfactory arguments, the
great truths of religion. And here I may observe, that
little as reason has done, we have no evidence that it
could have done so much, if all aid had been withheld,
and it had been left to work out its discoveries alone.
But its solitary strength has not been fairly tried ; for
man has never been without revelation, and, although
it was in a great measure lost among the nations of the
world, yet some fragments of it remained, with which
they contrived to make up their various systems of re
ligion. From this source, they derived the general
idea of the existence of a God, and their notions of
providence, of morality, and of a future state, and
still more plainly, their oracles and prophets, their sac
rifices, and the opinion of the. placability of the divine
nature upon which they were founded. Tradition was
supplementary to reason. Its light, indeed, was faint;
but still it served to show dimly some objects, which
the eye of reason could not have discovered amidst the
surrounding darkness. " Though the ancients," says
Shuckford, referring to their theories concerning the ori
gin of things, but his observations are applicable to
other parts of theology, "have hinted many of the posi
tions laid down by Moses, yet we do not find that they
ever made use of any true and solid reasoning, or were
masters of any clear and well-grounded learning, which
might lead them to the knowledge, of these truths. All
the knowledge which the ancients had on these
points lay at first in a narrow compass ; they were in
. possession of a few truths which they had received
from their forefathers ; they transmitted these to their
children, only telling them that such and such things
were so, but not giving them reasons for, or demonstra
tions of the truth of them. Philosophy was not dis-
putative until it came into Greece; the ancient profes
sors had no controversies about it; they received what
was handed down to them, and out of the treasure of
their traditions imparted to others ; and the principles
they went upon to teach or to learn by, were not to
search into the nature of things, or to consider what
they could find by philosophical examinations, but, ask
and it shall be told you ,- search the records cf antiquity,
and you shall find what you inquire after ; these were
the maxims and directions of their studies."f
We have now seen how defective reason is in what
may be considered to be its proper province, natural
theology. If w-e proceed to supernatural theology, we
shall find, that here it is altogether useless. It cannot
make a single discovery. It is like the eye, which is
capable of perceiving objects upon earth that are not
placed at too great a distance from it, but cannot discern
those parts of creation which lie in' the profound abysses
of space, unless it be assisted by art. The line which
separates natural and supernatural theology is impas
sable. On the one side of it, there are some gleams
of light ; on the other, there is impenetrable darkness.
Supernatural theology is founded on that mysterious
distinction in the Divine essence, which we call the
Trinity, a distinction not altogether unknown to the
heathen philosophers, as is evident from the writings
of Plato and his followers, but which every person ac
knowledges they had learned from tradition. Although
reason could demonstrate the existence of God, and his

* Cic. de Senectute, xxiii.

f Vol. i. preface, 47, 48.

unity, it possesses no premises from which it could in
fer a plurality in his nature. It is a secret which he
alone could disclose. Supernatural theology is also
founded on the divine counsels respecting our fallen
race, of which no trace can be looked for in creation,
as they relste to a state of things posterior to it, and
different from the state in which mankind was originally
placed. V/e may investigate the design of our Maker
in the formation of the universe, by observing the ap
parent tendency of his works, and say, that in subordi
nation to the display of his perfections, it is the diffu
sion of happiness : but how shall we ascertain, except
by information from himself, what is his design with
respect to his revolted subjects, if he has any other de
sign than to punish them 1 Some Christians have as
serted,, that in the works of God, there is an obscure
revelation of grace; and the celebrated infidel writer,
Lord Herbert, has laid it down as one of his five arti
cles of natural religion, that if men repent of their sins,
they will be forgiven ; and this, I apprehend, is the
meaning of the former, when they speak of a revela
tion of grace. But nature teaches no such thing; for,
first, there is nothing in creation, or even in the dispen
sations of Providence, which, when fairly interpreted,
indicates an intention on the part of God to pardon his
disobedient creatures; and, secondly, the principle as
sumed as the dictate of nature, is false, it being the ex
press doctrine of Scripture, that God does not pardon
sinners upon repentance, without an atonement, of
which nature knows nothing. But it is unnecessary
to waste time upon a point so plain, as that the scheme
of redemption, being founded in the sovereign will of
God, and the purpose which he formed ' before the
foundation of the world, could be known only by di
vine communication, and by its actual execution.
Whether Job speaks of it or not, the following words
will admit of an easy application to it. " Where shall
wisdom be found? and where is the place of under
standing] Man knoweth not the price thereof ; neither
is it found in the land of the living. The depth saith,
it is not in me ; and the sea saith, it is not with me."
" Whence then cometh wisdom ? and where is the
place of understanding ? seeing it is hidden from the
eyes of all living, and kept close from the fowls of the
air. Destruction and death say, We have heard the
fame thereof, with our ears. God understandeth the
way thereof, and he knoweth the place thereof. When
he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the light
ning of the thunder; then did he see it, and declare it;
he prepared it, yea, and searched it out.- And unto men
he said, Behold the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom,
and to depart from evil is understanding."*"
It is not my intention, in these observations upon the
insufficiency of reason, to insinuate that it ought to be
entirely discarded from religion. You will ask, then,
what purpose does it serve 1 and to this question I shall
endeavour to return an answer in the remaining part of
this lecture.
Its first office is to judge of the evidence of religion;
and while thus employed, it not only collects proofs
from observation and experience in favour of the doc
trines of natural theology, but examines the grounds
upon which any new doctrine is said to be a divine
communication. As various systems of religion have
claimed to proceed from this high source, it brings
them to the test. There are two ways in which this
inquiry may be conducted. We may compare the sys
tem which demands our assent with our prior concep
tions of the divine character and will, in order to as
certain whether it harmonizes with them, because it is
certain that sound reason and a genuine revelation can
not contradict each other : Or, we may consider certain
circumstances, extrinsic to the revelation itself, by

* Job xxviii. 12. et

seq.

SOURCES OF THEOLOGY: REVELATION.

13

which its pretensions to a supernatural origin may be
determined. As I have not yet spoken directly of reve
lation, I am rather anticipating what would have been
introduced more properly afterwards ; but its connexion
with the preceding part of the lecture is my apology
for bringing it forward at present. The external circum
stances, to which I allude, are the character of the pub
lishers of the system, the nature of their testimony,
and the works to which they appeal in attestation of
their mission ; of all which,, reason is competent to
judge. The doctrines of the system may be so far be
yond its range, that it shall be altogether incapable of
deciding upon their truth or falsehood by an abstract
contemplation of them ; while the marks of truth with
which they are accompanied may be of easy apprehen
sion, and carry conviction to any ordinary understand
ing. He who is not able, by his own researches, to
discover a truth, may find no difficulty in estimating the
force of the proofs by which it is supported. We do
not, then, retract what has been formerly said concern
ing the weakness of reason in matters of religion, when
we constitute it judge of its evidence, in which there
is nothing mysterious, nothing which is not as plain to a
common understanding, as the subjects which themind is
called upon to consider in the common course of affairs.
The second office of reason is to examine the con
tents of revelation, to ascertain the sense of the words
and phrases in which it is expressed, to bring to the il
lustration of it our previous knowledge of subjects con
nected with it, to trace the relation of its parts, and to
draw out in regular order the system of doctrines and
duties which it teaches. Our intellectual powers must
be exercised with a view to obtain a distinct idea of the
import of any communication which our Creator has
condescended to make of his will. If we had no more
understanding than the irrational animals, we should
be equally incapable as they of religion ; and if we
did not employ our understanding in the study of it, it
would be addressed to us in vain. God, having given
us rational powers, requires us to exert them in the
eearch of truth ; and they are never so worthily em
ployed as in endeavouring to acquire just notions of his
character, and our relation to him ; of the duty which
Le has enjoined upon us, and the hopes which his good
ness authorizes us to entertain.
You will perceive, that the province which we have
assigned to reason does not constitute it a judge of relig
ion. It is not the doctrines of religion which we sub
mit to its test, but the evidence. Let it canvass the
evidence, and proceed to settle by the laws of criticism
and common sense the genuine import of revelation ;
but here it should stop. " Hitherto shalt thou come,
and no farther." The wisdom of God must not be
tried by the foolishness of men. In the former case,
reason acts as a servant : in the latter, it assumes the
authority of a master. Man exchanges the character
of a scholar for that of a teacher, and presumes to dictate
to his Maker. I will not receive such doctrines, be
cause I cannot conceive how they can be true ; the ideas
which they associate, appear to me to be contradictory.
" Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without
Knowledge *?" Presumptuous mortal ! the range of
thy thoughts extends only to a small portion of the uni
verse ; and of the objects which lie within this limited
space, there is not one of which thou hast a perfect
comprehension. And yet thou speakest as if thy mind
grasped a.11 possibilities. How canst thou tell what
may, or what may not be, in the infinite essence of the
Creator, or what counsels are worthy of that under-
Standing which comprehends time and eternity by one
act of intuition 1 " Who can, by searching, find out
God? who can find out the Almighty unto perfec
tion V* He dwells in thick darkness ; and the proper
* Job xi. 7.

posture for thee is to fall aown with humility and rev
erence before Him, whose judgments are unsearchable,
and whose ways are past finding out.

LECTURE III.
SOURCES OF THEOLOGY : REVELATION.
Revelation, the second Source of Theology — A Revelation is
possible ; Objections stated and refuted : That it is desira
ble, asserted* and proved from the natural Ignorance and
Guilt of Mankind — Probable Character of a Divine Revela
tion : it should be fitted to dispel moral Ignorance ; it should
be authoritative ; but not free from Mysteries and Difficul
ties. In the preceding lecture, I stated that there are two
sources from which we may derive our knowledge of
theology, reason and revelation. Reason signifies the
intellectual power of man, exercised without supernatu
ral assistance in the investigation of religious truth.
I have endeavoured to ascertain what is the amount of
its discoveries ; and it has appeared, that the streams
which flow from this source are neither clear nor copi
ous. I shall not now recapitulate what was said, as
there will be an opportunity to revert to it in a subse
quent part of the lecture.
Let us proceed to speak of the other source of theolo
gy, namely, divine revelation. I begin with a defini
tion of the term : — revelation signifies information su
pernaturally communicated ; and according to this gene
ral definition, it comprehends not only the discovery of
truths which lay beyond the range of reason, but the
publication, with new evidence and lustre, of such
truths as are within its reach, but of which, in its present
corrupt state, it had not been able to form distinct con
ceptions. The first remark which I make is, that a revelation
is possible. There is no reason to doubt, that he who
had imparted to man a certain degree of light, by en
dowing him with intellectual powers,- might impart to
him a higher degree by some other means. In doing
so, he would only act the same part with a person of
superior talents and acquirements, who should make
known to his pupils, by oral instruction, certain recon
dite truths which their utmost efforts could not have
discovered. The subject may be illustrated by another
comparison. Revelation is to the mind what a glass is
to the eye, whether it be intended to correct some acci
dental defect in its structure, or to extend its power of
vision beyond its natural limits. God, when he gave
understanding to man, did not exert himself to the ut
most of his power; nor did he come under an obliga
tion never to enlarge this faculty, or to furnish it with
extraordinary assistance. If man should sustain any
injury in the intellectual part of his nature, there was
nothing to hinder his benevolent Creator from repairino-
it; nor, if he should be brought inlo such circumstances
that new knowledge was needed, was there any physi
cal or moral cause which could prevent him from af
fording it. Revelation does not imply a reflection upon
the original work of God, as if he had made man an in
telligent creature, but afterwards found that the degree
of intelligence was not adequate to the purposes of his
being. The most zealous advocates for revelation main
tain that reason, in its pure state, was perfectly suffi
cient for all the ends which it was intended to accom
plish, and that the necessity of revelation arises from
a new state of things, superinduced by man himself.
He now needs more light, and it is the business of
revelation to impart that light. All reasoning, the ob
ject of which is to establish the prior impossibility of
a revelation, is manifestly absurd.
But attempts have been made to prove this point by
arguments of a different kind. Doubts have been

14

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

raised, whether a revelation could be made, because it
does not appear how a person could be certain that it
was a genuine revelation, and not a dream or an illu
sion of fancy. " Enthusiasts," it has been said, " who
are prompted only by a wild imagination, and persons
in a phrensy, or the raving fit of a fever, are as fully
satisfied of the reality of the things represented to them,
and convinced of the truth and soundness of their own |
notions, as those are whose senses are clear and per
fect, and whose reason is in its full vigour." On this ;
ground, it has been represented as not easy to conceive j
how the prophets and apostles, as we call them, could
have been so confident as they were that God had in re
ality made any revelation to them. But this argument
is so foolish, that it may seem equally foolish to give a
serious answer to it. What is the amount of it ? It is
this, — that there is much imposture in the world, and
therefore there is no truth ; that many persons are de
ceived, and therefore no man can know that he is in the
right. To what purpose tell us of the dreams of en
thusiasts, or of men labouring under fever or lunacy?
We are speaking of persons in the full possession of
their senses ; for those to whom divine communications
were made, although powerfully impressed, and strongly
excited to act under their impulse, were not agitated
like the priests of Baal, or the Pythoness of Delphi,
but retained the calm exercise of their faculties, and
were able to distinguish among their thoughts those
which could be traced to a natural cause, and those
which proceeded from a higher source. Besides the
objection is founded on a supposition, than which one
more absurd cannot be conceived, that although God
might make a communication to the mind of an indi
vidual, he could not convince that individual that it was
a communication from himself. He could infuse ideas
into his mind, but he could not enable him to discern
whether they were true or false, whether there was
any thing real in them, or they were the shadowy crea
tion of fancy. A man can assure his correspondent,
that the message which he receives, comes from him,
and not from another; but God, it seems, possesses no
means of authenticating his declarations. It must for
ever remain uncertain, whether they are the dictates of
infinite wisdom, or the offspring of a disordered brain.
The man who should think that there is any force or
even any degree of plausibility in this argument against
the possibility of a revelation, may be justly consid
ered as destitute of common sense. I can hardly be
lieve that any infidel was ever so stupid as to lay any
stress upon it ; and am disposed to suspect that it may
be referred rather to the malice, than to the cool judg
ment of those by whom it has been retailed. We, in
deed, cannot tell how inspired men distinguished divine
communications from the suggestions of their own
minds, for this obvious reason, that they have not in
formed us, and we have not experienced such commu
nications. But our ignorance ought not to be opposed
to their knowledge, and to the unquestionable fact, that
God could stamp upon his communications infallible
signatures of truth.
But although a person, to whom a divine communi
cation was made, might be fully assured of the source
from which it came, it has been objected, that the as
surance must remain with himself, as there are no
means by which he can produce a similar conviction in
otheis. To this argument it has been replied, that God
might enable him to give such signs as should satisfy
others that he is his messenger. But this answer,
which seems to be perfectly rational, infidels are not
disposed to admit, and they endeavour to evade it by
various pretexts. Some of them argue as if miracles
were impossible. If they mean, that there is no power
by which a miracle could be performed, we may close
this controversy with them, because it is manifest, that
they are atheists in their hearts, whatever hypocritical

professions they make of their belief of a Deity ; if
they mean, that God, having established the laws of
nature, will never alter them, they assume a principle
which they cannot support by a shadow of proof, and
which we are at perfect liberty to deny. Is he bound
by fate, like the gods of heathenism? or has he bound
himself by an immutable decree? What should hin
der him from occasionally changing his ordinary mode
of operation, when some great purpose of his moral
government will be accomplished by the change ?
Whether would wisdom be more displayed by pursuing
a uniform course, without any regard to new combina
tions of circumstances, or by deviating from it, to meet
the emergencies which might arise in the progress of
events ? It is not worth while to spend time in refu
ting a gratuitous assumption. If it can be shown, that
a single alteration or suspension of the laws of nature
ever took place, these profound speculations vanish in
to smoke.
But some, who admit that miracles are possible,
maintain that they are not sufficient to prove a revela
tion, upon this ground, that there is no necessary con
nexion between truth and power. We acknowledge
that the power of man may be, and often has been, ex
erted in favour of falsehood ; but what has this to do
with the dispensations of an all-perfect Being, in whose
eyes truth is sacred, and of whom it would be blasphe
mous to suppose that he would interpose to lead his
CTeatures into error ? But the infidel will perhaps tell
us, that this is not what hs means. He suspects~no in
tention in the Deity to deceive; but he cannot place con
fidence in the fidelity of his messengers ; or, at least, he
has no assurance that they would honestly deliver their
message, and religiously abstain from adding to it, or
taking from it. They may alter it to serve a particular
purpose, and may employ the miraculous power with
which they are invested, to give authority and currency
to imposture. But, surely, as God is thoroughly ac
quainted with the characters of men, and foresees their
future actions, we might assume it as certain, that he
would not commit a trust so important, so intimately
connected with his own glory, and the happiness of
his creatures, to any person by whom he foresaw that
it would be abused. The supposition of its abuse is a
direct impeachment of the knowledge or the wisdom of
God in the arrangement of his plan. Besides, no man
who believes that God has power over his creatures,
over their minds as well as their bodies, can doubt that
he is able to exert, and would exert, a controlling influ
ence upon his servants, which would prevent them
from corrupting, and suppress all desire to corrupt, the
revelation which they were appointed to deliver to the
world. They would be thus far passive in his hands,
that they could not frustrate his design in selecting
them. It is vain to tell us that men are voluntary agents;
for while we admit this truth, we know that their free
dom does not render them independent of their Maker;
that by some mysterious link, it is connected with the
immutability of his counsel ; and that their liberty is
unimpaired at the moment when they are fulfilling what
he had determined before to be done. But there is an
other consideration, which will still more clearly de
monstrate the absurdity of the supposition, that men
may apply to a different purpose the miraculous powers
with which they are endowed in order to"attest revela
tion. Infidels seem to suppose, that a man may pos
sess the power of working miracles, in the same man
ner as he possesses the power of moving his arm ; that,
by the gift of God, it becomes inherent in him, and is
as much subject to his will as any of his natural pow
ers. But their ideas aTe totally erroneous. Even
among Christians, there is perhaps an indistinctness of
conception upon the subject; and they speak of tho
power of working miracles as if it were some divine
virtue, residing in the person by whom it is exercised.

SOURCES OF THEOLOGY: REVELATION.

15

But in this sense, the power of working miracles was
never vested in any mere man. In every case, God was
the worker of the miracles ; and all that belonged to
the prophet or apostle was to give the sign, or to pro
nounce the words, which the miracle immediately fol
lowed. No person ever dreamed, that, when Moses
stretched out his rod over the Red Sea, he exerted a
power by which its waters were divided ; the account
given by himself accords with the suggestions of reason
on the subject : " And Moses stretched out his hand
over the sea ; and the Lord caused the sea to go back
by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea
dry land, and the waters were divided."* The same
remark may be made upon all other miracles, which
were equally beyond the sphere of human ability. If
this statement be correct, it follows that the case sup
posed is altogether imaginary. No man could abuse
the power of working miracles, because, to speak
strictly, no man ever possessed it. The power was in
God, and not in his servant; and could the servant
wield the omnipotence of his Lord at his pleasure ? No ;
he might give the usual sign, or pronounce the usual
words, but, if it was his intention to deceive, no effect
would have followed. This argument, therefore, against
the possibility of a revelation, is- as destitute of force
as the others. It is founded in a confusion of ideas, in
a gross misapprehension of the subject, and will cause
no difficulty to those who consider that men were mere
ly the instruments of the miracles which God was
pleased to work by his immediate power.
Having shown that a revelation is possible, and
pointed out (he futility of the pretexts, by which a pro
position so simple and obvious has been perplexed, I
remark, in the next place, that it is desirable. In this
sentiment, all will concur but those who account relig
ious truth a matter of absolute indifference, or who be
lieve that reason is sufficient for all the discoveries
which are necessary to guide men to virtue and happi
ness. Infidels adopt the latter principle, but at the
same time give abundant evidence that they are influ
enced by the former. In no part .of their conduct is
there any indication of reverence for religious truth, and
of a sincere desire to discover it ; but they continually
betray symptoms of levity and impiety, a contempt for
seriousness, a disposition to cavil rather than to inquire,
to muster up objections, to perplex evidence, to involve
every thing in doubt, and to turn the most solemn of
all subjects into ridicule ; so that, it should seem, that
there is nothing which they are less eager to discover
than truth, and that nothing would be so unwelcome as
a clear and convincing manifestation of it. But what
ever are the thoughts of men devoted to pleasure, and
living without God in the world, every person who feels
that he is an accountable being, must be desirous to
know by what means he may fulfil the design of his exis
tence, and obtain the happiness of which his nature is
capable. That a revelation is desirable is evident from what
you heard in the preceding lecture. I there considered
reason as a source of theology, and proved its insuffi
ciency to give us satisfactory information respecting
the doctrines of natural religion. It is proper, in this
place, to take a short review of the observations which
were made upon this subject. It appeared, that the
existence of one God, which is the fundamental princi
ple of religion, is not discoverable by reason, or, at
least, cannot be discovered by it with such clearness as
to produce a firm, permanent, and practical conviction
of it in the mind. Hence we find, that not only did the
people in all heathen nations fall into polytheism and
the grossest superstition, but the philosophers patron
ised, by their example, the errors of the vulgar; and if
they sometimes spoke of one God in their writings,

* Exod. xiv. 21.

there was nothing like certainty and consistency in
their opinions. Amidst their speculations, the idea
occurred to them, but obscurity hung upon it, and to
the wisest of them he remained an unknown God. It
appeared also, that their notions of his relation to man
were exceedingly imperfect. None of them believed
a proper creation, all holding the eternity of matter;
and their views of providence, even when they ap
proached nearest to the truth, were very different from
those which we have learned from revelation, as they
maintained the doctrine of fate, to whose irresistible de
crees the gods, as well as men, were compelled to bow.
It appeared further, that, although they had made great
er progress in the science of morality, the general pre
cepts of which are suggested by conscience, by the
relations subsisting among men, and by means of pri
vate and public utility, they were not able to deliver a
perfect code of duty. In their best systems, there were
great defects ; virtue was mistaken for vice, and vice for
virtue; there were omissions which ought to have been
supplied, and redundancies which ought to have been
retrenched. Besides, their moral precepts wanted au
thority ; in proportion as the sanctions of religion were
imperfectly understood, their power over the heart was
feeble ; they were rather themes of declamation than
rules of practice, and proved utterly insufficient to ren
der the teachers themselves virtuous, and, as might be
naturally expected, to restrain the torrent of licentious
ness among the people. Lastly, it appeared, that with
respect to the immortality of the soul, the wisest men
lived and died in doubt. In the popular creed, future
rewards and punishments had a place; but they were
treated with derision by those who boasted of superior
wisdom, partly on account of the ridiculous manner in
which they were described by the poets, and partly be
cause they rested upon no solid ground. They were
reputed tales of the nursery, or the fictions of poets.
The light of nature was too feeble to dispel the dark
ness which enveloped the world beyond the grave.
A revelation was desirable, although had it gone no
further than to solve those doubts, and to shed light
upon the doctrines of natural religion. These were
interesting to all, and engaged the particular attention
of men of reflection ; but the success of their inquiries
by no means corresponded with the earnestness of their
wishes. In these circumstances, would not revelation
be acceptable as is the rising of the sun to the bewil
dered traveller, who is anxiously seeking the road to
the place of his destination, but cannot find it amidst
the darkness of the night? There are several passages
in the writings of the heathens which show, that while
they were sensible of their ignorance, they were per
suaded that there was no remedy for it but in a divine
interposition. " The truth is," says Plato, speaking
of future rewards and punishments, " to determine or
establish any thing certain about these matters, in the
midst of so many doubts and disputations, is the work
of God only." Again, one of the speakers, in his
Pha;do, says to Socrates concerning the immortality of
the soul, " I am of the same opinion with you, that, in
this life, it is either absolutely impossible, or extreme
ly difficult, to arrive at a clear knowledge in this mat
ter." In his apology for Socrates, he puts these words
into his mouth, on the subject of the reformation of
manners : " You may pass the remainder of your days
in sleep, or despair of finding out a sufficient expedient
for this purpose, if God, in his providence, do not send
you some other instruction." But the most remarkable
passage is in the dialogue between Socrates and Alci
biades, on the duties of religious worship. The design
of the dialogue is to convince Alcibiades that men la
bour under so much ignorance, that they should be ex
ceedingly cautious in their addresses to the gods, and
should content themselves with very general prayers,
or what is better, not to pray at all. " To me," he

16

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

says, " it seems best to be quiet ; it is necessary to
wait till you learn how you ought to behave towards
the gods, and towards men." " When," exclaims Al
cibiades, " when, O Socrates ! shall that time be, and
who will instruct me, for most willingly would I see
this man who he is ?" " He is one," replies Socrates,
" who cares for you ; but, as Homer represents Minerva
as taking away darkness from the eyes of Diomedes,
that he might distinguish a god from a man, so it is
necessary that he should first take away the darkness
from your mind, and then bring near those things by
which you shall know good and evil." " Let him take
away," rejoins Alcibiades, " if he will, the darkness
or any other thing, for I am prepared to decline none
of those things which are commanded by him, whoever.
this man is, if I shall be made better."* The passage
is truly curious, and deserves particular attention from
us at this time, as a proof of the longings of nature
for such a revelation as has been since given to the
world. The wisest philosopher of antiquity acknowl
edged it to be necessary, and ventures to anticipate it,
without, however, knowing what he said. His disci
ple was transported at the thought, and professed his
readiness to submit to the lessons of his teacher. It
is only among the present race of unbelievers, the Soc-
rateses and Platos of modern times, as they would
have us to account them, that the idea of a revelation
is held up to ridicule, and the self-sufficiency of reason
is maintained.What were the ideas of the heathens in general with
respect to a revelation, we may infer from some parts
of their religion. Their prayers were applications to
the gods for direction and assistance in the conduct of
affairs ; their priests and priestesses, whom they be
lieved to be inspired, their omens and auguries, and
their oracles which they consulted in cases of difficulty,
were so many testimonies to the general conviction,
that the ignorance and infirmity of man rendered inter
course with beings of superior wisdom and power ne
cessary to his welfare. ' It was thus that the defects
of reason would be supplied. What man knew not,
the gods could teach him ; and it was chiefly to the
temple of Apollo, the god of wisdom, that the Greeks, and
persons from other nations, repaired, to obtain the respon
ses of the oracle in matters of public and private interest.
Revelation would be desirable, even although reason
were capable of discovering all the truths of natural
religion. It would not follow, upon that supposition,
that they were so obvious as to be discovered without
any labour. The exercise of our mental powers would
be necessary to collect the proofs of the existence and
government of God, and to trace our duty in its mani
fold ramifications. There are no innate ideas in the
human mind, no ideas with which we are born, and
which we perceive intuitively as soon as reason begins
to dawn ; all our knowledge is derived from observa
tion and experience. Hence it is evident, that a reve
lation would facilitate the acquisition of knowledge to
all, and particularly to those whose intellectual facul
ties were originally not strong, and had not been im
proved by education, and whose daily occupations
afforded them little leisure for inquiry and reflection.
It cannot be denied, that a great part of mankind labour
under disadvantages for the discovery of truth ; that
they are apt to be misled by false opinions, and dis
tracted by worldly cares, and to neglect those objects
which require abstraction of mind and patient investi
gation. The infidel himself is compelled, by indisput
able facts, to acknowledge, that, whatever power he
ascribes to reason, it has generally failed to lead men
to a rational system of religion ; nay, that such a sys
tem was never established by its aid, in any nation, or
even in any school of philosophy. It is manifest,
* Flatonis Alcibiad. ii.

therefore, that if a revelation had been granted to point
out at once the conclusions at which reason could have
arrived only by a tedious process, it would have been
an invaluable gift to the world. Upon this subject, we
can entertain no doubt. A revelation has been granted,
and what is the consequence? The doctrines of natu
ral religion are better understood than they were at any
former period ; they are known not only to men of stu
dious and contemplative minds, but to the illiterate ; we
become acquainted with them at the cutset of life ; and
there are thousands of young persons in a Christian
country, whose knowledge far exceeds that of the most
distinguished heathen philosopher. They have learned
by a few lessons more than he could acquire by the
painful researches of a long life.
We have proved, however, that reason is not suffi
cient to discover the truths of natural religion ; and,
consequently, that revelation was not only desirable,
but necessary, to deliver men from a state of ignorance
at once shameful and perilous. And this necessity
will be more apparent, if we consider that they were
not only ignorant but guilty, fallen from innocence and
happiness, condemned by the law of nature, a clearer
discovery of which would have served only to impress
more strongly on their minds a conviction of demerit,
and to heighten the dread of their offended Creator.
The republication of the law of nature would have
done nothing to quiet their apprehensions and revive
their hopes ; on the contrary, it would have had the
same effect as would take place in the case of a crimi
nal, who, suspecting that he was doomed to punishment,
should have the sentence of death put into his hands,
distinctly written, and authenticated by the signature
of the judge. Still he knows that his prince can re
prieve him ; but whether he will extend mercy to him,
he cannot learn from the law which has condemned
him, but by a new communication, transmitted in a
different channel. The situation of men, in consequence
of sin, is like that of the criminal. The law under
which they were made has pronounced sentence upon
them ; the lawgiver, according to the best conceptions
which they can form of his character, is just, and able
to maintain the authority of his law. There is, indeed,
a display of goodness and patience in his administration,
but it is so intermixed with tokens of his wrath, that
the hope to which it may give rise is faint and fluctuat
ing; and unbiassed reason must come to this conclusion,
that the guilty have every thing to fear. If the lawgiver
has any merciful design towards his rebellious subjects,
it is a secret in his own breast, and all our speculations
on the subject are conjectural and presumptuous. In
the commencement of our course, while we have not
yet proved that a revelation has been given, I cannot
quote any parts of it as possessing more authority than
belongs to the sayings of an ordinary man, which are
agreeable to fhejiictates of reason and common sense.
The following words of the apostle of the Gentiles
are brought forward merely as a just representation of
the state of the case: — " Eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the
things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit ; for
the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of
God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save
the spirit of man which is in him ? Even so, the things
of God knoweth no man, "but the Spirit of God."* As
the thoughts of a man are known to none but himself;
as he alone is conscious of them, and they remain con
cealed from others, unless he disclose them by external
signs ; so the counsels of God with respect to his fall
en creatures are a mystery, hidden from every eye but
his own, a secret which no sagacity could explore.
And those counsels are so much aboveour conceptions,

* 1 Cor. ii. 9—11.

SOURCES OF THEOLOGY: REVELATION.

17

so different from any thing which appears in creation
and providence, that no idea of them would have ever
occurred to the human mind in its loftiest excursions.
It is evident, therefore, that a revelation is necessary
for the information of man, in the new circumstances
in which he was placed. He wanted to know whether
the Deity was placable ; whether he was disposed to
exercise clemency to offenders ; upon what terms he
would receive them into favour, and by what expedient
he would adjust the claims of mercy and justice. Who
does not see, that in reference to points so interesting,
but so obscure, none could give him satisfaction but
God himself? If a revelation had not been granted,
there would not have been any religion in the world.
What natural religion actually is, you will learn, not
from the factitious systems of Christian writers, but
from its state among heathen nations ; and although it
is hardly worthy to be accounted religion, yet if you
are disposed lo give it this name, remember that any
portion of truth which it contains is not derived from
unassisted reason, but from tradition, and that it is pro
bably owing to this cause that it has not become utter
ly extinct. Revelation is indisputably the sole origin
of the religion which we profess. Without it, we
should have been profoundly ignorant of the Saviour in
whom we believe, and of the promises which are the
ground of our hope.
I have endeavoured to show that a revelation is pos
sible and desirable, and proceeding a step farther, have
affirmed that it is necessary. This necessity arises from
the ignorance of mankindTespecting points of the great
est importance, which could be remedied by no other
means. It was necessary that light should be thrown
upon those primary truths, in which we conceive man
to have been at first instructed by his Maker, but
which his dim-sighted reason could no longer discern
in their original purity and beauty ; and that new dis
coveries should be made to him, adapted to the exigen
cies of the new situation in which he had been placed
in his apostacy from God. This general view of the
design of revelation leads me to inquire what, upon a
calm and unbiassed view of the subject, we. might pre
viously expect to be its nature and character.
First, — we might expect it to contain all the infor
mation which man wants, as a moral and accountable
being. We cannot conceive any design with which it
should be given, but to communicate to us the knowl
edge of God, and of our duty to him, and to point out
the means of regaining his favour, and rising to perfec
tion and felicity. Proceeding as it does, according to
the hypothesis, from the Fountain of wisdom and good
ness, it must be. perfect, like his other works; that is,
it must be fitted to answer its end. Neither defect nor
redundance would be consistent with the character of
its author. But remember that its end is religion ; and
that if it accomplish this end, it is worthy of God, al
though there should be many other ends, and these,
too, of importance to mankind, to which it is not adapt
ed. There is much knowledge which is useful and ne
cessary to us in the present life, but which it would be
unreasonable to expect that a divine revelation should
teach us. There is the knowledge of the arts, by
which human life is sustained, and cheered, and adorned,
and the knowledge of the sciences, which not only
gratify curiosity, but lend their aid to improve the arts,
and promote in various ways our temporal interests.
But revelation says nothing about them, because they
are not connected with its main design, and here reason
is perfectly sufficient. There are also many questions,
relative to the nature of God and our own, the constitu
tion of the universe, the phenomena of the moral world,
and a future state of existence, of which it would grati
fy us much to obtain a satisfactory solution ; and to
some idle speculatists, information concerning them
would be more acceptable than communications of un-
C 2

speakably greater importance. But these questions
have nothing to do with our duty, and although they
were all answered to our complete satisfaction, they
would make us neither wiser nor better ; they would not
relieve a guilty conscience, or console an afflicted heart.
It is for purposes of greater moment that the God of
heaven will deviate from his usual course ; it is to send
down some rays of celestial light to our benighted
world, to show us the path to glory and immortality.
Secondly, — we might expect a revelation to deliver
its instructions rather in an authoritative than in an
argumentative manner. The, argumentative manner is
proper, when we are addressed by men who have no
title to be heard, unless they give reasons for what they
say, or content themselves with the idle labour of re
peating self-evident propositions.- The authoritative
manner has been sometimes adopted by certain professed
teachers of wisdom, but they had to deal with a very
credulous audience, or they had contrived previously to
establish a belief of their superior attainments. Py
thagoras enjoined silence upon his disciples for a cer
tain number of years, during which they were to give
an implicit assent ; and etu-ro; *)>», he said it, passed cur
rent among them as sufficient authority. But, whatever
blind submission there may be among mankind to the
dictates of others, it is generally reprobated as unwor
thy of our rational nature. It is demanded of him who
pretends to teach others, that he should prove what he
affirms, because it is evidence only which can produce
rational conviction, and no man has a right to call upon
others to follow him, unless he can show them that the
way is safe. But a different procedure is suitable to a
divine revelation. It comes from the Source of wisdom,
who is not liable to err, and can have no intention to
deceive us; from the Author of our being, who has a
right to require that we should serve him with the sub
mission of our understandings, as well as with the love
of our hearts. Revelation is not a counsel, but a law.
It is not proposed as a subject of deliberation, which
may be accepted or rejected according to the result ;
but it is a declaration of the will of the supreme Lord,
which all, to whom it is published, are bound to obey.
Nothing would be more unjust than to object against a
revelation, because it was propounded in a tone of au
thority. The objection, however, was made when the
Christian revelation was promulgated ; and we find
Celsus, who expressed the sentiments of other philoso
phers, exclaiming against our religion and its minis
ters, because, instead of reasoning with men, they re
quired them to believe. The objection would have
been well founded, if, without, producing any proof of
the divine origin of the gospel, they had insisted that
men should believe it ; but after the evidence had been
exhibited they acted in character when, speaking in the
name of God, they commanded their hearers to acqui
esce in the dictates of his wisdom, without murmuring
and disputing. If in this stage of the business I may
be allowed to appeal to the revelation which has been
given to the world, it will be found that although rea
soning is employed on particular occasions, upon the
whole it is delivered in an authoritative form. There
is a striking example at the beginning of it, for the ac
count of the creation is not supported by a single argu
ment, but is delivered in a simple narrative, to be re
ceived upon the authority of the writer or rather of God,
by whom he was inspired.
Lastly, — we might expect that there would be some
difficulties in a divine revelation. At first it might
seem that difficulties would be inconsistent with its de
sign, which is, as the word imports, to discover what is
unknown, and to illuminate what is obscure. But a
little reflection would convince us that even here perfect
light is not to be looked for. Such a degree might be
reasonably expected, as should fully assure us of the
great doctrines and duties of religion, but.not so much

18

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

as to give us complete satisfaction respecting all the
points of which we might wish to be informed. Reve
lation speaks of the things of God ; and how could they
be made plain to our understandings ? Language, being
the vehicle of human thought, could not convey a dis
tinct account of subjects which the human faculties are
unable to comprehend. There are facts relative to
the essence and the dispensations of the Almighty
which it may be necessary that we should know, be
cause our duty may be intimately connected with them,
but which it may be impossible to explain to us. Reve
lation demands faith; and pure faith is an act of the
mind, by which it assents to certain facts, or proposi
tions upon the authority of testimony, without having
any other evidence of their truth. Faith is therefore
more perfect in proportion as the thing to be believed
possesses less credibility in itself, and rests solely upon
the veracity of the testifier. Hence we may conceive
a great moral purpose to be served by the difficulties
which are found in revelation. Whether in some ca
ses they might not have been avoided, is a question
which we are not competent to discuss ; but they
are so far from counteracting, that they promote the de
sign of revelation, which is to make us not only wise,
but good, to exercise our moral as well as our intel
lectual powers. Difficulties are a trial of man's dispo
sitions, like our Lord himself in the state of humilia
tion and suffering, who to some was precious, but to
others a stone of stumbling and a rock of offenee.
They call for docility and humble submission to divine
authority ; and wherever these tempers are, revelation
will be cordially received. But the men who are elated
by the pride of science will not stoop to authority, and
refuse to believe what they cannot comprehend. They
must do as they have a mind. If, notwithstanding the
luminous evidence with which revelation is attended,
they will reject it because every part is not adjusted by
the square and compass of reason, they only betray
their own folly and presumption, and they must abide
the consequences.

LECTURE IV.
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
Has a Revelation been given ? — Inquiry confined to Christian
ity — On the genuineness of the Christian Scriptures : Ac
count of the Books of the Old Testament ; The Penta
teuch -, Historical and circumstantial Evidence of its Genu
ineness stated ; General Observations respecting the other
Books — Apocryphal Books.
In the preceding lecture, I showed that a revelation
is possible ; that it is desirable ; and that it is necessa
ry. I concluded by stating the general expectations
which might be previously entertained respecting its
contents. Let us now proceed to inquire whether a revelation
has been actually given ; whether there is ground to be
lieve that what reason could not teach us, has been made
known to us by supernatural means. Pretensions to
revelation have been common, of which we have exam
ples in the Sibylline Oracles of the Romans, and the
sacred books of the Persians and Hindoos ; but it is
not necessary to examine their claims, since, with one
consent, they are acknowledged to be impostures. Nor
shall we spend our time in considering the pretended
revelation of Mahomet, which has been received by a
large portion of the human race in Asia, Africa, and
Europe. Its author was able to produce no evidence
of its divine origin, but his own affirmation that it was
communicated to him by the angel Gabriel. If he
talked of miracles, they were such as had been wit
nessed by himself alone, and consequently were no

ground of belief to others. He appealed, indepd, to
the intrinsic excellence of the Koran, as an evidence
that it had emanated from a higher source than human
ingenuity, and has thus subjected it to the test of criti
cism. The beauty of the style has been extolled by
competent judges, but this amounts only to a proof of
the taste of the composer, and, at the most, entitles it
to be ranked with the elegant productions of other ages
and countries. But it is the language only which has a
claim to admiration ; an acquaintance with the matter is
sufficient to convince us that it is the w-ork of a man, and
of a man by no means pre-eminent in intellectual attain
ments. It is a farrago of incoherent rhapsodies ; it
abounds in silly and puerile remarks ; and, had it ap
peared among a people whose taste and judgment were
disciplined by literature and science, it would have ex
cited universal disgust and contempt. A few passages
have been often quoted as specimens of the true sub
lime, but they have obtained praise much beyond their
merit, in consequence of the wretched stuff amidst
which they appear, as a green spot planted with trees
and abounding in springs, seems a paradise to the tra
veller who has been journeying for many days in the
parched and sandy desert. After all, the passages
which have been so much extolled are not original, but
have evidently been borrowed from our Scriptures, and
have suffered injury in passing through the clumsy
hands of the impostor. Posterior to the Jewish and
Christian revelations, the Koran is indebted to them
for any portion of truth, for any noble sentiments which
it contains ; and these are neutralized by its falsehoods
and immoralities. It does not exhibit a single charac
ter of divinity ; it is fraught with ridiculous stories and
superstitious precepts ; while, without any reason, it
inculcates total abstinence from wine, it grants almost
unbounded license to the sexual appetite ; the punish
ments which it denounces in the future state, although
terrible to our animal nature, have been conceived by a
low and childish imagination ; and the paradise which
it promises to his followers is a brothel. We presume,
that if a revelation come from God, it will be distin
guished by the signatures of his moral perfections, as
a work of man discovers the powers and dispositions
of the mind which contrived it. The Koran is stamp
ed with the express image and superscription of the
profligate in whose brain it was concocted ; and in the
absence of all internal and external evidence of its
truth, it was first propagated and is still supported by
the sword. Its success proves only that Mahomet was a
conqueror, and that his followers, stimulated to frenzy
by enthusiasm, were too strong for the nations whose
dominions they invaded under the standard of the cres
cent. There is not an instance of a nation which em
braced the religion of Mahomet from a calm, unbiassed
investigation of its claims.
No alleged revelation has any semblance of truth
but that which is contained in our Scriptures, as infidels
themselves will acknowledge. They reject, indeed,
every revelation ; but they cannot deny that there are
arguments in its favour, to meet which, they have been
compelled to call forth all the resources of their inge
nuity. Mahomet was evidently a favourite with Gib
bon, and he has employed all the force of his eloquence
to depict, the heroism of his followers, and the success
of his arms ; but he did not for a moment suppose him
to be a prophet, or attribute his procedure to any high
er cause than enthusiasm or imposture. Other infidels
content themselves with laughing at his religion ; but
besides ridicule, they find it necessary to bring the
( most powerful arguments which their cause can furnish,
i to bear against Christianity. It is on this account,
j and because it is the religion which we have adopted,
. that our attention shall be exclusively directed to it;
I and, if we succeed in establishing its divine origin,
, we virtually disprove all other revelations, because it

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

19

is obvious, that contradictory systems cannot all pro
ceed from a Being of whom truth is an essential attri
bute. Before we can establish the truth of revelation, we
must ascertain what it is, and where it is to be found.
There are certain books in which it is said to be con
tained, commonly called the Scriptures of the Old and
New Testament ; and that these are faithful records
can be known onlyby ascertaining that they are genu
ine, that they are the writings of the persons whose
names they bear, or to whom they are ascribed. This
is the first step, and it leads to a proof of their authen
ticity. Let me request your attention to the difference
between these two words, which are sometimes con
founded. When we call a writing genuine, we mean
that it is really the composition of the person whom it
claims as its author ; when we call it authentic, we
mean that its contents are true, that it possesses au
thority to command belief. These qualities are by no
means inseparable. A book may be genuine which is
not authentic, because it is a mere assemblage of fic
tions and falsehoods. On the other hand, a book may
be authentic, that is, may contain information on which
dependence should be placed, although it was written
by a different person from its reputed author. But
genuineness and authenticity are inseparably connected
in the case of the sacred writings ; for if we can show
that they were written by the persons whose names
they bear, it follows that they are worthy of credit ;
because, had their contents not been true, they would
not have been received, as in fact they were, by those
to whom they were addressed.
The necessity of ascertaining the genuineness of the
Scriptures will be manifest upon reflection. They re
late miracles ; but how do we know that the miracles
were actually performed ? This is one argument in favour
of them, that the books were published at the time of
the miracles, and were then received ; for it is evident,
that, if the miracles had not been really wrought, the
narrative would have been rejected as fabulous. It is
only on the supposition of their genuineness, that we
can believe their report of supernatural facts to be true.
They contain prophecies ; but, whether these are to be
considered as true predictions, can be determined only
by the fact, that the books were written prior to the
events which they profess to foretell. You see, then,
the reason why, in endeavouring to demonstrate the
truth of our religion, we begin with an examination of
its records. I shall consider them in the order of pub
lication. 1 begin with those of the Old Testament. That
they existed in the state in which we now find them, in
the days of our Saviour and his immediate followers,
is evident from his references to them under the title of
the Law, the Prophets, and tbe Psalms ; and from the
numerous quotations from them by the evangelists and
apostles. Among the Jews, the Law signified the five
books of Moses ; and the prophets and Holy Writings,
or, as they were sometimes called, the Psalms, because
this was the first or principal book in this division,
comprehended all the rest. We have also the testimo
ny of Josephus,* who wrote in the first century, and
informs us, that the Jews had twenty-two sacred books ;
five of Moses, thirteen of the Prophets, and four con
taining hymns and moral precepts. You might think,
in counting the books, that Josephus has omitted some
of them, because you find that there are actually thirty-
nine : it is therefore proper to inform you, that the Jews
made an arrangement corresponding to their alphabet,
which contained only twenty-two letters, and reduced
the Sacred Writings to the same number, by making
a single book of the twelve minor Prophets, a single
book of the Prophecies and Lamentations of Jeremiah,

Joseph, cout. Apion, lib. i.

and by joining in one of the two books of Samuel, the
two books of Kings, the two books of Chronicles, the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the books of Judges
and Ruth. By a small change in the classification, the
modern Jews have made the number twenty-four.
Having found the Jewish Scriptures in the days of
our Saviour, we can trace them two or three hundred
years back to the time when they were translated into
Greek. The version is known by the name of the
Septuaginl, because it has been supposed to be the
work of seventy or seventy-two interpreters, who came
for this purpose from Judea to Egypt at the request of
Ptolemy Philadelphus. Many strange stories have
been circulated about it ; and in particular, Justin
Martyr relates that they were shut up in separate cells
where each made a translation ; that when the transla
tions were compared, they were found to agree to a tit
tle, and that Ptolemy being convinced, as well he
might, that they were supernaturally assisted, held
them in high honour, and having bountifully rewarded
them, sent them back to their own country. The story
is now exploded as fabulous ; and it is wonderful that
it was ever believed. No man who has read the trans
lation can suppose that the authors were inspired. It
is full of mistakes and errors, deviates widely from the
original in many instances, and sometimes presents
passages which it would require an oracle to explain.
Its true history is obscure. It is not certain that even
the Pentateuch was translated by the order of Ptolemy.
It is probable that it was undertaken by the Jews in
Egypt, who, not understanding Hebrew, were anxious
to have the Scriptures in the vernacular tongue; and
the five books of Moses having been turned into Greek,
to be used in the synagogues, where the law was read
once a year, the other books were added at different
times. The purpose for which I have referred to this
translation is, to show that at the time when it was
made, the Jews possessed the same books which they
still acknowledge as divine.
1 am not aware that any information respecting them
can be derived from any foreign source, at a period
more remote. I presume, however, that it will not be
denied that they existed in the days of Ezra, about
whose time the canon was completed by the writings
of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. If we will not
believe the Jews, when they tell us that the books are
inspired, we surely may believe them when they affirm,
on the faith of uninterrupted tradition, that they were
in being at the termination of the Babylonian captivity.
As we are certain that their religion was then observed
with all its forms and institutions, we cannot doubt that
they possessed the law upon which the whole ritual is
founded. We may rest in this conclusion with the
more confidence, as no person has ventured to suggest
that the books were forged after that period.
I have said that they then possessed the Law; and
in what follows, I shall direct your attention to the
books of Moses. If we may give credit to the histor
ical books of the Old Testament, merely as a narrative
of facts, as containing the annals of the nation, — and
there-is no more reason for calling in question their
credibility than those of other national records, — we
shall be able to trace back the law of Moses within a
few years after his death. In the books of Ezra
and Nehemiah, there are numerous references to
it, and it was publicly read in their days in an as
sembly of the people. During the time of the captivi
ty, express mention is made of it by Daniel in his sol
emn prayer and confession, recorded in the ninth chap
ter of his prophecies ;* and such mention, as being
incidental, carries irresistible evidence of its existence.
During the reign of Josiah, not long before the captiv
ity, a copy was found in the temple ;| and from the

* Verses 11 and 13.

f 2 Kings xxii. 3.

20

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

attention which it excited, and the impression made
by its contents, it is probable that it was the autograph
of Moses, the identical copy written with his own
hands, which was deposited in the tabernacle. We
can trace it in the reign of Hezekiah, when all things
were done " according to the law of Moses the man
of God :"* in the reign of Jehosaphat, who sentjudges
through the land, who had "the book of the law of
the Lord with them," and "taught the people :"f in
the reigns of David and Solomon, for we find the for
mer before his death charging the latter " to keep the
statutes and commandments, the judgments and testi
monies of the Lord, as it is written in the law of Mo
ses."^: During the succession of judges, this law was
the rule according to which they governed the people ;
and this was the charge of Joshua to the Israelites,
" Be ye very courageous to keep and do all that is
written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn
not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left."|| j
Unless the whole history of the Israelites be rejected as !
a forgery, — and on better ground we might reject
the history of the Greeks and Romans, the repeated ,
references which are made to the law of Moses, ;
plainly with no design but to appeal to it as the law of
the land, furnish sufficient evidence that it existed, not
as a tradition, but in writing, from his own time down
to the close of the Old Testament Scriptures.
Let not the evidence be deemed defective because we
cannot produce testimonies that Moses was the author
of the Pentateuch from contemporary writers. If there
were any at that remote period, their works and their
memory have perished. "The Jews, as a nation,"
says Sumner, in his Treatise on the Records of the
Creation, " were always in obscurity, the certain con
sequence, not only of their situation, but of the pecu
liar constitution and jealous nature of their government.
Can it then reasonably be expected that we should ob
tain positive testimony concerning this small and insu
lated nation from foreign historians, when the most an
cient of these, whose works remain, lived more than a
thousand years posterior to Moses ? Can we look for
it from the Greeks, when Thucydides has declared that
even respecting his own countrymen he could procure
no authentic record prior to the Trojan war ? or from
the Romans who had scarcely begun to be a people
when the empire of Jerusalem was destroyed and the
whole nation reduced to captivity ?"§ Such profane
testimony as can be produced serves only to show what
was the prevailing opinion among heathens ; and when
we find them not only recording many of the facts in
the narrative of Moses, but speaking of him by name,
and referring to his law, we conclude that no doubt was
entertained that he was the lawgiver of the Jews, or
that his writings were genuine. Diodorus Siculus,
Strabo, Tacitus, Juvenal, and Longinus make mention
of him and his writings, in the same manner as we ap
peal to Cicero and his works.
It is the interest of infidels to bring into doubt the
genuineness of the Pentateuch : but, having no solid
argument to advance, they endeavour to gain their end
by assertions, conjectures, and cavils. We can easily
see the design with which such men as Hobbes and
Spinoza have maintained that the books commonly as
cribed to Moses are called his, not because they were
written by him, but because they treat of him and his
actions. But this opinion has been adopted by some
professed Christians, and particularly by two per
sons well known to theological scholars, the cele
brated critic Father Simon, and the not less celebrated
Le Clerc. But while they agree in denying that the
Pentateuch is the genuine work of Moses, they differ

* 2 Chron. xxx 16
t 1 Kings ii. 3.
{ Vol. i. p. 32.

t 2 Chron. xvii. 9.
I! Joshua xxii. 6.

in tba grounds of their opinion, and Le Clerc labours
to prove that the arguments of Simon are false. His
own views of the subject were truly singular. He sup
posed that the Pentateuch was drawn up by the priest
who was sent from Babylon to instruct, in the manner
of the god of the land, the new inhabitants whom the
king of Assyria had planted in the room of the Israel
ites ; and that with a view to reclaim these from idola
try, he undertook to give them a history of the, creation
and of the Jews to the giving of the law ; from which
it would appear that there was only one God, and that
it was he whom the Israelites worshipped. The priests
in Jerusalem, he adds, would approve of the work,
finding nothing in it but what was pious and true; and
the Samaritans would receive it, because it came from
a person whom they did not suspect. This hypothesis
has the character of boldness, but I do not see that
there is any other quality to recommend it. It is con
jectural, improbable, and contrary, not only to the uni
form belief of the whole Jewish nation, but also to the
testimony of inspiration. He endeavours to support it
by an induction of particulars collected from the books
which he pretends to be of such a nature that they
could not have been written by Moses himself, and
therefore prove that the books are falsely ascribed to
him. To this objection a satisfactory answer has been
returned by different authors, and particularly by Wit-
sius, in the fourteenth chapter of the first book of his
Dissertation de Prophetis et Prophetia. It is easy to
show that some of the particulars might have been
written by Moses, and that others which betray a later
hand mighthave been added for illustration when places
had changed their names, and certain facts had ceased
to be known. " A small addition to a book," it has
been observed, "does not destroy either the genuine
ness or the authenticity of the whole book."* It is
probable that Clericus nastily adopted this opinion ; it
is certain that on mature reflection, he renounced it, f and
acquiesced in the common belief of Jews and Chris
tians, which is confirmed by the testimony of our Lord
and his apostles, that the firstfive books of the Bible
were written by Moses.
In corroboration of the historical evidence we may
establish the point by reasoning founded on the circum
stances of the case. When we affirm that the writings
of Moses are genuine, he who denies the assertion is
bound to assign his reasons for dissenting from the
common opinion. If, however, he shall devolve on us
the burden of proof, we would ask him, Since you al
lege that they were of a more recent date, at what time
were they composed and published ? Did they appear
immediately after the death of Moses? Their contents
were true or false. Suppose that they were true, — by
which supposition only can we account for their hav
ing been received by men who were contemporaries
of Moses and witnesses of many of the facts which are
related, — in this case, the argument in favour of the
Jewish religion is precisely the same as if they had
been written by Moses himself. But let us suppose
them lo be false, — and it is solely with a design to cre
ate a suspicion of this kind, that any infidel is anxious
to prove them not to be genuine, — it was impossible, if
they were false, that they could have obtained any
credit ; because, in this case, every person was a com
petent judge whether the things related to have taken
place within his own memory had really happened.
The Israelites would not have believed that the Red
Sea was divided to afford them a passage ; that they
had journeyed for forty years in the wilderness; that
during all that time a miraculous cloud had covered
them by day, and a fire had illuminated their dwellings
by night ; that they had been supplied with food which
* Bishop Watson's Apol. for the Bible, Letter iii.
t Cleric. Prolegom. in Pentateuch. Dissert, iii. de Scripiort
Pcntateuclti.

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

21

daily fell around their camp ; that God had published
his law with an audible voice, and punished the viola
tion of it with terrible plagues ; they would not have
believed these things if the. whole narrative had been a
fiction. It would have excited their ridicule as a clum
sy and monstrous romance ; or their indignation, as an
audacious attempt to wreathe a yoke about their necks
which they were not able to bear. It is morally impos
sible that the books of Moses could have been received
in the age inimediately after his death, if their contents
had been false ; and highly improbable, that although
true, they would have been considered as his writings
if they had been set forth by some other person in his
name, and had not appeared till he was lying in his ,
grave. In either case, but particularly in the first, they !
would have been rejected by universal consent, and
would have long since disappeared ; and it is probable
that at this distance of time it would not have been
known that such an imposition had ever bpen attempted.
But the objector may pretend that the Pentateuch
was published as the genuine work of Moses at a later
period, when there was none to contradict its statements
from personal experience. Let us assume this hypo
thesis. It is acknowledged that forged writings have
been repeatedly palmed upon the world, and in some
cases with temporary success. It is obviously impos
sible to say positively that in no case the design has .
completely succeeded ; but there have been so many in- j
stances of detection as to render it probable that no im
position of this kind has ultimately eluded discovery.
Forged writings have usually been of such a nature as
not materially to affect, the interests of mankind at
large ; literary productions, for example, under the ven
erable name of some ancient author. We have no ex
ample of a forged code of laws brought to light after a
long interval, and passed upon a nation as the work of
their ancient legislators, which they were bound to
adopt as the rule of their civil and political institutions. J
It is certain that any attempt of the kind would fail.
The man would be laughed at who should come for
ward and say, " These are the laws of this country, :
enacted many ages ago, which have hitherto lain in ob
scurity. I call upon you to abolish your present insti
tutions, and henceforth to regulate your affairs by this
new system." The well-known saying of the English
barons, Nolumus leges Anglise mulari, is expressive of
the common feeling of men, who are attached to the
existing laws by habit as well as by the experience of
the benefit resulting from them : and are averse to haz
ard a change, when property, liberty, and personal
safety are concerned. The Israelites would have re
ceived with astonishment, the proposal to submit to a
new code of laws stamped with the venerated name of
Moses, their ancient deliverer. If they had listened to it
with patience, they would have demanded proof that the
laws had emanated from him, or from God by his min
istry ; we cannot conceive that they would have impli
citly acquiesced, unless we should suppose them to have
been first deprived of reason and common sense. " How
does it appear," they would have said, " that these are
the genuine laws of the man with whose name they
are sanctioned ? If they are really his laws, how came
it to pass that our fathers did not observe them, and
knew nothing about them ? In what archives were
they deposited ? In what secret place have they so
long lain concealed ? How came you to discover
them? And what evidence do you produce to con
vince us that they were not fabricated by yourself?"
To these questions the impostor could have returned
no answer, — none, at least, which would have persuad
ed the people that they were bound to comply with
his request. There is a manifest impossibility that
the writings of Moses could have been imposed on the
Israelites as his genuine productions in any posterior
nge. Men were not simpletons then, any more than j

they are at present. They bad their senses as well as
we ; they were as much alive to their interests ; they
were as much the creatures of habit, as tenacious of
their rights, as unwilling to be deceived. The argu
ment becomes stronger when we attend to the nature
of the laws, which, according to the hypothesis, were
imposed upon the Israelites. They enjoined a cumber
some and expensive ritual ; they prescribed usages
which separated them from all other nations and ex
posed them to reproach ; they required them not to till
their ground once in seven years, and every fiftieth
year to give liberty to their slaves and restore mort
gaged lands to the original proprietors ; they command
ed all the males thrice a year to repair to the place of
solemn worship, and thus leave the country open to the
invasion of their enemies. These laws, so contrary to
human policy, so fraught with danger upon the prin
ciples of common prudence, no nation would have re
ceived on the ground of a mere pretence that they were
delivered by a legislator who had, many years before,
been laid in the grave. Upon the whole, it is evident,
to the satisfaction of every candid mind, that the laws
of Moses, and the books in which they are contained,
could never have obtained credit among his country
men if they had not been published in his own life
time, and supported .by those proofs of his divine mis
sion which this is not the proper time to consider.
I have dwelt so long upon the books of Moses, be
cause it is of the greatest importance to ascertain their
genuineness. In them the foundation was laid of the
ancient dispensation, as they contain the laws and ordi
nances which, we believe, were significant of a better
economy, and by the observance of which the Jews
were distinguished as the peculiar people of God.
They are introductory to the other books of the Old
Testament; and if the former are admitted, there will
be little difficulty in acknowledging the latter.
The book of Joshua is understood to have been writ
ten by himself, with the exception of a few verses in
the end, giving an account of his death, and it is after
wards quoted under bis name. It gives an account of
the invasion of Canaan, the conquest of its inhabitants,
and the division of the land. The book of Judges is
attributed to Samuel, who most probably wrote also
the book of Ruth, which may be considered as a sup
plement to it, although others have ascribed it, on what
grounds I know not, to Hezekiah or to Ezra. Samuel
is also supposed to have written the first twenty-four
chapters of the book which bears his name, and by us
is divided into two ; the rest being added by the pro
phets Gad and Nathan. This opinion is founded upon
the following words in the first book of Chronicles: 
" Now the acts of David the king, first and last, be
hold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer,
and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book
of Gad the seer."* With regard to the two books of
Kings, they are supposed to have been made up from
annals or histories composed by different persons, of
which mention is made in the Chronicles ; as the acts
of Solomon by Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo; the acts of
Rehoboam by Iddo and Shemaiah ; the acts of Jehosh-
aphat by Jehu; and the acts of Hezekiah by Isaiah.
Perhaps the compilation was the work of Ezra; by
whom, too, it is probable that the materials of the two
books of Chronicles were collected and arranged. There
is little doubt that the two books which follow in order
were written by the persons after whom they are call
ed ; the one by Ezra, and the other by Nehemiah. The
book of Esther is so designated, not because she
was the author of it, but because it relates the history
of that singular woman, and the deliverance which,
through her means, the Jews obtained from the power
of their enemies. It has been ascribed to Ezra, to
* 1 Chron. xxix. 29.

22

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

Mordecai, or to the distinguished persons who lived at
that time, and are known by the title of the Great
Synagogue. The truth of the facts which it relates is
established by the feast of Purim, which was instituted
in commemoration of them, and has been ever since
celebrated by the Jews.
Seme consider the bock of Job as a fiction of the
parabolical kind, as a dramatic work founded on tradi
tion, as an allegory, representing the sufferings and
deliverance of the Jews; and assign to it a compara
tively recent date. It is manifestly a true history ; but
by whom it was drawn up, is not certainly known.
There are endless disputes upon this subject ; and while
some attribute it to one author and some to another, the
most common opinion is, that it was the work of Job
himself, or of Moses.
The book of Psalms bears the name of David, sole
ly, however, because a considerable part of it was
composed by him. It contains the poetical composi
tions of different persons, some of which were written
before and others after his time. We do not know by
whom they were collected ; but the probability is in
favour of Ezra, who, according to the tradition of the
Jews, revised and corrected the text of the Sacred
Writings. The books attributed to Solomon are three, the Pro
verbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs ; and they
are generally admitted to be genuine. Grotius, indeed,
is of opinion, that Ecclesiastes is a pious and moral
composition of more recent, times, published in the
name of Solomon, and on the subject of his repentance :*
but. his skepticism is of no value in opposition to un
interrupted tradition. Gibbon has adopted his opinion,
and affirmed that " Ecclesiastes and Ihe Proverbs dis
play a larger compass of thought and experience than
seem to belong either to a Jew or a king."f But this
is an assumption without proof. Gibbon has assign
ed no reason why a Jew, without supposing him to be
inspired, might not have known as much of human
nature as a man of any other nation ; nor shown how
it was impossible that a king endowed with talents
of the first order, and devoted to study, should have
acquired an intimate and extensive acquaintance with
life and manners. The criticism is unworthy of at
tention. Is is an arbitrary decision founded upon an
arbitrary standard.
Next in order are the prophetical books, about the
writers of which there is no uncertainty, as their
names are prefixed to their respective works. Their
genuineness, like that of any other books, is ascertained
by competent testimony, namely, the testimony of
those among whom they appeared, and who were par
ticularly interested in them. They have always been
assigned to the persons whose names they bear. It
has been represented or affirmed that they were writ
ten after the events which they pretend to foretell.
This charge was brought by Porphyry, the noted ad
versary of Christianity in the third century, against the
prophecies of Daniel, which relate so particularly the
transactions of the successors of Alexander the Great
in Syria and Egypt, that the whole seems to be rather
a narrative than a prediction. But, besides that the
date is ascertained by unquestionable testimony, the
charge is repelled by the fact that the books contain
prophecies which, without all doubt, were not fulfilled
till after the time when they are known to have existed-
There are predictions in the book of Daniel respectino-
the Roman empire which have been accomplished since
the days of Porphyry.
You must have remarked, that nothing certain is
known concerning the writers of some parts of the Old
Testament: but our ignorance in this point does not
impair their credit, because they have been received by
* Annot. ad Vet. Test, f Gibbon's Hist. ch. xii. note 33.

the Jews as authentic records of the transactions rela
ted in them ; and their testimony will appear to be of
great weight, if we attend to the circumstances in
whieh it was delivered. Whether the books of Moses
were human or divine compositions, we know that
they believed them to be inspired ; and, under this im
pression they would be very careful what other books
they admitted to complete the standard of their faith
and practice. Every composition would not obtain this
honour; not even every composition which could claim
as its' author a person of distinguished wisdom and
piety. It is altcgther incredible that, while they look
ed upon the first books as a revelation- of the will of
God, and were warned in them against hastily recog
nising new claims to a divine mission, they would
make up their canon in a careless manner, and give
a place in it to writings of a doubtful origin, or coming
from persons without authority. Although some of
the writers are unknown to us, they were known to
them. A few of the books are anonymous, but not
supposititious. Their contemporaries were acquainted
with the authors, and fully assured that the works as
cribed to them were genuine. They would not have
ranked them with the books of Moses and the prophets,
or those whom they considered as prophets, unless they
had been satisfied that the authors had a similar com
mission and similar qualifications. We have all the
evidence which the case admits, that the Scriptures of
the Old Testament are genuine.
This reasoning is corroborated by the fact that the
Jews did not admit books into their canon indiscrimi
nately, but received some and rejected others ; thus show
ing that there were certain principles upon which they
proceeded in judging of their claims. We have a
proof, that in order to the reception of a book, it was
deemed necessary that its genuineness should be as
certained. At a latter period of their history, books
appeared which where dignified with the names of
some of the most celebrated persons of their country,
as Solomon, Daniel, Ezra, and Baruch. But they were
not imposed upon by the titles. It was understood
that these were not the real authors ; and hence, al
though they might be read, they never obtained any
anthority among the Jews.
I shall conclude with a few remarks upon the Apoc
ryphal books, which are the following : — two books
of Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Esther, the Wisdom of Solo
mon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Song of the Three
Children, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dra
gon, the prayer of Manasses, and four books of the
Maccabees. — Of these the church of Rome acknowl
edges as canonical only Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of
Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, the first and second book of
the Maccabees, Baruch, with the additions to Esther
and Daniel. It is certain, as I have already stated,
that they were not acknowledged by the Jews, so
as to be classed with the books which they held
sacred. For this we have the express testimony of
Josephus, who, having enumerated the canonical
Scriptures, informs us that there were other books
containing an account of the transactions of the nation,
which were not reputed of equal authority, because
they were written after the succession of prophets had
ceased ; and that it was a proof of the reverence of the
Jews for the canonical books, that, during the long
interval which had elapsed since their publication, no
person had dared to add to them, or to take from
them, or to make any alteration in them.* In this stage
of the inquiry, we are not at liberty to quote the New
Testament as any thing higher than human authority;
but as it was written by Jews, it may be fairly consid
ered as expressive of the sentiments of the nation re
specting the records of their religion. Now it is re-
* Joseph, cout. Apion. Lib. i.

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

23

markable, that the Apocryphal books are never cited
by Christ or his apostles. We cannot, indeed, produce
quotations from all the acknowledged books of the
Old Testament : but while there are references to the
greater part of them, they are all recognised under the
general division into the law, the prophets, and the
holy writings. It is impossible to account for the to
tal silence respecting the Apocryphal books, but. upon
the principle that the writers of the gospels and epis
tles did not regard them as possessed of sufficient au
thority to be appealed to in matters of religion. Some
of them were originally written in Greek, and conse
quently not in Judea, where a different language was
spoken after as well as before the captivity ; and others
are said to have been written in Chaldaic, but about this
point learned men are not agreed. We need not be
surprised that they were rejected by the Jews, when we
consider their contents. They contain fabulous ac
counts, and are chargeable with contradictions, which
render them unworthy of a place among the records of
their faith. It is unnecessary to say any thing farther
about them. Their exclusion from the canon by the
Jews places them on a level with other human compo
sitions. I have only to add, that it is a proof of the
stupidity as well as the impiety of the church of Rome,
that she has presumed to elevate them to equal honour
with the writings of Moses and the prophets, in defiance
-of the judgment of the Jewish, and I may add, of the
ancient Christian church. They were not admitted
into the catalogues drawn up by individuals, or by
councils, for several centuries ; and were regarded as
inferior to the writings which are accounted inspired
till the meeting of the council of Trent, which estab
lished error, idolatry, and superstition, by law. In
what esteem they were held in the days of Jerome, we
learn when he says, " As the church reads Judith, To
bit, and the booksDf the Maccabees, but does not re
ceive them among the canonical Scriptures, so let us
read Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon, for
the edification of the people, but not for the confirma
tion of doctrines."*

LECTURE V.
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
Genuineness of Books of the New Testament : Account of the
Gospels ; The Epistles of Paul ; The Epistle to the He
brews ; The Catholic Epistles ; The Revelation of John —
Apocryphal Writings — Lost Writings — Importance of the
Inquiry into the Genuineness of the Holy Scriptures— Ground
on which we believe them to be genuine.
I proceed to inquire into the genuineness of the
books of the New Testament. I have already pointed
out, in general, the importance of this inquiry in refer
ence to tbe sacred writings. There are many books of
which it does not concern us at all to know the authors,
and every purpose of information and amusement may
be gained, although we should remain in ignorance of
their origin. When we read a romance, or fictitious
story, we are pleased with the scenes and characters
which it describes, and feel a wish to know by whom
it was composed, only that our curiosity may be grati
fied, or that we may fix our rdmiration and gratitude
upon the person to whom they are due. A treatise upon
science which is distinguished by the accuracy of its
observations, the exactness of its arrangements, and the
clearness of its demonstrations, stands in need of no
name to recommend it, but rests upon its own intrinsic
merits. Even an anonymous narrative of facts maybe
authentic, because it is understood from collateral evi
dence to be a faithful record of transactions, and has al-
* Traef. in Lib. Salomi.

ways been received as such by competent judges. But
in the case of laws which are obligatory only because
they emanated from a particular source, and of facts
which could not be ascertained but by contemporary
testimony, and with which our highest interests are in
separably connected, the question of genuineness is of
primary importance, and can alone decide whether we
shall give credit to the facts, and submit to the laws.
The truth of this observation will be more evident,
if the facts are of a supernatural order; for, being out
of the usual course of nature, they require more par
ticular proof, and refusing to listen to vague reports,
we call for the testimony of eyewitnesses. An account
drawn up in a subsequent age is liable to the suspicion
of imposture. I shall give you, as an example, the
story of the miracles of Apollonius of Tyana, a famous
magician, who flourished towards the end of the first
century, and was pronounced to be not so properly a
philosopher, as an intermediate being between the gods
and men. The design of the heathens was to confront
his miracles with those of our Saviour, and to prove
that Apollonics was equal or superior to him. ' He was
represented as understanding all languages, although
he had not learned them; as knowing the language of
beasts, and the speech of the gods. Wonderful works
were ascribed to him, which appear to us perfectly
ridiculous ; as that he discovered at Ephesus the pesti
lence in the form of an old and tattered beggar, and
commanded the people to stone him ; and being present
at a marriage, detected the bride to be one of those ma
levolent spirits who were called Lamia;, Larvae, or
Lemures : but they were considered by his admirers as
undoubted proofs of divine power. It is true that such
a man existed, and imposed upcn the credulity of the
vulgar by juggling tricks ; but the credit of his mira
cles is destroyed by the fact, that the record was not
drawn up by any person who witnessed them, or lived
at the time when the account might have been subjected
to a strict examination, but by Philostratus and Hie-
rocles, of whom the one flourished in the third, and the
other in the fourth century. The first account did not
appear till near two hundred years after his death, when
the author was at liberty to say what he pleased.
Hence you perceive, that the question respecting the
genuineness of the writings of the New Testament is
connected with their authenticity. The' subject of in
quiry is, whether they were written in the age when
Jesus Christ is said to have appeared, and to have per
formed the miracles which are ascribed to him, or were
composed and published at a subsequent period. I shall
proceed to give you an account of the books.
I begin with the. gospel of Matthew. That he was
the writer of this bock, and that it was the first which
appeared, are facts supported by the uniform testimony
of antiquity. With respect to the time of its publica-
' tion, there has been a considerable diversity of opinion.
i It has been assigned by some to the year 61, 62, 63, or
64 ; by. others, to the year 41, 43, or 48 ; and by others,
to the year 37, or 38. As there is nothing in the book
j itself, or in the writings of the early Christians, by
! which the date can be settled, we must content our-
| selves with probability; and there appears to be con-
¦ siderable forre in the reasoning of Bishop Tomline,
; who prefers the year 38. " It appears very improbable
that the Christians should be left any considerable
number of years without a written history of our Sa
viour's ministry. It is certain that the apostles, imme
diately after the descent of the Holy Ghost, which took
place only ten days after the ascension of our Saviour
into heaven, preached the Gospel to the Jews with
great success; and surely it is reasonable to suppose ,
that an authentic account of our Saviour's doctrines
and miracles would very soon be committed to writing
for the confirmation of those who believed in his divine
mission, and for the conversion of others." " We may

24

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOG"

conceive that the apostles would be desirous of losing
no time in writing an account of the miracles which
Jesus performed, and of the discourses which he de
livered, because the sooner such an account was pub
lished, the easier it would be to inquire into its truth
and accuracy; and, consequently, when these points
were satisfactorily ascertained, the greater would be its
weight and authority."* There has been much contro
versy, in modern times, concerning the language in
which this gospel was written. By the ancients, Pa
pias, Irenaeus, and Origen, and by others who followed
them, it was said to have been written in Hebrew ;
but many learned men contend that the original was
Greek. Much credit is not due to the testimony of Pa
pias, who was a weak and credulous man. The works
of Irenaeus have been understood to import, that besides
the Greek, Matthew published also a Hebrew gospel.
Origen, in some passages, seems to proceed upon the
supposition, that if Matthew wrote in Hebrew, he wrote
also in Greek. To reconcile the opposite opinions, we
may say, that Matthew published his gospel both in
Hebrew, or the mixed dialect which then bore that
name, and in Greek : in Hebrew, for the use of the
Jews living in Judea, to whom that language was ver
nacular; and in Greek, for the use of Jews and Gen
tiles in other countries. Or we may reconcile them by
supposing that his gospel was translated into Hebrew,
and as it was generally believed to have been designed
for the inhabitants of Judea, in process of time the
translation was mistaken for the original. It is alto
gether improbable that this single book should have
been written in Hebrew, or in Hebrew alone, while all
the rest are in Greek ; and if it be inspired, as Christ
ians believe, that there should exist only a version by
an unknown hand, of whose competence and fidelity
we have no assurance. If it were a mere translation,
1 do not see that any dependence could be placed upon
it, except so far as it agrees with the other accounts.
The next gospel was written by Mark, who is com
monly supposed to be the sister's son of Barnabas, and
was called first John, and afterwards Mark ; but some
have entertained doubts whether this was the person.
He was not an apostle, but is said to have been the
constant attendant of Peter, and to have composed his
narrative with his approbation. The following account
is given by Eusebius. He tells us, that Peter having
preached at Rome, the people were so pleased with his
instructions, that they anxiously desired to have them
in writing; that by their earnest entreaties they pre
vailed upon Mark to draw up a memoir of them ; and
that Peter approved of what was done, and authorized
the writing to be introduced into the churches. f It
was even sometimes called the gospel of Peter, because
it was believed that he had revised it and given it
his sanction. These traditions are not absolutely cer
tain ; but there is universal consent respecting the pub
lication of the book at an early period, and the name
of the author. According to Eusebius and others, it
appeared at Rome ; but others assign to it a different
place, Alexandria in Egypt. It is not so certain as is
commonly supposed, that the apostle Peter was ever
in Rome ; but if we admit, upon the authority of anti
quity, that he did preach in that city, and that the oc
casion of writing this gospel was such as has been re
lated, it is probable that the date should be fixed some
where about the year 60. It is the voice of antiquity
that it was written in Greek ; but some authors in the
Romish church have maintained that the original was
Latin ; and give this reason for their opinion, that, as
it was drawn up for the use of the Romans, it must
have been presented to them in their own language.
But the argument proves too much, and therefore proves

* Introduct. to the study of the Bible, part ii. chap. ii.
t Euseb. Hist. lib. ii c. 14, 15.

nothing ; for it is acknowledged by all, that the epistle
sent by Paul to the Romans was not written in Latin,
but in Greek. It was long asserted that the original in
Latin was preserved in Venice ; but it has been discov
ered that it is the fragment of a manuscript, which has
no pretension to be the autograph of the evangelist. It
has been affirmed that the gospel of Mark is a mere
abridgment of the gospel of Matthew, and consequent
ly is not an independent testimony to the facts of the
evangelical history. But although this notion has ob
tained currency, it has been proved by different persons,
and particularly by Mr. Jones in his work on the canon,
to be without foundation. There is a resemblance be
tween the two gospels, but atthe sametime, there is such
a difference as shows that they are both original com
positions. " For the most part the accounts by Mark
are much more large and full, and related with many
more particular circumstances than the same accounts
are by Matthew." " The disagreement which seems
to be between the two evangelists in relating several
circumstances of their history, is a clear and demonstra
tive evidence that the one did not abridge or copy the
other." "Lastly, Mark's gospel is not an epitome of
Matthew's, because he has related several very consid
erable histories of which there is not the least mention
made by Matthew."*
The writer of the third gospel was Luke, who is sup
posed to have been a native of Antioch, descended from
Jewish parents, and by profession a physician. What
is most certain is, that he was the companion of Paul in
his travels, and a witness of many of the things which
he relates concerning that apostle in the Acts. The
time when he published his gospel is not ascertained,
some referring it to the year 53, and others to the year
63, or 64; and so also is the place, there being no evi
dence to determine whether it was written in Achaia, or
Syria, or Palestine. All antiquity agrees in ascribing
it to Luke. The superiority of the style, which ap
proaches nearer to the classical standard, has given rise
to the idea that he had been better educated than the
other evangelists. The occasion of writing his gospel
is thus stated by himself. "Forasmuch as many have
taken in hand to set in order a declaration of those things
which are most surely believed among us, even as they
delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were
eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word ; it seemed
good to me, also, having had perfect understanding of
all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order,
most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know
the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been
instructed."-)- These words might almost lead us to
think that the gospel of Luke was the first, were it not
for the unanimous testimony of antiquity to the contrary.
It was natural that the Christians should be desirous to
have an accredited account of the actions and sayings
of our Lord: and this would be an inducement to differ
ent individuals to come forward with their narratives.
It is true that the gospels of Matthew and Mark were
already in circulation ; but some of the accounts might
have appeared before them ; and even after those gos
pels were published, the curiosity or the wishes of the
public would not be immediately satisfied, as copies
could not be so rapidly multiplied as they now are by the
press, and there was still loom for the labours of others.
But, as it happens in cases of this kind, their narratives
would be imperfect, and, it maybe, inaccurate. Luke,
indeed, does not directly charge them with unfaithful
ness or mistake, but speaks of them merely as " dec
larations of the things which were believed among
Christians," founded on the report of eyewitnesses. It
is evident, however, that he considered his new narra
tive as called for ; and he seems to intimate, when he

* Jones on the Canon, vol. iii, pp. 56. 79. 79.
t Luke, i.l— 4.

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

25

says that he "had a perfect understanding," or had
accurately traced " all things from the first," that his
information was more extensive and correct.
The last gospel, it is acknowledged by all the an
cients, was written by John. He was one of the sons
of Zebedee, is frequently mentioned in the evangelical
history, and is distinguished from the other apostles as
" the disciple whom Jesus loved." We may conceive
him, therefore, while employed in compiling this book,
not only to have obeyed the impulse of inspiration, but
to have experienced the melting tenderness of heart
with which a person records the actions and sayings of
a friend. While his thoughts were elevated to Jesus '
Christ reigning on the throne of heaven, he could not
but remember that this was he with whom he had lived
on familiar terms, and on whose bosom he was once j
permitted to lean. It is peculiar to this gospel that it
gives us the name of the writer, or what is equivalent, '
refers to the well-known affection which subsisted be-[
tween him and our Saviour ; while the names of the ¦
other evangelists are known only by tradition. " This '
is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and :
wrote these things."* The date of it is as uncertain
as that of the other gospels. Some have assigned the
year 68, 69, or 70 ; and as a proof that it was prior to
the destruction of Jerusalem, these words have been
appealed to : " Now there is at Jerusalem, by the sheep-
market, a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue,
Bethesda, having five porches."f He does not say
there was, but there is such a pool. There are some
authorities in favour of m instead of wn ; but not to
lay any stress upon these, we may remark that, although
the walls and nouses of Jerusalem were demolished,
the pool might remain, and the porches might have
been left standing to afford accommodation to the Roman
garrison, and to others who occasionally visited the ru
ins ; so that the mention of it, as in existence, determines
nothing respecting the date of the gospel. Notwith
standing this passage, it is by many considered as pos
terior to the fall of the holy city, and supposed to have
been written about the year 97, after John had returned
from Patmos, to which he was banished by the emperor
Domitian. If this be the true date, the apostle must have been
very old. It is probable that he was about the same
age with our Lord ; and since his ascension, between
sixty and seventy years had elapsed. In other words,
the year 97 marks both his age and the date of his book.
I add, that if we adopt this date, the gospel is the last
book of the New Testament, and not the Revelation, as
is commonly thought. John is reported to. have spent
much of his time during the latter part of his life in
Asia Minor, and it is the general opinion that his gos
pel was published there. The narrative is in a great
measure new : he omits most of the facts which are
mentioned by the other evangelists, and relates particu
lars which they have left out ; and hence it would
seem that his narrative appeared after theirs, and was
intended to be supplementary to them. We are informed,
too, by Irenaeus, Jerome, and others, that one important
design which he had in view, was to confute the erro
neous dogmas of various heretics, the Ebionites, the
Cerinthians, and the Nicolaitans, concerning the person
of Christ. Accordingly, while Matthew, Mark, and
Luke begin with an account of his human birth, the
gospel of John opens with a solemn testimony to his
pre-existence and divinity. " In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God.":): The subject is repeatedly brought for
ward more fully and explicitly than by the other evan
gelists. Eusebius quotes the words of Clement of
Alexandria to the following effect, " that John, the last
of the evangelists, observing that corporeal things had

been explained in the other gospels, and being impelled
by his acquaintances, and moved by the Spirit, com
posed a spiritual gospel."* With respect to the com
position in general, Dr. Campbell says that it bears
marks more signal than any of the gospels, that it is the
work of an illiterate Jew;f and other critics have re
marked upon the homeliness and inaccuracy of the style.
On the other hand, Michaelis has pronounced the style
to be better than that of the other gospels, and ascribes
this -superiority to the skill in the Greek language,
which the apostle had acquired by a long residence in
Ephesus."i; In such uncertainty are we left, when we
depend upon the opinions of others. It is somewhat
strange that so distinguished a scholar should prefer
the style of John to that of Luke.
Irenaeus, in his work Adversus Hsereses, has assigned
reasons why there are four gospels, and there could not
be more. You will readily anticipate that they are fan
ciful, and will be convinced that they deserve this char
acter when you hear that these are two of them ; — there
are four regions of the world in which the gospel was
to be preached, and the cherubims between whom Jesus
Christ sits had each four faces. We cannot tell why
four were published, and not three only ; but we may
safely suppose the reason for more than one to have
been, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses, the
history of our Lord might be established.
If the gospel of Luke is acknowledged to be genu
ine, it follows that he was the writer of the Acts of the
Apostles. This appears from the introduction to the lat
ter book. " The former treatise have I made, O Theo
philus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
until the day in which he was taken up."|| As the
two treatises were composed by the same author, and
addressed to the same person, it has been supposed that
they were drawn up and published at the same time.
At any rate, if the date which we have assigned to his
gospel be correct, the interval between its appearance
and the publication of the Acts could not be long. The
history in the Acts comes down to the end of the two
years of Paul's imprisonment at Rome ; soon after which,
he was set at liberty in the year 63. It is probable, that
about this time, this second treatise was sent to Theo
philus. You will observe that Luke gives no account of
the martyrdom of Paul ; undoubtedly because he com
posed this narrative before it ; and it is understood, that
after having enjoyed his liberty for a short period, the
apostle was again brought before the tribunal of Ne
ro, and condemned. The design of Luke was not to
give a complete account of the propagation of the gos
pel, but to show that in obedience to the command of
our Saviour, it was published first to the Jews, and then
to the Gentiles. Accordingly, having recorded the
events of the day of Pentecost, and some subsequent
proceedings of the apostles in Jerusalem and Samaria,
he enters upon the history of Paul, and sets before us
a summary of the labours of that zealous and indefati
gable servant of Christ among the Gentiles. With the
exception of Peter and John, we hear little or nothing
of the other apostles, although there can be no doubt
that they were equally faithful and diligent in publish
ing the religion of their divine Master.
I proceed to speak of the epistles which have been
divided into two classes, the epistles of Paul, and the
Catholic epistles. Those of Paul are fourteen in num
ber, but are not placed in our Bibles in the order in
which they were written. The epistle to the Romans
stands first, because it was addressed to the inhabitants
of the capital ; and then follow two epistles to the
Christians of Corinth, a large and flourishing city of
Greece. If they had been arranged according to their
respective dates, the two epistles of the Thessalonians

* John xxi. 24. D

f John v. 2.

\ John i. 1.

* Hist. lib. vi. c. xiv.
f Campbell on the Gospels, Preface to John.
| Marshe's Michaelis, vol, iii. p. 16.

Acts i. 1.

26

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

would have stood first, because they preceded all the
rest. The epistles of James and Jude, the two epistles
of Peter, and the three of John, were called Catholic,
because they are not addressed to particular churches
and individuals, but to Christians in every part of the
world. But there is an obvious error in this statement ;
the second and third epistles of John ought to _ have
been excluded from the number, since the former is ad
dressed to a person whom he calls the elect lady, or, as
some think, the Lady Eclecta, and the latter to Gaius.
Even then, the classification would have been inaccu
rate. The first epistle of Peter is addressed to the
strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappa-
docia, Asia, and Bithynia ; not to the whole society of
Christians in the world, but to that part of them which
resided in those countries ; and the epistle of James
was sent to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, and con
sequently, is not more catholic than the epistle to the
Hebrews. Thus you see, that this ancient division of
the epistles is destitute of any foundation.
There is no difficulty in ascertaining the writer of
the epistles which are ascribed to Paul, because he
gives his name in the superscription, and sometimes in
troduces it towards the end. Thus, he says, in the
second epistle to the Thessalonians, " The salutation
of Paul, with mine own hand, which is the token in
every epistle : so I write."* It appears, that for some
cause not mentioned, perhaps because his handwriting
was not good, he commonly employed an amanuensis ;
not always, however, for he says to the Galatians, " Ye
see how large a letter I have written to you with mine
own hand."f But when he did use the pen of another,
he wrote the- salutation himself to authenticate the epis
tle, or that those to whom it was sent might be satisfied
that it was genuine.
It is not my business at present to give a summary
of the contents of the epistles ; and I shall satisfy my
self with a brief notice of the time when each is sup
posed to have been written. The most probable date
of the Epistle to the Romans is the year 57 or 58. The
first Epistle to the Corinthians, was written in the year
56 or 57, and the second in the following year. It has
been made a question, whether Paul wrote any other
epistle to the Corinthians, and it is founded upon these
words in his first epistle, " I wrote to you in an epistle,
not to keep company with fornicators."^: Learned
men are divided in opinion, some contending that there
was an epistle which has not been preserved, and oth
ers that he refers to the epistle which he was at that
moment writing. There is nc doubt that the apostles
wrote many letters which are not in existence, and
might not be intended for the general use of the
church ; but tradition makes mention of only two epis
tles to the Corinthians, although the words naturally
suggest that there was another which has not come
down to us. The date of the Epistle to the Galatians
is very uncertain, and it has been assigned almost to
every year between 48 and 52. The Epistle to the
Ephesians was written during his imprisonment in
Rome, probably in the year 61. Some learned men have
conteided that this epistle was sent, not to the Ephe
sians, but to the Laodiceans. The reasons which they
give are so insufficient, that we cannot conceive how
any person of discernment should have been satisfied
with them. Paul says to the Colossians, " When this
epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in
the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read
the epistle from Laodicea."|| But how this passage
proves the point, it is not very easy to see. It is not a
clear inference, that an epistle from Laodicea is an epis
tle which Paul had sent to Laodicea. We do not know
what it was ; it may have been a letter from the Laodi-

* 2 Thess. iii. 17.
} 1 Cor. v. 9.

Gal. vi. 11.
Col. iv. 16.

ceans to Paul, about matters in which the Colossians
were concerned, and of which, therefore, he transmitted
a copy to them. There is certainly not the slightest
evidence that it was the epistle to the Ephesians. It
is not so called in a single manuscript, and Ephesus is
named as the place to which it was sent, in all manu
scripts now extant, except one in which it is omitted.
The Epistle to the Philippians was written while Paul
was a prisoner in the year 62 or 63 ; and the same date
may be assigned to the Epistle to the Colossians. The
two epistles to the Thessalonians were earlier, and were
written about the year 52. There is much dispute about
the date of the first Epistle to Timothy, which has been
fixed to the years 57 and 64. The second was written
while Paul was in bonds, but whether during his first
or second imprisonment, is doubtful. It has been re
ferred to the year 65. It is not known when, or where,
the Epistle to Titus was composed; and several years
have been mentioned from 52 to 65. Paul was in Rome
when he sent his letter to Philemon, and probably wrote
it in the year 62.
Of the epistles of Paul, there remains only to be con
sidered that which is addressed to the Hebrews. But,
although its antiquity is acknowledged, its genuineness
has been disputed, on account, not only of the omission
of the name, but of the difference of the style. Jerome
says, in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, that it
was believed not to be Paul's, because the style was
different; and that it was attributed to Barnabas, to
Luke, or to Clement, bishop of Rome, who arranged
and expressed, in his own words, the sentiments of Paul.
Some thought that Paul wrote in Hebrew, and that
another person translated it into Greek. Origen affirms, .
that the epistle does not exhibit the simple and humble
form of speech which is usual to Paul, but is composed
in purer Greek ; that the sentiments, however, are ad
mirable, and not inferior to those of his acknowledged
epistles. "I would say," he adds, "that the senti
ments are Paul's ; but that the language is that of
another person, who committed them to writing; but
who wrote the epistle, God only knows."* At the
same time, he admits that it may be received as an
epistle of Paul. It is attributed to him, at an earlier
period, by Clemens Alexandrinus, and finally was ac
knowledged as his production by the Catholic church.
Some learned men have denied that there is such a dif
ference of style as warrants the supposition of a different
authw There are also internal proofs that it was writ
ten by him, consisting in its similarity to his other
epistles, in expressions, allusions, and modes of inter
preting and applying passages of the Old Testament.
It was sent from Italy ; and, as he proposed soon to
visit the Hebrews, in company with Timothy, then re
stored to liberty, it must have been written after his
own release from prison, in the year 62 or 63.
There remain to be considered the Catholic epistles.
The genuineness of them all, with the exception of the
first epistle of Peter, and the first of John, was, for a
time, called in question by some; but, upon accurate
examination, they were finally received as the produc
tions of those to whom they were ascribed. The first,
according to the order in our Bibles, is the Epistle of
James, who has prefixed his name to it, and addressed it
to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. There was another
person of this name, who was the brother of John, and was
put to death by Herod ; but this James was the son of Al
pheus, or Cleophas, and is called the brother of our Lord,
because he was nearly related to him. He is sometimes
called James the Just; this honourable title having been
given to him, for the distinguished holiness of his life.
He is said to have resided much in Jerusalem, where
he wrote this epistle, it is supposed, in the year 61, and
suffered martyrdom in the year 62. The first epistle
* Quoted by Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. vi. u. 25.

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

27

of Peter was sent from Babylon; but learned men are
not agreed what city is meant; some of the ancients
supposed, and several of the moderns concur with them
in thinking, that it is the mystical Babylon, or the city
of Rome. Their reasons I consider as by no means
satisfactory. Rome is, indeed, called Babylon in the
Revelation of John, but we have no evidence that it had
received that name in Peter's time, and still less that it
was so common as, without any danger of mistake, to
suggest the proper sense to the Christian reader. It is
impossible to conceive any reason why, in a plain epistle
and a common salutation, Rome should be called Baby
lon. In whatever place it was written, the epistle is
assigned to the year 64. The second epistle seems to
have been written not long after, for the apostle signifies
that his death was near, which is said to have taken
place in ^the year 65. Although no name is prefixed to
the first epistle of John, it was received by the ancient*
church as genuine, and contains internal evidence that
it was written by him, in its striking similarity to his
gospel, both in sentiment and in language. Various
dates have been assigned to it, from the yeaT 68 to 92.
From the expression, "It is the last time,"* it has been
inferred, that it was written when the Jewish state was
drawing to an end, or shortly before the destruction of
Jerusalem ; but the expression has been understood of
the close of the apostolic age. The second and third
epistles have been referred to the year 69. It was some
time before they were acknowledged as genuine ; and
as they were addressed to individuals, it is probable
that some time elapsed before they were generally known.
Jude, who is also called Lebbasus and Thaddeus, was
a son of Alpheus, and like James the Less, the brother
or near relative of our Lord. His short epistle, which
was addressed to the saints in general, has been as
signed to the year 70. The quotation of a prophecy of
Enoch, which is not found in the Scriptures, is no ar
gument against the genuineness or the authenticity of
the epistle, because it was a true prophecy, in whatever
way he came to the knowledge.of it. We have no
reason to believe that the Apocryphal book, called the
prophecy of Enoch, from which some have supposed it
to be taken, was then in existence ; and we may pre
sume that the forgery was suggested by the passage in
Jude. The last book of the New Testament is the Revela
tion of John. Its genuineness was called in question
by some in the third and the fourth centuries, but it
was received at an early period as the work of the
apostle. Polycarp, who was his disciple, has cited it
once. Justin Martyr, in a. d. 140, acknowledges it as
his ; and Irenaeus, who was ihe disciple of Polycarp,
repeatedly quotes it as the production of John the disci
ple of the Lord. To these may be added, in the sec
ond century, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Apollonius,
Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, who defends
the book against Marcion and his followers. Several ob
jections against the genuineness of the Revelation were
advanced by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, about
the middle of the third century, who ascribed it to
another John, an elder of the church of Ephesus ; but
most of them are trifling, and none of them is sufficient
to invalidate the testimony in its favour. The suspi
cions of some were founded on a fancied resemblance
between the prediction of the reign of Christ with his
saints for a thousand years, and the doctrine of Cerin-
thus, that our Saviour would establish a kingdom upon
earth, in which his subjects would be admitted to the
unrestrained enjoyment of carnal delights. We can
only wonder at the stupidity of those who confounded
things totally different. The Revelation was omitted
in several of the catalogues of the canonical books ; but
the reason seems to have been, that on account of its
* 1 John ii. 18.

obscurity, it was not deemed proper to be publicly read.
The prophetic visions recorded in it, were seen in Pat-
mos, to which John had been banished by Domitian,
and from which he was permitted to return after the
death of that emperor. This happened in the year
96, and about that time the book may be dated.
There were many books in former times which
pretended to be the productions of the persons to whom
the acknowledged books are ascribed. They are so
numerous, that it would be a waste of time to go over
them all. A few of them remain, but the greater part
have perished. I may mention the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel according
to the Egyptians, the Gospel of Thomas, the Revela
tion of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, and some books
under the name of Christ. Of all these, nothing is
left but the names and a few fragments. But we have
still the Gospel of Mary, the Protevangeleum of James,
the Gospel of our Saviour's infancy, the Gospel of
Nicodemus or the acts of Pilate, the Acts of Paul and
Thecla, a Letter of our Lord to Abgarus, king of Edes-
sa, and letters of Paul to Seneca. -All these books have
been rejected as spurious, because they contain histories
and doctrines contrary to those which were known to be
true ; because the matter is silly, and evidently fabulous ;
because things are related in them which were posterior
to the times in which those lived under whose names
they were published ; because the style is different from
that of the authors to whom they are ascribed ; and be
cause they breathe a different spirit from that of the per
sons by whom they claim to have been written. No men
tion is made of them by the Christian authors of the first
century, Barnabas, Hermas, and Clemens ; or by Igna
tius and Polycarp, of the second ; succeeding writers
rarely refer to them, and then speak of them in terms
expressive of disrespect ; they were forbidden to be
read in the churches, and were not appealed to as au
thorities in matters of doctrine and controversy. They
were treated as human compositions, and as forgeries ;
and those which have survived the wreck, are such
wretched compositions, that only the most stupid of
mankind could deem them worthy of a place among
the books of the New Testament.
The question, Whether any books have been lost %
will admit of different answers, according as the ques
tion is stated. We have no reason to think that any
book which the evangelists or apostles wrote for the
permanent use of the church, has disappeared, because
no hint of this kind is given by those who, living near
their time, had the best opportunities of knowing.
Much that was spoken by inspiration was never record
ed, for the apostles, we believe, were assisted by the
Spirit in preaching as well as in writing ; and it is not
to be doubted, that they sent letters to individuals and
to societies, which did not long survive the occasions
which they were intended to serve. There were many
prophets under the Jewish dispensation, of whom we
have no memorial but their names, although it may be
presumed that their predictions were sometimes com
mitted to writing. It is said of Jeroboam, son of Joash,
king of Israel, " he that restored the coast of Israel,
from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain,
according to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which
he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of
Amittai the prophet, which was of Gath-hepher."*
Now, here is a prediction which was preserved, but of
whieh there is not a vestige in the Old Testament, till
it is incidentally mentioned at the time of its fulfilment.
There may have been, and there must have been, many
other prophecies written down and fulfilled, of which
no trace remains. The gospels contain only a small
specimen of the miracles and discourses of our Saviour;
the greater part is irrecoverably gone — " The world it-

* 2 Kings xiv. 25.

28

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

•elf could not contain the books which might have been
written."* What we contend for is, not that all the
writings of the apostles have been transmitted tons,
but that those have been preserved which were design
ed to convey the religion of Christ to succeeding gen
erations. And hence it follows, that although the in
ference were true, which some have drawn from a pas
sage in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, formerly
quoted, that there was another epistle addressed by
Paul to that church, which has perished, there .would
be nothing in the idea to startle us and to disturb our
faith, because we have no reason to suppose that all
that inspired men wrote was to be preserved, any more
than all that they spoke. It is enough that we possess
all the books which were considered by the Christians
in the early ages, as constituting the perpetual rule of
faith and manners to the church.
This historical account of the books of the New
Testament is intended to assist us in the inquiry whe
ther they are genuine ; an inquiry which may appear
to some, but 1 trust to none of you, to be superfluous,
or perhaps impious, because it may be understood to
imply a state of mind approaching to infidelity.
' What !' it may be said, ' shall we dare to doubt that
the New Testament is the work of the evangelists and
apostles ?' To this question we would answer, that
the inquiry doe's not proceed from any suspicion, but is
instituted for the purpose of satisfying ourselves, or, if
we are already satisfied, of convincing others, who are
not so well informed, that the books really possess the
authority which is commonly ascribed to them. We
are bound to give a reason of our faith ; and it is par
ticularly incumbent upon those to be able to do so, who
are the appointed guardians of religion, and are official
ly called to defend it against the attacks of its adversa
ries. The subject, however, does not meet with all
the attention which it deserves. There may be minis
ters of the gospel who are very slightly acquainted
with it ; and among the private members of the church,
it is rare to find any who have thought of it at all. It
was long ago observed by Mr. Baxter, that "few
Christians among us have any better than the popish
implicit faith on this point, nor any better arguments
than the papists have, to prove the Scriptures the word
of God. They have received it by tradition ; godly
ministers and Christians tell them so ; it is impious to
doubt of it ; therefore they believe it. Though we could
persuade people never so confidently, that Scripture is
the very word of God, and yet teach them no more rea
son why they should believe this than any other book
to be that word ; as it will prove in them no right way
of believing, so it is in us no right way of teaching."
" Many ministers never give their people better ground
than their own authority, or that of the church, but tell
them that it is damnable to deny it, but help them not
to the necessary antecedents of faith. "f
It has been said, that " we receive the Scriptures of
the Old and New Testament as the only sacred and
canonical books, not because the church receives them
as such, but because the Holy Ghost witnesses to our
consciences that they proceed from God, and them
selves testify their authority." Similar assertions have
been made by other learned and pious individuals, but
they require to be explained. We do not deny that a
man may be convinced of the truth of the gospel by
internal evidence. He may have the witness in him
self, because it has come to him with such power and
demonstration, that he could no more doubt that it was
the word of God, than if it had been proclaimed by a
voice, from heaven. Many have firmly believed the
truth, and led a holy life, and submitted to death for
Christ, who had no other evidence. But observe, that

* John xxi. 25.
f Baxter's Saints' Rest, part ii. chap. ii. § 1.

this evidence could go no farther than to satisfy them
that those doctrines and promises were from God, by
which they were enlightened, sanctified, comforted and
inspired with more than human courage, and with the
triumphant hope of immortality. How could it con
vince them that all the books of the Bible are divine ?
How could it enable them to distinguish, as the French
church pretends, between the canonical and the apocry
phal books ? There is more reason and truth in the words
of Baxter : — " For my part, I confess, I could never
boast of any such testimony or light of the Spirit,
which, without human testimony, would have made me
believe that the book of Canticles is canonical, and
written by Solomon, and the book of Wisdom apocry
phal and written by Philo. Nor could I have known
all or any historical books, such as Joshua, Judges,
Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah,
to be written by divine inspiration, but by tradition."

LECTURE VI.
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
General Evidence of the Genuineness of theNew Testament-
Testimony of early Writers ; Of early Heretics, and Infidels :
The. Syriac Version — Force of these Testimonies — Internal
Marks of Genuineness ; The Style ; The nature of the Com
position, and Narrative : Discrepancies and Coincidences—
Paley 's Hora? Paulinas.
Having given an account of the books of the New
Testament, I proceed to lay before you the evidence by
which it is proved that they were written by the persons
whose names they bear. This work has been already
performed with great diligence and learning by differ
ent authors, among whom I refer you, in particular, to
Jones, in his new and full method of settling the can
onical authority of the New Testament ; and to Lard
ner, in the second part of his Credibility of the Gospel
History. The subject may be said to have been ex
hausted by them ; and nothing is left to others, but to
verify their references by consulting the original au
thors, or now and then, perhaps, to add a passage which
had escaped their observation.
The persons, in the early ages, to whom we are
chiefly indebted for information, are Eusebius, Jerome,
and Origen, of whom the two former flourished in the
fourth century, and the latter in the third. They were
all men of great learning, and had devoted their time
and talents to the study of the Scriptures. Eusebius
has divided the writings, which claimed to be received
as a rule of faith and practice to Christians, into three
classes.* Those of the first class are the y(±yu i/a,\t-
y!.v/j.iicu,X which are the four gospels, the Acts of the
Apostles, the epistles of Paul, the first epistle of John,
and the first epistle of Peter ; and to these he says, may
be added, if it should seem proper, the Revelation of
John. Those of the second class, are the ypnqzt wjm-
yo/j.viai,\ writings, the genuineness of which was doubted
by some. These are the epistle of James, the epistle
of Jude, the second epistle of Peter, and the second
and third of John, because it was uncertain whethei
they were written by him, or by another person of the
same name. It appears, however, that these books were
acknowledged by the majority of Christians. Those of
the third class are the yp*<t>cu vd*i, spurious writings, as
the acts of Paul, Andrew, John, and other apostles, and
gospels under the names of Peter, Thomas, and Ma-
thias, the epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of
Hermas. Eusebius distinguishes the spurious from the canoni-
* Euseb. Hist. lib. iii. cap. 25.
t Writings admitted to be genuine.
t Contested writings, whose genuineness is disputed.

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

29

cal books by two internal marks. The first arises from
the style, which is quite different from that of the apos
tles,  0 TilC Ip-JTIW TTApaL TO »8op TO rtiTOO-TCXncoV WAWctTTil Xty*'
»fnp.* The second is furnished by the sentiments and
design, which are at variance with orthodoxy, and show
them to be the compositions of heretical men — i nymfm
K*l » Taif tV dJUTMS QipOfAiWV TTpOAtpilTtC TThiStrTOV 0O"0V TUP fitM6oy?
cp8ti£t}£ia.s a.iraJoutrtt.j
Eusebius uses another argument against the spurious
books, and it is this ; that no ecclesiastical writer, in the
succession from the apostles, had deemed them worthy
to be mentioned. They are not appealed to as books
of authority ; they are not quoted as the productions of
inspired and apostolical men. Now, by considering
this omission as a proof that they are forgeries, Euse
bius suggests to us the plan which we should adopt,
with a view to ascertain the genuineness of the Scrip
tures ; and it is the plan which was pursued by him
self. We must have recourse to those who were con
temporaries of the apostles and evangelists, or flourish
ed soon afterthem, and see whether they knew any thing
about the books which are commonly ascribed to
them. The only Christian writers of the first century of
whom there are any remains, are Clement, Barnabas,
and Hennas. Clement is mentioned in the epistle to
the Philippians as a fellow-labourer of Paul, and as
one whose name is in the book of life ; and he is said,
by the ancients, to have been bishop of Rome. There
are two epistles under his name, addressed to the church
of Corinth, the first of which is generally admitted to
be genuine, but suspicions are entertained of the second.
Barnabas was the companion of Paul. I should think,
that any person who peruses the epistle ascribed to him
would be convinced that he was not the author of it,
and that it is the composition of another person of the
same name, or who assumed his name. It is believed,
however, to be a work of the first century ; and the
same date is assigned to the Pastor or Shepherd of
Hermas, who is supposed, although not with good rea
son, to be the Hermas mentioned in the epistle to the
Romans. In the epistle of Clement, there are at least
eight quotations from, or allusions to the gospel of Mat
thew ; six to the gospel of Luke ; one to the gospel of
John ; two to the Acts of the Apostles. In the epistle
of Barnabas, there are seven to the gospel of Mat
thew, and one at least to the gospel of John. In the
Shepherd of Hermas, there are nine to the gospel of
Matthew. I have not mentioned any quotations from
Mark, or references to it : and the reason is, that in
consequence of the similarity of his gospel to that of
Matthew, it is not easy to determine whether some of
the passages were cited from the one or from the
other. With these maybe joined Ignatius, who was their
contemporary, but survived them, and finished his
course in the early part of the second century. From
an expression in one of his epistles, it has been con
cluded that he saw Christ in the flesh. He is said to
have been appointed bishop of Antioch about thirty-
seven years after the ascension ; and having continued
in office forty years, he suffered martyrdom at Rome.
The testimony of such a man is of inestimable value,
both because he had the best opportunities of ascer
taining what books had come from the original teachers
of religion, with several of whom he may be presumed
to have been personally acquainted, and because, being
a Christian and a bishop, he would be careful not to
admit, but upon sufficient grounds, any writing as the
rule of his faith. Now, in his epistles we find eight
* The character of the style itself is very different from that
of the apostles.
f The sentiments and purport of the things advanced in
them, deviate very far from sound orthodoxy.

quotations from the gospel of Matthew, one from Luke,
and two or three from John.
The next in order is Polycarp, who lived in the first
century, and conversed with the apostle John. He was
made bishop of Smyrna about the year 94 or 95, and
suffered martyrdom in the year 167, having attained a
very great age, and served Christ, as ho told the judge
who condemned him, eighty years. There is extant on
ly one epistle sent by him to the Philippians, in which
we cannot expect many quotations. There are, howev
er, six from the gospel of Matthew, and in some frag
ments two more, and one quotation from the Acts.
Justin, who is commonly called Martyr, because he
suffered death for Christ in the year 140, is a more vol
uminous author, and consequently furnishes many more
references to the gospels. There have been collected
out of his works, from thirty to forty passages from
the gospel of Matthew, nine from the gospel of Luke,
five from the gospel of John, and one from the Acts.
They are often cited in a book which goes under his
name, but it is not believed to be. his, and is entitled
Questions and Answers to the Orthodox.
In the writings of Irenasus, bishop of Lyons, who
flourished from a. d. 179 to a. d. 202, the quotations
are numerous. He has taken at least two hundred and
fifty passages from Matthew, and several times cited
his gospel by name ; seven passages from Mark, and
names him twice ; above one hundred from the gospel
of Luke; above one hundred. and twenty from the gos
pel of John ; and he very often refers to the Acts. In
the book adversus Hsereses,* he adopts the fanciful idea,
that there could only be four gospels, and assigns fan
ciful reasons for it ; but he mentions them all by name,
and gives a summary of their contents.
Quotations are also found in the writings of Athena-
goras and Theophilus of Antioch. In the works of
Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian, they are so fre
quent, that we do not attempt to specify the number.
It has been observed that " there are more and larger
quotations of the small volume of the New Testament
in the writings of one Christian author, Tertullian, than
there are of all the works of Cicero in writers of all
characters for several ages."f
Hitherto, I have produced testimonies in favour only
¦.of the historical books, the gospels and the Acts. If
these are admitted to be genuine, there will -not be
much dispute about the epistles, which are so closely
connected with the scheme unfolded in the writings of
the evangelists, being an illustration and continuation
of it. Clemens Alexandrinus not only gives an account
of the order in which the gospels were written, and
cites Luke as the author of the Acts, but quotes al
most every book of the New Testament by name. Ire
naeus, whose means of ascertaining the truth were the
best, as he was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the
disciple of John, has not only ascribed the four gospels
and the Acts to their respective authors, but has ac
knowledged as canonical and genuine the epistle to
the Romans, the epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians,
Philippians, and Colossians, the first and second epis
tles to the Thessalonians, the two epistles to Timothy,
the epistle to Titus, the two epistles of Peter, and the
first and second epistles of John. He has alluded to
the epistle to the Hebrews, has quoted the epistle of
James, and borne express testimony to the book of
Revelation. Justin Martyr not only makes mention of
the memoirs of the apostles, and the memoirs of Christ,
evidently meaning the gospels, but refers to the Acts,
the epistle to the Romans, the first epistle to the Cor
inthians, the epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Phi
lippians, and Colossians, the second epistle to the
Thessalonians, the first epistle of Peter, and the book
* Against the Heresies.
f Lardner's Credibility, part ii. chap. 27

30

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

of Revelation. Polycarp alludes to several other books
of the New Testament besides the gospels, the epis
tle to the Romans, the first and second epistles to the
Corinthians, the epistle to the Ephesians, the first epis
tle to Timothy, the first epistle of Peter, and the first
epistle of John. In the seven epistles of Ignatius
which are supposed to be genuine, there are quotations
from, or manifest allusions to theepistle to the Romans,
the first and second epistles to the Corinthians, the
epistle to the Galatians, the epistle to the Ephesians,
the epistle to the Philippians, the epistle to the Colos
sians, the second epistle to the Thessalonians, the two
epistles to Timothy, the epistle to Titus, the epistle to
the Hebrews, the epistle of James, and the first epistle
of Peter. In the epistle of Clemens Romanus, the
following books are cited ; the epistle to the Romans,
the two epistles to the Corinthians, the epistle to the
Philippians, the. first epistle to the Thessalonians, the
first epistle to Timothy, the epistle to the Hebrews, the
epistle of James, the first and second of Peter, and the
Revelation. The works of Barnabas and Hermas also
contain allusions to several books, but they are less
frequent and explicit, because the subject of the epistle
of Barnabas led him to refer rather to the Old Testa
ment, and the Shepherd of Hermas is composed in the
form of a vision.
It is observable, that the quotations and allusions are
sometimes accompanied with the names of the apostles
and evangelists, but frequently they are omitted. " This
proves," says Paley, speaking of the gospels, " that
these books were perfectly notorious, and that there
were no other accounts of Christ then extant, or at least,
no other so received arid credited, as to make it neces
sary to distinguish these from the rest."* The obser
vation may be applied to the other parts of the New
Testament. References to them without any specifica
tion of their titles or authors show, that they were well
known, that they were considered as standard books,
that their sayings were received as authoritative, and
consequently, that they were understood to be genuine.
And, that they were viewed with respect as writings
of a higher order than human compositions, is evident
from the terms in which they are spoken of, as Holy
Scriptures, Divine Scriptures, Fountains of Truth and
Salvation; and also from the fact that they were read
in the religious assemblies.
It is unnecessary to pursue this inquiry farther. It is
well known that in the third and following centuries,
they were regarded as the writings of those under whose
names they were current in the world. It is proper,
however, to inform you, that catalogues of the books
of the New Testament were drawn up by different per
sons, from which it appears, that the same books were
then received which are at present acknowledged.
The first is the catalogue of Origen in the year 210,
who omits the epistle of James and Jude, but acknowl
edges both in other parts of his writings. The second
is the catalogue of Eusebius in the year 315, which is
the same with ours. He says, however, as you heard
before, that a few of the books were disputed by some.
The third is the catalogue of Athanasius of the same
date, which exactly accords with the modern one. So
does the catalogue of Cyril of Jerusalem in a. d. 340, 
with an exception as to the Revelation. The catalogue
of the Council of Laodicea, a. u. 364, omits the Reve
lation, but has all the other books. The catalogue of
Epiphanius, a. d. 370, agrees with ours; but the Rev
elation is omitted in that of Gregory Nazianzen, a. d.
375. Philostrius, bishop of Brexia, a. d. 380, leaves
out the Revelation, and mentions only thirteen epistles
of Paul, excepting, most probably, the 'epistle to the
Hebrews, of which some doubted, but he has all the
other books. Jerome, a. d. 382, receives all the books,

Foley's Evidences, part i. chr.p. ix. J 1.

for, although he speaks doubtfully of the epistle to the*
Hebrews, he acknowledges it as canonical in other
parts of his writings. The catalogues of Ruffinus,
A. d. 390, of Augustine, A. D. 394, and of the Council
of Carthage in which Augustine was present, aTe in all
respects the same with ours.
Nothing farther is necessary to satisfy us that the
books were written at the time assigned for their publi
cation, and by the persons to whom they are ascribed.
There seems not, indeed, to have been any doubt rela
tive to this matter in the early ages. It was generally
understood from whom the books came, and they were
received with as little hesitation as we feel with respect
to a book published among us, to which the author has
prefixed his name. We have seen that the genuineness
of a few of them was called in question, only however
by some ; but this circumstance supplies new evidence,
by showing that proof was required before any of the
books was acknowledged. When we find that men are
far from being credulous, and that while they give an
assent in some instances, they withhold it in others,
we rest with the greater confidence in their conclusions.
If it should be said that the primitive Christians, from
indifference or simplicity, permitted forged writings to
be palmed upon them as the productions of evangelists
and apostles, we have it in our power boldly to contra
dict the assertion. They did not give credit to every
pretence, but exercised a spirit of discrimination, in
consequence of which, they not only rejected a variety
of books circulated under the most -venerable names,
but regarded at first with some degree of suspicion cer
tain others, which they afterwards admitted into the
canon, when their title was more fully established. If
their testimony should be pronounced insufficient in
these circumstances, there is an end to all confidence
in human veracity ; and it will be impossible to prove
the genuineness of any book in the world. The truth
is, that none has come down to us from ancient times
so fully attested as the Christian Scriptures.
Additional evidence is furnished by the heretics who
arose in the early ages. Cerinthus lived at the" same
time with the apostle John; he taught that circumcision
and the observance of the law of Moses were necessary
to salvation ; and rejected the inspiration and authority
of Paul, because he had delivered a contrary doctrine.
Hence it is plain that the epistles of Paul were then in
existence, and are the same with those which we at
present possess. The Cerinthians bore testimony to
the existence of the gospel of Matthew, for they re
ceived it, because they did not consider it as at variance
with their tenets. The Ebionites, who were contem
porary with them, also prove the existence of Matthew's
gospel, and of the epistles of Paul, by their having re
ceived the former in a corrupted form, and rejected the
latter. Marcion, in the beginning of the second centu
ry, received the gospel of Luke, but altered it so as to
make it a gospel of his own. He affirmed that the gos
pel of Matthew, the epistle to the Hebrews, and the
epistles of Peter and James, were not fit for the use of
Christians, but of Jews ; but he received ten of the epis
tles of Paul. All these books, therefore, existed and
were known in his time. Basilides, in the early part
of the second century, acknowledged the gospel of
Matthew, and there is no evidence that he rejected the
other three. The Valentinians, about the same date,
drew arguments in favour of their opinions, as Irenieus
informs us, from the evangelical and apostolical wri
tings, and it is probable, that they received all the
books, as various other sects and leaders of heresy did,
whom it is not necessary to particularize. "Noetus,"
says Dr. Lardner, "Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Mar
cellus, Photinus, the Novatians, Donatists, Manichees,
Priscillianists, beside Artemon, the Audians, the Arians,
and divers others, all received most or all the same
books of the New Testament which the Catholics re-

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

31

ceived ; and agreed in a like respect for them as written
by apostles, or their disciples and companions."*
I There is still another source from which we are fur
nished with evidence in favour of the antiquity of the
books, and of the fact that no doubt was entertained of
their genuineness. I refer to Celsus, ever a virulent
enemy of Christianity, in the latter part of the second
century. His writings have perished, but a great part
of his work is transcribed in Origen's elaborate answer,
from which it appears, that he knew the names and
contents of the books of the New Testament, and ex
pressed no suspicion that they were forgeries. Por
phyry, in the third century, was accounted one of the
ablest and most learned opponents of our religion.
His writings also are lost, but it appears that he al
lowed our Scriptures to be genuine, and did not even
call in question the miraculous facts related in them.
That, if he had found any pretext, he would have wil
lingly convicted them of forgery, is evident from the
attempt which he made to prove that the prophecies of
Daniel were written after the events. Julian, in the
fourth century, who is called the apostate, because,
having been once a Christian, he embraced heathenism,
and employed all his influence and authority to re-estab
lish it, also bears testimony to the Scriptures of the
New Testament, and particularly to the historical
books. He speaks of Matthew, Luke, John, and the
Acts of the Apostles ; and instead of disputing the
genuineness of the writings, admits many of the facts
recorded in them, -and even the miracles of Christ — an
admission which nothing would have induced him to
make, but the utter impossibility of invalidating the
narrative of the evangelists. The last argument
which I shall produce, is founded on the Syriac Ver
sion. Some learned men believe, and have endea
voured to prove, by a variety of arguments, that it was
made in the first century ; and as four Catholic epistles,
the second of Peter, the second and third of John, and
the epistle of Jude, are wanting, and also the Revela
tion, they suppose that, at the time, these books had
not appeared. If this early date be assigned to it, it
proves not only that the other books were then in ex
istence, but that they were considered as the produc
tions of the evangelists and apostles ; for it could only
be on this supposition, that they were translated for the
use of the Syrian churches.
We have proved the genuineness of the books of the
New Testament, by the evidence which is resorted to
in all cases of this nature, — the testimony of those
who had the best opportunities of ascertaining whether
they were written by the persons whose names they
bear, because they lived in the age when they were
published, or soon after, and were led by their circum
stances to make an accurate inquiry. This is a point
which demands particular attention. When a book is
in circulation in which we take no interest, we perhaps
do not give ourselves the trouble to ask who is the au
thor ; or if a momentary curiosity prompts us to put the
question, we are satisfied with the first name which is
mentioned, bepause in a matter so trifling we care not
whether we are right or wrong. The truth would be
of no advantage to us, and a mistake would do us no
harm. But the books of which we are speaking,
claimed to be received as authoritative, professed to
prescribe the terms of salvation, and called upon men
to make a total change in their religious sentiments and
practice ; a change which was opposed not only by the
power of prejudice and habit, but by a regard to per
sonal safety ; for it was quite evident that it would both
subject them to the charge of singularity, and draw up
on them the hatred and the violence of those who, re
taining their old opinions, would look upon them as
guilty of impiety and apostacy. We cannot suppose
* Lardner, part ii. General Review.

that men in their senses could have run this hazard upon
slight grounds, upon vague reports. " It was a mat
ter of importance only to a few, or rather of no real mo
ment to any body, whether Thucydides wrote the his
tory, and Plato the dialogues, which pass under their
names ; but the present peace and the eternal salvation
of thousands and millions, the decision of innumerable
controversies, and the regulation of the faith and prac
tice of the church in all ages and nations, depended
upon the certain knowledge that the writers of the
New Testament were the immediate followers and am
bassadors of Christ." If the books were received by
persons thus circumstanced, we may believe that they
knew them to be genuine productions.
This reasoning is confirmed by certain proofs of gen
uineness which are furnished by the books themselves.
They contain internal marks, from which it appears
that they were written in the age to which they re
ferred, and by the persons to whom they are ascribed.
The first is the style. — The books profess to have
been written by Jews, who lived in Judea, a short time
before the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke indeed is
supposed to have been a native of Antioch, but he is
understood to have descended from Jewish parents;
and Paul was a native of Tarsus in Cilicia, but he was
" a Hebrew of the Hebrews," and received his educa
tion under Gamaliel, a doctor of the Jews. The books
are all written in Greek, for it is not worth while to
except the gospel of Matthew, since so many learned
men have called in question the opinion of the ancients
that it was originally published in Hebrew. Greek
was the fittest language for a revelation intended for
mankind at large, because it was generally understood ;
but the native tongue of the writers was Hebrew, as it
is called in the New Testament, although it was a
mixed dialect, and has been more correctly denominated
Syro-Chaldaic. Now, this language had riot only its
peculiar words, but also its peculiar idioms, which a
person who had been accustomed to them from his in
fancy would retain, after he had laid aside the use of
the words ; for we find, in modern times, that when a
man attempts to compose in a foreign language, al
though he may use none but words of that language,
he often -employs combinations of terms, and modes of
expression, which are contrary to its laws, and are bor
rowed from his own. When Englishmen write French,
or Frenchmen write English, they frequently fall into
this error. It may be avoided, by accurate study and
long practice ; but they are very few who are able to
express themselves in an acquired language with per
fect purity ; and this excellence was not to be expected
in the apostles and evangelists, who were men without
education. Luke and Paul, indeed, may be excepted ;
but their education, being Jewish, was not calculated
to remedy this fault. Knowing, then, to what nation
the writers belonged, what might we have presumed
a priori would be the nature of their style ? We
might have presumed, that the words would be Greek,
but that the idiom would be Hebrew ; or that the com
position would be that of persons who thought in one
language and wrote in another : and this is exactly the
character of the gospels and epistles. On this subject,
indeed, learned men have differed in opinion. Black-
wall, in his Sacred Classics, has undertaken to vindi
cate the New Testament from the charge of solecism
and barbarism ; and in executing this task, has display
ed great learning and ingenuity. It must be acknowl
edged, that in not a few instances, he has succeeded in
showing that certain modes of expression and construc
tion, which had been objected to, are not inconsistent
with purity, by producing similar examples from the
most approved authors ; but after all his labour, it is
admitted by every scholar, that the Greek of the New
Testament bears the marks of a Jewish origin. It is
such Greek as would have been written by the persons

32

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY

to whom the books are ascribed ; that is, by Jews, who
had not enjoyed the advantage of attending the schools
of grammarians and rhetoricians.
This, then, is an internal proof of the genuineness of
the books. Their composition accords with the char
acter and circumstances of the reputed authors. Had
the language been classical, there would have been some
ground of suspicion ; and the style would have been
produced as a proof that they were notthe works of the
apostles and evangelists. To this objection, if Chris
tians had replied, that the superiority of the style might
be accounted for by the inspiration of the writers, infi
dels would have told them, that this argument was of
no weight, because it rested upon an assumption of
which there was no proof. It was therefore wisely
ordered, that the writers, although, as we believe, un
der divine superintendence, were permitted to set down
their thoughts in a style which was natural to them,
and thus to furnish internal evidence that the works
which bear their names are really their own. It has
been observed, that the books could not have been writ
ten as they are written, later than the first century, and
no person assigns to them an earlier date. There were
no Christians in Judea, in the second century, but the
Ebionites and Nazarenes, who will not be suspected of
having forged Greek gospels, because it is known that
they used only one, which was in Hebrew. The com
position of Christians in other countries would have ap
proached nearer to the classical purity. The New Tes
tament would have been free,at least,from Jewish idioms.
The second internal evidence of the genuineness of
the books, is simplicity, by which I mean, the absence
of all appearance of art. It must strike every reader
of the gospels, I should think, that there is in them
nothing like contrivance, nothing like the exercise of
policy or ingenuity to accomplish a particular end.
The manifest purpose of the gospels, is to give a nar
rative of the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascen
sion of Christ, of the works which he performed, and
the doctrines which he taught. Now there is evidence
on the face of them that they were drawn up as the
events took place, or as they occurred to the recollec
tion of the writers, without any studied design to com
bine them into a well-digested history, or to produce a
particular effect. It was their obvious intention to ex
alt the character of their Master, but they do not resort
to the usual method of panegyric and elaborate de
scription. They content themselves with a naked rela
tion of facts ; and although many of them are of an ex
traordinary nature, they give no comment upon them,
affix no note of admiration, employ no method to arrest
the attention of their readers, and to excite correspon
ding emotions. In all this a candid mind will perceive
the signature of truth, and recognise a manner totally
different from that of an artful man, whose aim it was
to palm a forgery upon the world. The evangelists
are evidently men, who, believing what they relate to
be true, leave the facts to speak for themselves, being
convinced that they did not stand in need of any assis°
tance from them to make a proper impression. The
calmness of their manner seems to indicate, that they
were familiarized to such events as they record ; for
bow could they have spoken of stupendous miracles in
dispassionate terms, if .they had not frequently witness
ed them? These observations go to establish not only
the genuineness but the truth of the narrative : but the
latter is not at present the subject of inquiry ; and I in
tend merely to show, that they are such as we might
have expected from the persons to whom they are as
cribed. Their story is the story of eye and ear-witnes
ses. It bears no resemblance to a fabricated tale to
which the contriver was anxious to gain credit. In
the epistles, there is the same simplicity or artlessness.
It is impossible not to consider them as letters which
were actually sent to the persons addressed. There

are so many allusions to facts, so many incidental no
tices, so many references to existing circumstances, as
to leave no suspicion of forgery. They are such letters
as we should conceive the apostles to have sent to dif
ferent Christian societies soon after their formation,
while the Jews still subsisted in a national capacity,
and the controversy was carrying on between the law
of Moses and the religion of Christ. That controver
sy lost much of its interest after the destruction of Je
rusalem and the temple : and had the epistles been
composed in the second century, they would have rare
ly, if ever, referred to it.
The third internal evidence of the genuineness of the
books, is their particularity. You will perceive that I
chiefly refer to the historical books ; but in the epistles
also, there is such a specification of names, places, and
facts, as affords sufficient ground for concluding that
they were written by the apostles. When a man sits
down to compose a fictitious narrative, with an intention
to pass it upon the world as a true one, he finds it ne
cessary to confine himself to general statements. It
would be dangerous to descend to particulars, because
the more he abounded in them, it would be the more im
possible to avoid detection. The circumstantiality of
the gospels, the specification of times and places, of
the persons concerned in events, and of the persons
who witnessed them, furnishes an argument in favour
of their truth, if they were published at the period to
which they are assigned : but my sole purpose is to
use it as a proof of their genuineness. When a person
composes a fictitious narrative of transactions, and lays
the scene in an age and country different from his own,
it would require greater skill and circumspection than
fall perhaps to the lot of any individual, effectually to
conceal his design. He would be apt to err in his de
scriptions of the country, in his representations of man
ners and customs, in his statements of civil institutions,
and of religious opinions and practices. He would be
apt to fall into anachronisms, by introducing modes of
thinking and acting which belonged toa different period.
Blunders of this kind have often furnished the means
of discovering forgeries. The Sibylline oracles, which
were so much circulated in the early ages, and profess
ed to have been uttered by certain prophetesses of the
heathen world, who lived before the coming of Christ,
are so clumsily fabricated that we cannot but feel sur
prise, that any person should have supposed them to be
genuine. The predictions are clearer than those of the
Old Testament ; and they could have been written only
by a person who lived after the events. In the same
way other forgeries have been detected, although by no
means so gross. Minute circumstances are apt to es
cape an impostor, which unveil his design to a scrutiniz
ing eye. It is extremely difficult to give falsehood theex-
act resemblance of truth, when it extends to a system
having many ramifications. "The accuracy of the
writers of the New Testament," it has been remarked
by Dr. Cook in his Inquiry into the books of the New
Testament, " has been proved by the strictest examina
tion and comparison of their works with those of the
best historians nearest to their own times, who mention
any of the same facts, and by the admirable consistency
which the narratives and allusions to fact made by the
writers of the new Testament have with one another.
It is an accuracy which embraces the topography, the
vegetable productions, the agriculture, the climate of Pal
estine; the habitations, dress, manners, character of its
inhabitants, the civil and religious institutions, customs,
opinions, philosophical sects, and political parties, whe
ther of the Jews or Romans, and the various distinguish
ed individuals, and offices, and actions occasionally intro
duced into the narrative. It is accuracy pervading not
only what Lardner has called the principal facts of the
New Testament, relating directly to the life, ministry,
and death of Jesus Christ, but the occasional facts con-

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

33

nected with all those various collateral, and some of
them transient subjects just enumerated. It is accuracy
equally conspicuous in the more formal direct narratives
of events, and in the incidental allusions to them ; so that
there is no clashing of the one with the other, no false
movement indicating the manufacture of fraud. Now,
this harmony and consistency, it is well known, from
the extreme difficulty of giving even to a short narrative
connected with known events, the semblance when it
has not the foundation of truth, cannot be accomplished
where that foundation is wanting; and where they ex
ist, decidedly proclaim the most intimate acquaintance
with the facts thus faithfully described."* Hence we
infer, that the books of the New Testament were writ
ten by persons who were present at the scenes and wit
nessed the events which they describe ; and minute cir
cumstances have been pointed out in the course of the
narratives which an impostor would not have noticed,
and which would have occurred to no person who was
not upon the spot.
The fourth internal evidence is furnished by the dis
crepancies between the gospels. If they were not
Written by the apostles and immediate followers of
Christ, they were fabricated at a later period by some
persons who acted in concert, with a view to impose
the account contained in them upon the world, as true.
Now, let us think for a moment in what manner per
sons having this design would proceed. If they agreed,
in order to give their respective accounts a greater ap
pearance of truth, not always to relate the same events,
and to use the same words, they would agree to avoid
any thing like contradiction, because, being conscious
of their own design to deceive, they would be in con
tinual apprehension lest others should suspect it, and
would guard against any circumstance calculated to
excite or to strengthen this suspicion. Whatever other
mistakes in their narratives might have betrayed them,
we should have expected, that, in relating the same
facts they would have studied to render their statements
perfectly harmonious. This is the plan which false
witnesses always adopt. We find, however, if we
judge by this rule, that the writers of the New Testa
ment did not act in concert, and that they came forward
in the character of independent witnesses to the facts
which they relate. There are differences in their ac
counts, which have been considered by some as amount-
ug to express contradictions. How these may be re-
:onciled, is not our present business to inquire. The
%ct is certain ; and it serves to prove the genuineness
)f their writings, because it shows, that each of them
«et down events as they appeared to him at the time, or
afterwards occurred to his recollection, without having
consulted with any others regarding the best form of
ihe narrative. We discover nothing which has the
character of forgery . If they agree or disagree, it is with-
>ut design ; there is an artlessness, and to speak of them
merely as human authors, an unguardedness, which is the
most distant imaginable from a fraudulent contrivance.
The last proof which I shall produce is founded on
the undesigned coincidence or correspondence between
certain parts of the new Testament. The argument
from this source has been applied to the Acts, and the
epistles of Paul, with great industry and ability by Dr.
Paley, in his work entitled Horae Paulinas. He observes,
that " agreement or conformity between letters, bearing
the name of an ancient author, and a received history
of that author's life, does not necessarily establish the
credit.of either." The history may "have been whol-
lyfoi inparVc&rrp.iled from the letters; in which case,
it is manifest that the iiioU,ry adds nothing to the evi
dence already afforded by the letters." " The letters
may have been fabricated out of the history ; a species
of imposture which is certainly practicable : and which,
* Cook's Inquiry, p. 137.
E 3

without any accession of proof or authority, would ne
cessarily produce the appearance of consistency and
agreement." Once more, " the history and letters may
have been founded upon some authority common to
both ; as upon reports and traditions which prevailed in
the age in which they were composed, or upon some
ancient record now lost, which both writers consulted ;
in which case also, the letters, without being genuine,
may exhibit marks of conformity with the history ; and
the history without being true, may agree with the let
ters." He goes on to state, that in "examining the
agreement between ancient writings, the character of
truth and originality is undesignedness," by which we
understand, that the allusions in one writing to another
must appear to have been made without any intention
to corroborate or verify what the other had said, and to
have been suggested solely by the author's familiar ac
quaintance with the facts. They occurred to him with
out an effort, as things which he witnessed or experi
enced. "With respect to those writings of the New
Testament, which are to be the subject of our present
consideration," Dr. Paley adds, " I think, that, as to
the authenticity of the epistles, this argument, where it
is sufficiently sustained by instances, is nearly conclu
sive ; for, I cannot assign a supposition of forgery, in
which coincidences of the kind we inquire after are
likely to appear. As to the history, it extends to these
points ; it proves the general reality of the circum
stances; it proves the historian's knowledge of these
circumstances. In the present instance, it confirms his
pretensions of having been a contemporary; and in the
latter part of his history, a companion of St. Paul."
"In a great plurality of examples, I trust the reader
will be perfectly convinced, that no design or contri
vance whatever, has been exercised ; and if some of
the coincidences alleged appear to be minute, circui
tous or oblique, let him reflect, that this very indirect
ness and subtilty is that which gives force and propriety
to the example." He mentions some references in which
the argument will not hold, because it might be said
that they were intended for the purpose of giving the
appearance of agreement between the epistles and the
history; but he produces the following as a case in
point: "When I read in the Acts of the Apostles,
that, ' when Paul came to Derbe and Lystra, behold a
certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son
of a certain woman, which was a Jewess ,-' and when, in
an epistle addressed to Timothy, I find him reminded
of ' his having known the Holy Scriptures from a child,'
which implies, that he must, on one side or both, have
been brought up by Jewish parents, I conceive, that I
remark a coincidence which shows, by its very obliquity,
that scheme was not employed in its formation."* I have
stated this argument almost entirely in his own words ;
but it is impossible to do justice to it within such nar
row limits, and I therefore refer you to the work itself.

LECTURE VII.
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
Authenticity of the Scriptures inferred from Genuineness—
Their Reception as genuine is Evidence of the Miraclei
therein recorded — Argument from Miracles— Definition of a
, Miracle— Miracles are possible ; The work of God alone ;
Capable of being proved — Examination of Hume's Argu
ment — Miracles are natural and necessary AccompanimenW
of a new Revelation — Heathen and popish Miracles — Crite
rion of Miracles.
We have produced, in the preceding lecture, a variety
of external and internal proofs of the genuineness of

* Paley's Horse Paulinas, chap. i.

34

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the Christian Scriptures. If any man should still de
ny that they were written by the persons to whom they
are ascribed, we have a right to ask, By whom then
were they composed ? We do not, however, expect an
answer to the question ; for, as they were never attrib
uted to any other authors by those who had the best
opportunities of knowing their history, it would be ri
diculous, at this late period to attempt to trace them to
a different origin. It is certain that the books were
known and read, and received as genuine, in the second
century ; it is certain that they were known and read,
and received as genuine, in the first. It remains, there
fore, to ascertain what credit is due to them, and to the
books of the Old Testament, the genuineness of which
has been also established.
. I formerly stated the difference between the genuine
ness and the authenticity of a writing. It is genuine,
if it be the work of the person under whose name it
was published ; it is authentic, if its contents are true.
These properties are by no means inseparable. A book
may be genuine, but unworthy of credit, because it is
full of fables and fictions ; and it may be true, although
bearing a false name. In the present case, however,
they are inseparable ; that is, the genuineness of the
sacred writings infers their authenticity; and that this
is a legitimate conclusion, will appear from the follow
ing observations.
Let it be. remembered, that the books were narratives
of events, which are said to have taken place in the
age and before the eyes of the persons who were called
to receive them as authentic. There was no opportu
nity to take advantage of the credulity with which men
are often and justly chargeable, and to support a plausi
ble account by feigned authorities which would over
awe their judgments. But every person was compe
tent to decide at once, without a tedious process of rea
soning, whether what was related was true or false.
Let it be observed, too, that the events were not of a
common kind, and of an uninteresting nature, the accu
racy of which it was the concern of no individual to
settle, so that the account, although blended with fic
tion, might be permitted to pass without contradiction.
Many of them were miraculous and were designed to
attest a religion on which the future hopes of mankind
should be founded, and by which their present conduct
should be regulated. They were connected with what
is usually considered as the most important subject
which can engage our attention. It is contrary to all
the principles of reason to suppose, that in such a case,
men would yield a listless assent; and still more, that
they would be satisfied with evidence which they knew
to be false.
The religion which Moses called the Israelites to em
brace was not absolutely new, because their fathers had
worshipped the same Being who was now announced
as the God of the nation. But there is reason to believe
that they had in a great measure forgotten him during
their residence in Egypt, and were tainted with the
idolatry of the people among whom they had lived for
more thau two hundred years. Many of them, there
fore, can be considered as no better than heathens, —
probably the majority, if we may judge of their former
state by their subsequent conduct ; and, consequently,
ithe change which they were required to make, was al
most as great as if Moses had undertaken the conver
sion of the Egyptians themselves. The greatness of
the change is manifest from a review of the religion,
They were commanded to renounce the gods of Egypt,
and of all other nations, to whose service they appear
from their history to have been strongly addicted, and
to worship Jehovah alone. Upon this fundamental
tenet was founded a system of observances, which, in
stead of being modelled after the idolatrous forms to
which they had been accustomed, as some have sup
posed without the slightest evidence, was contrived in

express opposition to the usages of Egypt and other
countries, for the purpose of effecting a complete sepa
ration. The rites enjoined were multiplied to a great
number, were to be practised not only in the sanctuary,
but in the whole detail of life, required constant atten
tion and circumspection, and must have been felt to be
extremely inconvenient. Besides, they subjected the
Israelites to no inconsiderable expense, by the frequent
sacrifices which they found it necessary to offer, and by
the tithes which they were commanded to pay to the
priests. There were also certain injunctions to which
there is nothing similar in the laws of other nations, and
which are of so peculiar a character, that it is altogeth
er unaccountable, upon the principles of political wis
dom, that any legislator should have proposed them, or
any people should have submitted to them. I refer to
the law of the Sabbatical year, when the ground was
not to be tilled and sown ; to the law ordaining that
thrice a year all the males should repair to the place
where the sanctuary stood ; to the law forbidding the
multiplication of horses ; and to the law of the jubilee,
which required mortgaged possessions to return to the
original proprietors, and slaves to be restored to liberty.
It is evident that these laws interfered with public and
private interest. They exposed the country to the dan
ger of famine, invasion, and conquest, and demanded
from individuals a sacrifice of property which might
have given rise to open resistance.
It is altogether incredible that any legislator of a
sound mind would have made such enactments by his
own authority, or that any nation would have acqui
esced in them, merely because he chose to impose.
them. Such, indeed, is the texture of the whole law,
that we cannot conceive Moses to have contrived it, or
the Israelites, if left at liberty to choose, to have re
ceived it. It may be said, that he persuaded them that
Jehovah was its author. But how did he persuade
them? How did he accomplish his purpose? Was it
by boldly affirming that his law was a revelation from
heaven ? The Israelites must have been simple indeed
if they believed him, — simple to a degree of which
there is no other example. Did they quietly submit to
have the yoke of ceremonies wreathed about their
necks ? to live in a state of separation from the world?
to be the objects of the ridicule and hatred of mankind,
merely because Moses told them that such was the will
of God ? Truly, he who can believe this is as simple
as they are supposed to have been. But their history
forbids the supposition, and shows that they were an ob
stinate refractory race, — very unfit materials to be mould
ed into any form at the pleasure of an impostor. Be
sides, we know that it was not by simple affirmation
that Moses gained his end, but that he appealed to evi
dence, and the evidence was miraculous. While he
asserted that the law was from God, he told them that
they had themselves heard a part of it published with
his own voice, and that the other parts had been deliv
ered by him as his accredited messengeT, — accredited
by signs and wonders which they had seen with their
own eyes. Would this new pretence, if it was a pre
tence, have added any weight to the first? No; it
would have had the contrary effect ; it would have fur
nished the means of disproving it, and have put it in
the power of every Israelite to say, " It is perfectly
plain to me that your claim to betiie minister of Jeho
vah is false, for I never heard his voice, nor saw one
of those supernatural works by which you say he at
tested your commission." The reception of the law is
therefore a proof that the people were satisfied of the
authority of Moses to impose it, or rather, that they
were satisfied that the law emanated from the God of
their fathers ; and consequently, is a proof that they
had witnessed the miracles in Egypt, at the Red Sea,
and in the wilderness.
Thus, the genuineness proves the authenticity of the

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

35

books, or the truth of the religion contained in them.
They were published at the time to whrch they are as
signed, and consequently would not have been received
if the events recorded in them had not actuallyhappened.
The same reasoning may be employed to prove the
authenticity of the books of the New Testament, and
particularly the historical books. The religion which
they announced was not new, but was the development
and completion of the revelation made by the ministry
of Moses and the prophets ; but it differed from that
revelation in some important respects, and still more
from the views of it which were generally entertained ;
for, although the Jews professed the religion of their
fathers, they had greatly corrupted it. The Messiah
whom the books introduce to our notice, is not the per
son who was expected in that character. He was a
man of obscure birth, and in a humble rank of life ; his
doctrine was spiritual ; his actions were of a peaceful
nature; he avoided worldly honours ; instead of encour
aging his countrymen to rebel against the Romans, and
assert their national independence, he taught them to
submit to the established government ; and after a short
course «f contradiction arid suffering, he died upon a
cross. There was not one trait in his character which
corresponded with the prevailing hope of a mighty con
queror, and a splendid temporal monarch. But this is
not all. They were required to adopt not only new
opinions, but new practices; to renounce the religious
institutions which had been established in the nation
for fifteen hundred years, and to which they were strong
ly attached, not only as sacred, but as the means of
recommending them to the favour of God. They
were to forsake the temple and the altar, with their
pompous services, and be content with a simple ritual,
which prescribed nothing to please the senses. At the
same time, they were to forego the flattering distinction
which they had long enjoyed of being the peculiar peo
ple, to see the Gentiles invested with the same privi
leges, and to regard them as in every respect their
equals, as subjects of the Messiah, and members of his
church. We cannot suppose that they would have ad
mitted upon slight grounds a religion which demanded
such important changes and such costly sacrifices.
To the Gentiles, the religion of the gospel was new,
in every sense of the word. It was a new God whom
it announced ; for although he had been worshipped for
ages by the Jews, he was unknown, except by vague
report, to the nations of the world. Yet he claimed
the exclusive possession of Divinity, and required to
be worshipped without a rival. Of the person by
whom this religion was founded, they had never heard
before ; and the character in which he was exhibited
was strange, and in the first instance unintelligible ;
for, ignorant as they were of the Divine law, and of the
degree and extent of human guilt and depravity, they
had no expectation and felt no need of a spiritual Sa
viour. The doctrines connected with his person and
work, and the general scheme of Christianity, would
appear to them to be extravagant, unphilosophical, and
false. Not less objectionable in their eyes, would be
the system of duties which it enjoined. Of some of
them they had no idea, and of others they entertained a
contemptuous opinion ; while the opposite views were
so common, that all sense of their moral turpitude was
lost, and their wisest men had recommended them both
by precept and by example. There is a consideration
which is equally applicable to Gentiles and to Jews —
that the new religion being so adverse to those already
eatablisbed, the persons who first embraced it would
net only be reproached for their singularity, fickleness,
and creflulity, but would incur the hatred of zealots
and bigots, awaken the suspicion and jealousy of the
high'ei powers, and subject themselves to such restraint
and p//jishment as might be deemed necessary to check
his dangerous innovation.

In this state of things, the religion of Christ was
presented to mankind in the discourses of the apostles,
and in the written records which have been transmitted
to us. By what means did it obtain credit? This was
not a case in which bold affirmation and eloquent ap
peals would succeed. There was no predisposition in
favour of the religion, there was a strong prejudice
against it. What was wanted was evidence, clear,
convincing, and overwhelming. Now the books tell
us, that such evidence was furnished, both by the au
thor and by the preachers of the religion, in the mira
cles which they performed in Judea, and in other coun
tries. We have here a satisfactory solution of the pro
blem, how the books, and the religion taught in them,
came to be received ; but it is impossible to explain
the fact, upon any other hypothesis. If those who
lived in that age saw miracles, they could not doubt the
truth of the system, in support of which they were
wrought ; but if they did not see them, how were they
persuaded ? The effect is certain, and we can discov
er no other adequate cause. It would be the greatest
miracle of all, says Chrysostom, if the world believed
without miracles. When all the circumstances of the
case are taken into consideration, it would be a fact in
the history of mankind without a parallel, and abso
lutely inexplicable. Admit the miracles, and all is in
telligible ; deny the miracles, and all is mystery. De
ny the miracles, and you must say, that there were two
epochs, namely, the age of Moses and the age of
Christ, when the human mind underwent a sudden re
volution, and acted in opposition to the laws by which,
at all other times, it is governed. Men believed with
out evidence ; without evidence, they adopted opinions
contrary to their deep-rooted prejudices ; engaged in
practices repugnant to their strongest inclinations ; sac
rificed the good opinion of those whose favour they
once highly prized ; and exposed property, liberty, and
life to hazard, for a dream. But as human nature is
the same in all ages, those who lived at the periods re
ferred to must have had good reason for their conduct.
Now the only reason which could justify their conduct,
was such evidence as left no room for doubt : and in
this case, the evidence must have been miraculous, for
in no other way could a revelation from heaven be
proved. The argument founded on the testimony of the prim
itive times is weakened in the minds of some, by a mis
apprehension respecting the persons by whom it is
borne. They were Christians who received the books
of the New Testament, and have attested the facts upon
Which our religion is founded. They are, therefore,
looked upon with a degree of suspicion, as if they
were interested persons. It seems to be supposed, and
infidels take it for granted, that there was a set of men
who, having become Christians no man knows why,
laid their heads together to practise an imposition upon
the world. This puts one in mind of the Indian hy
pothesis that the earth rests upon an elephant, and the
elephant stands upon a tortoise ; but upon what the tor
toise is supported, we are left to conjecture. The wit
nesses, it is said, are Christians, and therefore are not
to be depended upon. But what made them Chris
tians? This question is overlooked by the objector's;
but a right answer to it would show that their testimo
ny is worthy of credit. I cannot do better than to
transcribe the words of Mr. Addison, in his short trea
tise on the evidence of the Christian religion : — "Let
us now suppose, that a learned heathen writer who
lived within sixty years of our Saviour's crucifixion,
after having shown that false miracles were generally
wrought in obscurity, and before few or no witnesses,
speaking of those which were wrought by our Saviour,
has the following passage : — 'But his works were al
ways seen, because they were true ; they were seen by
those who were healed, and by those who were raised

36
from the dead. Nay, these persons, who were thus
healed and raised, were seen not only at the time of
their being healed and raised, but long after. Nay,
they were seen not only all the while our Saviour was
upon earth, but survived after his departure out of this
world ; nay, some of them were living in our days.' I
dare say you would look upon this as a glorious attes
tation for the cause of Christianity, had it come from
the hand of a famous Athenian philosopher. These
forementioned words, however, are actually the words
of one who lived about sixty years after our Saviour's
crucifixion, and was a famous philosopher in Athens ;
but it will be said, he was a convert to Christianity.
Now, consider this matter impartially, and see if his
testimony is not much more valid for that reason : Had
he continued a Pagan philosopher, would not the world
have said that he was not sincere in what he writ, or
did not believe it ; for if so, would they not have told
us, he would have embraced Christianity ? This was
indeed the case of this excellent man : he had so tho
roughly examined the truth of our Saviour's history,
and the excellency of that religion which he taught,
and was so entirely convinced of both, that he became
a proselyte, and died a martyr." " I do allow that, gen
erally speaking, a man is not so acceptable and unques
tioned an evidence, on facts which make for the ad
vancement of his own party. But we must consider
that, in the case before us, the persons to whom we ap
peal were of an opposite party till they were persuaded
of the truth of those very facts which they report.
They bear evidence to a history in defence of Chris
tianity, the truth of which history was their motive to
embrace Christianity. They attest facts which they
had heard while they were yet heathens, and had they
not found reason to believe them, they would still have
continued heathens, and have made no mention of them
in their writings."*
It appears, that from the genuineness of the books,
we may infer their authenticity. They would not have
been received, if they had not been true ; or what
amounts to the same thing, the religion which is taught
in them would not have been embraced, if the men of
that age had not witnessed, or were otherwise assured
of the facts upon which it was founded. The truth of
the facts is the only conceivable motive by which they
would be induced to become converts to it. It is af
firmed in the New Testament, that miracles were
wrought, not only by Jesus Christ, but by his apostles.
This affirmation is not only made in general terms, but
is confirmed by particular instances ; and the time when,
the place where, and the persons upon whom the mir
acles were wrought, are frequently specified. What is
more, the very persons to whom some of the books are
addressed, are appealed to as witnesses of the miracles.
In the second epistle to the Corinthians, Paul says to
them : "Truly, the signs of an apostle were wrought
among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and
mighty deeds ;"f and in the epistle to the Hebrews,
he mentions it as an unquestionable fact, that when the
gospel was preached to them, God bore the preachers
witness, " both with signs and wonders, and with di
vers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according
to his own will."}: The argument, then, is reduced to
a narrow compass. These assertions were either true
or false. If they were false, how could the apostle
venture to make them? Had he lost his senses? was
he a raving visionary, who mistook the illusions of fan
cy for realities? or was he in jest, and did he wish his
letters to be laughed at? These suppositions are out
of the question. He was in a sound mind, and expect
ed what he wrote to be received with respect. And
how were his epistles received? were they treated with
* The Evidences of the Christian Religion, sect. iii.
t 2 Cor. xii. 12. J. Heb. ii. 4.

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the scorn, or the indignation which is due to the man
who presumes*to tell lies to our face ? We know that
they were regarded then, as they have ever since been,
as the compositions of an apostle, who was authorized
and qualified to instruct the church in the important
truths and duties of religion. But they could not have
been so regarded, if the Corinthians and the Hebrews
had not seen miracles performed by Paul and by others,
in confirmation of their doctrine. The claim to super
natural powers would have destroyed all their credit, if
it had not been substantiated. " In matters of opinion,
it is possible to impose upon others by bold assevera
tions, and subtle reasonings ; but he who promises to
cure the blind, and raise the dead, leaves himself no
subterfuge, and must either perform his promise, or
submit to be considered as a fool or a madman."
There is another view which may be taken of the ar
gument. While the apostles affirm that they had
wrought miracles in the presence of those to whom
they wrote, they farther affirm that some of those per
sons had received miraculous gifts. There are intima
tions of this kind in several of the epistles ; but the
subject is discussed at length in the first epistle to the
Corinthians. This is the last thing which an impostor
would do, or rather it is a thing which he would not do.
He might appeal to the reason of others, because he
had contrived previously to pervert it by sophistry ; he
might appeal to their senses, because he could deceive
them by the arts of legerdemain ; but he would not
dare to appeal to their consciousness. Paul would have
been laughed at, if supernatural gifts had been unknown
in the primitive church. But he was still regarded as
an apostle of Christ; and the continued respect which
was shown to him, is a proof that such gifts did exist
in the church. By the communication of them, the re
velation contained in the books of the New Testament
was authenticated.
A miracle is a supernatural work. It is an effect
which could not be produced according to the laws of
nature, and, therefore, implies a suspension of these
laws, or a deviation from them. Some have called it a
transgression or violation of them : but I do not think
that these terms are well chosen, because in their usual
application they suggest the idea of disobedience to
authority, and an encroachment upon right; and conse
quently, are improper in speaking of any act done by
the Creator himself, or by others according to his will.
Let it be observed, that we do not give the name of
miracle to every prodigy or strange event, because it is
not necessary in such cases to suppose that the laws of
nature are counteracted or surpassed. They may be
accounted for, and many of them have been explained
by an accidental concurrence of causes which rarely
meet, and their number is diminished in proportion as
the boundaries of science are enlarged ; that is, the more
thoroughly nature is understood, the more easily can
such things be shown to be in harmony with its laws.
Not a few of the miracles related by ancient historians
are now known not to be such, but merely uncommon
events. We do not call a monstrous birth, or a fall of
stones from the clouds, miraculous ; but we would so
designate the cure of blindness by a touch, and the
raising of the dead by a word.
The possibility of miracles will be called in question
only by atheists. He who believes that the universe
exists by eternal necessity, may consistently deny that
any change can take place in its established order; but
no such idea can be entertained by a person who admits
that it is the work of an intelligent and an omnipotent
Being. To an enlightened theist, its laws must appear
to be nothing eise but the uniform exertion of his pow
er ; and surely he can alter the mode of operation when
there is some end worthy of his wisdom to be accom
plished. Vegetation implies a particular process, in
which a seed, the earth, moisture, air, light, and heat,

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

37

perform their respective parts, and a certain time is re
quired to its completion ; but there is no doubt that he,
who gives efficacy to this process, could produce a per
fect plant in a moment, as it must be allowed that he
did at the beginning. Now, if a tree should instantly
spring up before us, in full size, covered with foliage
and laden with fruit, we should not hesitate to acknowl
edge a miracle. It is not necessary to dwell upon this
point, because it will not he disputed that miracles are
possible, whatever doubts, may be entertained with re
spect to their necessity and expedience.
I proceed to observe that none but God can perform
miracles. The truth of this observation, I should think,
would be conceded, if the true idea of a miracle were
kept steadily in view ; for, if it be understood to be .an
effect which cannot be produced by the laws of nature,
we are compelled to have recourse to the immediate
power of God for the cause. It is acknowledged that
there are some passages of Scripture, from which it
has been inferred that miracles may be performed by
evil spirits and their agents. After some of the mira
cles which Moses wrought, it is said that " the magi
cians of Egypt did in like manner with their enchant
ments."* But many learned men contend and have en
deavoured to prove, that nothing more is meant than that
they imitated what Moses had done, by sleight of hand,
and the assistance of those who were in concert with
them. They think that this is evident from the nature
of the miracles in which they pretended to rival the
power of Moses, and which afforded them an opportu
nity to practise their dexterity ; but when he proceeded
to work other miracles, their skill was baffled, and they
confessed that this was the finger of God. The story
has much the appearance of art carried to a certain
length and then failing, because its resources were ex
hausted. Our Lord foretold that there should arise
false Christs and false prophets, who would show great
signs and wonders ; but we know that these were not
real miracles, from the accounts which have come down
to us of the wonders which they did exhibit, and which
are exactly of the same kind with the tricks employed
by jugglers to excite the admiration of the multitude.
It is admitted that evil spirits might do some things
which would appear miraculous to us. They might,
for example, raise a man from the ground and convey
him through the air to a distant place, as Satan did
to our Saviour. But whatever astonishment such an
event might excite, it would not, when understood, be
regarded as a miracle. If we saw the spirit in a vis
ible form lifting up the man, and carrying him in his
hand, we should be surprised indeed, but still we
should know that what was done was as agreeable to
the laws of nature as if he had been elevated in a bal
loon. It would be a real miracle, if he was raised
without the agency of any natural power, because the
event would be referrible, in this case, to God himself,
suspending or counteracting the law of gravitation.
But, in speaking of miracles, we presuppose the exis
tence and moral government of the Deity. On this
ground, we believe that the different species of crea
tures will be restrained by his providence from going
beyond their proper sphere; that wicked spirits will
not be permitted to act such a part, as would lay man
kind under an absolute impossibility of distinguishing
between truth and falsehood, and subject them to una
voidable delusion. This would be the effect if they
were permitted to work real miracles, or to do such
things as could not be distinguished from real miracles ;
for then they could practise any imposition upon man
kind, and there would be no means of discriminating a
true from a pretended revelation. But they cannot act
independently of Him, in whom all creatures live, and
move, and have their being : and surely, he wquld n»t
* Exod. vii. II.

give them liberty to do any thing which would defeat
the purpose, of those communications to mankind, which
it might seem fit to his wisdom to make. It is true, that
men have been employed in working miracles, but they
were merely instruments in the hands of God ; and the
only person who ever wrought them by his own power
was Jesus Christ, who, as the Lord of nature, control
led its- laws at his pleasure. We are apt to fall into a
mistake, when we speak of miraculous powers havintr
been communicated to certain individuals. We are mis
taken if we suppose that such powers were inherent in
them, were properly their own, and were exerted by them
as they exerted their natural faculties. I believe that the
apostle Paul could no more work miracles than I can, and
the only difference between us is, that in consequence of
a commission which he had received, and I have not, di
vine power accompanied the signs which he s;ave, or the
words which he pronounced, when any thing was to
be done out of the ordinary course. It was not Paul
who performed the miracle, but God, or Jesus Christ,
who secretly directed him to rebuke diseases, for exam
ple, when it was his design to remove them. " Why
look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power
or holiness we had made this man to walk ? The name of
Jesus, through faith in his name, hath made this man
strong, whom ye see and know."* We say, then, that
God alone can work miracles.
Miracles may be proved ; that is, there is no rea
son why we should conclude against them a priori, if
they are not contrary to the perfections of God, or to
any previous declaration of his will. In either of these
cases we might at once pronounce them to be impossi
ble, because we should be certain that he who only
could, would not perform them. I acknowledge that
the expectation that the course of nature will continue
has been considered by philosophers to rest on an in
stinctive principle of belief; and that, upon this princi
ple, it has been said, all the operations which have a
respect to futurity are conducted. No man would build
a house, if he did not expect that it would stand by the
law of gravitation; or sow his field, if he did not cal
culate upon the regular order of the seasons. But ob
serve how far this principle goes. It assumes the con
stancy of the laws of nature, (the knowledge of which,
however, is derived from experience,) and from their
past, deduces their future continuance. But what de
monstrates the connexion between the premises and the
conclusion ? It is not intuitively evident, that because
an event has regularly taken place for a long period, it
will take place for a period equally long. If the course
of nature is the order in which divine power is exerted
to uphold the system of creation, we can have no cer
tainty that it will be always exerted in the same order,
without an express declaration from the Creator himself.
By those wlio believe revelation, the conclusion that it
will be perpetual must be pronounced to be false, and
a time will come, when the expectation, founded on
this instinctive principle of belief", will fail, because it
foretells a mighty revolution, which will be followed
by a new order of things. It is certain, that God has
not obliged himself by any thing which he has said or
done, by any thing which we can collect from reason
or experience, to a uniformity in the exercise of his
power, without a single deviation. To suppose that
he has would be a mere assumption ; and if any per
son should on this ground affirm that miracles are im
probable, he would not deserve a serious answer. If
the universe is governed by Omnipotence, for aught
that we could tell, its movements might stop to-morrow,
or some alteration might be made which would give it
a new constitution ; and the utmost which we are war
ranted to presume, is, that if it is the will of the Most
High that the present race should still people the earth,

* Acts iii. 12, 16.

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

38
the present order, which is so. admirably adapted to
their nature and necessities, will be upheld. It should
be observed, at the same time, that miracles no more
disturb that order than the sudden movement of the in
dex the fiftieth part of an inch backward or forward
would disturb the order of a watch. The effect upon
the system is, if possible, still less ; for a miracle is
a suspension or counteraction of the laws of nature on
ly in one point of infinite space. The cure of a disease,
or the resurrection of a dead body, does not affect the
general laws of the universe.
These remarks have prepared our way for estimating
the force of the celebrated argument against miracles
which Hume has founded on experience.* He main
tains that the proof against them is complete, being es
tablished upon the constant experience of the immuta
bility of the order of nature. After the view which we
have taken of the subject, this will appear to be no
proof at all. Assuming that for four thousand years
the course of nature had not been disturbed, we have
yet no certain data upon which we could conclude that
it would never be disturbed. If it is subject to the
control of an intelligent Being of infinite power, it is
presumptuous in any man to say that no case could
arise which would render it proper for him to interpose
in a sensible manner. The argument from the stability
of nature is a mere sophism, an inference which is not
contained in the premises. But we must say something
more of it. The premises are neither self-evident nor
demonstrable, but assumed. The advocates of miracles
affirm that the course of nature has not been immu
table ; and this philosopher deems it sufficient to say
that it has. How did he know what has been the
course of nature in past ages ? He did not exist from
the beginning of time; he was but of yesterday, and
was indebted for his knowledge of what had happen
ed before, him, to testimony. Now this testimony told
him, as it tells us, that the course of nature had not
been uniform, but had been subjected to repeated inter
ruptions ; and how could he say with candour and truth
that it had never been altered ? It was the business
of a philosopher, not to take the uniformity of nature
for granted in opposition to the only evidence which he
could have on the subject, but to prove, if he was able,
in some other way, that its course had neverundergone
the interruptions which history alleged. Had this plan
been adopted, we should have never heard of his boas
ted argument, " which, with the wise and learned,
would be an everlasting check to all kinds of super
stitious delusion, and consequently, would be useful as
long as the world endures,"f namely, that as our expe
rience of the uniformity of nature is firm and unaltera
ble, but our experience of the truth of human testimo
ny is variable, the evidence against miracles from the
former, overwhelms and annihilates any evidence in
their favour which is supposed to be afforded by the lat
ter. He first falsifies testimony by representing it as
establishing the immutability of the laws of nature,
which it does not, and then opposes testimony, under
the name of experience, to testimony affirming the
change of those laws. We know that variable as is
our experience of testimony, that is, although we find
it sometimes to be true, and at other times to be false,
the declaration of a single witness will often induce us
to believe an event totally different from any which had
fallen under our own observation. Credit is given ev
ery day to a traveller of acknowledged capacity and
integrity, when he relates strange phenomena, and
equally strange occurrences in the countries which he
has visited. Were he indeed to affirm that he had seen
a miracle, we should not be so ready to believe him ;
but if his report were corroborated by other witnesses
alike possessed of mental and moral qualifications; if

* Hume's Essays, vol. ii. Of Miracles. f Vol. ii. p. 124.

they agreed, not only when brought together, but
when separately examined ; if they had no interest to
serve by their statement, but the maintaining of it
would tend to their prejudice ; if they should persist
in averring its truth in the midst of sufferings and in
the article of death ; if they would not retract, although,
upon condition of doing so, they were promised their
lives; there is not a man in the world who would not
admit that the evidence was irresistible. This is un
doubtedly a case in which, to use the language of
Hume, the falsehood of their testimony would be more
miraculous than the event which they relate; and then,
as he admits, they might pretend to command our belief
or opinion. But these are the circumstances in which
the testimony to the miracles of Christianity was de
livered ; and consequently, we must set aside, as irrele
vant, all reasoning from the uniformity of the course
of nature.
My next observation is, that a case maybe conceived
in which there would be a reason for the working of
miracles, and it is the case in which they are alleged
to have been actually wrought. If God should be
pleased to make any communication to mankind for
their benefit, and his own glory, there would be a ne
cessity that he should interpose in a sensible manner.
I do not say that we could have expected miracles be
forehand, because we could not have known beforehand
that he would make any communication of his will.
But we see that amidst many things in the course of
events which must be viewed as indications of severity,
there are also tokens of his goodness. Notwithstanding
the criminal conduct of his creatures, he makes the sun
shine, and the rain fall upon them, gives them food and
raiment, and innumerable blessings, and exercises mercy
in relieving them from the evils which fall to their lot,
and in providing the means, by the use of which their
sufferings are alleviated. We could not, from these
things, infer that he would proceed farther in our behalf;
but if he should extend his care to our souls as well as
to our bodies, it would be an extension of the benevo
lence already displayed in his works. It wonld be in
conformity to the plan which he has hitherto pursued,
and a farther development of it, if he should interpose
to rescue fallen men from ignorance, guilt, and perdi
tion. It would not be unworthy of him, or rather it
would reflect great glory upon his character, if he
should impart to them more correct views of his na
ture and attributes, deliver to them a plain rule of duty,
point out the means of regaining his favour, and make
such discoveries of the future state as would animate
their obedience, console them in affliction, and raise
them above the fear of death. It is certain that they
have no claim to such a revelation ; but the granting of
it would be in accordance with the kind and compas
sionate nature of the providential dispensation under
which they are placed. It does not follow that a reve
lation was strictly probable; but the reasoning shows
that it was not improbable ; that there was no presump
tion against it ; nay, that there was some presumption
in its favour ; that is, that although nothing exactly
similar had taken place, there was something so like it
as to render it by no means incredible. Now, if God
should be pleased to make a revelation for the instruc
tion and happiness of his creatures, miracles were evi
dently necessary, because it was only by them that it
could be attested. It was not to be a revelation to
every individual, conveyed into his own mind with
such marks of its origin as should take away all doubt;
but a revelation communicated to a few, to be by them
published to the world. Here, then, is a case in which
miracles were called for to confirm the testimony of the
ministers of heaven, to convince others that they spoke
by higher authority than their own, and, consequently,
the probability of miracles is in proportion to the proba
bility that a revelation would be made. They are in-

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

39

separably connected ; the one could not be without the
other. We have already see.n that if miracles had not been
wrought, our sacred books could not have been received
as. authentic, and that the religion taught in them could
not have made its way in the world. No hypothesis
but that of miracles will account for its success. It has
been alleged, with a view to throw suspicion upon the
scriptural narrations, that stories of miracles have been
circulated and belieyed in all ages ; and that, as cre
dulity and the love of the marvellous are so prevalent
among mankind, these principles will account for the
belief of the Christian miracles. Our antagonists refer
us to heathen and popish writings, in which are many
eimilar relations equally entitled, as they insinuate, to
attention. It is true that ancient historians abound in wonderful
facts ; but there is no evidence that Livy, for example,
gave credit to those which he records, and certainly he
has stated no grounds on which we should believe them.
He does not pretend to have seen any of them himself:
they happened long before his time, and they were ob
viously vague rumours, the consequences of which af
fected no individual. Some of the miracles were natu
ral events, as the fall of lightning upon a house or a
tree, and the descent of stones, or as they are called in
modern science aerolites, from the clouds ; others were
monstrous productions which now and then appear ;
and others were of the same ridiculous nature with the
marvellous stories which are still current among the vul
gar. The best authenticated heathen miracles are those
which Vespasian performed in Alexandria upon a blind
and a lame man.* It is questionable whether Tacitus,
who relates them with a grave face, himself believed
them. At first, Vespasian laughed at the proposal to
attempt the feat, and did not proceed till he was excited
by his friends, and assured by physicians that the lame
ness and blindness were curable by proper applications ;
that is to say, the whole business was a farce ; but be
ing acted by a mighty emperor, surrounded by his cour
tiers and soldiers, and tending to the honour of the
tutelar god of the city, it passed without examination.
How different were the Christian miracles, performed
by a few obscure individuals, in the midst of enemies,
and opposed by all the powers of the state !
Popish miracles are without number. Some of them
carry their own confutation in their face, being so ab
surd and ridiculous that even a child would laugh at
them. Some, again, are profane and impious in a shock
ing degree. Not a few of them have been clearly
proved to be impostures by the confession of the per
sons employed in them, and by the discovery of the
means by which they were effected ; and these destroy
the credit of the rest, upon this principle, that if you
have once proved a man to be repeatedly guilty of false
hood, you are not bound ever to believe him.
Dr. Douglas, in his Criterion of Miracles, and Dr.
Paley after him, have laid down various rules for dis
tinguishing false accounts of miracles from true. No
credit is due to relations long posterior to the time; to
accounts of miracles which are said to have been per
formed in a far distant scene ; or to transient rumours
of wonderful events which soon cease to be mentioned
The miracles of Christianity were wrought on the spot
where, and in the age when, the narrative was publish
ed : they have ever since been believed and appealed
to as proofs of our religion. No credit is due to reports
of miracles in which, to use the words of Paley, "no
interest is involved, nothing is to be done or changed
in consequence of believing them. Such stories are
credited, if the careless assent that is given to them
deserve that name, more by the indolence of the hearer,
than by his judgment ; or, though not much^credited,

*Tacit. Hist. lib. iv.

are passed from one to another without inquiry or resis
tance. "* But the miracles of Christianity must have
awakened all the attention of mankind, because they
decided, " if true, the most important question upon
which the human mind can fix its anxiety. " Once
more, miracles may be suspected when they are report
ed to be wrought in confirmation of a religion support
ed by the state, and embraced by the people. All the
heathen and popish miracles fall under suspicion on
this ground. The miracles of Christianity were
wrought against the established religions. The design
of them was not to give credit to a sect already exist
ing, but to found one upon the ruins of all other sects.
There was no prejudice in their favour; the prejudices
of mankind were all hostile to them. It was only by
being true that they could accomplish their end ; and
since they did succeed, we may implicitly confide in
the record of them which has been transmitted to us.

LECTURE VIII.
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
What Miracles prove — Are they alone sufficient to prove a
Revelation? Argument from Prophecy — Definition of a Pro
phecy : Implies Divine Foresight — Characteristics of real
Prophecies — Their Force as an Evidence of Revelation —
Notice of some particular Prophecies — Argument from the
Success of Christianity : Statement and Force of this Ar
gument. We have shown that miracles are possible, that
there is no improbability against them, and that cases
may be conceived in which they would be manifestly
proper and necessary. It has appeared that God only
can work miracles, and that the men who have been
employed in them ought to be viewed in no other light
than as the instruments by whom his power was exert
ed. The conclusion from these premises is, that the
religion in favour of which miracles have been
wrought, is true. We have proved the certainty of the
miracles alleged in support of the Jewish and Chris
tian Scriptures, and hence we are warranted to account
them a Divine revelation.
I io not see that this inference can be rationally dis
puted. I should presume that if a person were once
convinced that the miracles related in the Scriptures
were really performed, he would not hesitate to give an
assent to the doctrines taught in them. Miracles were
signs of the presence of God with those who exhibited
these seals, as they have been called, by which their
commission to communicate his will was attested. In
fidels have asked, What connexion is there between
truth and power ? meaning that there is no connection,
or that the truth of a doctrine cannot be proved by a
miracle. They might have asked with equal wisdom,
What connexion is there between a man's signature and
the validity of the bill or bond which he has subscribed?
What connexion is there between the credentials of an
ambassador and his right to transact the business of
his sovereign ? If they could perceive the connexion
in these cases, they could see it in the other, unless
they were wilfully blind. Were it in the power of
men to work miracles, we could draw no inference
from them respecting the truth of their tenets, because
they might be influenced by corrupt motives, and have
a design to deceive. But, believing that God is a holy
Being, who will not and cannot deceive, because false
hood is contrary to his nature, we hold that the exertion
of his power in favour of any religious system, is the
highest evidence of its truth. To suppose the contrary
is impiety and blasphemy. Those who witnessed the
supernatural works by which the law of Moses and the

*Paley's Evidences, part i. prop. ii. chap. 1.

40

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

gospel of Christ were confirmed, were furnished with
the means of being as fully assured that the revelations
proceeded from God, as if they had heard him pro
nounce them with an audible voice : and we, to whom
their testimony to the works has been faithfully trans
mitted, may have equal confidence in the divinity of
these revelations.
It has been asserted by some Christian writers, that
miracles alone are not sufficient to prove the truth of a
doctrine, and that we must take into the account the
nature of the doctrine, as well as the miracles. This
has always appeared to me to be reasoning in a circle,
as Papists do, when they prove the authority of the
Scriptures from the church, and the authority of the
church from the Scriptures. It completely changes the
design of miracles, which are no longer decisive proofs
but merely testimonials, which when a man can pro
duce, " if he teaches nothing absurd, much more if his
doctrines and precepts appear to be good and beneficial,
he ought to be obeyed." So says Dr. Jortin,* and so
say others, but with very little wisdom. Who is to
determine what is absurd and what is not ? May not
doctrines which are true seem absurd to the ignorant and
prejudiced? Were not the peculiar doctrines of Chris
tianity viewed in this light by both Jews and Gentiles ?
Who is to judge what is good and beneficial ? Are
there not exercises and duties of our religion, the good
ness of which is known only by the declarations and
promises of God, and could not have been ascertained
by reasoning a priori? The ground on which this
opinion rests, is the difficulty of distinguishing true
miracles from false. If, by the latter, are meant such
signs and wonders as it was intimated by our Lord that
false Christs and false prophets would perform, we have
already seen that they were merely feats of dexterity.
There is reason to believe that the acts of the Egyp
tian magicians were not exceptions. Let those who
talk of miracles as wrought by evil spirits give us a
well-attested instance of one. Moses, indeed, has said,
" If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of
dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign
or the wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee,
saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast not
known, and let us serve them ; thou shalt not hearken
unto the words of that prophet or that dreamer of
dreams, "j" You will, however, observe, that this is
only a hypothetical case, and seems to have been inten
ded as a general admonition to beware of those who
might entice them to idolatry ; but we do not find that
the case supposed was ever realized, for we read no
where of false prophets among the Jews who wrought
miracles, unless you give this name to the wizards, ne
cromancers, and dealers with familiar spirits, whom all
allow to have been of the same class with our own jug
glers and fortune-tellers. It ought to be farther ob
served, that the case supposed is that of a sign given
to draw men away from a religion already established
by miracles. As God cannot contradict himself, we
are sure, without any farther inquiry, that those are false
miracles which are designed to seduce us to adopt any
opinion or practice which he has forbidden. In such a
case, too, the one set of miracles will be contradicted
by the other; those which are wrought in attestation
of truth, bearing such clear marks of omnipotence as
to demonstrate that those by which error is supported
have emanated from an inferior power. Thus, although
the miracles of the Egyptian magicians had been real,
yet their evidence was destroyed by the miracles of
Moses, which they were not able to imitate. Was it
ever heard that a teacher of error divided the sea before
his followers ; brought down manna from heaven ; still
ed a tempest in a moment ; fed a multitude with a few
* Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, book ii.
t Deut. xiii. 1 — 3.

loaves ; cured all kinds of disease by a word or a touch,
and called the dead from the grave ? Till some per
son be produced who supported a system of his own in
vention by such mighty deeds, we may allow that mir
acles are sufficient to prove the truth of a revelation,
independently of any consideration of its contents.
The opposite opinion supposes a capacity in men
to decide concerning what is true, and fit, and expe
dient in religion, which they do not possess. It
constitutes reason, in part at least, the judge of rev
elation, whereas a revelation, being an authoritative
declaration of the will of God, demands to be received
upon the simple exhibition of its evidence. We are
not to inquire whether it is worthy of God, but to be
lieve that it is so, simply because it has manifestly pro
ceeded from him. In a word, this opinion is at variance
with the Scriptures, which so often appeal to miracles
as a proof of doctrines ; and it represents our Lord as
having reasoned inconclusively when he said, "Believe
me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me ; or
else believe me for the very works' sake. "* "The
works which the Father hath given me to finish, the
same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Fa
ther hath sent me. "| Can any thing be plainer? He
rests his claim to be believed solely upon his miracles.
Will any person still affirm that miracles are not in
themselves sufficient to establish the truth of a doctrine ?
He must also affirm that our Lord, in the passages quo
ted, made an unreasonable demand upon his hearers,
and that their not believing in him on the ground of his
miracles alone, would not have been so criminal as we
have been led to suppose.
Our first argument for the truth of revealed religion
is founded on the miracles which were wrought to at
test it. The next is derived from prophecy ; but be
fore we enter upon the illustration of it, we may re
mark its connexion with the proof of the genuineness
of the sacred writings. We can know that certain parts
of them are prophetical only by having previously as
certained that they were composed before, the events
which they profess to foretell. Any doubt upon this
subject would destroy the argument ; and were there
reason to believe that they were posterior to the events,
we should be under the. necessity of pronouncing them
to be forgeries. Hence you perceive, that in this dis
cussion, it was an indispensable preliminary to show
that the Scriptures were the productions of the persons
to whom they are ascribed.
A prophecy is the annunciation of a future event
which could not have been foreknown by natural means.
Human knowledge is almost entirely confined to things
past and present; with a few exceptions, those which
are future are the objects only of conjecture. There
are, indeed, certain events which we confidently expect.
We believe without, any mixture of doubt that in all
ages to come, while the world endures, the sun will
rise and set, the ocean will ebb and flow, the wind will
blow from different points of the compass, and the sea
sons will change. It requires no prophetic spirit to
foretell these events, because they will arise from the
constitution and course of nature, or from causes which
already exist and are known. It would be a real pro
phecy if any person could at this moment inform us at
what precise period this regular succession will cease;
a prophecy, however, which would have no practical
effect, because its truth would not be established till
the present systemhad come to a close, when prophecy
and miracles will no longer be wanted. We can also,
from what we know of certain individuals, draw proba
ble conclusions respecting their actions in given cir
cumstances ; but we proceed upon the general princi
ples of human nature, which are as permanent as the
laws of matter, and upon our previous acquaintance

* John xiv. 11.

•(¦John v. 36.

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

41

with the characters, dispositions, and conduct of the
persons in question. Superior sagacity consists in
quickly and accurately combining the elements of cal
culations, and anticipating the result. Yet it is almost
needless to say, that the best-founded expectations are
often disappointed.
EveTy coincidence between an event and something
which has been said before, is not-to be accounted a
prophecy. You may find in an ancient author passages
surprisingly applicable to occurrences which were long
posterior; but the agreement is manifestly accidental.
There "is no evidence that the authorhad any knowledge
of the occurrence ; nor were the passages ever supposed
to have an original reference to it. It may happen, too,
.that of a variety of conjectures, some shall be realized :
but no person of a sound mind would, for this reason,
look upon them as more than conjectures. He would
say that the accordance was owing to chance, and was
not more wonderful than it is to find, among a multitude
of portraits, one which bears a resemblance to an ac
quaintance without being intended for him. Design
enters into the idea of prophecy ; that is, the words in
which it is expressed were spoken for the avowed pur
pose of giving notice beforehand of an event, hidden
at the time from every mortal eye amidst the darkness
of futurity.
But although human foresight could not be the foun-
d ition of prophecy, it may be supposed that the knowl
edge necessary to it might be furnished, not ,by God,
b it by superior beings. If there are evil spirits who
ii terfere in the affairs of mankind, and take pleasure
i).. deceiving them, it will not be doubted that they far
e ccel us in intellectual endowments, and may possess
tl e means of extending their discoveries beyond our
limited range. "It is easy to conceive Satan," as I
hive elsewhere observed, " if his preternatural agency
upon the mind be admitted, to have enabled the subjects
ot his inspiration to reveal secrets, because deeds com-
n itted in darkness and in the closest retirement are open
In the inspection of a spirit. He could farther have
ii.ade them acquainted with distant transactions, the
immediate knowledge of which it was impossible to
obtain by natural means. He might have given them
s >me notices of futurity by informing them of such
tl.ings as he intended to do, or as were already in a
tiain to be accomplished. He undoubtedly can conjec
ture with much greater sagacity than we, what will be
tlie result in a variety of cases from the superior pow
ers of his mind, his longer and more extensive expe
rience, and his more perfect acquaintance with human
nature in general, and the dispositions and circumstances
of individuals."* Thus far his knowledge may go ;
but it is obviously inadequate to such predictions as
are found in the records of revelation. It catches a
glimpse of the outskirts of futurity, but cannot pene
trate into its dark and distant recesses. " A real pro
phecy, or the prediction of an event which shall be ef
fected by causes not yet in existence, or which depends
upon the free agency of men who shall live a hun
dred or a thousand years hence, we may safely pro
nounce him to be as incapahle of delivering as the
most short-sighted of mortals."-)"
It is probable, that if men had formed a previous idea
of prophecy, they would have supposed that it would
be distinct and particular, giving a clear description of
events, and thus guarding against all misapplication,
and against all danger of overlooking the fulfilment.
This is the character of predictions written after the
event, as we see in the pretended Sibylline Oracles,
which are often as plain as historical narrative. But
there is an obscurity in the prophecies of Scripture,
referrible, however, to a different cause from that stud
ied ambiguity to which the obscurity of the heathen

* Lectures on the Acts, second edition, p. 317.
F

t Ibid.

oracles was owing, for they were so framed as to admit
an application to the event, whatever it might be. Such
was the answer to Pyrrhus, when he was going to
make war with the Romans :
Aio te ^Eacida Romanes vincere posse:
Ibis redibis nunquam in bello penbis.
"I say, that thou, 0 son of jEacus, art able to conquer
the Romans : thou shalt go, thou shalt return, thou
shalt never perish in war." Or, " I say, that the Ro
mans are able to conquer thee, 0 son of jEacus: thou
shalt go, thou shalt never return, thou shalt perish in
war." Of the same kind was the answer of the ora
cle to Croesus, when he was going to make war with
the Persians : K/> oitos 'Axw JVa/2« [ayxxm tpxnv ti*.\v<ru.
" Crcesus, having passed the river Halys, shall over
turn a great empire." This was a safe prediction, be
cause it would prove true whether his own kingdom or
that of the Persians was subverted. The obscurity
which attends the prophecies of Scripture has proceeded
from the wisdom of God, who designed to give such
notice of future events as should excite a general ex
pectation of them, but not to make the information so
perspicuous and minute as to induce men to attempt ei
ther to hasten or to impede their fulfilment. They are
a part of his moral administration, and were adjusted,
like all the other parts of it, to the moral nature of the
persons who were to be the instruments of accomplish
ing his purposes. " As the completion of the prophe
cy is left for the most part," says Bishop Hurd, "to
the instrumentality of free agents, if the circumstances
of the event were predicted with the utmost precision,
either human liberty must be restrained, or human ob
stinacy might be tempted to form the absurd indeed,
but criminal purpose of counteracting the prediction.
On the contrary, by throwing some parts of the pre
dicted event into shade, the moral faculties of the agent
have their proper play, and the guilt of an intended op
position to the will of Heaven is avoided."* But the
obscurity is not so great as to render it uncertain whether
they are prophecies or happy conjectures. It is dis
pelled by the event; and when the prediction is turned
into history, we perceive the exact correspondence. It
may be observed, that the degree of obscurity is not
equal in all predictions ; and that some of them are
more minute and explicit than others, insomuch, that
on account of their particularity, it has been affirm
ed, that they must have been written after the events.
This was the charge of Porphyry against the prophe
cies of Daniel.
The argument from prophecy, for the truth of re
vealed religion, may be thus stated. As it is the pre
rogative of God alone to declare the end from the be
ginning, he who predicted future events must have de
rived his knowledge from inspiration. A prophecy,
therefore, like a miracle, attests the commission of the
person by whom it was delivered, proves him to be a
messenger from God, and stamps the character of truth
upon the instructions which he delivered in his name.
A prophecy vouches not only for itself, but for all the
communications which are connected with it. By be
stowing this gift upon an individual, God pointed him
out as one whom he had authorized and qualified to de
clare his will to us ; and we ought implicitly to believe
the religion which has been published by a succession
of prophets, because we are sure, that, he who has an
absolute control over the minds and hearts of men,
would not permit them to mix their own sentiments with
the revelation which they were empowered to make,
and to impose them upon the world, as of equal authori
ty with the dictates of his wisdom.
Miracles were proofs of religion to those before whom
they were wrought; and being fully attested, they are
proofs to succeeding generations. Prophecies were not

* Kurd's Works, vol. v. p. 46.

42

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

proofs to those who heard them delivered, but serve
this purpose to those who see them fulfilled. If it be
asked, Why are not miracles continued? we may an
swer, that they are not necessary, for various reasons ;
and particularly, because there is a standing evidence
of the truth of religion in the prophecies which have
been fulfilled, and are fulfilling before our eyes. And,
to adopt the words of Bishop Newton, " this is one
great excellency of the evidence drawn from prophecy
for the truth of religion, that it is a growing evidence,
and the more prophecies are fulfilled, the more testi
monies there are, and confirmations of the truth and
certainty of divine revelation. And, in this respect, we
have eminently the advantage over those who lived even
in the days of Moses and the prophets, of Christ and
his apostles. They were happy, indeed, in hearing
their discourses, and seeing their miracles ; and doubt
less, many righteous men have desired to see those
things which they saw, and have not seen them, and to
hear those things which they heard, and have not heard
them ; but yet, I say, we have this advantage over them,
that several things, which were then only foretold, are
now fulfilled ; and what were to them only matters of
faith, are become matters of fact and certainty to us, upon
whom the latter ages of the world are come." " Mira
cles may be said to have been the great proofs of reve
lation to the first ages, who saw them performed ;
prophecies may be said to be the great proofs of reve
lation to the last ages, who see them fulfilled."*
After these general observations, I proceed to lay
before you some of the prophecies which are found
in the Sacred Books.
First, let us consider the prophecies respecting the
Jews ; and I select those which are contained in the
writings of Moses, relating to the future calamities of
the nation ; and which, at whatever period the Penta
teuch may be supposed to have been published, were
undoubtedly written long before the event. To go over
them minutely would lead us into too long a detail ; I
shall therefore take notice of only a few particulars.
First, He clearly foretells the invasion and conquest of
their country. " The Lord shall bring a nation against
thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the
eagle flieth ; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not un
derstand ; a nation of fierce countenance." " He shall
eat the fruit of thy cattle and the fruit of thy land, un
til thou be destroyed."! In these words it is impossi
ble not to see a description of the Romans ; who were
not neighbours to the Jews, as the Philistines, the Sy
rians, and the Egyptians were, but had established the
seat of their government at a great distance in Italy ;
who were distinguished by the extent and rapidity of
their conquests ; spoke a language totally different from
that of Judea ; first reduced the country into the form
of a province, and afterwards laid it waste in the reign
of the Emperor Vespasian. In the second place, Mo
ses foretells the dreadful sufferings of the Jews at the
time of the conquest. " He shall not regard the per
sons of the old nor show favour to the young." "He
shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and
fenced walls come down ; and thou shalt eat the fruit
of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy
daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in
the siege, and in the straitness wherewith thine ene
mies shall distress thee." £ Let Josephus, an eyewit
ness, prove how awfully this prediction was verified in
the indiscriminate slaughter of men, women, and chil
dren, by their unpitying foes, and in the dreadful fam
ine which the wretched inhabitants suffered during the
siege of Jerusalem. He relates one instance, and there
might be many, of a woman who ate the flesh of her
own child ; and he says, " that no other city ever suffered
* Dissertation on the Prophecies. Introd.
t Deut. xxviii. 49—51. f Deut. xxviii. 50. 53.

such things, as no generation from the beginning of the
world so much abounded in wickedness." In the third
place, Moses foretells the dispersion of the nation;
" And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people from
the one end of the earth even unto the other."* We
all know that the prediction has been fulfilled, and that
the present state of the Jews exactly corresponds with
it. They have no country, no province, no city which
they can call their own, but for more than seventeen
centuries have been strangers and wanderers, yet re
main distinct. The last circumstance to which I shall
direct your attention, is signified in the following
words : and there shalt thou serve other gods, which
neither thou nor thy fathers have known, wood and
stone."f This prediction was long since fulfilled in the,
fate of the ten tribes, who, wherever they reside, have'
adopted the false religion of the heathen among whom
they sojourn; and has been fulfilled in that of the Jews,
who were more lately dispersed by the Romans ; for it
is well known that in popish countries, particularly in
Spain and Portugal, many of them, to avoid persecu
tion, have conformed to the established religion, and be
come worshippers of images. The whole prophecy is
truly wonderful, and affords a striking proof of the di
vine prescience, when we reflect that it was delivered
fifteen hundred years before the events, and foretold the
rejection of the Jews, at the very same time when God
was taking them to be his peculiar people.
There is a prior prophecy concerning Ishmael, which
is worthy of our notice. " He will be a wild man ; his
hand will be against every man, and every man's hand
against him ; and he shall dwell in the presence of all
his brethren.":): It was also foretold that he should be
come a great nation ; but the description, which seems at
the first view to relate to himself alone, and was to a
certain extent applicable to him, is understood to refer
ultimately to his descendants. These are the Arabians,
whose character and history exactly correspond with it.
The greater part of them have been from time immemo
rial, and still are, wild men, ranging the deserts, and
living upon the spoils which they gather from solitary
travellers, from caravans, and from the adjacent coun
tries into which they make frequent incursions. Theil
hand is against every man, and every man's hand has
been against them. They have provoked the hostility
of different nations ; of Sesostris, the famous king of
Egypt; of Cyrus, the conqueror of Babylon ; of Al
exander the Great ; and of the Romans ; but their at
tempts to subdue them were baffled. Throughout all
past ages they have maintained independence, and
dwelt " in the presence of their brethren."
I pass over the prophecy concerning Egypt, "the
basest of kingdoms," which has been fulfilled in its
constant subjection to foreign domination, and in the
poverty and wretchedness of its inhabitants amidst the
stupendous monuments of its ancient greatness ; and
the prophecy concerning Tyre, " the mart of nations."
" When you come to it," says Maundrell, " you find
no similitude of that glory for which it was so renown
ed in ancient times, but a mere Babel of broken walls,
pillars, and vaults, there being not so much as one en
tire house left. Its present inhabitants subsist chiefly
upon fishing, and seem to be preserved by Divine Pro
vidence, as a visible argument how God has fulfilled
his word concerning Tyre,|| that it should be like 'the
top of a rock, a place for fishers to dry their nets on.' "
The fate of Babylon was foretold in the following
words. " And Babylon, the glory ofkirigdoms, the beau
ty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God
overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be in
habited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to
generation ; neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there j

* Deut. xxviii. 64.
t Gen. xvi. 12.

t Ibid.
|| Ezek. xxvi. 14.

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

43

neither shall the shepherds make their fold there., But
wild beasts of the desert shall lie there ; and their houses
shall be full of doleful creatures ; and owls shall dwell
there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts
of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dra
gons in- their pleasant palaces ; and her time is near to
come, and her days shall not be prolonged."* The de
struction of a city so extensive, containing magnificent
buildings, and surrounded by lofty walls, could have
been effected suddenly only by an earthquake. It was
the work of time ; but every particular has been ful
filled. For centuries the very place where it once
stood, the wonder of the world, was unknown. If mo
dern travellers, who think that they have discovered it
are right, it is an awful monument of the truth and
power of God. It is a mass of ruins, and nothing but
ruins, covering the face of the country for miles ; and
amidst these they have heard the cry of wild beasts,
and seen them roaming in their solitary domain. Other
particulars connected with its doom are specified ; that
it should be besieged by the Medes and Persians ;f
that the Euphrates, which flowed through the midst of
it, should be dried up ;jf. that its gates should be open
to Cyrus, its conqueror ;|| that it should be taken during
the dissipation and security of a feast ;§ and that the
country around it should be turned into a marsh-lf
How exactly these things were accomplished, we learn
from the writings of Xenophon and Herodotus.
The prophecies concerning the Messiah comprehend
a considerable portion of the Old Testament, and
branch out into a great variety of particulars. The pro
phets foretell the family from which he should spring ;
the place of his birth ; the time of his appearance ; his
supernatural endowments ; the manner of his life ; the
nature of his doctrine; his miracles; his rejection by
his countrymen ; his sufferings ; his death ; his resur
rection ; his ascension ; the establishment of his reli
gion and its progress in the world. They enter into so
minute a detail as to give notice of the mode of his
death ; of the character of the persons in whose com
pany he should die ; of the accidental circumstances
of presenting vinegar to him on the cross, and casting
lots for his garments, and of the piercing of his side
with a spear. One prophet writes almost as if he had
been a spectator of the sorrowful scene ;** and among
all the efforts of Grotius to wrest the Scriptures, there is
none more wretched and detestable than his abortive
attempt to apply that chapter to another person. The
unassisted human mind could not have conceived such
a character, and such a train of events, as prophecy has
described. Nothing similar ever occurred before, or
will occur again, while the world endures. When we
attentively consider the predictions relative to our Sa
viour, they divide themselves into two classes, of which
the one describes his humiliation, and the other his glory.
They predicate of the same subject, things apparently
the most inconsistent, which could not have been con
trived by any imagination. So impossible has it ap
peared to the Jews to unite them in one person, that
they have dreamed of two Messiahs, to whom they
have respectively allotted them. The one is the de
scendant of Ephraim, who, aided by some of the tribes,
shall attempt to deliver the Jews from the power of
their enemies, but shall fall in the enterprise. The other
is a descendant of David, who will restore the first
Messiah to life, raise the departed Jews from the grave,
rebuild their temple, and subdue all the nations of the
earth. They have fallen into this error by totally
misapprehending the character of the Messiah, and the
design of his mission. He is represented as a worm
and no man, but as a prince higher than the kings of
* Isa. xiii. 19—22. t Isa. xxi. 2. Jer. li. 11.
1 Isa. xliv. 27. Jer. I. 38. and li. 36. || Isa. xiv. 1.
8 Jer. Ii. 39. 57. V Isa. xiv. 22, 23. ** Isa. liii.

the earth ; as a man of sorrows, but anointed with
the oil of joy above his fellows ; as dying, and yet
abolishing death ; as despised and rejected of men, and
as called the Blessed by the grateful tribes of mankind.
Every reader of the New Testament perceives that
these discordant attributes meet and harmonize in Jesus
of Nazareth, who is both God and man, and who, hav
ing abased himself, and submitted to the death of the
cross, is exalted at the right hand of the Father, and
has received dominion and a kingdom, that all nations
and languages should serve him. To him bore all
the prophets witness ; and as most of their predictions
have been punctually fulfilled, we believe that those
which remain will also be accomplished in their sea
son. There are also many prophecies in the New Testament,
among which we might notice that which relates to
the fall of Jerusalem ; but it is in substance the same
with the prophecy of Moses, which has been consider
ed. It is, however, more particular, and besides men
tioning by name the city which was to be the scene
of desolation, it points out, not obscurely, the armies
by which it would be destroyed, marks the time of the
event, and enumerates the signs which would announce
its approach. Three of the gospels, it is universally
acknowledged, were published before the catastrophe ;
but the fourth did not appear for a considerable number
of years after it. It is worthy of attention, that it is
omitted in the fourth, but is inserted in the other three.*
In the writings of Paul, and in the Revelation of
John, there are clear intimations of the rise of a power
hostile to the religion and the church of Christ, while pro
fessedly it would be connected with both. " Let no man
deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come,
except there come a falling away first, and that man of
sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and
exalteth himself above all that is callecUGod, or that
is worshipped ; so that he, as God, sitteth in the tem
ple of God, showing himself that he is God."f The
scene of his impious deeds is the temple of God, not
that in Jerusalem, which was laid in ruins a short time
after these words were written, but the church, which
is called the house of the living God. There, he
would usurp the attributes and prerogatives of Deity,
and claim authority to supersede the ordinances of hea
ven, and to establish his own laws in their room. We
learn from other passages, that this power would erect
his throne in the city of Rome ; that it would succeed
in extending its dominion over nations, and peoples,
and tongues; that it would persecute with unrelenting
fury those who should refuse to submit to it, and would
profusely shed the blood of the saints. It was quite
improbable at the time that such a power should ever
arise among Christians, few in number, as they
comparatively were, and professing a humble and holy
religion. It was improbable, that, if it should make its
appearance, it should meet with encouragement, as its
claims could not succeed, unless men would consent to
surrender their spiritual liberty, and yield up their judg
ments and consciences to the dictates ,of a self-consti
tuted tyrant. It was improbable that imperial Rome,
which, at that moment, reigned over the kings of the
earth, and where idolatry displayed its splendour and
its triumphs ; that Rome, where Christianity had made
little progress, and was regarded as a detestable super
stition, should at some future period, crouch at the feet
of a Christian priest. I need not tell you how exactly
these things have been fulfilled in that corrupt, idola
trous, and persecuting church, which derives its name
from the seat of the Csesars ; and in its proud, presump
tuous head, who calls himself the vicar of Christ,
claims infallibility, and requires from his subjects obe-
* Matt, xxiv.15. &c. Mark xiii. 14, and Luke xxi. 20.
t 2Thes». ii.3, 4.

44

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

dience to his unholy decrees on pain of eternal damna
tion. Many of the predictions in the book of Revelation
relate to the antichrislian power; but itembraces other
subjects, and contains a history of the world, as con
nected with the true church, from the days of John to
the second coming of Christ. A. considerable part is
yet to be fulfilled, and the interpretations which have
been given are conjectural. But a considerable part
has been fulfilled as different writers have satisfactorily
shown ; and hence we confidently expect that every
particular will be accomplished in its order and season.
This is the second argument for the truth of our re
ligion. The fulfilment of prophecy attests the; com
mission of the prophet, and lays us under an obligation
to receive whatever he delivers to us in the name of God.
The third argument for the truth of our religion is
founded on its success. I acknowledge that mere suc
cess is not a decisive proof of the truth of a religion,
because it may be owing to other causes than the jus
tice of its claims. A religion may spread, not indeed
rapidly, as the Christian did, but gradually, through its
adaptation to the opinions, prejudices, inclinations, and
worldly interests of men ; great effects may be produc
ed in the course of time by the united influence of ar
tifice and authority, when there is a predisposition to
yield to them. We can account in this manner for the
progress of idolatry in the heathen world, and for its
progress in the Christian church during ages of igno
rance. A religion may be rapidly and extensively pro
pagated by force. We have an example in that of Ma
homet, which diffused itself in a short time over seve
ral countries in the East. The case is very different
when a religion succeeds without any external advan
tages ; when it succeeds in the face of strong and con
tinued opposition ; when it succeeds, although it be
contrary to the opinions, prejudices, inclinations, and
worldly interests of those who are prevailed upon to
embrace it ; and we can account for the fact only upon
the hypothesis that it was accompanied with over
whelming evidence, and patronized by the Governor of
the world.
I had occasion in another lecture to point out the
repugnance of the Christian religion to all the princi-
fles by which men are determined in their choice, and
need not to go over the same ground again. It was a
stumbling-block to the Jews, and foolishness to the
Greeks. Each of these classes found something in it
which was irreconcileable to their preconceived opin
ions. It was a stumbling-block to the Jews, because
it proclaimed a suffering Messiah, a spiritual kingdom,
and the admission of the Gentiles to the same privile
ges with the peculiar people. It was foolishness to
the Greeks, because, setting aside their learned specu
lations and their splendid superstitions, it called upon
them to acknowledgea God unknown to their ancestors,
and a Mediator of whom they had never heard before,
and to yield an unhesitating assent to doctrines new,
strange, and inexplicable bythe principles of philosophy.
It is evident that when Jesus Christ published this re
ligion to his contemporaries, he intended it to be the
religion of mankind. He intended that it should su
persede all other religions, and be the rule of faith and
practice in every country and in every age of the world.
fey what means was this design to be accomplished ?
We know of one religion which was propagated by the
sword ; but unlike Mahomet, in this as in every other
part of his character, our Lord made no use "of carnal
weapons to disseminate his religion, and positively dis
claimed them : " My kingdom is not of this world : if
my kingdom were of this world, then would my ser
vants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews ;
but now is my kingdom not from hence."* He would

John xviii. 36.

have none to become his disciples but from conviction
and choice. But where should fie find persons proper
ly qualified to publish and recommend his religion?
What influence did he possess over the wise, the learn
ed, and the eloquent, to prevail upon them to devote
their time and talents to the service of his gospel ?
With such persons he had no connexion. They stood
aloof from him during his short ministry in Judea;
and although by any other man they would have been
deemed the fittest instruments, and he would have been
anxious to engage them in his cause, Jesus used no
means to secure their assistance, and does not appear
to have wished for it. From motives which are inex
plicable upon the principles of human policy, he took
such associates, I might say, as first presented them
selves ; or rather, he studiously selected those whom
every other person would have rejected as being desti
tute of the necessary qualifications, fishermen and tax-
gatherers, without learning, without reputation, without
friends, men whose appearance was ungainly, whose
manners were unpolished, and who, instead of drawing
attention to their doctrine by the arts of oratory, -would
render it still more revolting by the rudeness of their
speech. Yet these were chosen to announce a religion
sublime in its doctrines, but opposed to the prejudices
of all classes ; pure in its precepts, but for that reason
unacceptable to a licentious age ; a religion which
aimed at universal dominion, and required the priest,
the philosopher, and the statesman to bow to its author
ity, and become its lowly disciples. In this procedure
there is something extraordinary. That Jesus Christ
was i wise man, his religion shows ; but in this in
stance, according to the maxims of worldly prudence,
he seemed not to display his usual wisdom. There is
only one way of accounting for his conduct, and that is,
by supposing the truth of his claim to be the messen
ger of the living God. This being admitted, we must
believe that he was certain of success ; that he calcu
lated upon it, not from the fitness of the instruments,
but from the supernatural power which would be exert
ed; and that he chose persons so incompetent in them
selves for the express purpose of making that power
manifest, and furnishing a decisive evidence that his
religion was divine. His conduct was the reverse of
that of an impostor. He knew that he had truth upon
his side, and was sure that it would prevail.
This expectation was realized. The religion
preached by publicans and fishermen attracted attention,
and was embraced by many of all ranks in Judea, and
in other countries. We have the testimony of Tacitus
to its extensive propagation even in the days of the
apostles, about thirty years after the crucifixion ; for-he
informs us that in the reign of Nero there was ingena
multiiudo, a great multitude of Christians in Rome,
many of whom were cruelly put to death by that mer
ciless tyrant.* This testimony is valuable, because it
shows in how short a space Christianity had passed
from the distant province of Judea to Rome, and with
what success it was attended in the capital of the world.
We learn from the younger Pliny, who presided over
the province of Bithynia in the beginning of the second
century, that in that country the gospel could boast of
numerous disciples. The superstition, as he calls it,
had seized not only cities, but smaller towns and vil
lages ; and till he began to use severities against the
Christians, the heathen temples were almost deserted,
and those who sold victims for sacrifice could hardly
find purchasers.-)- These are testimonies of heathens
who could have no interest in magnifying the number
of the Christians. We may add to them the testimony
of Justin Martyr, about thirty years after Pliny, which,
although it should be admitted to be somewhat hyper
bolical, asserts the substantial fact, that the new reli-

* Annal. lib. xv. cap. 44. f J'lin- EP- x- 9?> 98.

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

45

gion was widely diffused: "There is not a nation, either
of Greeks or barbarians, or of any other name, in
which prayer and thanksgiving are not offered up to the
Father and Maker of all things, in the name of the cru
cified Jesus."* I subjoin the words of Tertullian, in
his Liber Apologeticus who flourished in the latter part
of the same century. Addressing the Roman magis
trates, he says, " We are but of yesterday, and we
have filled every place ; your cities, garrisons, and free
towns ; your camp, senate, and forum ; we have left
nothing empty but your temples." It is unnecessary
to produce passages from other writers to the same ef
fect. It is an historical fact, that Christianity,without
any external aid, did make its way in the face of oblo
quy and persecution, of all the opposition which it en
countered from the reasonings of philosophers, and
from the edicts and the penalties of civil governments.
It was like a ship propelled in its course by an invisi
ble power, although wind and current are against it.
The more it was oppressed, the more it grew. Blood
was shed, but it proved a seed from which there sprung
up a new race of martyrs and confessors. The strug
gle was prolonged nearly three hundred years, but truth
prevailed, and the religion of the man whom his coun
trymen rejected, was established in all the provinces of
the Roman empire.
As the fact cannot be explained upon the principles
of reason and experience ; as it is a fact which has no
parallel in the moral history of mankind, we are led to
inquire into it, and to discover, if we can, an adequate
cause. Since it cannot be doubted that men in former
times had the same understanding and the same feelings
which they have now, it would be absurd to imagine
that they would submit to the new religion, with all the
foreseen consequences of embracing it, unless such evi
dence had been presented as fully satisfied them that
its claim to a divine origin was well founded. Of this
evidence the resurrection of its author was an essential
part, because he had himself foretold it ; and as it was
necessary for the vindication of his character from the
aspersions thrown upon it, if he had not risen from the
grave, not a single person would have admitted his pre
tensions. His immediate followers would have known
that he was an impostor, and would not. have exposed
themselves to sufferings and death, in order to immor
talize a man who had so grossly deceived them. No
motive can be conceived which would have induced
them to engage in the office of propagating his religion.
They must have seen at once, from its nature, that as it
was false its success was impossible ; and, consequent
ly, they could have no hope of gaining fame, or wealth,
or power, by the attempt. The cause was desperate,
as their leader had perished, and his promises of super
natural assistance had utterly failed. The apostles,
too, when they entered upon their labours, were convin
ced that Jesus had risen from the dead ; but it was ne
cessary that they should convince others of the fact,
and if they had not been able to establish it by satis
factory evidence, they would have addressed Jews and
Gentiles in vain. The circurristances in which their
. testimony was delivered, the manifest absence of any
sinister motive to which it might be imputed, their con
fidence, and the consistency which they maintained in
the severest trials, might have rendered it worthy of
credit in the opinion of some persons of reflection ; but
to mankind in general, more unquestionable evidence
would be necessary ; because there was not merely a
simple fact to be proved, but a fact involving the most
serious consequences, as all who admitted its truth
were bound to embrace and maintain the new religion,
through good report and bad report, in life and in death.
In such a case I do not see that less would have suf
ficed than miraculous evidence, than the exhibition of

* Just. Mar. Eial. cum. Tryphon. p. 341.

such signs, the performance of such works, as demon
strated that the persons who proclaimed the truth of
Christianity and the resurrection of its founder, were
the ministers and messengers of God. Miracles are
the operation of Omnipotence; and if miracles were
wrought in favour of revelation, the question is decided.
The success of the gospel, notwithstanding the opposi
tion which it had to encounter, is a proof that it was ac
companied with supernatural evidence by which incred
ulity was subdued. To a reflecting mind, this short
statement by one of the evangelists will appear to be
true, because it is the only statement which accounts for
the success of the apostles : "And they went forth and
preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and
confirming the word with signs following."*

LECTURE IX.
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
Argument from Success of the Gospel, continued — Examination
of Gibbon's live secondary Causes — Internal Evidences of
Revelation ; Its Doctrines concerning God, the Origin of
Evil, the Atonement, the Immortality of Man, and future
Retribution; The Purity and Universality of its moral Code;
The Character of Christ ; and the harmony of its Parts —
The Effects of Christianity.
We have seen that the success of Christianity in the
first ages presupposes miracles, which alone could satis
fy of its truth those to whom it was published. God
could have rendered unbelief impossible by an imme
diate revelation to each individual, which would have
produced the same conviction that was felt by the pro
phets and apostles ; but he would deal with men as ra
tional beings, by presenting such evidence as was suffi
cient to all who should candidly attend to it, and would
leave them without excuse if they rejected his word.
We find, however, that in vain were miracles wrought
before the eyes of many in that age. The Jews, who
had seen the wonderful works of our Saviour, crucified
him, and evaded the evidence which they afforded of
his divine mission, by ascribing them to demoniacal
assistance. The Gentiles resisted the argument on the
similar pretext of magic. It follows that those who
were convinced must have got over this and other pre
judices equally strong, and seen something in the mira
cles themselves and in the religion which they were
designed to attest, which satisfied them that the whole
dispensation was from God. This effect is not to be
attributed to their superior discernment; for the greater
part of the converts were not distinguished for mental
capacity, but were such persons as are still found among
the lower classes of society, persons poor and unedu
cated ; yet this was not the character of them all, for
the gospel numbered among its friends not a few indi
viduals of learning and elevated station." But the more
we think of them and of the other class, the more we
shall be convinced that divine influence upon their
minds and hearts was necessary to overcome the obsta
cles to a cordial reception of the truth, and to make them
obedient to the faith. This is the account which the
first preachers of- Christianity give of their success,
when they tell us that the" spiritual weapons which
they used were " mighty through God," to bring the
thoughts of men into captivity to Christ. f The influ
ence to which I refer could not be proved, like miracles,
by ocular demonstration ; but every man who fully and
seriously examines the matter will be sensible that
it must have been exerted ; and if it be admitted that
the invisible but efficacious power of God accompanied
the publication of the gospel, it is no longer a question

* Mark xvi. 20.

f 2 Cor. x. 4, 5.

46

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

whether it was an invention of men or a revelation
from heaven.
" Our curiosity," says Gibbon, " is naturally promp
ted to inquire by what means the Christian faith ob
tained so remarkable a victory over the established re
ligions of the earth. To this inquiry an obvious but
satisfactory answer may be returned ; that it was owing
to the convincing evidence of the doctrine itself, and to
the ruling providence of its great Author."* These are
complimentary and insidious words ; for he proceeds to
point out, what he calls the secondary causes of the
rapid growth of the Christian church; and they are
such as, if true, would divest our argument of its force,
and leave nothing to be contemplated which might not
be found in the success of any other religion.
The first cause which he assigns is "the inflexible
and intolerant zeal of the Christians." Without stop
ping to animadvert upon the opprobrious epithets by
which their zeal is characterized, we may ask every
rational man whether this can be considered as an
adequate cause. The zeal of a party may excite public
attention, and gain some proselytes; but the more
vehement it is, it is the more likely to defeat its end,
by stirring up a zeal of equal vehemence in its antag
onists. This zeal could, at first, be displayed only by
a few, who would have been overwhelmed by the
multitude of their opponents ; for, if Gibbon refers to
the zeal of the Christians when they had become numer
ous, and it was then only that it could have made an
impression upon mankind, he puts the cause after the
effect, and it remains to account for their previous in
crease. How did they grow up to such a number, that
their united activity was capable of contending effec
tually with the formidable army of Jews and Gentiles?
Besides, it is altogether inconceivable that mere zeal
would have gained men over to a religion so contrary
to all their prejudices, and habits and interests.
The second cause is, " the doctrine of immortality ;"
but to the Jews this was no novelty, and the Gentiles car
ed little about it, although their philosophers made it a
subject of speculation. Men gave themselves no more
concern about the future state than they do at present,
when, with the exception of a few, they studiously
keep it as much as possible out of view. It is contra
ry to experience to suppose, that the doctrine of immor
tality had such powerful attractions as to recommend
to mankind at large the religion by which it was taught.
To the ambitious, the covetous, the sensual, the vicious
of every description, the Christian doctrine is revolting,
because the happiness which it promises is reserved for
the pure alone, and to others it announces an eternity
of suffering. A heaven without a hell would have
been more pleasing to the age when the gospel appear
ed, especially if that heaven had. resembled a Mahome
tan paradise.
He assigns as a third cause, " the miraculous pow
ers which were.ascribed to the primitive church," but,
at the same time, labours to prove that no such powers
were possessed, and that the claim to them was found
ed on imposture, and supported by credulity. That,
however, miracles were performed in attestation of the
gospel , we have already shown ; and as the fact was ad
mitted by the most virulent enemies of the faith, Celsus,
Porphyry, and Julian, it was too late for an infidel in
the eighteenth century to deny it. Pretended miracles
were common in the first ages, and had lost their cre
dit ; so that if those to which the Christians appealed
had been of the same character, they would have injur
ed instead of assisting their cause. If their miracles
did draw attention, and produce conviction, it could
only be because they were clearly distinguished from
the counterfeits, and bore unequivocal marks of a su
pernatural origin.

* Gibbon's Decline and Fail, chap. 15.

The " pure and austere morals" of the Christians aT9
mentioned as the fourth cause ; but their virtues, as he
represents them, were calculated to excite contempt and
opposition ; for they consisted in a mean-spirited repen
tance, a monkish abstinence from innocent pleasures,
and aversion to the active duties of public life. If they
were in reality distinguished by genuine virtues, whence
did they originate ? in what soil were they produced ?
They cannot be traced to the spirit of Judaism, which
was superstitious and intolerant ; nor to heathenism,
that overflowing source of corruption of manners. Their
virtues were inspired by their religion, and may well
be believed to have often made an impression in its fa
vour. The testimony of Pliny to the purity of their
manners is well known. Tertullian informs us that it
was common to say, such a person is a good man, but
he is a Christian. The only defect in his character was
his religion.
The last secondary cause is the " union and disci
pline of the Christian republic." But a union which
should have the effect of changing the established or
der of things presupposes numbers ; for the combined
efforts of a few would be as inefficient as the human
breath is to ruffle the surface of a lake. Before, then,
the union of the Christians could be conceived to ad
vance their cause, a society must have been formed of
considerable extent ; and how is its existence to be ac
counted for? How came it to exist and to make prog
ress prior to the time when its union was brought into
operation ? Here again we have the effect put before
the cause ; the success of a religion attributed to the
union of its friends, while every person sees that it
must have gained friends before they could unite. But
this union, to which such mighty effects are ascribed,
is merely assumed by the historian for the present pur
pose. No man has described, in more glowing colours,
the disputes and divisions of the followers of Christ.
Differences of opinion began at an an early period, even
in the days of the apostles ; they increased as time ad
vanced ; and while Christianity was in a state of per
secution, its professed advocates exhibited the unedify-
ing spectacle of doctrine against doctrine, sect against
sect, and anathemas hurled against each other by those
who called themselves the disciples of the same Master.
I do not think that these secondary causes, which,
however, Gibbon meant to be understood as the only
ones, would give any satisfaction to a candid inquirer.
It would stili remain to be explained by what means a
few Jews, who were the first followers of Jesus 0/
Nazareth, without all human qualification for the en
terprise, succeeded in propagating a new and strange
system, opposed to all the prejudices and worldly inter
ests of mankind; by what means they gained nu
merous converts in the various provinces and cities of
the Roman empire, and those converts, pursuing the
same course, advanced in the face of persecution till
their cause triumphed, and Christianity became the re
ligion of the state. This is no ordinary phenomenon;
there is nothing similar to it in the history of human af
fairs. I do not believe that Gibbon was satisfied with
his own account. But the infidel must say some
thing against Christianity ; and if it raise a laugh, or
impress the giddy and inconsiderate, he has gained
his end.
I have considered the. externa] evidences of revealed
religion, miracles, and prophecy, and to these have
added the argument derived from the success of the
gospel. I proceed to give a short view of the internal
evidences which arise from a survey of its contents.
Is there any thing in the nature of our religion which
would lead us to ascribe it to a supernatural origin ?
Are its articles such that we could not conceive them to
have been invented by the publishers ? ATe its doc
trines and precepts, as far as reason can judge, agreea
ble to its best and clearest dictates ? Does the whole

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

47

system appear to be worthy of God, arid suitable to the
condition of man ? Does it give us information upon
subjects of manifest importance, and throw light upon
topics into which men had anxiously inquired, but with
out success ?
Let us attend, in the first place, to its doctrine con
cerning the existence and unity of God. This doctrine
is so clearly taught in the New Testament, that it is
unnecessary to refer to particular passages. I shall
only observe, that there are three descriptions of the
Supreme Being, which, in a few simple words, convey
more just and elevated ideas of him than the most
elaborate and splendid compositions of human genius
and eloquence. " God is a spirit."* — " God is light."f
— " God is love."^: The sublimity of the conception
and the comprehensiveness of the expression are unri
valled; and, coming from persons confessedly un
learned, may well excite our astonishment, and make
us ask, whence bad they this wisdom? wisdom in the
presence of which philosophy is abashed. Did Socra
tes or Plato, or any other celebrated man, ever thus an
nounce the spirituality, the purity, and the benevolence
of the first Cause? But our Saviour and his apostles
lived in an age of learning and science, and may have
been indebted to others for these discoveries. I am not
aware that any person has been so foolhardy as to say
bo ; but if he had, we could have confounded him at
once, by calling upon him to point out the source from
which they were borrowed. But let us go back to an
earlier period. Let us look into the Old Testament,
and we shall find the same doctrine from the beginning
to the end of it. We shall find, that while polytheism
prevailed in every region of the earth, and the wise
men of the heathen world were " feeling after God, if
haply they might find him," he was known to a nation
which infiidels call barbarous, and known at the com
mencement of their history, while they were surrounded
by the grossest idolaters. Let us transfer ourselves in
idea to the age when Moses lived ; let us reflect that,
in that age, reason had not been cultivated as it now is,
nor had science lent its aid to confirm its conclusions
concerning the Author of the universe ; that the nation
to which he belonged was a race of peasants and me
chanics, who had been long in a state of oppression ;
and the question naturally occurs, how came Moses to
possess such noble conceptions of the Deity ? Among
the teachers of theology in the ancient world, he stands
on a proud eminence. In the most polished nations we
find them inquiring, doubting, occasionally stumbling
upon the truth as by accident, and then starting away
from it, bewildered in a maze of Mystery, involving
themselves and their disciples in midnight darkness,
and terminating their laborious researches by acquies
cing in the errors and superstitions of the vulgar. We
are told indeed, that Moses was instructed in all the
learning of Egypt ; and, as the inhabitants of that coun
try were celebrated for their wisdom, it may be sup
posed that he derived purer ideas of theology from
them. We do not exactly know whatwas the theologi
cal system of the Egyptians in his days ; but it appears
from his writings, that the true God was unknown to
them, for their haughty monarch exclaimed, " Who is
Jehovah, that I should obey him ? I know not Jeho
vah, neither will I let Israel go."|| It would be strange
to imagine that Moses was indebted for his sublime
d jctrine lo a people, distinguished from all heathen na
tions by the number and the baseness of their gods,
and whose priests, the depositories of all learning,
which they carefully concealed as a thing too sacred to
be exposed to the eyes of the public, seem, from some
notices of their tenets which have come down to us, to
have been not a whit wiser than the philosophers of
other countries. When we see Moses excelling all
* John iv. 24. f John i. 5. f John iv. 8. || Exod. ,-. 2.

his contemporaries, and all who succeeded him for
many centuries ; when we observe that, at an early
period of the world, he possessed, without human in
struction, a degree of knowledge which has never been
surpassed, and the accuracy of which subsequent dis
coveries have confirmed, what can we conclude but that
he was instructed by the God whose existence he pro
claimed? Who else could have told him that there
was only one God, eternal, independent, and almighty,
the Creator and Governor of the universe? It is im
possible to account in any other way for the discovery
which he made, and all others missed, and for the un
hesitating manner in which he announced it, while the
sages of antiquity groped and disputed in the dark. If
it should be said that this knowledge was transmitted
to him from his ancestors, our reasoning is not affected,
but carried back to a period still more remote ; and we
again ask, how came they to be acquainted with a doc
trine of which others were ignorant? How were they
reclaimed from idolatry, which, according to the narra
tive, was practised before the call of Abraham, by him
self and his progenitors ?
Let us observe, in the second place, the account which
revelation gives of the relation in which this great Being
stands to men. It represents him as the Creator of our
race, and likewise of the earth which we inhabit, and
the heavens which shed their light and influences upon
us. There is a sublimity in the idea of creation, or the
production of all things out of nothing ; and it is an idea
peculiar to revelation: so far was it from occurring to
speculative men, that not one of them ever dreamed of
it, and it was pronounced by them all to be absurd and
impossible. According to them, the universe had al
ways existed as we now see it ; or it was reduced to its
present form by divine power, out of pre-existing mate
rials. It is an idea consonant to the purest dictates of
reason ; for, the more we reflect, the more shall we be
convinced that inert unconscious matter could not be
self-existent, and that every being, the duration of which
is measured by time, must have had a beginning. Yet
we owe this idea, so grand, so worthy of the Deity, not
to any of the mighty geniuses whose memory is vene
rated by an admiring world, but to the leader, as infidels
call him, of a barbarous people. This idea pervades
the volume of inspiration. Associated with it, is the
view which the Scriptures give of the government of
the world. It is known that some speculatists among
the heathen excluded God from all concern in human
affairs ; and that, although others admitted a providence,
and said many specious things upon the subject, they
confounded it with fate or inexplicable necessity, a chain
of causes and effects, by which men and gods were
bound. Nature did every thing; and the series of
events was the order of nature; but the rational deduc
tion from the creation of the universe, is its constant
subjection to the will and power of its Author. The
machine having been constructed and put in motion, is
preserved from waste and disorder by its Maker. The
mind is relieved and satisfied by this idea. There is a
confidence in what are called the laws of nature, when
we view them as enacted and executed by the Deity
himself; there is additional sublimity and beauty in its
scenes, when we consider him as present, and revealing
himself to us by his works. There is a fitness in events
which reconciles us to them, when they are regarded as
his appointments. A providence ^ever vigilant and ac
tive, which extends to small as well as to great events,
cares for individuals, and directs all the incidents in
their lot, administers many moral lessons to us, calls
forth the best emotions of the heart, corrects, consoles,
and animates us, elevates our thoughts on all occasions
to God, and exhibits him as the object of our reverence
and our gratitude. It is a doctrine at once philosophical
and pious ; and it is so worthy of Him who is the
Parent of the human race, that it recommends itself to

48

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

our approbation, and attests the truth of the only reli
gion by which it is fully and clearly taught.
In the third place, revealed religion gives the only
satisfactory account of the present state of things. In
the surrounding world and the circumstances of men,
we see numerous proofs of intelligence and goodness;
but we cannot say of the whole system, that it displays
perfect order, and unmixed benevolence. There are
many instances of apparent discrepance, and real seve
rity. This globe has evidently suffered a dreadful
convulsion, by which its external structure has been
deranged, and has once been covered with water, which
must have destroyed the whole or the greater part of
its inhabitants. On its surface, while there are plains
and mountains clothed with herbs and trees, there are
immense tracts which yield nothing for the support of
animal life, and are doomed to perpetual sterility. We
find also, that in many places there are volcanoes, or
burning mountains, which discharge stones, ashes,
lava, and boiling water, by which the labours of men
are laid desolate, and great havoc is made of human
life; and that by earthquakes, whole cities are over
thrown, and the unsuspecting inhabitants are buried in
the ruins. These are occasional evils; but there are
inconveniences of a more permanent nature, which
indicate, that he who governs the world did not intend
that it should be a place of rest and pure enjoyment to
man. In one region, he is scorched by the heat of the
vertical sun ; and in another, he shivers amidst frost
and snow ; and although it has been remarked, that,
unlike other animals, he can accommodate himself to
every climate, yet, wherever there is excess in the tem
perature, he suffers in a greater or a less degree. He
is at all times compelled to labour, that he may earn a
subsistence; at all times, liable to have his hopes dis
appointed, particularly by the inclemency of the sea
sons; at all times, subject to infirmities of body and
mind, to diseases of various kinds, and to death. From
these things it appears, that although man and the
system with which he is connected, were evidently in
tended for each other, there is not a complete adapta
tion. And why is it not perfect? Has this proceeded
from a want of wisdom or a want of goodness ? Reason
will not permit us to impute either to the Deity; and
we must therefore suppose, that some cause has arisen,
which has deranged his original plan, and, to a certain
extent, interrupted his benevolence. The ancients said
that nature acts like a stepmother, meaning, that it does
not treat us with all the kindness and tenderness of a
parent. Nature is a word without meaning; and in a
rational system of theology, can signify only the Au
thor of nature. This then is the question. Why does
he treat us with severity? And unenlightened reason
cannot return a firm and satisfactory answer to it. The
existence of moral evil was acknowledged in every age ;
it was too palpable to be overlooked ; but whence it
came, or how it originated, was a problem, which men,
without revelation, were incompetent to solve. To
suppose them to have been created with a propensity
to evil, was to impeach the purity and the benevolence
of the Creator. To ascribe it to the malignity of matter,
was to talk nonsense ; for matter has no moral qualities,
and could not corrupt the mind, although placed in the
closest connexion with it. The Scripture history throws
light upon the mysterious subject. I do not say that
it removes every difficulty, and furnishes an answer to
every objection ; but it states a fact which helps us to
explain present appearances. It informs us, that in the
primeval state of man, none of those physical evils
which he now suffers, existed ; that while, he was in
nocent, all nature smiled upon him and ministered to
him : that he lost his innocence by his own fault, and
not by an act of his Maker, and being himself cor
rupted, has communicated the taint to his posterity ;
that a change immediately took place in the surround- 1

ing scene, which did not efface all vestiges of the
divine goodness, but adapted it to the circumstances of
a guilty race; and that barrenness, toil, inclement sea
sons, and, in a word, all natural evils, were the ap
pointed penalties of transgression. It recommends this
narrative, that it accounts for moral and physical evil,
without impeaching the wisdom, and goodness, and
holiness of the Creator. It shows that the exercise of
another principle was called for, namely, justice, which
suits its acts to the merit or 'demerit of its subjects,
leaves to the innocent the enjoyment of their privileges,
but allots to the guilty, stripes, and chains, and death.
Thus we understand why man, the offspring of God, is
treated as an alien ; why the place of his habitation is
so incommodious ; why his days are few and full of
trouble, and his last abode is in the dust. Unassisted
reason is astonished at these things, and has been
tempted to deny a providence, and even the existence
of an intelligent Governor of the universe. Revelation
furnishes a solution of the difficulties ; it explains the
phenomena; and its discoveries, so seasonable and
satisfactory, afford a presumption at least of its truth.
In the next place, it being admitted that men are sin
ners, and there being in their circumstances evident to
kens of the displeasure of their Maker, let us observe
what revelation teaches concerning the means of re
gaining his favour, and consider whether it does on this
account recommehd itself to our approbation. Amidst
the depravity of human nature, conscience remains, and
performs its office so far as to convince men that they
are guilty, and occasionally to excite uneasy apprehen
sions and forebodings. The following words occur in
the Scriptures, but as they were spoken by a person
who did not belong to the. Jewish nation, they may be
quoted as expressive of the natural sentiments and feel
ings of the human mind: "Wherewith shall I come be
fore the Lord, and bow myself before the High God?
Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with
calves of a year old ? Will the Lord be pleased with
thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of
oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul ? " * We
see the strong workings of fear, an anxiety to appease
the Deity, and a willingness to make the most costly
sacrifices. Into the origin of sacrifices we need not at
present inquire. If they were devised by men them
selves, as some have supposed, contrary to all probabil
ity, it will follow, that reason itself dictates that an
atonement is necessary, and- that it can be made only
by the substitution of a victim in the room of the of
fender. If they were divinely appointed, as there is
every ground to believe, the continuance of the practice
among nations who had lost the memory of the origi
nal institution, is a proof that reason approved of it as
a fit expedient for averting the anger of the Deity. But
although the idea of propitiation was familiar to Jews
and Gentiles, such a sacrifice as the Christian relio-ion
exhibits was altogether new. Men had already resort
ed to human sacrifices, as more valuable and efficacious
than those of brute animals ; but it had never occurred
to any of them that the sufferer must be more than
man. It had never occurred to them that a divine per
son must by incarnation become the victim ; that the
blood of a divine person, united to man, must flow for
the expiation of sin. There is something in this idea
so foreign to all our modes of thinking, so utterly im
probable, so apparently impossible, that we cannot con
ceive it to have spontaneously arisen in the mind of
any man, however wild is the imagination, and howr-
ever extravagant are its combinations. A God becom
ing a man ; a God dying on a cross for his creatures !
who could ever have entertained such a thought ? It
seems to bear upon it the signature of a supernatural
* Micah vi. 6. 7.

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

49

origin ; it seems that nothing could have suggested it
but revelation. From its singularity, its insulated na
ture, its toUl want of connexion with all other ideas,
it seems to possess the character of truth. If it should
be said, that. its strangeness cannot be justly accounted
a proof of its conformity to truth, and that we might
for the same reason give reality to the most monstrous
figments, let it be observed, that this idea is recom
mended by its manifest fitness to serve the purpose for
which it is introduced. By such a sacrifice as is sup
posed, the end of sacrifices is accomplished, and the
mind has sure ground to rest upon in its expectation of
forgiveness. It required little wisdom to perceive that
animal sacrifices could not be an adequate atonement;
and this was the reason that, in despair, human sacrifi
ces were resorted to. Yet even after these, the guilty
could not avoid doubts and suspicions, which led them
on new occasions to repeat the bloody rite. But if the
sacrifice of Christ be admitted, there can be no doubt
that its intrinsic value has fully satisfied the demands
of justice, that this one offering was sufficient. We
cannot but see its consonance to our best conceptions
of the character of God. There are two perfections
which enlightened reason will ascribe to him, goodness
and justice; and of both there are clear indications in
the proceedings of Providence. This sacrifice affords
scope for the exercise of both. It allows goodness to
effect its purpose, and secures its rights to justice.
There may still be difficulties in the case which we
cannot fully explain ; but upon the whole, this interpo
sition in behalf of our fallen race appears worthy of our
merciful and righteous Governor; and it has been found
to be the only expedient which can give relief to the
conscious sinner, condemned by himself and trembling
in the presence of his Judge.
Again, revealed religion gives the only distinct and
satisfactory account of the future destiny of man. It
has been the general expectation that he will survive
the stroke of death. Men have believed that there was
a principle in them distinct from the body, called the
soul, the mind, or the spirit, which will exist in another
state. Yet this belief, as we have seen, was disturbed
by doubt, and the most profound speculations could ne
ver give rise to certainty. Philosophers affirmed and
denied, and declared with their last breath, that they did
not know whether they were to sink into an eternal
sleep or to retain conscious existence. The first thing
which must strike an attentive reader of the sacred vol
ume, is the confidence of the writers in speaking of
this subject. There is no hesitation, no comparison of
probabilities, no argumentation, but strong, positive as
sertion. The immortality of the soul is assumed as an
unquestionable fact, is authoritatively announced. How
do we account for this difference ? Were the writers
persons of greater sagacity than other inquirers ? Or
did they, considered as men, enjoy any peculiar advan
tages for the discovery of truth? Infidels will not ad
mit their superiority in these respects ; nor can we con
tend for it, who know that, with a few exceptions, they
were illiterate men, and belonged to a nation by no
means distinguished for intellectual accomplishments.
How then did they come to speak, in the most decisive
tone, about a point which had perplexed the mightiest
geniuses of the heathen world ? If any other reason
can be assigned but their inspiration, let it be produced,
and we will attend to it; but till then we must be per
mitted to say, that their wisdom descended from the
Father of lights. Observe, too, how different are their
representations of the future state from those of heath
en authors. The latter divided it into two regions, the
one of happiness and the other of misery ; but in as
signing their respective inhabitants, it is not to be sup
posed, that with their imperfect ideas of morality they
would make a proper allotment. The place of punish
ment was peopled by persons guilty of such crimes as
G 4

are universally condemned ; but who were admitted in
to Elysium ? It seems to have been reserved chiefly
for heroes, poets, philosophers, and statesmen ; as if
courage, genius, and political wisdom were above all
things pleasing to the gods. We know, however, that
these have no necessary connexion with virtue, and are
often disjoined from it ; and no man who is but slightly
imbued with the doctrines of revelation would admit
the thought, that such qualifications entitle their pos
sessors to future felicity, or in any degree prepare them
for it. It proves the superiority of the Christian
scheme, that while it holds out the hope of happiness
to the mean as well as to the illustrious, to the illiterate
as well as to the learned, it promises it only to the mor
ally good, without any respect to intellectual accom
plishment. The future state of the Scriptures is man
ifestly calculated to serve the only purpose for which it
ought to have a place in a religious system, — to advance
the interests of virtue, to promote the perfection of hu
man nature, to excite men to the duties of piety, chari
ty, and justice, and not. to tempt them to the pursuits
of ambition and vain-glory. And its tendency to these
effects recommends, it as a doctrine of truth, as a com
munication from the Governor of the universe, of whose
administration we must conceive it to be the ultimate
end, to establish the authority of his moral laws over
mankind. In short, as the hell of revelation is appoin
ted for the guilty and impenitent, its heaven is the abode
of those alone who have mortified their passions, and
obeyed the voice of their Maker ; or, to use its own lan
guage, have lived " soberly, and righteously, and godly."
It is beyond the limits of probability, that the sacred
writers should of their own accord have thought of such
a heaven ; that, having naturally the same views and
feelings with other men, who are so much influenced
by their senses, and devoted to the pleasures of the
world, they should have conceived the happiness of the
future state to consist solely in spiritual enjoyments.
The Elysium of the ancients bore no resemblance to it,
and nothing is more different from it than the paradise
of Mahomet. It is not therefore a conjecture, or a cre
ation of fancy, but a reality, the knowledge of which
they derived from a supernatural source. There is an
other peculiarity in the Christian doctrine of immortal
ity, namely, that it relates to the body as well as to the
soul. This part of man was left out of the theories of
the heathens. It was disposed of after death according
to the funeral rites of each nation, and then forgotten.
This was a capital defect in their system. The body
being an essential part of human nature, it may reason
ably be expected to share the fate of the individual to
whom it belonged, and whose instrument it was in his
virtuous or vicious deeds. It is incredible that it should
have been created for a temporary purpose ; it would
seem, a priori, that it would be preserved as long as
the soul. Experience, indeed, shows us that it dies,
and to all appearance is lost ; but to him who reflected
upon its intimate connexion with the soul, and their
harmonious co-operation for a long series of years, the
natural desire of all men to continue the union, and the
violence with which it is dissolved, its resurrection
would not be so improbable as it was pronounced to be
by the Gentiles, who were prejudiced by absurd notions
of the malignity of matter. The Christian doctrine of
immortality is complete. It provides for the future ex
istence of man ; and while it is more consonant to rea
son than the partial system of heathenism, it excites
attention by its novelty,, and may be justly regarded as
an intimation from Him who does nothing in vain, and
having created man will preserve him for ever as a
monument of his goodness or his justice.
Once more, we may found an argument for the truth
of revealed religion upon its precepts, the general ex
cellence of which even some infidels have been com
pelled to admit. Had not our religion been, to a certain

50

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

extent, a moral system, — had it not enjoined the great
duties which we owe to God and to man, — we could
not have acknowledged it as a divine revelation. The
dictates of reason and conscience in favour of piety,
justice, and fidelity, prove that these are agreeable to
the will of God ; and, consequently, we are justified in
rejecting any system in which they are discarded or not
inculcated, as bearing upon its face the character of im
posture. But it is not because our religion teaches
morality that we receive it as a revelation, but because
it teaches such morality as is found in it. The Christian
law is perfect ; it embraces all the duties of man, and
lays the foundation of the highest attainments in virtue ;
and were it universally obeyed, the innocence of the
golden age would be revived, and the earth would be
an unvaried scene ofpeace and good will. Now, let it
be observed by whom this law was given to the world.
It was never alleged that they were distinguished by
eminence in intellectual vigour, by literary accomplish
ments, by metaphysical acumen, or by large experience
of human life. The greater part of them, confessedly,
could lay no claim to these qualifications. Yet they
have delivered a code which far surpasses the most
celebrated laws and precepts of the legislators and wise
men of the heathen world. To what cause can we as
cribe their superiority ? If their wisdom was more
than human, it must have been derived from a superhu
man source. Since infidels will not admit this inference,
let them substitute a better one. It is certain that the
moral law of the Scriptures excels every other law in
its injunctions and prohibitions, and in its motives. It
inculcates duties which were omitted in other systems,
and condemns practices which they tolerated and ap
proved. Among duties, it prescribes humility, meek
ness, the forgiveness of injuries, and the love of our
enemies, which had been considered as indications of
a mean and dastardly spirit; and it restrains the sensu
al appetites, to which the best of the philosophers gave
ample encouragement, both by their precept and by
their example. It requires us to renounce the world as
a source of happiness ; not like the Stoics, in a fit of
pride and self-sufficiency, but from a deliberate convic
tion of its vanity, and a decided preference of heavenly
things. So great is the contrast, that the virtuous man
of the heathen world, as described by themselves,
would now be regarded as a monster, and those who
think otherwise, either know nothing of the matter,
or voluntarily shut their eyes ; whereas the virtuous
man of revelation, when compared with him, is a being
of a superior order, pure, benevolent, and devout, hap
py in himself, and a blessing to others. Such, at least,
is the pattern which every Christian is called to imitate,
and all the doctrines and promises of religion tend to
promote his conformity to it. Human laws are concern
ed only with our actions, but the law of the Scriptures
extends its authority to the heart, and regulates its
movements. The sinful act is not condemned with
greater severity than the principle from which it pro
ceeded. The law of man says only, "Thou shalt not
steal ;" but the law of Scripture goes farther, and says,
"Thou shalt not covet." The law of man forbids
adultery ; but this law forbids the first emotion of crim
inal desire : " Ye have heard that it was said by them
of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I
say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to
lustafter her, hath committed adultery with her already
in his heart."* There is one remark still to be made,
that the sacred writers placed duty upon its proper ba
sis, the principle of piety, unlike other moralists, who
found it upon the deductions of reason, the fitness of
things, and views of private and public good. Thus
they sanctify our duty, by rendering it obedience to
the Author of our being, and take the most effectual
* Matt. v. 27, 28.

measure to enforce the performance of it by interposing
his paramount authority. It is the will of God which
they call us to obey ; it is the hope of his approbation
which they propose as the animating motive, and his
glory as the end. Separated from piety, morality is
merely a matter of decorum or of interest ; in connex
ion with it, it is the homage of creatures to their Crea
tor. Suppose it to have been possible for the sacred wri
ters to have invented this code of morality, would they
have done so ? Would impostors have laboured to
subject the world to a law so holy ; a law which in the
first place, condemned themselves for presuming, to use
the name of God with a design to deceive their fellow-
men ? Would they who set up with a gross violation
of truth and of charity, have been anxious to guard
others against evil thoughts and contrivances ? Would
men, who retained no reverence for the Supreme Being,
have placed him at the head of the system, and discov
ered a jealous care of his honour, a desire to make him
the object of universal respect and love ? The precepts
of our religion are an irresistible proof that it did not
emanate from bad men ; and good men would not have
passed it on the world as divine, if it had originated
from themselves. They might have presented it to the
public as their view of a subject, about which so many
have delivered their sentiments ; but they would have
given it in such a form, and accompanied it. with such
declarations, as would have satisfied all that it was a
work of their own.
There are some other internal evidences which I shall
briefly mention, as our limits will not permit me to en
large upon them.
The character of the Founder of our religion is not
a human invention, it must have been drawn from actu
al observation. It exhibits the union of properties and
qualities which were never associated before; qualities
so unlike, that it was apparently impossible that they
should meet in the same individual, the attributes ot
Godhead, and the infirmities of humanity. Had an at
tempt been made to delineate such a character from
fancy, it would have failed; the one class of properties
would have been obscured or destroyed by the other.
But in the New Testament this singular character is
supported throughout, in a great diversity of scenes,
and on the most trying occasions; in so much that, in
whatever point of view we contemplate it, we perceive
a perfect accordance of all its parts. The sacred writers
had seen it; and if the Son of God appeared in our na
ture, the religion of the Scriptures is true.
The manner in which the books are composed fur
nishes another argument. I have already remarked
upon their artlessness, as a strong presumption of their
truth, and upon the simplicity with which they relate
the most wonderful facts, which can be accounted for
only by the supposition that they had no design to de
ceive, and that, being convinced themselves, they deem
nothing more necessary than to act the part of faithful
historians. In many parts of Scripture we meet with
instances of sublimity which throw all examples of it
in profane authors into the shade. The taste and judg
ment of that man who should think of placing them
upon a level, would not be envied. They are found in
both the Old and the New Testament, and the most sub
lime book in the world is the Revelation of John. The
true account of this superiority is, that the prophets
and apostles did not speak of themselves.
I call youT attention, in the next place, to the har
mony of all the parts of revelation. 1 do not here con
sider the objection founded on the discrepancies which
have been pointed out, particularly in the historical
books, because these do not affect the present argument,
which relates to the system unfolded in the Scriptures.
From the age of Moses to the days of our Saviour, there
was an interval of fifteen hundred years ; and hew much

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

51

the manners and religion of other nations have changed
in a shorter space, every person knows. The Jews had
passed through all the vicissitudes of liberty and servi
tude, of peace and war. They must have made pro
gress in knowledge and arts, and were, in many re
spects, a different people, at the close of that long
jreriod, from their fathers immediately after their deli
verance from Egypt: yet we find the same scheme pur
sued throughout their successive generations, and the
followers of Christ appealing to the testimony of Moses
in favour of their doctrine. The Christ of the New
Testament is, in all points, the Messiah of the Old ;
the character of God is the same ; and so also are the
moral laws, the doctrines and the promises, with no
other difference but the greater clearness arid fulness of
the last revelation. There is, indeed, a great dissimi
larity between the two dispensations, but they are not
opposed to each other ; the former prefigured what was
accomplished in the latter; they are parts of one whole;
different modes employed by the wisdom of God for
revealing his will, and communicating his blessings to
mankind. Here, then, is a surprising phenomenon ; an
unanimity where there was no concert, kept up for
fifteen centuries amidst many revolutions in external
affairs, and in customs and opinions. During the in
terval, new religions had arisen, and old ones had dis
appeared ; systems of philosophy had flourished and
decayed; but the public creed of one people had under
gone no alteration. What can we say, but that error is
evanescent, while truth is eternal ? Do we not perceive
a proof of divine interference in overruling the minds of
so many individuals, and making them think the same
thoughts and speak the same words?
Lastly, we may deduce an argument for our religion
from its effects. It has changed the state of those
nations which have embraced it, and introduced a de
gree of knowledge, of morality, of civilization, and of
domestic happiness, of which there was no experience
before its appearance. It has humanized the general
manners, and produced many individual examples of
virtue, to which no other religion can present a parallel.
Is that an imposture which has reclaimed the nations
from idolatry, and raised peasants to a rank in the moral
scale far above Socrates or Antoninus ? Put the ques
tion to unprejudiced reason, and she will answer in the
negative. These are some of the internal evidences of the truth
of our religion ; evidences which would present them
selves to a competent inquirer on examining the religion
viewed by itself, independently of the external proof
arising from miracles and prophecy. Put the volume
in which it is contained, into the hands of a person pre
viously acquainted with the scanty and dubious disco
veries of unassisted reason, and having no object in
view but to discover the truth, and although I do not
say that he would be immediately convinced of the
justness of its claim to a supernatural origin, yet I have
no doubt that he would deem the subject worthy of far
ther inquiry, would admit that the claim possessed a
considerable degree of probability, and would yield to
it, in its full extent, as soon as any part of the external
evidence was laid before him.

LECTURE X.
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
Objections considered: That the Light of Nature is sufficient:
That the diffusion of Christianity is partial: That Revelation
contains Mysteries and Doctrines contrary to Reason: That
the Scriptures relate trivial and absurd Facts: — Give false
Ideas of God — And abound with Contradictions.
The evidence with which revelation is accompanied,
is sufficient to satisfy a candid mind. It is not indeed

irresistible, that is, so overpowering that every person
to whom it is presented is necessarily convinced ; but
it affords a rational ground of belief. We do not ask,
and it is impossible to obtain the highest evidence in
the conduct of our worldly affairs; we are obliged to
act upon probabilities, and often upon a mere presump
tion, and yet we do not consider this as a reason why
we should fold our arms, and passively wait for events.
I do not mean that the evidence in favour of revelation
is of this low kind. It is far superior to the evidence
which we have for the success of any of our worldly
enterprises; if carefully examined and impartially
weighed, it will be found to leave no room for reason
able doubt; and accordingly, it has produced a firm
persuasion in the minds of thousands, among whom
were not a few of the most distinguished talents. Still,
however, it is moral evidence, which requires to be
canvassed with a mind freed from prejudice, and pre
pared to admit the conclusion to which the premises
shall lead. It is evidence which may not be perceived,
if only a superficial glance is taken of it; and which
may appear defective, if viewed through the medium
of misrepresentation, or under the influence of a state
of mind unfavourable to the discovery of religious truth.
If these things be taken into the account, it will not be
surprising that Christianity, although bearing the clear
marks of a heavenly origin, has not met with universal
reception. Even miracles failed, in some instances, to
convince those before whose eyes they were wrought;
not because the miracles were suspected to be false,
but because the persons, being unwilling to embrace
the religion which they attested, contrived to evade the
evidence by theories which accounted for them without
a divine interposition. The Gentiles attributed them
to magic, and the Jews to demoniacal influence. The
true reason of resorting to these subterfuges, was the
repugnance of the system to their preconceived opin
ions, and their secular interests. Christ crucified was
a stumbling-block to the Jews, and foolishness to the
Greeks. We need not wonder that, in modern times, there
should be disputers by whom the evidence of Christi
anity is impugned, and its claims are rejected. The
corrupt passions of mankind account for their opposi
tion. "Men hate the light, because their deeds are
evil ; and will not come to it, lest they should be re
proved." Licentiousness wishes to be free from re
straint; and pride of understanding will not acknowl
edge the deficiency of its own resources, and submit
to the dictates of superior wisdom. Was it ever found
that a truly virtuous and humble man was an infidel ?
Does infidelity abound among persons of this charac
ter, the devout, the pure, the modest, and dispassionate
inquirers after truth ? Or are its advocates the profane
and the dissipated, smatterers in knowledge, false pre
tenders to philosophy, and self-conceited speculatists,
who, from the lofty eminence of genius and science on
which they suppose themselves to be placed, look down
with contempt upon the opinions and pursuits of the
multitude ?
I shall conclude this series of lectures upon revela
tion and its records, by briefly considering some of the
objections which have been advanced against them.
The first objection is against any revelation at all ;
and proceeds upon the ground, that it is unnecessary,
because reason is a sufficient guide in religion. A rev
elation reflects upon the wisdom of the Creator of man,
as if he had not at first duly fitted him for the end of
his being, and therefore found it expedient afterwards
to supply the defect. We answered this objection by
anticipation, when We showed, in a former lecture, the
inadequacy of reason in matters of religion. It ap
peared, that unassisted reason has never attained to the
knowledge of the true God, been able to construct a
perfect rule of duty, and establish beyond doubt the

52

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

doctrine of a future state. In whatever manner it is
accounted for, the fact is undeniable. Nothing is more
absurd than to wrangle about the sufficiency of reason,
although it has proved insufficient in every trial ; and
to engage in a formal refutation of the claim, would be
as great a waste of time, as to prove by arguments that
the sun does not shine at midnight, were it not expe
dient to guard those who are ignorant of the history of
mankind against being imposed upon by bold, but false
affirmations. Show us, I will not say a nation, but an
individual, who, unaided in his researches, discovered
the truth in the particulars mentioned, and we will ac
knowledge, at least, that reason was sufficient to him.
If it shall be asked, How can this be, since reason is
the gift of God ? I am not obliged to answer that ques
tion ; it is enough that I prove that it is not sufficient.
If the infidel shall choose to lay the blame upon his
Maker, of having bestowed an imperfect gift upon man,
let him do so, and abide the consequence of his blas
phemy. The fact is a stubborn one, and no speculation
can set it aside. To us, there is no difficulty in account
ing for it. We believe, that reason, when first confer
red, was fully adequate to all the purposes which it was
intended to serve; but that it has since been impaired
and perverted by sin, which has both darkened the un
derstanding and corrupted the heart; so that it is now
led astray by the imagination and the passions, adopts
false principles, and draws erroneous conclusions. Let
it not be said that the depravity of reason is only a
doctrine of revelation, which it has assumed to justify
its own pretensions. The history of mankind vouches
for its truth ; for, what is it, but a history of the gros
sest absurdities, so far as religion is concerned ? To
say, then, that a revelation was unnecessary, because
men possessed, from nature, the means of making all
useful discoveries, is to contradict the most ample evi
dence furnished by the prevalence of idolatry, super
stition, and immorality in all ages and nations. Ei
ther, then, truth on these points was not an object of
importance, or a revelation was desirable, and there was
no improbability against it. The strength of the argu
ment is increased, when we consider that if human na
ture is depraved, as the errors of reason abundantly
show, even although it had succeeded in discovering
all the articles of natural religion, it would not have
been a competent guide, because the new circumstances
of man required the knowledge of new truths, which
lay beyond the range of its inquiries. Reason could
give us no information respecting the means of recov
ering our innocence, and regaining the favour of our
Maker, any more than the knowledge of all that is ne
cessary to us in health, would direct us to the remedies
which are wanted in disease and sickness. This was
an occasion which called for the interference of supe
rior wisdom, or for the interference of the Creator, who
alone could tell by what expedientwe might be restored
to our original state. Unless, then, it be denied that
man is a sinner — and with those who controvert so
plain a fact it is in vain to reason — and unless it be de
nied that more knowledge was necessary to us when
fallen, than sufficed us when innocent, it must be ad
mitted, that a revelation was necessary to revive our
hopes, and to direct us into the way which leads to
peace and felicity. If men were ignorant and exposed
to perdition, it sTarely was not unworthy of God to sup
ply the instruction which would extricate them from
that deplorable condition.
The second objection is directed against the revela
tion in the Scriptures, and is founded on its partial dif
fusion. If it was necessary, why has it not been gran
ted to all ? Can we believe that to be a gift of the
universal Parent, which only a few of his children are
permitted to enjoy ? shall we ascribe favouritism to a
Being of infinite benevolence ? The objection applies
to the Christian, but with greater force to the Jewish

revelation. Here is a nation inferior in many respects
to other nations, which is said to have been selected by
God to be his peculiar people, and on which he confer
red peculiar privileges ; while the rest of the human
race were left to wander in the mazes of ignorance and
sin. Let us state a similar case. Here is a nation
without any peculiar merit, which enjoys all the advan
tages of a fine climate, ami a fertile soil, and all the
hlessings of civilization ; while there are many others
in a half barbarous state, inhabiting barren regions, and
struggling with inclement seasons. Again, here area
few individuals adorned with genius and taste, so as to
seem to be beings of a superior order, when compared
with multitudes who rank low in the scale of intellect,
and are as children in comparison of them. Unless, on
the ground of these differences, you are prepared to de
ny a Providence, which rules over all, I do not sea
that you can deny a revelation because it was once con
fined to a single people, and is still known only to a
portion of mankind. To reason from the goodness of
God, that it will be dispensed in equal shares to all
men, is found to be false in experience, and must be
false also in theory; that is, to infer a priori, that if a
revelation were made, it would be communicated to all
nations, is contrary to the analogy of providence, which
gives to one, and withholds from another. Men forget
themselves, when they seriously bring forward the pre
sent objection. Does it belong to them to prescribe to
the Almighty the mode of his providence ? or have
they a right to demand that a free gift, shall be alike
imparted to all ? We could not have claimed' a reve
lation as our due, unless God had at first made man
without the knowledge necessary for the fulfilment of
the end of his being. But the revelation of the Scrip
tures supposes every individual to be guilty, and con
sequently to have forfeited any title to the favour of his
Maker. Upon what ground, then, shall he complain,
that a particular blessing has been withheld from him ?
or, upon what ground shall he say, It is impossible
that God has bestowed a gift upon another, because he
has not bestowed it upon me? This question is met
by another, May not God do what he pleases with his
own ? You see, then, that there is no reason for reject
ing the Jewish revelation, because it was confined to
Judea; or the Christian, because it is not universal. If
the nations of the world had forsaken the true God,
were worshippers of idols, and practised innumerable
abominations, he was not bound in justice to reclaim
them. He did more than he was under any obligation
to do, when he gave his statutes and judgments to one
of them. The proofs of his mercy towards that nation,
cannot be annihilated by the withholding of it from oth
ers. It never entered into the mind of any Israelite to
deny that there was light in Goshen, because there was
darkness over all the land of Egypt. What is the fact
at present ? Here is a religion said to have come from
God, which is- known to several nations. Is there any
evidence of its divine origin? It is to this that we
must look, and not to the accidental circumstance of
its partial or universal propagation. This is not the
test by which its claims should be tried. We must
appeal to the evidence in its favour, if we would fairly
decide the question ; and finding it sufficient, we are
bound to embrace the religion, whether its benefits have
been extended to few or to many. Let a man acknowl
edge the virtue of the medicine which has cured him,
although there should be thousands labouring under the
same disease, to whom it has not been administered.
In the third place it is objected against revelation,
that it contains mysteries and doctrines contrary to rea
son. What do you object to mysteries? Is it that
they surpass our comprehension? Well, but you are
not required to understand them. Have you any thing
farther to say ? Yes ; it is absurd to suppose that a di
vine revelation would propose, as objects of belief, ar-

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

53

tides of which we cannot form an adequate conception.
They must be useless, as they are unintelligible. No ;
I answer, it by no means follows, that a fact is useless
because I cannot explain it. There are many facts of
this description upon which the business and the hap
piness of human life intimately depend. We know
that a wound inflicted on the body causes pain, but we
do not know how it affects the mind ; and yet the sim
ple fact excites us to use the precautions which are ne
cessary to the preservation of life. In like manner, the
mysteries of religion may have, and are proved to have,
a powerful influence upon the devotion, the consolation,
and the obedience of those who believe them. Nothing
can be more unreasonable, than to object to mysteries
in revelation, while they abound as much in natural re
ligion ; and it is so far from being true that religion
ends where mystery begins, that all religion begins
with mystery, and is accompanied by it throughout
its whole progress. What is a more mysterious
subject than God, a being without beginning, infinite
but not extended, comprehending all things at a glance,
upholding all things without perplexity, and infallibly
accomplishing his purposes, yet leaving his creatures
in possession of liberty ? Is there, in fact, any thing
which man thoroughly knows ? A grain of sand or
drop of water puzzles him. Why then does he expect
that religion shall be. free from mysteries ? Is this a
department in which all things must be plain ? Why
should every nook and crevice be illuminated here, while
in every other province light is mingled with darkness ?
Is not the God of revelation the God of nature ? and
does it follow, that because he has been pleased to
speak to us, all the secrets of his Essence shall be
disclosed, and his transcendent Majesty shall be brought
down to the level of our capacity ? Might it not have
been anticipated that as he was now to appear in a new
character, and to carry on a new system.of operations,
new wonders would meet our eyes? The objection
against revelation on account of its mysteries, is utterly
contemptible; unless it could be shown that the doc
trines referred to under this name, are contrary to rea
son. But it is one thing to assert, and another thing to
prove. If a man should tell us, as Hume has done in
his speculations on Cause and Effect, that for aught
which we know, a feather might have created the uni
verse ; or should affirm with atheists, that the human
race had no beginning, although each individual had a
beginning ; or should maintain that, although there are
marks of design in the system of created things, it had
not an intelligent author; we might justly pronounce
his doctrines to be contrary to reason. But are there
any doctrines in revelation which resemble these ? We
are often reminded of the Trinity, and clamorously told,
that it is impossible to conceive a proposition more re
pugnant to our clearest ideas, than that the same Being
should be one and three. This would unquestionably
be true, if it were affirmed that he is one and three in
the same sense; but let our adversaries demonstrate the
impossibility of his being one in one sense, and three
in another ; one in essence, and three in personal dis
tinctions. It is not so in men, they exclaim. We grant
it; but does it follow that it is not so in God ? Is no
thing possible in an infinite, unless it exist in a finite
essence 1 This is the logic of these mighty men of
Teason ; but they should be sent to school again that
they may learn not to draw conclusions which are not
contained in the premises. The presumption would be
ridiculous, were not a more serious emotion excited by
the impiety of puny mortals who know not how a hair of
the head grows, and yet take upon them to pronounce
what can and cannot be, in that nature Which fills hea
ven and earth.
In the fourth place objections are advanced against the
scheme of redemption revealed in the Scriptures, as
implying what is incredible and impossible. Infidels

exclaim against the incarnation of our Saviour as absurd
and impious ; and say, Who can believe that man was
God, and God man, that God was born, suffered, and
died on a cross ? Let us first state the doctrine accu
rately. We maintain that God became man by uniting
himself with human nature in a mysterious manner;
but we deny any confusion or mixture of the natures,
which remained perfectly distinct; so that when we
speak of the Son of God as having been born, and as
having suffered and died, we refer exclusively to the
assumed nature, of which alone such things are predi-
cable, although we ascribe them to the person to whom
that nature belongs. Now, to the doctrine thus cleared
from misrepresentation, what objection can be made ?
Although such a union would have been previously
improbable — and it is acknowledged that, nothing could
have been more remote from the ordinary train of hu
man thought — this neither proves that it was impossi
ble, nor can it invalidate the evidence that it has actu
ally taken place. In any other case, a man would be
laughed at who should obstinately withhold his assent
to what was told him, on the ground that it was im
probable, although it had been established by satisfac
tory evidence. The only ground which could justify
him in disregarding evidence, would be the impossibil
ity of the thing. But who will presume to say that
this union of the divine and human nature was impos
sible ? or rather, who will demonstrate that it was impos
sible ? for we will not be content with assertion, but de
mand proof. Who can tell us what God can and can
not do? Who has explored all the resources of Om
nipotence? God has conjoined in the composition of
man two substances which have no common properties,
and yet, as experience teaches us, operate together and
upon each other God exerts his power immediately
upon his creatures, to uphold, assist, and excite them
to act; for it is a dictate of reason as well as of revela
tion, that "in him we live, and move, and have our
being." How is it proved that he must stop here ? that
he cannot form a more intimate alliance with his crea
tures? that it would be unworthy of him and contrary
to the; nature of things, to select a human being as the
instrument of his agency for some great purpose, and
with this view, to connect that being with himself by
a peculiar and mysterious relation! This is the doc
trine of the incarnation, and till we hear something more
than clamours against it, we shall continue to believe
it upon the general evidence that the Scriptures are true.
Again, infidels object against the method by which
the incarnate Redeemer is said to have effected our sal
vation, namely, by his substitution. What is more in
consistent with justice, than that one person should suffer
for another, — the innocent should bear the punishment
of the guilty ? Whatever force there may seem, at first
sight, to be in this objection, it has been rejected by
universal consent; for the idea of vicarious sufferings
has prevailed in all ages and nations. Jews and Gen
tiles have believed that the Deity might be appeased,
not only by the sufferings of the guilty themselves, but
by the death of animals offeredin their room; and hence
sacrifices were an essential part of their religion. To
whatever original source the idea may be traced, its
universal diffusion is a proof that men did not consider
it as incompatible with justice, that the penalty to
which one individual was subject, should be inflicted
on another. The idea is admitted still in all cases of
suretiship, when one person is called to make good the
engagements which another has failed to fulfil. It may
be said that in such cases there cannot be injustice, be
cause the surety, when he became responsible for an
other, was aware of the consequences, and according
to the corrimon saying, volenti nullafit injuria. It is
precisely on this ground that we vindicate the Scrip
ture doctrine of the atonement of Christ. His suffer
ings were voluntary in the most perfect sense, the re-

54

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

suit of generous love to man, and of ardent zeal for the
glory of his Father. It would be contrary to justice
that the innocent should suffer for the guilty, if the suf
ferer was compelled to be the victim ; if he were not
master of his own life, and, however willing, had not
a right to dispose of it; or if society would be injured
by his death, and if the punishment would be complete
and final loss to himself. But none of these things is
applicable to the present case. First, Jesus Christ was
a willing victim ; and when the time of his sufferings
was near, he " steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusa
lem."* Secondly, he was Lord of his own life; he
had power to lay it down, and had power to take it
again. f Thirdly, so far was his death from being in
jurious to society, that the greatest benefit has resulted
to mankind from it, as the price of their eternal redemp
tion. Lastly, his sufferings have terminated in un
speakable advantage to himself; for while he has ac
complished the benevolent design on which he was so
fully bent, he has obtained the highest felicity and glo
ry, and reigns at the right hand of his Father, over heav
en and earth. When we consider the ultimate end of
his sufferings, the manifestation of the holiness of God,
the maintenance of his authority, the restoration of
his law, the advancement of the cause of righteousness,
and the expulsion of sin and misery from his kingdom ;
the substitution appears to be an act worthy of the Su
preme Governor of the universe, and in itself and its
consequences, the most glorious part of his moral ad
ministration. Once more, it is objected that if the Son of God as
sumed human nature, and died for the salvation of men,
the end was disproportionate to the means. The dis
pensation would be unworthy of the wisdom of God ;
for it is incredible that such grand preparations should
have been made for the sake of a race of beings so in
significant, that the destruction of them, and the earth
which they inhabit, would not have caused a percepti
ble blank in the wide regions of creation. But such
reasoning is fallacious. The universe itself is as noth
ing, yea, less than nothing, in the eyes of its Maker.
Might we not then say, why does he take any concern
in it? Why does he bestow attention on particular
parts of it — for example, upon men — as we learn from
experience that he does, in the dispensations of his
providence ? Why does he care for still more con
temptible creatures, insects and animalcules, whom he
brings into existence by his power, and sustains by his
bounty ? To reason from the greatness of God and the
littleness of man, would lead to conclusions which we
know to be false. The proper question, therefore, in the
present case is, not what in our apprehension did it be
come God to do, but what has he actually done ? But
we may give the argument a different shape. Yon say
that man was not worthy of all this care, which is im
plied in redemption. But consider distinctly what was
its object. It was to deliver millions of human beings
from perdition, and to raise them to a state of consum
mate and interminable bliss. Was this an insignificant
object ? Can any person estimate the value" of one
soul, when viewed in connexion with eternity ? And
what is the value of myriads of souls ? Although the
salvation of men had been the sole object of redemp
tion, we must have pronounced it to be worthy of the
benevolence of the Deity, and to be a noble display of
wisdom and goodness. But are' we sure that this was
the only design ? Is there no reason to think that it is
a part of a great moral scheme, and that its effects ex
tend to the whole intelligent creation ? Was it not in
tended to be a manifestation of the character and per
fections of the Deity, by which he would be exalted in
the eyes of all orders of rational beings, the authority
of his law would be more solemnly established, the

* Luke ix. 51.

t John x. 18.

obedient would be confirmed in their allegiance, and
their felicity would be augmented. Taken in this con
nexion, our little world, arid insignificant race, acquire
an importance which, viewed in themselves, they did
not possess. Man has been made the object of this
wonderful dispensation, not for his own sake only, but
for the good of the whole family dispersed among the
countless worlds which roll in the immensity of space;
and the earth is the chosen theatre for the display of the
glories of the Godhead. The spot is nothing, the dis
play is everything; but surely a more proper scene could
not have been devised, than the habitation of beings as
mean as they were vile; in whose salvation there would
be an impressive manifestation of the unsearchable riches
of the love and grace of the Most High. This is the
centre from which rays diverge in every direction
throughout the universe, to illuminate and gladden the
myriads who people its numerous provinces. The hour
of our redemption is the most memorable era in its his
tory, the commencement of a new order of things which
will last for ever.
In the fifth place, infidels object to many of the facts
related in the Scriptures, as absurd and impossible.
The story of the temptation of our first parents, has
afforded an abundant subject of ridicule, because the
agent was a serpent, and the sin consisted in eating an
apple. With regard to the sin, in a moral estimate,
the matter of it is of little account; it is the disposition
which is to be considered. The action may be trifling
in itself; but it assumes another character when it pro
ceeds from resistance to lawful authority. Those who
cannot make this distinction, are unfit to be reasoned
with. The agent was a serpent, but not the dumb irra
tional reptile alone; for we learn from other places, that
it was merely the instrument of a malignp.nt being, who
was permitted to utter articulate sounds through its
mouth, for the trial of the primitive pair. It would re
quire more knowledge of the invisible world than infi
dels possess, in order to prove that this was impossible.
The story of Balaam's ass has been also held up to ridi
cule; but most unjustly. We do not suppose that the
animal had the power of speech, and understood the
sounds which it uttered, but merely that it was enabled
to express a few words for a particular purpose ; and all
objections should be silenced by the statement, that
"the Lord opened its mouth,"* for none but an atheist
will deny that this could be done by omnipotence. He
who made man's mouth could make other creatures to
speak like men; and we know that some irrational crea
tures are taught by human art to pronounce words, with
out understanding them. The history of the deluge has
been assailed by many objections, although our earth
exhibits every where proofs that it has suffered a dread
ful convulsion, in which water was the agent. If it be
asked, where water could be found in such quantity as
to cover the whole surface of the globe ? I cannot tell ;
but does it follow, that he who made the sea and the
dry land could not provide it? If it be asked, how the
various kinds of animals could be brought together from
their distant abodes into one place? f can see no diffi
culty in believing the fact, since they are always under
the control and direction of the Author of their instincts.
If it be asked, how they could all be contained in the
ark? I answer, that it has been proved, by accurate
calculation, to have afforded ample space for them, and
for food to sustain them during the time of the confine
ment. If it be asked, how such an unwieldy body
could be prevented from oversetting in the waters, and
being overwhelmed by the fury of waves and currents ?
It is enough to know, that it was under the protection
of Providence. The miracle recorded in Joshua, where
the sun and moon are said to have stood still, has beer,
pronounced to be impossible according to the constitu-

* Num. xxii.

JSVluENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

55

tipn of nature. It is, pitiful to say that the sun could
not stand still because it does not move ; for the history
speaks according to the ideas of the age, and was in
tended to record simply the appearance to the eye, to
which the language of men, whether philosophers or
peasants, is still conformed in common conversation.
Whether the effect was produced by a supernatural re
fraction, or whether the motion of the earth around its
axis was suspended, we do not possess the means of
determining. In either case there was a miracle ; and
both were alike easy to Omnipotence. He who gave
law to nature could stop its course without the slightest
injury to the system. I shall take notice, in the last
place, of the fate of Jonah, who was three days in the
belly or stomach of a whale, or rather a great fish, for
the word is general, and does not inform us of the spe
cies. To account for the fact upon natural principles,
it has been stated, that a living substance is not acted
upon "by the juices of the stomach, and that persons in
whom the foramen ovale remains open can live without
breathing for a considerable time. But although these
things Were true, for what purpose are they resorted to ?
Is it to prove that what has been accounted a miracle
was an event, uncommon indeed, but not supernatural ?
There is no occasion to summon God's, own laws to his
assistance; for no person, who believes that he is omni
potent, ean doubt that he could have preserved Jonah
iq his perilous situation. Nothing is more absurd than
to object to a miracle on account of its difficulty ; for in
doing so, we set limits to the power of God, and assi
milate it to the power of man, which succeeds in some
cases and fails in others. God could as easily make
us live in water or in fire, as in air, because, being the
sole Author of life, he could support it without means,
or in opposition to the natural causes of its destruction.
If an alleged miracle is not physically impossible, its
greatness does not in any degree diminish its credibi
lity; and all that concerns us is to ascertain that it is
fully attested.
In the sixth place, infidels object, that some things in
the Scriptures are unworthy of God, and reflect upon
the excellence of his nature, the purity of his character,
and the wisdom of his procedure. The Scriptures, it
is said, give us false ideas of God, while they repre
sent him as a corporeal being, who has eyes, ears, hands
and feet, and attribute to him human infirmities and
passions, as hope, fear, grief, repentance, &c. But
the man who seriously advances this objection must be
strangely deficient in candour, if his reading has not
been confined to the few passages with which he is dis
satisfied. There is no book which is so careful to ad
monish us against supposing that God bears any re
semblance to his creatures, and gijres such sublime
descriptions of him as infinite, independent, immutable,
and possessed of every possible perfection. " To whom
will ye liken me, or shall I be equal ? saith the Holy
One."* Such passages are an effectual antidote to
those in which he is spoken of after the manner of men,
to assist our feeble conceptions, and to impress abstract
truths more strongly upon our minds, through the me
dium of the imagination and the senses, if he has an
arm, it is an arm which sustains all nature ; if he has
eyes, they are eyes which survey the universe at a
glance, and see in the dark ; if he has ears, they hear
the thoughts and desires of the heart. With respect lo
his hope and fear, his sorrow and repentance, the abuse
of these attributions is guarded against by the explicit
declaration, that " all his works are known to him from
the beginning of the world," and that he " works all
things according to the counsel of his will," or that he
foresees every thing, and every thing is in unison with
his eternal decrees. It is objected again, that the Scrip
tures make God the author of sin, by representing him

* Isa. xl. 25.

as tempting men, hardening their hearts, and putting it
into their minds to do evil. But justice requires, that
if possible, we should explain a book consistently with!
itself;, and when we find the Scriptures affirming that
God is a being of unspotted purity, that he holds sin in
abhorrence, and the great end of the dispensations of
providence and grace is to reclaim men from it, are we
not bound to put a favourable construction upon expres
sions which seem to be of a contrary import? Viewed
in their connexion, they can only mean that God did
not interpose to change the dispositions of the persons
referred to ; that he left them to themselves ; and that
the circumstances in which they were placed had a ten
dency to elicit their depravity, and to confirm their cri
minal purposes. Farther, the morality of some com
mands which issued from God has been impeached;
and they have been accused of sanctioning cruelty, in
justice, and fraud. Among the number is the command
to Abraham to offer up Isaac. Can it be believed that
the Deity would require a human sacrifice ? We may
say, that God had no design to accept such a sacrifice,
and that nothing more was intended than to make trial
of the faith of the patriarch, and furnish a noble exam
ple of obedience to succeeding generations. But if
Isaac had been slain, would any injustice have been
done ? Not surely to Isaac, whose life was forfeited
by sin, like that of all other men, and might be taken
from him in this way, as well as by disease. It would
have been painful to his father to be the agent; but the
right of the supreme Governor to prescribe any service
to his subjects is indisputable ; and in obeying him they
can do no wrong. What shall be said of the command
to exterminate the nations of Canaan, which seems
ratherto have proceeded from the demon of destruction,
than from the merciful Governor of mankind? Let the
case be stated as it was. These nations were impious
and profligate in a more than ordinary degree ; and will
it be doubted, that if the divine government is moral,
they deserved to be punished ? Had God employed an
earthquake to bury them under the ruins of their dwel
lings, would any man have thought that he had dealt
unjustly with them? There seems no more injustice in
rooting them out by the sword of the Israelites ; and
there was a fitness in making them the instruments,
because, having witnessed the sufferings of the Ca-
naanites, and knowing the cause of them, they.would be
more effectually restrained from imitating their abomir
nable practices. The command to the Israelites to spoil
the Egyptians is justified, on these grounds; that the
Sovereign Proprietor has a right to transfer the property
of one person to another, and that the present was an
instance of just retribution, because the Israelites had
long laboured for the good of the Egyptians, but had
been cruelly oppressed, and defrauded of their due.
The means are objected to, because, to borrow implies
a promise to restore, while it is certain that the Israel
ites had no such intention. But this difficulty exists
only in our translation ; for the original says, that they
were commanded to ask jewels of gold and silver, and
raiment from their neighbours ; and to account for the
success of a simple request, it is stated, that " the Lord
gave the people favour in the eyes of the Egyptians."*
Our limits permit me to take notice only of a few
objections of this kind as a specimen. Passing, there
fore, many which have been advanced, I shall mention,
only other two, which are founded on the history of the
Israelites. The idea that they were a peculiar people
is rejected as implying partiality in the Deity, and es
tablishing a system of favouritism on the ruins of uni*
versal benevolence. This objection will deserve an
answer when it is proved that creatures have a claim
upon their Creator, and that he is bound to treat them
all upon equal terms. But we shall look for such proof
* Exod. xii. 36.

56

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

in vain, and the whole history of providence is opposed
to it; for as individuals enjoy different degrees of un
derstanding, health, and riches, so nations are at present,
and have always been, differently situated in respect of
soil, climate, civilization, and, in short, in respect of
both physical and moral advantages. The peculiar
privileges enjoyed by the Israelites include something
of greater importance, namely, the exclusive posses
sion of divine revelation ; but if God did not owe a
revelation to mankind, there was no injustice in giving
it to one people, and withholding it from others. The law
which was enjoined upon this select people has been
boldly condemned as unworthy of the wisdom and
goodness of God. Its precepts have been called
trifling, unmeaning, vexatious ; calculated only to foster
superstition, and to substitute external observances for
purity of heart. A vindication of the ceremonial law,
against which these charges are chiefly directed, would
lead to a lengthened discussion. We should always
remember, that it was not the only law delivered to the
Israelites, but was accompanied with the moral law,
which was summed up in the two precepts of love to
God and love to our neighbour, and reminded them that
piety and holiness constituted the essence of religion.
This being the case, whatever might be the effect upon
individuals of the constitution under which they were
placed, its native, tendency was, not to cherish super
stition, but to inspire noble sentiments and holy dispo
sitions. It is impossible for us, who live at such a
distance of time and are imperfectly acquainted with
the state of things in that age, to account for every pre
cept; but, from some particulars which have come to
our knowledge, we may conclude, that all the precepts
were wise and necessary, as preservatives from the
customs of the idolatrous nations with which the Isra
elites were surrounded. In judging of a law, fairness
requires that we should consider its design. Now, we
know that the ceremonial law was not intended merely
to regulate the conduct of the Israelites in matters of
religion, but had a reference to another dispensation,
the. great events of which it prefigured. In this con
nexion it should be viewed, and then many of its insti
tutions, of which a satisfactory account could not be
otherwise given, will appear to have been framed with
consummate wisdom, in order to direct their thoughts
to the events of futurity, and likewise to furnish, in the
exact fulfilment of its types, a new proof of its own
divinity, as well as an evidence of the truth of Chris
tianity, in which it received its accomplishment. The
wisdom of God is illustrated by the harmony of the
law and the gospel.
In the last place, the supposed contradictions in the
Scriptures furnish a ground of objection : for it is said,
How can a book be true which asserts one thing in one
place, and a different thing in another? And above all,
how can it have proceeded from Him who is " the same
yesterday, to-day, and for ever ?" It is not enough to
answer, that these discrepancies do not affect the gene
ral truth of our religion, because a testimony may be
substantially true although the witnesses do not agree
in some subordinate points. Contradiction in minute
matters is inconsistent with the idea of inspiration ;
and, instead of evading the objection, we must endea
vour to meet it, if we would maintain the divine au
thority of the record.
In some cases, the contradiction is only apparent,
and is removed by an explanation of the passages.
When Solomon says, " answer not a fool according to
to his folly ;" and again, " answer a fool according
to his folly ;"* the reasons subjoined to these injunc
tions show us that he viewed the case in different lights,
and intimate that what would be proper at one time,
would be improper at another. If " the strength of Is-
* Prov. xxvi. 4, 5.

rael will not lie, nor repent," and it is affirmed that he
repented having set Saul king over Israel,* there i3 no
real opposition in these two statements. God does not
repent in the sense of changing his counsels, but he
repents in the sense of changing his dispensations ; for,
like a man who has altered his design, he reversed
what he had formerly done. The apostle James seems
to be at variance with Moses, because the one says,
" Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted
of God," and the other tells us that the Lord "did
tempt Abraham ;"f but the difficulty is removed by the
simple observation, that James means by tempting, so
liciting to sin, while Moses means, making trial of faith
and obedience.
It is acknowledged that there are some contradictions
which it is impossible to reconcile ; but as they may
be accounted for by a false reading, candour requires
that we should admit this solution ; and, in some
cases, it is absolutely necessary that we should, because
the error is such, that it could not be committed by the
original writer. For example, we read that Ahaziah
was forty and two years old when he began to reign,
although, in the preceding chapter, we are told that his
father died at the age of forty, and besides, he was his
youngest son. No man in his senses would thus con
tradict himself, and assert an absolute impossibility ;
and we therefore believe that the proper reading is
twenty-two, as we find it in another book.:): In the same
way we explain the different accounts of the age of
Jehoiachin at the commencement of his reign, who is
said, in Kings, to have been eighteen, and in Chroni
cles, to have been eight.|| From the same cause, too,
Solomon is represented, in one place, as having forty
thousand stalls for horses, and in. another place, as
having only four thousand. § In a book so ancient as
the Old Testament, and which has been so often trans
cribed, it is not surprising that some mistakes should
have been committed ; and without a miracle, they
could not have been prevented. This is not a mere
supposition, but a fact clearly established, by the col
lections which learned men have made of various read
ings ; and there is no case, in which a transcriber
was more liable to err than in numbers, especially if
they were expressed not by words, but by letters or
arbitrary marks.
The following general remarks are applicable to his
torical and chronological difficulties, and may be suc
cessfully employed in many cases to remove them ;
" that in the Scriptures, as well as in other histories,
the order of time is not always strictly observed ; that
the same persons and places have sometimes different
names ; and in the case of years and numbers of any
kind, round numbers are used, or an even number is
put for another, which was in a small degree deficient
or redundant; that periods of time, as for example, the
reigns of kings, have different dales, a king being reck
oned to have commenced his reign, either at the death
of his predecessor, or when he was associated with
him in the government; that an event, from its similar
ity to another, is supposed to be the same, maybe^dif-
fcrent, and is therefore related with some difference of
circumstances ; and that there may be an apparent dis
crepance in the relation of the same transaction by two
or more writers, because one omits some particulars
which have been mentioned by another, or adds partic
ulars of which another has taken no notice. "H"
By referring to different dates, we account for the
difference in the number of years. When it is said, in
one place, that Abraham's seed should be, for four hun
dred years, strangers in a land which was not theirs,

* 1 Sam. xv. 11.29. f James, i. 13. Gen. xxii. 1.
t. 2 Chron. xxii. 2. 2 Kings viii. 26.
|| 2 Kings xxiv. 8. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9.
} 1 Kings iv. 26. 2 Chron. ix. 25.
11 Essay on Inspiration, p. 297.

INSPIRATION OF THE SACRED WRITERS.

57

and in another, that they were delivered from Egypt at
the expiration of four hundred and thirty years ; * the
date, in the first, is from the birth of Isaac ; and in the
second, from the call of the patriarch. I shall produce
one instance of seeming contradiction, arising from a
disregard of the order of time. According to John,
Christ was anointed at Bethany six days before the pass-
over, but Matthew does not speak of it till within two
days of the feast. j- It was then that Judas offered to
betray his Master ; and in relating his treachery, Mat
thew recollected the event which compelled him to con
summate his design, the rebuke which he received from
Christ, some days before, when he complained of the
waste of the ointment.
It is impossible to do more than to give you a speci
men of the modes of reconciling different passages.
The subject is extensive, and you must be referred to
the authors who have treated it at length. The two
genealogies of Christ are so widely different, that there
is no way of accounting for them, but by the supposi
tion, that Matthew gives his descent from David, in the
line of Joseph, his reputed father ; and Luke, his de-
Bcent in the line of Mary his mother.:): Jesus, says
Luke, was about thirty years of age, being it m/tigm,
not really, but as was supposed, the son of Joseph,
whose true father was Jacob, but he is here called the
son of Heli, because he was his son-in-law, being mar
ried to Mary his daughter. The different accounts of
the superscription on the cross may be reconciled by
the circumstance, that it was written in different lan
guages ; whence one of the evangelists has given it
from the Hebrew, another from the Greek, and another
from the Latin. "This is Jesus, the king of the
Jews ; " " Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews ;"
"This is the king of the Jews. "|| In like manner,
with regard to the. exclamation of the centurion, who
said, according to Matthew, " Truly this was the Son
of God ;" but, according to Luke, " Certainly this was
a righteous man : "§ both accounts may be true, for he
may have uttered both sentences, although each of
these evangelists has chosen to give only one of them.
No wise man will be surprised that we meet with
difficulties in revelation ; nor will they have any undue
effect upon an honest mind. They certainly call for
investigation, but no greater importance should be at
tached to them than they really possess. We should
pronounce that man to be a fool, who, having complete
evidence of a fact presented to him, should continue to
entertain doubts of it because there were some things
connected with it which he was unable to explain. In
cases of this kind, our judgment should be determined
by the preponderance of the evidence. If the argu
ments for the conclusion are superior to the arguments
against it, we do not act rationally, but absurdly, when
we withhold our assent. It must be a weak or a preju
diced mind which is influenced by some objections to
reject Christianity, notwithstanding the abundant evi
dence by which its claims are established; and we
have reason to suspect, that the heart is in fault still
more than the head, and that in this case, men hate the
light because their deeds are evil.

LECTURE XI.
INSPIRATION OF THE SACRED WRITERS.
Inspirati.n claimed by the Writers of Scripture— Different
Opinions respecting it — Plenary Inspiration — Degrees of In
spiration according to the Jews ; According to Christian Di-

* Gen, xv. 13. Exod. xii. 40.
t John xii. 1. 3. Matt. xxvi. 2. 7.
t Matt. i. Luke iii. 23, et seq.
|| Matt, xxvii. 37. John xix. 19. Luke, xxiii. 38.
1 Matt, xxvii. 54. Luke xxiii. 47.
H

vines : Superintendence, Elevation, Suggestion — Account of
the _ different Degrees of Inspiration — In what Sense the
Scriptures arc the Word of God — Did Inspiration extend to
the Language ? — Character of Persons inspired ; Modes of
Inspiration — Privilege of Moses.
I have endeavoured, in the preceding lectures, to
prove the genuineness and authenticity of the Scrip
tures ; that they were written by the persons to whom
they are ascribed, and that their contents are worthy of
credit. These two points are sufficient to establish the
truth of our religion. It is not absolutely necessary to
inquire, whether the sacred writers were supernaturally
qualified for composing the records of revelation ; be
cause if their veracity and competence are ascertained,
the facts which they attest furnish satisfactory evidence
of the divine origin of Christianity. But however fully
we might be convinced of the genera] truth of our re
ligion, when we proceed to examine its nature, to in
vestigate its doctrines, precepts, institutions, and prom
ises, we could not have perfect confidence in the de
tailed account, although we should entertain no suspi
cion of the honesty of the writers, unless we had rea
son to believe that they were assisted in drawing it up,
so as to commit no mistakes either in narrating or in
reasoning, and to leave out nothing which was essen
tial to the system. Our confidence would be the less,
when, not to mention the difficulty, or rather the im
possibility, which persons of the greatest talents must
have felt, to avoid all error in an account so complica
ted, and embracing so great a variety of matter, we re
flect that the sacred writers were men without educa
tion, unskilled in composition, and consequently inade
quate to the task. It might have almost been assumed,
a priori, that if God was pleased to give a revelation
to the world, he would not expose it to the hazard of
being misrepresented, corrupted, and mutilated, through
the infirmity of those who should undertake to trans
mit it to succeeding generations; and that, by a contin
uation of the miraculous agency which a revelation im
plies, he would so influence their minds, that those who
lived at a distance in respect of time and place, should
have the same advantages for exactly knowing its con
tents, as they had to whom it was primarily delivered.
And surely, to those who admit that miracles are
wrought to attest revelation, it will not seem incredi
ble that there should have been one miracle more, so
obviously necessary, as the inspiration of the persons
by whom it was committed to writing. The possibili
ty of inspiration none but an atheist will deny; and it
would be strange indeed if its probability should be
called in question by any who bear the Christian name,
while they are compelled to admit the fact in the case
of the prophets.
It is not, however, by reasoning, the solidity of which
might be disputed, that we prove the inspiration of the
Scriptures. We appeal to their own testimony, and
might produce many passages in which it is explicitly
asserted, or plainly implied. I shall quote the words
of Paul, in the second Epistle to Timothy, because
whatever attempt some critics have made to evade their
force, they convey distinct information to those who are
candidly disposed to receive it : " all Scripture is giv
en by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous
ness."* I acknowledge that the apostle must be un
derstood to speak only of the Jewish Scriptures, which
Timothy had known from his childhood, for when he
was a child no part of the Christian Scriptures had
been published ; but if the inspiration of the former is
established, that of the latter will be readily conceded.
It has been affirmed that the verse should be rendered
thus— -'| Every writing divinely inspired is profitable;"
and it is thus converted into a general proposition,
which does not vouch forth e inspiration of any particu

* 2 Tim. iii. 16.

58

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

lar book, and leaves the question undecided, what books
are inspired. This makes it a proposition which com
municates no specific information, and is as superflu
ous as it would be to tell us that the sun gives light.
It would have never entered into the mind of any man
to suppose that a book really inspired was of no use.
But although we should admit the translation, it goes
farther than its authors intended ; for while it was their
design to destroy the evidence arising from the words,
in behalf of the inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures,
they still bear explicit testimony to it. The apostle
had mentioned them in the preceding verse, and he now
adds, " every inspired writing is profitable," evidently
assigning the reason why these Scriptures were able to
make Timothy wise unto salvation. It was their inspi
ration which made them profitable for doctrine, reproof,
correction, and instruction in righteousness. We can
conceive no reason for the mention of inspired writings
in this connexion, but to attest the inspiration of the
books of the Old Testament. Thus the translation
turns out an abortive attempt to weaken or overthrow
the authority of the Jewish canon. That it is a mis
translation, every person will see on consulting the ori
ginal, 7ru.ro. yp±®x BteTrytuTro; xzl a>ys\i/u<is.* The conjunc
tion xa(,j- which connects BaTrnvvrKX. and ee(fe\i/xo;T\\ clear
ly shows that both adjectives belong to the predicate
of the proposition, and that mo-* yp*.<pȤ alone is the
subject. No example can be produced where two ad
jectives are thus joined, of which the one belongs to
the subject, and the other to the predicate. Had Paul
meant to express the idea which these critics attach to
his words, he would have left out the conjunction, or
perhaps have substituted the verb of existence, vm, as
a copulative, ITao-st yp*$» Bnimurmt uqiXlfJLK, or, ttclvo.
yp±q» 6t'j7rvw<m; wnv leqtkifxo;. This, then, is the proper
translation, every writing is divinely inspired, and is
profitable ,¦ that is, every one of the writings referred to
in the preceding verse, under the designation of the
Holy Scriptures ; and thus he asserts the inspiration of
all the books contained in the sacred volume of the Jews.
There are many other passages in which the inspira
tion of the Old Testament is asserted or implied. The
books are called the "oracles of God,"TT by which de
signation they are plainly referred to a divine origin,
and distinguished from human compositions. They
are frequently quoted under the name of Scripture, the
writing by way of eminence ; that is, the inspired wri
ting, according to the words of Paul, which have been
considered. Our Saviour appealed to them as contain
ing the words of eternal life, and bearing testimony to
him ;** and gave his sanction to them all, as arranged
by the Jews in the three divisions of the Law, the
Prophets and the Psalms. ff WThen we look into the
Old Testament itself, we find the claim of inspiration
Tepeatedly and explicitly advanced. Moses affirms that
he wrote part, at least, of the Pentateuch by the com
mand of God ;\X David tells us, that " the Spirit of the
Lord spake by him, and his word was in his tongue,"||||
and all the prophets delivered their messages in the
name of Jehovah.
There are many particulars from which the same con
clusion may be drawn, with respect to the books of the
New Testament. It is evident that the writers were
not left to their own unassisted faculties, from the prom
ise of our Saviour, that the Father would send the
Spirit in his name, " who should teach them all things,
and bring all things to their remembrance whatsoever
he had said unto them."§§ " Howbeit," he adds, " when
he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into
* All scripture (is) divinely inspired and (is) profitable.
t And. \ Divinely inspired.
|| Profitable. \ Every writing.
IT Acts vii. 38. Rom. iii. 2. Heb. v. 12. I Pet. iv. 11.
** John v. 39. ft L"ke xxiv. 44. JJ Deut. xxxi. 19. 22.
l)|| 2 Sam. xxiii. 2. \\ John xiv. 26.

all truth ; for he shall not speak of himself, but what
soever he shall hear, that shall he speak ; and he will
show you things to come."* He likewise admonished
them, when they were brought before magistrates and
councils for his sake, to " take no thought what they
should say, because it would be given them in that
hour what they should speak ;"f that is, proper senti
ments and words would be suggested to them. We do
not surely overstrain these promises, when we infer
from them that they enjoyed the same supernatural as
sistance in composing their narrations and epistles ; in
which it was at least equally necessary, as these were
to be the rule of faith and practice to the church in all
ages. Accordingly, they did claim inspiration, not
only by placing their own writings on a level with
those of the prophets, but by many express declarations.
Thus Paul tells us, in the name of his brethren, that
they have received the Spirit of God, that they might
know the things which were freely given them of
God ; " which things also we speak, not in the words
which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy
Ghost teacheth. "f. With respect to himself, he affirms
that he had " the mind of Christ :"|| that the things
which he wrote were the commandments of the
Lord;"§ that the gospel which he preached, he had
received " by the revelation of Jesus Christ ;"% and
that whosoever despised the things which he and his
brethren taught, despised not man but God, who had
given to them the Holy Ghost.** John speaks thus oi
all the apostles : " We are of God ; he that knoweth
God heareth us ; he that is not of God, heareth not us.
Hereby know we the Spirit of truth, and the spirit of
error."ff You observe that some of the passages now
quoted refer directly to their writings, and that in them
all it is assumed, that the apostles were supernaturally
assisted in communicating the gospel to mankind, and
consequently in committing it to writing as well as in
preaching it.
On the ground of these declarations, it has been gen
erally admitted, that there is a specific difference be
tween the sacred books and human compositions. Theii
inspiration has been generally acknowledged ; but the
question, how far it extends, has given rise to a diver
sity of opinions. Some have had the boldness to deny
it altogether ; and some have circumscribed it within
very narrow limits. " I think," says Dr. Priestley,
" that the Scriptures were written without any particu
lar inspiration, by men who wrote according to the best
of their knowledge, and who, from their circumstances,
could not be mistaken with respect to the greater facts,
of which they were proper witnesses, but like other
men subject to prejudice, might be liable to adopt a
hasty and ill-grounded opinion, concerning things which
did not fall within the compass of their own knowledge,
and which had no connexion with any thing that was
so." It must strike you at once, that this is a direct
contradiction of the sacred writers, and an impeachment
of their veracity ; and if they have told us a falsehood,
when they asserted their inspiration, how can we give
credit to them in any other thing ? If they were all
deceived on this point by imagination, they were in
competent witnesses ; and if they were not deceived,
they have forfeited all title to our confidence. Dr.
Priestley found it necessary to destroy the authority of
the record, that he might pave the way for establishing
his own system, from which all the peculiar doctrines
of Christianity are excluded, and might be at liberty
to believe as much or as little as he pleased. It is
strange to suppose a revelation to have been given so
full of misstatements, and false reasonings, that in or
der to discover what is true and what is false we must

* John xvi. 13.
|| Ibid. 16.
** 1 Thess. iv. 8.

t Matt. x. 19.
j 1 Cor. xiv. 37.
ft 1 John iv. 6.

t 1 Cor. ii. 13.
It Gal. i. 12

INSPIRATION OF THE SACRED WRITERS.

59

end where we began, by making reason the supreme
judge in religion. Others have maintained, that the
inspiration of the apostles was only occasional ; that
they were not always assisted and guided by the Holy
Spirit ; and that consequently, being sometimes left to
themselves, they thought and reasoned like ordinary
men. As this is a mere hypothesis, unsupported by
proof, it is entitled to very little attention. If admit
ted, it Would involve us in the greatest perplexity, be
cause, not knowing when they did, and when they did
not, enjoy the presence of the Spirit, we should be ut
terly at a loss to determine what parts of their writings
we ought to believe. There would be truth, and there
might be error in them ; but how to distinguish and
separate them, would puzzle the wisest head. And it
comes to the same thing at last, whether you say, that
they were not inspired at all, or that they were inspired
on certain occasions, while you do not furnish us with
the means of ascertaining those occasions. Once more,
it has been affirmed, " that the whole scheme of the
gospel was supernaturally revealed to the apostles, was
faithfully retained in their memories, and is expounded
in their writings by the use of their natural faculties."
I do not thoroughly understand this theory, because it
does not distinctly explain how much is assigned to in
spiration, and how much to the persons inspired ; but,!if
it is meant, that after the revelation was made to them,
they had the same power over it as a man has over his
own thoughts, and were at the same liberty with respect
to the mode of communicating it as we are with respect
to the suggestions of our own minds, I consider it as
inconsistent with the scriptural idea of inspiration, and
with the statement, that " the prophecy came not in old
time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost."*
Many learned men have held the plenary inspiration
of the Scriptures, which imports, that every part of
them is inspired. The doctrine has met with violent
opposition, and has been treated with ridicule ; but the
objections against it have arisen, in some cases at least,
I apprehend, from misconception. It has been suppos
ed to imply, that every part of the sacred books was
immediately communicated to the minds of the writers ;
and as some parts of them relate to common things, to
things which might have been known from other sources,
it seemed absurd to introduce a revelation, where the bod
ily senses and natural reason were fully adequate to the
purpose. But this is not the true idea of plenary in
spiration. It extends, indeed, to the whole Scriptures :
but it admits of degrees suited to the nature of the sub
ject which the writers were employed to record, and
did not supersede the use of their natural faculties, so
far as these could contribute to the general design.
The whole was not a revelation in the strict acceptation
of the term, but the whole was committed to writing
by the direction and with the assistance of the Spirit.
Inspiration may be defined to be, " an influence of
the Holy Spirit upon the understandings, imaginations,
memories, and other mental powers of the sacred wri
ters, by which they were qualified to communicate to
the world the knowledge of the will of God."f The
definition is designedly made general, that it may com
prehend the different degrees of inspiration, which will
be afterwards mentioned ; and it is^so expressed as to
suit the highest and the lowest. The possibility of
such an influence will be admitted by every person who
believes that God is the former of our souls, and the
master of our faculties ; and the necessity of it is evi
dent, if human agents were to be employed in giving
instruction to their brethren on the high and important
subject of religion.
The Jews make mention of three degrees of inspira
tion, to which they refer the several books of the Old
* ? Pet i. 21. f Dick's Essay on Insp. chap. i. p. 21.

Testament according to their fancy. The first and high
est they attribute to Moses, with whom " God spake
mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark si
militudes." The second, they call the gift of prophe
cy, of which they imagine various subordinate degrees,
corresponding to the different methods in which God
revealed himself to the prophets. The last and lowest
is the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, from which pro
ceeded those books that are called the holy writings.
Were it worth while to examine this division, and the
classification of the books founded upon it, it would be
easy to show that it is altogether arbitrary, and discov
ers the folly and stupidity of its authors. Of books
which bear precisely the same character, some are
ascribed to the gift of prophecy, and others, without
reason, to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. " It
would be idle," says Dr. Grey,* " to trouble the read
er with the discussion of these rabbinical conceits ;
and it may be sufficient here to remark upon this subject,
that though the Scripture mentions different modes by
which God communicated his instructions to the pro
phets, and particularly attributes a superior degree of
eminence to Moses, yet that these differences, and this
distinction, however they may affect the dignity of the
minister employed, cannot be supposed to increase or to
lessen the certainty of the things imparted. Whatever
God condescended to communicate to mankind by his
servants must be equally infallible and true, whether
derived from immediate converse with him, from an
external voice, or from dreams or visions, or lastly,
from the internal and enlightening influence of the
Holy Spirit. The mode of communication, where the
agency of Providence is established, can in no respect
exalt or depreciate the intrinsic character of the thing
revealed." These observations are applicable to the different
degrees of inspiration, which have been stated by
Christian authors ; for all agree that it was not enjoyed
in the same degree by all the sacred writers. The three
degrees of inspiration which are usually mentioned, are
superintendence, elevation, and suggestion. Superin
tendence signifies the care exercised over those who
related things which they knew by ordinary means,
and by which they were preserved from the possibility
of error. Elevation prevailed, says Dr. Doddridge.f
" when the faculties, though they acted in a regular
and common manner, were elevated or raised to some
extraordinary degree, so that the composition was more
truly sublime, noble, and pathetic, than what would
have been produced merely by the force of a man's na
tural genius." Suggestion is " the highest kind of in
spiration, and took place, when the use of the faculties
was superseded, and God as it were spoke directly to
the mind ; making such discoveries to it as it could not
otherwise have obtained, and dictating the very words
in which these discoveries were to be communicated to
others. But although this distinction is very generally
adopted, I think it liable to material objections, which
will be stated in the sequel.
As I have nothing to say on the kinds or degrees of
inspiration different from what I long since gave to the
public,}. I shall content myself with repeating my for
mer observations on the subject.
First, there are many things in the Scriptures which
the writers might have known, and probably did know,
by ordinary means. As persons possessed of memory,
judgment, and the other intellectual faculties which are
common to men, they were able to relate events in
which they had been concerned, and to make such oc
casional reflections as were suggested by particular sub-

* Key to the Old Testament and Apocrypha. Introduction,
p. 10.
t Doddridge's Diss, on the Inspiration of the New Testament.
| Essay on Insp. chap. i. The nine following paragraph*
are taken from the same chapter.

60

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

acts and occurrences. In these cases, no supernatural
Jifluence was necessary to enlighten and invigorate
their minds : it was only necessary that they should
be infallibly preserved from error. They did not need
a revelation to inform them of what had passed before
their eyes, nor to point out those inferences and moral
maxims which were obvious to every attentive and
considerate observer. Moses could tell, without a di
vine afflatus, that, on such a night, the Israelites march
ed out of Egypt, and at such a place they murmured
against God ; and Solomon could remark, that " a soft
answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up
anger;" or, that " better is a dinner of herbs, where
love is, than a stalled ox, and hatred therewith."* It
is with respect to such passages of Scripture only, as
it did not exceed the natural ability of the writer to
compose, that I would admit the motion of superintend
ence, if it should be admitted at all. But, perhaps, this
word, though of established use, and almost undisputed
authority, should be entirely laid aside, as insufficient
to express even the lowest degree of inspiration. In
the passages of Scripture which we are now consider
ing, I conceive the writers to have been not merely su
perintended, that they might commit no error, but like
wise to have been moved or excited by the Holy Ghost
to record particular events, and set down particular ob
servations. They were not like other historians, who
introduce facts and reflections into the narratives which
they compose, in the exercise of their own judgment,
and according to their own ideas of propriety ; but they
rather resembled amanuenses, who commit to writing
such things only as have been selected by their employ
er. Passages written by the direction, and under the
care of the Divine Spirit, may be said, in an inferior
sense, to be inspired ; whereas, had the men written
them at the suggestion of their own spirit, they would
have been mere human compositions ; and though free
from error, would have been exactly on a level with
those parts of profane writings which are agreeable to
truth. Superintendence, indeed, is no peculiar kind of
inspiration, but is the care exercised by Providence over
all the sacred writers, in whatever degree or manner
inspired, to secure a faithful relation of the histories,
doctrines, prophecies, and precepts, which they were
employed to communicate to mankind.
Secondly, there are other passages of Scripture, in
composing which, the minds of the writers must have
been supernaturally endowed with more than ordinary
vigour. It is impossible for us, and perhaps it was not
possible for the inspired writer himself, to determine
where nature ended and inspiration began. He could
not have marked, in all cases, with precision, the limits
which separated the natural operation of his faculties,
and the agency of the Spirit of God. It is enough to
know, in general, that there are many parts of Scrip
ture, in which, though the unassisted mind might have
proceeded some steps, a divine impulse was necessary
to enable it to advance. I think, for example, that the
evangelists oould not have written the history of Christ,
if they had not enjoyed miraculous assistance. Two
of them, Matthew and John, accompanied our Saviour
during the whole, or the greater part of his personal
ministry. At the close of that period, or rather a con
siderable number of years after it, the gospel of Mat
thew having been published, as is generally agreed, at
least eight years, and that of John between sixty and
seventy, posterior to the ascension, there can be ho
doubt that they had forgotten some of his discourses
and miracles; that they recollected others indistinctly;
and that, if left to themselves, they would have been in
danger of producing an unfair and inaccurate account,
by omissions and additions, or by confounding one
thing with another. Simple and illiterate men, who
* Prov. xv. 1. 17.

had never been accustomed to exercise their intellectual
faculties, could not, it is probable, have retailed his
shorter discourses immediately after they were deliver
ed, and much less those of greater length, as his ser
mon on the Mount, and his last instructions to his dis
ciples. Besides, from so large a mass of materials,
writers of uncultivated minds, such as Jewish fisher
men and publicans may be conceived to have been,
who were not in the habit of distinguishing and classi
fying, could not have made a judicious selection : nor
would persons, unskilled in the art of composition,
have been able to express themselves in such terms as
should ensure a faithful representation of doctrines and
facts, and with such dignity as the nature of the sub
ject required. A divine influence, therefore, must have
been exerted, by which their memories and judgments
were invigorated, and they were enabled to relate the
discourses and miracles of their Master with fidelity,
and in a manner the best fitted to impress the readers of
their histories. The promise of the Holy Ghost to
bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever Christ
had said to them,* proves, that in writing the gospels,
their mental powers received from his agency new de
grees of strength and capacity.
Farther, there are several passages of Scripture in
which there is such elevation of thought and style, as
clearly shows the faculties of the writers to have been
raised above their ordinary state. There is a grandeur,
a sublimity of ideas and expressions, of which their ac
knowledged powers were obviously incapable, and
which must, therefore have been the result of superior
influence. Should a person of moderate talents give as
elevated a description of the majesty and attributes of
God, or reason as profoundly on the mysterious doc
trines of religion, as a man of the most exalted genius
and extensive learning, we could not fail to be convinc
ed that he was supernaturally assisted ; and the convic
tion would be still stronger, if his composition should
transcend the highest efforts of the human mind. In
either of these cases, it would be impossible to account
for the effect by the operation of any ordinary cause.
Some of the sacred writers were taken from the lowest
ranks of life ; and yet sentiments so dignified, and rep
resentations of divine things so grand and majestic, oc
cur in their writings, that the noblest flights of human
genius, when compared with them, appear cold and in
sipid. This remark on the matter and language of
Scripture admits of an obvious application to the pro
phetical and devotional books of the Old Testament,
and may be extended to many other passages, in which
the purest and most sublime lessons are delivered on
the subject of God and religion, by the natives of a
country unacquainted with the philosophy, the litera
ture, and the arts of the more polished nations of anti
quity. Thirdly, it is manifest, with respect to many passa
ges of the Scripture, that the subjects of which they
treat must have been directly revealed to the writers.
They could not have been known by natural means ;
nor was the knowledge of them attainable by a simple
elevation of the faculties, because they were not deduc
tions from the principles of reason, or from truths al
ready discovered, but were founded on the free deter
mination of the will of God, and his prescience of hu
man affairs. With the abilities of an angel, we could
not explore the thoughts and purposes of the divine
mind. This degree of inspiration we ascribe to those
who were empowered to reveal heavenly mysteries,
" which eye had not seen, and ear had not heard ;" to
those who were sent with particular messages from
God to his people ; and to those who were employed to
predict future events. The plan of redemption being
an effect of the sovereign counsels of heaven, it could
* John xiv. 26.

INSPIRATION OF THE SACRED WRITERS

61

not have been known but by a communication from the
Father of lights.
This kind of inspiration has been called the inspira
tion of suggestion. It may be deemed of little import
ance to dispute about a word; but suggestion seeming
to express an immediate operation on the mind, by
which ideas are excited in it, is of too limited signifi
cation to denote the various modes in which the pro^
uhets and apostles were made acquainted with super
natural truths. God revealed himself to them, not only
by suggestion, but by dreams, visions, voices, and the
ministry of angels. This degree of inspiration, in strict
propriety of speech, should be called revelation; a word
preferable to suggestion, because it is expressive of all
the ways in which God communicated new ideas to the
minds of his servants. It is a word, too, chosen by the
Holy Ghost himself, to signify the discovery of truth
formerly unknown to the apostles. The last book of
the New Testament, which is a collection of prophe
cies, is called the revelation of Jesus Christ. Paul says
that he received his Gospel by revelation; that " by re-
velation'the mystery was made known to him, which in
other ages was not made known unto the sons of men,
as it was then revealed unto his holy apostles and pro
phets by the Spirit ;" and in another place, having re
marked that "eye had not seen, nor ear heard, neither
had entered into the heart of man, the things which God
had prepared for them that love him," he adds, " but
God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit."*
I have not names to distinguish the two other kinds
of inspiration. The names used by Dr. Doddridge and
others, superintendence, elevation, and suggestion, do
not convey the ideas stated in the preceding particulars,
and are liable to material objections, as we have already
shown with respect to the first and the last of them. Su
perintendence does not include the notion of a moving or
exciting influence on the minds ofthe sacred writers,
and consequently cannot denote any kind of inspiration :
and suggestion being a word of too limited a meaning
to express all that is intended, ought to give place to
one more appropriate, which is furnished by the Holy
Spirit himself. By those who use the term elevation,
to signify a particular kind of inspiration, it is confined
to such parts of Scripture as are lofty and sublime ;
whereas it is easy to perceive, that there must have
been, in some cases, an elevation of the faculties, or a
raising of them ahove their ordinary state, even when
the province of the writer was simple narrative. This
has been proved by a particular reference to the evan
gelists. The account now given of the inspiration of
the Scriptures has, I think, these two recommendations,
that there is no part of them which does not fall under
one or other of the three foregoing heads ; and that it
carefully discriminates the different kinds or degrees of
the agency of the Holy Spirit on the minds of the dif
ferent writers.
From the preceding statement it appears, that we do
not apply the term, inspiration, in the same sense to the
whole of the Scripture, because the same degree of
divine assistance was not necessary in the composition
of every part of it. In some parts, if I may speak so,
there is more of God than in others. When a prophet
predicts the events of futurity, or an apostle makes
known the mysteries of redemption, it is God alone who
speaks ; and the voice or the pen of a man is merely the
instrument employed for the communication of his will.
When Moses relates the miracles of Egypt, and the
journeys of the Israelites in the wilderness, or the
evangelists relate the history of Christ, they tell nothing
but what they formerly knew ; but without the assist
ance of the Spirit, they could not have told it so well.
" In some cases," it has been properly reriiarked, " in
spiration only produced correctness and accuracy in
* Rev. i. 1. Gal. i. 12. Eph. iii. 3, 5. 1 Cor. ii. 9, 10.

relating past occurrences, or in reciting the words of
others; in other cases it communicated ideas not. only
new and unknown before, but infinitely beyond the reach
of unassisted human intellect; and sometimes inspired
prophets delivered predictions for the use of future ages,
which they did not themselves comprehend, and which
cannot be fully understood till they are accomplished."*
From the preceding account of inspiration, it is easy
to perceive in what sense the Scriptures, taken as a
whole, may be pronounced to be the Word of God. We
give them this denomination, because all the parts of
which they consist have been written by persons moved,
directed, and assisted by his Holy Spirit; but we do
not mean, that all the sentiments contained in them are
just, and all the examples are worthy of imitation. In
the sacred writings, we meet with sayings and actions,
which are neither wiser nor better for being found in
them than if they had occurred in any ordinary history.
I apprehend, that some persons, from want of reflection,
fall into a mistake in this matter. They quote a senti
ment as authoritative because they read it in the Scrip
tures, without waiting to consider by whom it was ut
tered; and draw arguments for the regulation of their
own.eonduct and that of others from an action, without
previously examining whether it received the divine ap
probation or not. Yet it is certain, not only that wicked
men and wicked spirits are often introduced as speaking
and acting, but that, as the saints of whom mention is
made were not perfect and infallible, any more than the
saints who are now alive, their opinions and conduct
must not instantly be presumed to he right, unless it
appear that they were under the influence of the Spirit
of God, or their example be expressly or implicitly com
mended. From the mere admission of any fact into
the inspired history, no other conclusion can be war-
rantably drawn, than that it actually took place, and
it was the will of God that we should be acquainted
with it : its moral nature, its conformity or disconform-
ity to the standard of truth and rectitude, must be ascer
tained by some other test than its simple insertion in
the Bible. Were clear ideas formed on this subject,
some misapplications of passages would be prevented,
and some objections which are brought against the ih-
spiration of the sacred books, would either be not ad
vanced at all, or would be immediately perceived to be
inconclusive or unjust.
For the more complete elucidation of this point, let it
be considered, that there are two different senses in
which a book may be denominated the Word of God.
In the first place, the meaning may be, that all the con
tents of the book were spoken or revealed by God him
self; or that they proceeded directly from the eternal
source of wisdom and purity, and consequently are all
true and holy. It is evident, that, according to this
sense of the Word of God, the name can be given only
to a part of the Scriptures, because they contain, be
sides a revelation of the. divine counsels, an account of
human opinions, manners, customs, superstitions, and
crimes. Sometimes it is God who speaks, and at other
times it is man. Now, we are presented with a view
of his wise and holy dispensations; then, there is a
delineation of the policy, the ambition, the folly of his
creatures. In the second place, a book may be styled
the Word of God, to signify, that it was composed by
his direction and assistance, and that every thing con
tained in it was inserted by his special appointment. It
is plain, that, consistently with this definition, there may
be things in the book which were neither Spoken nor
approved by God, though for wise purposes he has as
signed them a place in it. In this sense the title,
the Word of God, is applicable to the Scriptures at
large, the whole having been written by men whom he
* Bishop of Lincoln's Introduction to the Study of the Bible,
chap. i. p. 16.

62

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

inspired, and who, being guided and controlled by his
Spirit, could neither fall into error, nor be guilty of
mutilating and corrupting them by omissions and inter
polations. Hence we are authorized, not only to con
sider all the doctrines, all the precepts, all the promises,
and all the threatenings, delivered by God himself, or
by others, in his name, as true, righteous, and faithful ;
but farther to believe, that the events which are said to
have happened, and the words and actions which are
represented to have been spoken and done, did so hap-.
pen, and were so spoken and done. But whether the
conduct related be wise or foolish, moral or immoral,
we must determine by the judgment pronounced in the
Scriptures themselves on particular cases, or by apply
ing those principles and general rules, which are laid
down in them to regulate our decisions.
There remains a question which has engaged a con
siderable share of attention, Whether inspiration is to be
understood as extending to the language as well as to
the sentiments ? In answering this question, it is ne
cessary to distinguish one part of Scripture from ano
ther. In those parts which are delivered in the name
of God, which are commands, messages, and communi
cations from him, we cannot suppose that the wjriters
were left to choose their own words, but are necessarily
led to conceive them to have adhered with equal strict
ness to the words as to the thoughts. This must have
been the case when they announced heavenly mysteries
and new doctrines, of which they could have had no
conception, unless the words had been suggested to
them; and when they delivered predictions which they
did not understand ; for it is plain that here the inspira
tion consisted solely in presenting the words to their
minds. They were much in the same situation with a
person who sets down a passage in an unknown tongue,
at the dictation of another. And that they did not al
ways understand their own prophecies, is obvious from
the words of Peter, who represents them as studying
them, and trying to discover their meaning, — "search
ing what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ
which was in them did signify, when it testified before
hand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should
follow."* Thus far, I do not see upon what ground it
can be denied that inspiration extended to the words.
With regard to other parts of Scripture, consisting
of histories, moral reflections, and devotional pieces, I
would not contend for the inspiration of the language
in the same sense. It is reasonable to believe that the
writers were permitted to exercise their own faculties
to a certain extent, and to express themselves in their
natural manner. At the same time, when we consider
the promise of Christ to his disciples, that when they
were brought before kings and governors for his sake,
it should be given them in that hour what they should
speak,f and recollect the affirmation of Paul that he and
the other apostles used not the words which man's
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost taught,f_
we cannot suppose that, when they were most at liberty,
they were in no degree directed by a secret influence
in the selection of words and phrases. It was of the
utmost importance, that the facts and observations which
God intended for the instruction of mankind in all ages,
should be properly expressed; and there was a danger
that errors would be committed by such persons as the
penmen of the Scriptures, the greater part of whom
were illiterate, and ignorant of the art of composition.
If we had nothing to depend upon but their own skill
and attention, we could have no certainty that the state
ments are always accurate, and our piety would be fre
quently disturbed by the suspicion, that what is only a
difficulty might be a mistake. It must be granted, that
even in relating what they knew, what they had seen,
what they had learned from the testimony of others, the

* 1 Pet. i. 11.

Matt. x. 19.

t 1 Cor. ii. 13.

sacred writers were assisted, although we should con
cede only, 'that occasionally a more proper word or ex
pression was suggested to them than would have oc
curred to themselves ; and consequently, the style was
not strictly their own, but was a style corrected and
improved, and different from what they would have
spontaneously used.
The objection against the inspiration of the language,
founded on the diversity of style observable in the
sacred writers, falls to the ground, if upon the whole
they were permitted to express themselves in their
natural way. If a diversity be remarked even in pro
phecy and revelation, properly so called, it may be ac
counted for by the hypothesis, which is in the highest
degree probable, that God accommodated himself in his
communications to the character and genius of the per
sons employed ; and surely no man in his senses will
affirm that there was only one style in which he could
communicate his will. There is no force in the argu
ment, that if the words were inspired, translations
would be unlawful. There is no sacredness in the
terms of a particular language, although they may be
applied to a sacred purpose; they are still arbitrary
signs, for which equivalent signs may be substituted.
Those who use this argument, do not scruple to trans
late into English or Latin the ten precepts of the moral
law, which were undoubtedly published by God him
self verbatim in Hebrew. The only proper inference
from the inspiration of the words is, that we should be
exceedingly careful when we translate the Scriptures,
to make word answer word, and phrase correspond to
phrase, so far as the idiom of the two languages will
permit. The persons employed in declaring the will of God
to the world, and committing it to writing, were not
different from other men, in respect of their natural tal
ents and dispositions. There was no peculiar aptitude
in them for the work ; for no original conformation of
mind, no course of education or habit of life, can be
considered as predisposing individuals for the reception
of supernatural gifts, which were distributed in the ex
ercise of Divine sovereignty. Those who were inspir
ed are called prophets and apostles ; the former signi
fying the messengers of God under the old dispensa
tion, and the latter his messengers under the new. But
the difference of the name implies no difference in the
influence exerted upon their minds ; no difference in the
kind of influence, although there was a difference in
degree, the apostles being favoured with a clearer illu
mination than the prophets. On some occasions, God
declared his will immediately ; as when he proclaimed
the threatening and the promise in the ears of our first
parents, and subsequently made revelations to the patri
archs ; and particularly when his awful voice, issuing
from the midst of darkness and tempest, published the
decalogue to the trembling millions assembled at the
base of the mountain on which he appeared. But, in
general, he made use of the ministry of men. With
regard to character, they were saints ; for " holy men
of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. "
There were, however, a few exceptions, among which
Balaam, who loved the wages of unrighteousness, holds
a conspicuous place ; but the inspiration of such per
sons was transient, and granted for a temporary purpose.
Those who were permanently employed in communica
ting the will of God by word or by writing, were men
of another spirit ; and it does not seem to us that it
would have been suitable to the holiness of God, to
have selected for so sacred a work, persons whose minds
were alienated from the truth, and under the habitual
influence of sin. As some of them were intended only
to promote the interests of religion in their own age,
they have left no records behind them, and their instruc
tions are lost, or only a few fragments of them have
been preserved. But others were directed by the Spir-

STATE OF THE SACRED TEXT.

63

it to commit their revelations to writing, for the benefit
of succeeding ages ; and the books collected into one
¦volume, and called by way of eminence the Bible, con-
stitutethe perpetual rule of faith and practice.
To these persons God made known his will in vari
ous ways, as Paul expresses it, mMrpeffm,* in divers
manners. Why he did not adhere to one mode, but
changed it to different persons, and to the same person
at different times, it is not for us to inquire. Some
times he revealed himself by secret suggestion, or by
infusing knowledge into the mind without the interven
tion of means. He who created the spirit of man has
direct access to it, and stands in no need of words or
external signs as the vehicle of communication. Du
ring profound silence, and complete abstraction from
sensible things, the souls of his servants were irradi
ated by the pure rays of celestial light. To this mode
of communication David refers, when he says, "the
Spirit of the Lord spake by me," or " in me,"f and
Peter, when he tells us that " the Spirit of Christ, who
was in the prophets, testified beforehand his sufferings,
and the glory that should follow."!: In this manner
were the apostles endowed with the knowledge of the
mysteries of the gospel ; and Paul in particular, " re
ceived not the doctrine which he preached of men, nei
ther was he taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus
Christ.|| Sometimes- the will of God was communi
cated by audible sounds, or by a voice which is called
the voice of God, because the sounds were formed by
his immediate agency. This voice spake to our first pa
rents, to Abraham, to Samuel, and on many occasions
to Moses; for this is the account which he gives : "And
when Moses was gone into the tabernacle of the con
gregation to speak with Him, then he heard the- voice
of one speaking unto him from off the mercy-seat that
was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two
cherubims."'§ Again, a third mode of revelation was
by visions, or representations made to the senses or to
the imagination. We have examples in Isaiah, who
saw Jehovah attended by the seraphim in the temple flf
in Ezekiel, by the river Chebar;** and in Daniel, to
whom the mighty revelations on the state of the world
were exhibited in symbolical figures. Another mode
of revelation was by dreams, than which nothing is
usually more vain, nor is there greater folly than to con
sider them as portending future events ; but a different
estimate must be formed of supernatural dreams, which
have been regarded in all ages as means of communi
cation with superior beings. Ov*p a. ams kti,\\ was a
saying of the ancients ; and dreams are related by them,
which, whether true or false, were supposed to be of a
higher character than the arbitrary creations of fan6y.
We have instances in Jacob's dream at Bethel, and
in that of Paul, to whom there appeared a man of Ma
cedonia, saying, " Come over and help us."i::t. In some
cases, the, design of the dreams was obvious; but in
others, explanation was necessary. On a few occa
sions, the dream was sent to one person, and another
was employed to interpret it. You will remember the
history of Pharaoh and Joseph, and of Nebuchadnez
zar and Daniel. Lastly, revelations were made by the
ministry of angels, as by Gabriel to Daniel, and by the
same messenger to the blessed virgin.
I shall take notice, in a few words, of the peculiar
privilege of Moses. " If there be a prophet among
you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in
a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My ser
vant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all my house.
With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparent
ly and not in dark speeches, and the similitude of the

* Heb. i. 1.
|| Gal. i. 12.
** Ezek. i. 1.
\\ Acts xvi. 9.

t 2 Sam. xxiii. 2. J 1 Pet. i
{ Num. vii. 89. IT Isa. vi.
¦ff A dream is from Jove, or God.

11.

Lord shall he behold."* It is said in the account of
his death, " There arose not a prophet since in Israel
like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face."t
Moses was the only person who could have explained
these words, but as he has left no commentary upon
them, we are ignorant of their meaning. This, howev
er, they obviously import, that he enjoyed a familiar in
tercourse with God, to which other inspired men were not
admitted ; and that the revelations made to him sur
passed those with which they were favoured in clear
ness, and resembled the communications which one
friend makes to another, when they meet and converse
together.

' LECTURE XII.
STATE OF THE SACRED TEXT.
Existing MSS. of the Scriptures — Various readings — Causes
assigned for them — Sources whence they are collected ; From
different MSS., the Writings of the Fathers, ancient Ver
sions and conjectural Criticism — Account of the principal
Editions of the New Testament — Utility of this Inquiry.
In some preceding lectures, we have considered the
evidences of our religion, and the authority of the re
cords in which it is contained. There is a question in
timately connected with it, to which I mean to direct
your attention in this lecture. It relates to the state in
which these records have come down to Us, and is con
fessedly of great importance, as every person must
wish to be satisfied, whether they are a faithful repre
sentation of the original documents, or have been al
tered and corrupted through carelessness or design.
We do not possess the original copies of the sacred
writings. The autographs of the apostles and prophets
have long since disappeared. The copy of the law, which
was written by the hand of Moses himself, seems to have
been preserved for many ages, and it was probably that
copy which was found by Hilkiah the high-priest, and
read in the ears of Josiah ;f: but it perished, we may
presume, in the destruction of the temple. We have
no information respecting the original copies of any
other parts of the Jewish Scriptures. From a passage
in Tertullian, who flourished towards the close of
the second century, it has been inferred, that the au
tographs of the apostles were then in existence, but no
mention is made of them by any later author, and they
have been lost with all the other writings of that age.
Modern times can boast only of transcripts, removed
from the originals by more or fewer steps, according to
the age in which they were written. The most ancient
manuscripts of the New Testament, are the Cbdex
Alexandrinus, so called because it, was brought from
Alexandria in Egypt ; the Codex Vaticanus, in the Va
tican library at Rome ; the Codex Beza?, or Codex
Cantabrigiensis, which was presented by Beza to the
University of Cambridge; the Codex Cottonianus, in
the Cottonian library, containing, however, only frag
ments of the four Gospels ; the Codex Ephremi; and
the Codex Claramontanus of the epistles of Paul. The
dates of these manuscripts cannot be certainly fixed ;
but the oldest of them cannot be referred farther back
than the fifth, or perhaps the fourth century, and is pos
terior to the last book of the New Testament by at least
three hundred years. There are no manuscripts of
the Old Testament of equal antiquity.
It may be presumed, that the persons employed in
transcribing the sacred writings would be at great pains
to make the copies accurate, both from reverence for
books which they believed to be inspired and from a
regard to their own interest, as errors, when discovered,
would have prevented the sale of the copies, or have

* Num. xii. 6 — 8. f Deut. xxxiv. 10. ( 2 Kings xxii. 8.

64

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

greatly lowered the price. Yet, without a miracle,
every transcript could not have been a faultless repre
sentation of the original ; and that no supernatural in
fluence was exerted upon their minds, may be very con
fidently inferred from the different readings which ap
pear upon a collation of manuscripts. It is certain that
they cannot all be right, and it is probable that not one
of them is perfectly correct.
The existence of various readings in the Old Testa
ment was remarked, if not, as some suppose, in the
days of Ezra, yet as far back as the fifth century, when
the Jewish work called the Masora was composed, or
at least was begun by the Jewish critics, who are
known by the name of Masorites. The design of it
was to ascertain the true reading, and much scrupulous
care has been employed in numbering the verses, the
words, the letters, the vowel points, and the accents.
As they did not venture to alter the text, for which they
entertained a superstitious reverence, but contented
themselves with recording what they judged lo be the
true reading, we have a specimen of their criticisms on
the margins of some of our printed Bibles, and are re
ferred to them by a small circle over the word, for
which that on the margin is to be substituted. Hence
the origin of the words, Keri and Chetib, which fre
quently occur. The Chetib denotes what is written,
and the Keri what ought to be read ; that is, ycu are
not to read the text as it stands, but to correct it by the
note. I shall give only one instance, in which there
can be no doubt that the Masorites have done right in
correcting the text, because they have the sanction of
apostolical authority. In the tenth verse of the six
teenth Psalm, we read in Hebrew, " Thou wilt not leave
my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer TTDn chasi-
dicha, thy holy ones, to see corruption. " But on the
day of Pentecost, Peter quoted it thus, and applied it to
Christ, " Neither wilt thou suffer -p'OH chasidcha, thy
holy One, to see corruption ;" and it is in this way that
the Masoretic note requires us to read it, by marking
the jod, the sign of the plural, as redundant. Had they
wished to favour their own cause against Christians,
they would haye left the reading in the text unnoticed,
and might have done so without incurring the charge
of corrupting it, since it seems to have been vitiated
before their time. But they acted with perfect fairness,
and restored the word which, we are sure, was used by
the Psalmist. In modern times, the industry of learn
ed men has greatly augmented the number of various
readings. More than six hundred manuscripts were
more or less fully consulted for Dr. Kennicott's edition
of the Hebrew' Bible ; and four hundred and seventy-
nine manuscripts, besides two hundred and eighty-eight
printed editions, for De Rossi's Variae Lectiones Vete-
ris Testamenti.
As I shall have occasion afterwards to speak more
particularly of the various editions of the New Testa
ment, I only observe at present, that to obtain an accu
rate text has been deemed an object of great importance
almost since the revival of learning ; and that, in this
work, many have laboured with great diligence and
ability, among whom Mill, Wetstein, and Griesbach,
are eminently entitled to notice.
The following causes of various readings have been
assigned. First, when a copy was written from the
dictation of another, he who dictated might read or pro
nounce wrong, or the transcriber might hear wrong, and
in either case a mistake would be produced. Second
ly, as some Hebrew and Greek letters are similar, and
according to the modes of writing in former times, had
a greater resemblance to each other than at present,
negligent copyists might substitute one letter or word
for another. Thirdly, a transcriber having read a whole
clause at once, and retaining the sense, but forgetting
some of the precise words, substituted a synonymous
word, and thus altered the text. Fourthly, a transcri

ber, casting his eye on a preceding line or word, would
write over again what he had written already, and thus
make an addition to the text. Fifthly, a transcriber,
directing his eye to a word or line following the place
which he was transcribing, might write from the subse
quent place, and omit all that intervened. Sixthly, a
person, having written one or more words from a wrong
place, and not observing his mistake, or not choosing
to correct it lest he should spoil the appearance of the
manuscript, might return to the proper place, and thus
insert something into the text which did not belong to
it. Lastly, when a transcriber had made an omission,
and afterwards observed it, he then subjoined what he
had omitted, and thus produced a transposition.
These are all instances of mistake. But some vari
ous readings may be traced to design. Critical tran
scribers sometimes transferred what they deemed a
clearer or fuller expression, or added a circumstance to
the narrative before them, from a parallel passage ; and
this liberty has been frequently taken in the gospels.
They sometimes corrected the New Testament from the
Greek version of the Old, with a view to make the quo
tations in the former agree with the passages in the lat
ter. They are charged, also, with having sometimes
altered it in conformity to the Vulgate. They made al
terations in their copies, in order to correct some word
which appeared to them faulty, or which they did not
understand ; they omitted words which they reckoned
superfluous, or added words to illustrate what they judg
ed defective or improper. Various readings have also
been produced, by transferring to the text glosses ornotes
which had been written on the margin. Some have
been attributed to wilful corruption, with a view to
serve the purposes of a party. This crime has been
charged upon the Jews, upon heretics, and even upon
those who were called orthodox. The accusation may
be true in some instances ; but it has been justly re
marked, that "mistaken zeal is forward to impute false
readings to design in those whom it opposes ; but we
ought not to ascribe them to this principle rashly, when
they might have naturally arisen from chance, or where
there is no positive presumption or evidence of design."
No single manuscript can be supposed to exhibit the
original text, without the slightest variation ; it is to be
presumed, that in all manuscripts, errors more or fewer
in number are to be found. It is therefore by a colla
tion of manuscripts, that we may hope to obtain a faith
ful representation of the sacred books, as they were de
livered to the church by the inspired writers. In esti
mating the value of manuscripts, the preference is giv
en to the most ancient, because they approach nearest
to the time of the sacred writers, and in proportion to
the less frequency of transcription, there is the less
danger of error. The antiquity of a manuscript is as
certained by testimony, or by internal marks, and par
ticularly by the form of the letters. Those which are
written in uncial letters, as they are called, or capital
letters, are supposed to be the oldest. Some, however,
have considered this proof as not quite satisfactory, be
cause copyists might, from choice or design, imitate
more ancient writing, or give zfac simile of the manu
script before them, to display their dexterity, or to en
hance the worth of their copy. Again, those manu
scripts are most esteemed which appear to have been
written with great care, not onfy because we may con
clude that they are faithful copies of the older manu
scripts, from which they are transcribed, but because,
when a various reading occurs, we have reason lo be
lieve, that it was not introduced by the copyists but
was found in the manuscript before them.
Critics have divided the manuscripts of the New
Testament, of which above five hundred have been con
sulted, into classes, assigning to each different degrees
of authority. Griesbach has established three classes,
the Alexandrine, the Occidental or Western, and the

STATE OF THE SACRED TEXT.

65

Oriental or Byzantine, and has given the highest rank
to the first. He has distinguished them by the name
of recensions, which signifies the same thing with a
word more common and generally intelligible, editions.
Scholz has found out five recensions, the Alexandrine,
the Occidental, the Asiatic, the Byzantine, and the
Cyprian. Matthaei has rejected all these divisions, and
maintained that there is only one class of manuscripts
containing, what others have called, the Byzantine text.
The classification of Griesbach has been disputed by
two learned men in this country who have endeavoured
to show that it is destitute of any solid foundation, and
that some important alterations which he has made in
the received text upon its authority, ought not to be
admitted. I refer to Dr. Laurence, who has published
remarks on the classification of manuscripts adopted
by Griesbach in his edition of the New Testament;
and to Mr. Nolan, the author of a work entitled an In
quiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or receiv
ed text of the New Testament, in which he introduces
a new classification, into the Egyptian, the Palestine,
and the Byzantine, and gives the preference to the lat
ter, on which the texlus receptus is founded. From
this short review of the different opinions entertained
by learned men, it-appears that some degree of uncer-
' tainty still rests upon the subject, and that after all that
has been done, the field is still open to new inquirers.
There are other sources of various readings besides
manuscripts. Some are collected from the writings of
the Fathers, in the faith that they have accurately quo
ted from their copies. Here critics have shown how
sensible they are of the necessity of caution, by laying
down a variety of rules for judging in what cases the
quotations may be considered as faithful. But after
all, we tread upon slippery ground. We know how
careless moderns often are iii citing passages ; that they
trust to their memories to save themselves the trouble
of looking at the text, and that sometimes they are not
solicitous to be exact, but intend only to give the sense,
and throw in occasionally a word for the purpose of
illustration. We have no reason to believe that the
Fathers were at greater pains ; and I should think it
probable that they referred less frequently to the text
than we do, from the form of their manuscripts, which
required to be unrolled, and from the difficulty of find
ing a particular sentence, as they wanted those minute
marks-of reference which we possess in the division of
the Scriptures into chapters and verses. I do not deny
all authority to their quotations, but I should not be dis
posed to lay much stress upon them, except when they
are brought forward on some occasion where accuracy
was indispensable, or occur in commentaries which
were professedly written to explain them.
Ancient versions of the Scriptures are also another
source of various readings. But here, I think, greater
caution, if possible, is necessary. For in the first place,
we are not certain that those versions have come down
to us in an uncorrupted state, or rather we are certain
that they have suffered as much as the manuscripts of
the Scriptures by transcription, so that we cannot
be sure in many cases, that where they differ now from
the originals, they differed at first. Tn the second place,
we never can know, that where they differ from the re
ceived text, there was a different reading in their copies,
because it is- possible that they misapprehended the
sense. They may have mistranslated ; they may have
substituted a term or phrase for another, supposing it to
be equivalent, while it was not ; they may have chang
ed the meaning, in adapting to it the idiom of their own
language; they may have been guilty of oversight,
just as modern translators are. If a person were to
read a variety of modern translations, and not to know
that they were all made from the same text, I have no
doubt that he would in some cases conclude that they
had been formed upon different texts. It is, therefore,
1 5

with extreme hesitation that ancient versions should be
admitted as authorities for various readings. There is
one case where their testimony may be received, name
ly, " when the original is absurd, or yields no sense, a
single version may give probability to another reading,
especially when from it the present reading might have
naturally arisen."
Conjectural criticism, which has supplied some read
ings is a dangerous expedient, which should never be
resorted to, except when emendation is manifestly re
quired, and no assistance can be derived from any
other quarter ; and even then the proposed correction
can rise no higher than probability. It is astonishing
that some men have not been deterred by reverence for
the word of God, from making too liberal a use of it.
Rules have been proposed for judging concerning
various readings. The greater part of .them are of no
value, and possess no authority which entitles them to
attention ; but others are so evidently right, that they
ought to be received into the text, although they should
be found in no printed edition. The limits of this
lecture will not permit me, as I intended, to give an ac
count of the principles laid down by writers on sacred
criticism, for estimating the value of readings with a
view to the emendation of the received text ; and 1 shall
therefore content myself with referring you to some of
the books in which they will be found; Home's Intro
duction, Gerard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism, In-
stitutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti by Ernesti, the
Prolegomena of Mill, Wetstein, and Griesbach, the
preface to the work of Bengelius entitled Gnomon Novi
Testamenti, &c.
It remains to give a short account of the principal
editions of the New Testament.
The first is the Complutensian, which was printed
at Complutum or Alcala, in Spain, in a. d. 1514, but
was not published till some years after, so that the edi
tion of Erasmus, which was in fact posterior, appeared
before it. It was prepared and published under the
patronage of Cardinal Ximenes. The manuscripts
used by the editors are lost, but although they are said
to have been ancient, it is now generally understood
that they were of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth
centuries, and consequently possessed little intrinsic
value. They have also been charged with introducing
some changes in conformity to the Vulgate.
The first edition of the new Testament by Erasmus,
appeared in a. d. 1516, and was followed by several
other editions. The first was drawn up in great haste,
in the short space of five months, and on this account
could not be of much value as a critical work. The
manuscripts which he consulted were not many nor of
great antiquity. The editions which appeared after
the Publication of the Complutensian were corrected
by it.
The next edition which demands attention is that of
Robert Stephens, in a. d. 1546. He adhered closely to
the Complutensian and Erasmian editions, but not ser
vilely, for he has adopted various readings on the au
thority of manuscripts, which" were consulted to the
number of fifteen. But some of those manuscripts
contained only a part of the New Testament; they
were examined, not by Robert himself, but by his son
Henry, who, although he proved one of the most learn
ed men of his age, was then a youth of eighteen ; and
it is affirmed that not much critical skill was exercised
in the formation of the text.
Beza gave his first edition to the world in a. d. 1565.
But although he had access to a collection of various
readings by Stephens, possessed an ancient manuscript
of the Gospels and Acts, and another of the Epistles
of Paul, and besides had an opportunity to consult the
Syriac version, which had been recently published, he is
said not to have made afull use of these advantages. He
has corrected the edition of Stephens only in fifty places,

66

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

and the alterations do not always rest upon sufficient
authority. In the year 1624, an edition was printed at the press
of Elzevir without a name, and to this day it is not
known by whose labour it was prepared. Whoever he
was, he has formed the text upon the edition of Ste
phens and Beza, although in a few instances he has
departed from both. This is called the textus receptus,*
because since that time it has been admitted into all
common editions. How this edition acquired such
authority as to settle the text, it is not easy to say.
Griesbach ascribes it to the opinion, that the Elzevir
editions were as distinguished by accuracy as they
were by the beauty of the type. He justly observes,
that a corrupt text might be printed without a single
typographical error, but would not for this reason be
come genuine.
It is evidently ignorance and prejudice which would
lead any person to consider the received text as so
sacred that no alteration ought to be made in it. Its
history shows that its claim is disputable, and that it
may be superseded by a text more carefully compiled.
Too little had yet been done to render the labours of
subsequent critics unnecessary. The learned world, or
such of them at least as viewed the subject in a calm
and impartial light, were prepared to receive the edi
tions of Mill, Wetstein, and Griesbach, which appeared
in the course of the last century, not to mention the
editions of other distinguished men, who have contri
buted their part to exhibit the genuine text of the New
Testament. No capable judge could object to the de
sign, whatever faults he might find with the execution
of it. As new manuscripts were discovered, it was fair
to listen to their testimony, since those which were
consulted by the earlier editors had no title alone to be
heard ; and it is not a little surprising, that some cele
brated men, as Dr. Owen in the seventeenth century,
and Dr. Whitby in the beginning of the eighteenth,
should have exclaimed against any attempt to new-
model the text as presumptuous and dangerous. The
report of thirty thousand various readings collected by
Mill was no doubt alarming; and the numbers since
collected by Wetstein and Griesbach is much more
formidable ; but the fears felt for the sacred writings
have proved to be imaginary. Of the various readings
many have no authority, being found only in one manu
script or two ; others have only some degree of proba
bility; and those which appear to be well supported
very often consist in the omission or insertion of the
article, or some little word which does not affect the
sense, in the order of words and phrases, in the spell
ing of proper names, and other matters equally insig
nificant. Important alterations have indeed been made,
particularly in passages which relate to the divinity of
Christ; but besides that their propriety is disputed,
and strong reasons have been advanced for the common
reading, the doctrine is so clearly taught in other pas
sages, that the admission of them makes no change in
pur faith. The truth is, that by a hundred and fifty
thousand various readings, no doctrine or duty of our
holy religion is affected; and the labours of biblical
critics have terminated in establishing, instead of weak
ening, the authority of the text. We are now fully
satisfied, that we possess substantially the same text
which was exhibited in the autographs of the evange
lists and apostles ; and this is also the result of the
critical labours which have been bestowed upon the
Old Testament.
It is not expected that every minister of religion shall
be a profound biblical critic. The talents which are
necessary to success in this study do not fall to the lot
of all, and comparatively few enjoy the aids and oppor
tunities, without which talents will be of little avail.
* The received text.

Books must not only be read, but possessed, for the
purpose of frequent consultation, from which most aro
precluded by their situation and their limited means ;
and a proficiency in scholarship is indispensable, which
can be attained only by deep and persevering study.
We shall more easily find fifty good theologians, than
one accomplished biblical critic. A man who is him
self distinguished in this department, and is one of the
most learned bishops of the church of England, has
said, that to clergymen in general, criticism is rather a
luxury than a necessary; and no person who under
stands the subject will dispute the assertion. But it
would be well if every minister would endeavour to ac
quire some general knowledge of it, that he may be
able to tell on what grounds he believes, not only that
the Scriptures were divinely inspired, but that the
books called Sacred, contain the genuine writings of
the men who were moved by the Holy Ghost. The
rapid sketch which has been now given is intended to
excite you to inquire for yourselves.

LECTURE XIII.
THE STUDY AND INTERPRETATION OF THE
SCRIPTURES.
An Acquaintance with the Original Languages a Prerequisite
to the Study of the Scriptures — Rules of interpreting Scrip
ture stated — External Aids to Interpretation — Scripture the
Standard of Faith — Lawfulness of Inferences from Scripture
¦ — Conduct of the Church of Rome.
In the preceding lecture, I directed your attention to
that part of sacred criticism which is employed in as
certaining the genuine text of Scripture. As long as
the autographs of the prophets and apostles were pre
served, there was an easy method of settling it; and by
an appeal to them, any errors which might have been
admitted into particular manuscripts could be corrected.
Their history is obscure. There is some reason to think
that the original copy of the law of Moses existed in
the days of Josiah, and that towards the close of the
second century, the books of the New Testament still
remained in the handwriting of the authors ; but what
became of them afterwards, no man can tell. It is pro
bable that the copy of the law perished in the destruc
tion of the first temple; and that the manuscripts of the
New Testament were lost amidst the troubles towhich
the church was exposed during the first three centuries.
You see, then, that we possess only transcripts of the
records of revelation, in genera], no doubt, executed
with great care, by persons who were influenced either
by a principle of religious reverence, or by a regard to
their own interest, being aware that their copies could
not have been disposed of if they had been inaccurate,
or would have been sold at an inferior price. But it
should be considered, that the transcribers were men
who might err through inadvertence or incompetence,
and that as we have no security for the honesty of them
all, some of them might be guilty of wilful corruptions,
to serve the purposes of a party. It is not, therefore,
upon the faith of a single manuscript that we should
settle the text, but by the collation of many manu
scripts, and by the assistance derived from other
sources, which were mentioned in the preceding lecture.
To ascertain the genuine text is, however, only a
preliminary step ; the next office of criticism is to dis
cover its meaning, since the Scriptures were given, not
to be gazed at with distant reverence, or preserved as a
literary curiosity, but to be perused, and understood,
and believed. The languages in which they are found
were vernacular to those into whose hands they were
primarily delivered, but they have long; since ceased to
be spoken. It is supposed that the Hebrew language
was lost during the captivity of the Jews in Babylon,

INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

67

or that, after their return, it gave way by degrees to
the mixed dialect which was spoken in Judea in the
days of our Saviour; and we know that the Greek lan
guage, which had been partly corrupted before the fall
of Constantinople in the fifteenth century, by the intro
duction of foreign words and idioms, has since degen
erated into the Romaic, which differs from it almost
as much as Italian does from Latin. The first prere
quisite, then, to the study of the Scriptures, is an ac
quaintance with the languages in which they were com
posed. The Old Testament has come down to us in two lan
guages, a part of Ezra, a verse in Jeremiah, and a part
of Daniel being written in Chaldee, and all the rest in
Hebrew. The interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures
is the more difficult, because they are the only books
which now exist in that language. The Jewish Tar-
gums, or paraphrases, are in Chaldee ; and Rabbinical
Hebrew is a corrupt mixture of different languages,
from which little assistance can be derived for under
standing the original tongue. Hence an acquaintance
with the kindred languages has been considered as of
great use, the Chaldaic, the Syriac, and the Arabic. It
has been remarked by critics, that " they discover roots,
or primitives, which are not found in the Bible, though
their derivatives occur there, and by doing so, point out
the signification of these derivatives ; that they ascertain
the precise signification of roots, and consequently of
their derivatives, and the signification of which had been
fixed only by conjecture ; that they afford the best, and
where the ancient versions vary in translating them,
the only means of determining with certainty the sig
nification of such words as occur but once or very sel
dom, in the Bible ; that they enable us to discover all
the senses of words, some of which only had been col
lected from the Bible, though others would have bet
ter suited particular passages ; in particular, that they
discover the primary signification of many roots, even
such as are most commonly used, the secondary
senses of which have alone been attended to, though
the primary sense would throw light on some texts ;
and that they assist us to understand the meaning
of phrases, or idiomical combinations of words which
are found in the Bible, but the exact import of
which could not be determined by it." If there
were many books in the Hebrew language we might
explain, by their assistance, every word and phrase
which occurs in the Old Testament ; but as this is
not the case, our next resource is to consult those
languages which have been derived from it, or are, to
gether with it, branches from the same primitive stock.
If there were only one book in Latin, as it could not
be supposed to contain the whole language, we should
be at a loss to understand some words and phrases in
it ; but I have no doubt that the Italian, Spanish, and
French languages, which are more or less intimately
allied to it, would help us in some of our difficulties.
The Greek of the New Testament is more easily un
derstood, because there are many books composed in
that language. Yet an acquaintance with classical
Greek alone will not fully qualify us to interpret the
gospels and epistles, not only because Syriac and La
tin words occur in them, but because they abound in
foreign idioms, and use words in peculiar senses, which
were unknown to the natives of Greece. There has,
indeed, been a difference of opinion among learned men
upon this subject. While some admit what has been
now stated, others contend that the Greek of the New
Testament is pure, among whom Blaekwall, the author
of the book entitled Sacred Classics, holds a distin
guished place. It must be acknowledged that he has
displayed great research and ingenuity in vindicating
the inspired writers from the charge of solecism and
barbarism, and that in many instances he has produced,
from the most approved authors, the same combinations

of terms, and the same irregularity of construction •
but, after all, it must be allowed, that the language of
the New Testament is different from that of the an
cient historians and philosophers. It has been called
the Greek of the Synagogue, or Hellenistic Greek,
from the name of Hellenists given to Jews living in
foreign countries, who used the Greek language, but
introduced into it modes of expression borrowed from
their native tongue, and employed some of its words
in a sense founded on the usage of Judea. This kind
of Greek is found in the translation of the Seventy, the
study of which is therefore of great importance, to as
sist us in understanding the language of the New Tes
tament, which was drawn up by persons who, like
those translators, wrote in Greek but thought in He
brew. Let me add, that for the same purpose an ac
quaintance with the Old Testament in the original ia
of great advantage, and will enable us to account for
forms of construction, the use of prepositions, peculiar
phrases, and the application of terms, which would
otherwise seem strange, and perhaps would not be in
telligible. The phrase, owe *v m-uiBu-mta-n rafj-, which we
translate, " no flesh should be saved, " but which, lit
erally rendered, is, "all flesh would not be saved,"
must have sounded uncouthly in the ears of a Greek,
and the meaning would not have been obvious to him,
although the words were familiar, because the whole
expression was different from the idiom of his native
tongue, and the word o-«»| was used in a sense to which
his countrymen did not apply it. In pure Greek, it sig
nifies the muscular substance which surrounds the bones
of animals; but here it means men, and in other places,
the corruption of nature, infirmity, external privileges,
&c. The sense would present itself at first sight to a
Jew. By a critical knowledge of the original languages
of the Scriptures, we ascertain the grammatical sense,
and may be able to translate' them into our own lan
guage, so as to express the meaning with perfect fidel
ity. This will not be the effect of a version servilely
literal, which will sometimes give no meaning at all,
but of a version which attends not only to the words,
but to the genius of the two languages, and substitutes
for the peculiarities of the one the corresponding idioms
of the other. There is an error into which some have
been betrayed, by paying too much deference to ety
mology, and to the idiomatical character of a language,
which has led them to suppose words and expressions
to be very emphatical, which to persons familiar with
the language had no more force than the corresponding
terms and phrases in our own. You will find wonder
ful discoveries of this kind in the writings of minute
critics, but in general they have no better foundation
than ignorance and fancy.
Your time will not permit me to speak of the benefit
which may arise from translations, ancient and modern :
and I proceed to observe, that, to ascertain the gram
matical sense of the Scriptures, is only a preliminary
step. Our next business is to discover the true mean
ing of them, or to find out the sentiments which the
sacred writers intended to convey. Besides the simple
perusal of the Scriptures, there are various methods to
be used for the elucidation of the text.
In the first place, one method which should be em
ployed, with a view to ascertain the sense of Scripture,
is to compare it with itself. It consists of several
books which appeared in different ages ; but, as the
whole was written under the direction and inspiration
of the Holy Ghost, we are sure that there is no real
contradiction in it, and that there is a harmony among
its parts, which conspire to one end, our instruction in
the system of religion. It will, therefore, lend to throw
light upon one part, to bring into view other parts
which are allied to it. Now this alliance is more or
less close. Sometimes different passages of Scripture

68

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

agree, not only in treating the same subject, but in ex
pressing it in the same terms. A comparison of these
will show the harmony of the sacred writers, but will
not contribute to elucidate their meaning. Others dis
cuss the same subject in language somewhat different,
enlarging upon certain points, and introducing new cir
cumstances. It is evident that these are of great use,
by giving a more complete view of the subject, and
serving as a commentary upon the passages which are
more concisely expressed. Lastly, there are passages
which may be called parallel, not in respect of the lan
guage, but of the matter. The same doctrine, or the
same duty, is discussed in a variety of words and phra
ses ; and hence, when the different passages are placed
together, and attentively considered in their bearings
upon the common topic, new light is reflected upon it.
What is obscure in one place is explained by what is
perspicuous in another, and what is defective is sup
plied. You perceive now for what reason it has been
said that the Bible is its own interpreter; and that it
may perform this office in relation to itself, is the de
sign with which some Bibles have been published, with
an ample collection of marginal references. But the
saying must be understood with certain limitations, for
some parts of it are unintelligible without foreign as
sistance, and in particular, prophecy can be explained
only by the event.
In the second place, in studying the Scriptures, it is
necessary to attend to their scope or design. By this,
I mean the purpose which the sacred writers had in
view in the books which they composed, or in particu
lar passages, and it will be best discovered by an at
tentive and repeated perusal of them. The knowledge
of the design of a book will enable us to account for
its general structure, and the disposition of the parts,
and will serve as a key to the exact meaning of words,
the import of phrases, and the connexion of particular
passages. The d.esign of the gospels was not to give
a complete history of our Saviour, but such a speci
men of it as would prove that he is the Son of God,
and the Messiah ; and this is the reason that they do
not all relate the same facts, but one records certain
particulars which are omitted in another. The design
of the Acts was not to give a full account of the prop
agation of Christianity, but to show that it was preach
ed first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles ; and
hence, it says little of any of the apostles but Peter
and Paul, of whom the one was the minister of the cir
cumcision, and the other of the uncircumcision. It
seems to have been the design of the epistle to the
Romans, to give a succinct account of the general sys
tem of Christianity, and in particular, to instruct them
in the important doctrine of justification by faith, with
out the works of the law. The design of the epistle
of James is different ; and unless the difference be at
tended to, we shall be led into the error of those who
have supposed that the two apostles contradict each
other, and have either rejected one of the epistles as
uncanonical, or in attempting to reconcile them, have
corrupted both. Luther called the epistle of James
straminea episiola, an epistle of straw, because it ap
peared to him to be opposed to the doctrine of Paul ;
and others, assuming that James teaches justification
before God by works, have vexed and tortured the
words of Paul to make him speak in the same strain.
The design of James was to refute the error of those
who, perverting the doctrine of Paul, rested too much
upon faith, and imagined that a man would be justified
by it, although he continued to live in his sins. As
soon as this difference of design is understood, the two
apostles are found to harmonize. As the one speaks
of justification before God, and the other of justifica
tion before men, there is no discrepance of sentiment,
in ascribing the former to faith, and the latter to
works.

In the third place, it it necessary to attend carefully
to the nature of the composition in different passages
of Scripture which is literal or fignrative. When the
composition is literal, and words are used in their com
mon and familiar sense, nothing is necessary but a tho
rough acquaintance with the grammar, the vocabulary,
and the idioms of the original tongues. But words
are frequently employed in a figurative sense, partly
from necessity, and partly from choice ; and hence, be
sides a general knowledge of the figures of speech, it
is requisite to observe when they do occur, that we may
neither call that which is figurative, literal, nor that
which is literal, figurative. The Scriptures themselves
furnish us with several instances of mistake. When
our Lord said to the Jews, " Destroy this temple, and
in three days I will raise it up," they imagined that
he referred to the second temple constructed of stone
and timber, whereas he spoke of the temple of his bo
dy. At the institution of the sacred supper, he called
the bread his body, by a common trope giving the name
of the thing signified to the sign, as is evident from
the nature of the case, as well as from the use of tho
same trope in other passages ; but papists have found
ed on his words the monstrous doctrine of transubstan-
tiation, in defiance of the testimony of our senses, an I
the plainest dictates of reason. The style of prophe
cy is highly figurative. We have not only example!
of personification, apostrophe, and hyperbole, but met
aphor of the boldest kind, representing political revo
lutions as earthquakes and storms ; the fall of moc-
archs as an eclipse of the celestial luminaries ; and th s
spiritual change in the state of human affairs, which
was to be effected by the gospel, as the creation of
new heavens and a new earth. Without attention t >
the meaning of the symbols, prophecy will not be un
derstood ; the fulfilment of past predictions cannot bo
perceived, and those which are yet to be accomplished
will excite extravagant expectations, which will not bo
realized. The language of the parables, which occur
both in the Old and in the New Testament, is also fig
urative, because the terms are intended to convey n
sense which they do not bear in their literal import.
Considered as a simple narrative of facts, the parablo
of the Sower might be true in the common acceptatiorj
of the terms ; but if it were so understood, its design
would be lost. The Sower is not a husbandman, but
Jesus Christ ; the seed is not wheat or barley, but the
word of God ; and the different kinds of ground aro
not varieties of soil, but the hearts of different individ
uals. A parable being a short story in which spiritual
things are exhibited under sensible images, it is neces
sary, in order to the right interpretation of it, that we
should keep in view the main design. There is a gen
eral truth or moral to be drawn from it ; but in doing
so, we must beware of minutely explaining every par
ticular, because some particulars are evidently intro
duced merely to complete the narrative, or to adorn it.
It is ridiculous, in the parable of the prodigal, to pre
tend to tell us what is meant by the fatted calf, and
what by the ring which was put on his finger, and the
shoes which were put upon his feet ; as nothing was
intended, but to teach us that the return of a sinner is
acceptable to God, and that he is invested with the
honours and privileges of a son. It is quite contemp
tible, in explaining the parable of the good Samaritan,
first, to commit the egregious blunder of supposing
him to be Christ, and then to explain the two denarii
which he gave to the innkeeper, of the active and pas
sive obedience of our Saviour. Nothing can be more
wretched than such expositions of Scripture. They
may make idiots admire, but they excite the laughter
or the disgust of the wise.
In the fourth place, another assistance in understand
ing the Scriptures, is the analogy of faith, which signi
fies, that we should explain passages that are obscure

INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

69

or doubtful, by the general sense of Scripture previous
ly ascertained. When if is thus defined, there appears
to be no just objection against this rule of interpreta
tion, and no cause for the ridicule with which it has
been treated, and the contempt with which it has been
set aside by some authors, and particularly by Dr.
Campbell in his Dissertations, who, in more instances
than one, has allowed his wit and satire to run faster
than his judgment. If it were meant that we should
first form a system in our own mind, and then proceed
to explain the Scriptures by it, our conduct would
be preposterous, and, as he says, we should begin
with giving judgment and afterwards examine the
proof, employing at the same time all our skill to wrest
the evidence in favour of our judgment. But we make
no such absurd proposal. We believe, in opposition to
all skeptics, whether philosophers or divines, that the
sense of Scripture may be certainly known ; and hav
ing ascertained the general doctrines which are taught
in it, we contend that we are authorized to apply them
to the elucidation of obscurities, and to interpret in con
formity to them such passages as, taken by themselves,
do not convey a definite sense. This rule must be ad
mitted with respect to any human composition, the au
thor of which was a man of sound mind and upright
intentions. We apply it to the Scriptures, on the prin
ciple that the Holy Ghost does not contradict himself,
and that there is undoubtedly a perfect harmony among
all his declarations. This, then, is the analogy of faith
for which we plead. With any other idea of it we
have nothing to do ; and if some men choose to attack
it in a different form, we leave them to amuse them
selves with first setting up a man of straw, and then
beating him down.
As it is possible in this lecture to give only a super
ficial sketch, I add, in the last place, that in interpret
ing the Scriptures, there are external sources from
which assistance is to be derived. Chronology and
geography have been called the two eyes of history,
and must be of great use for understanding the Scrip
tures, a considerable portion of which consists of his
torical narrative, and accounts of different countries.
They enable us to trace the series, the causes, the con
nexions, and the consequences of events ; they furnish
the thread by which we find our way through the mazes
of the labyrinth; they reduce to order what would
otherwise appear to be a confused mass of particulars.
Without the knowledge of profane history, many parts
of the Bible would be unintelligible, or would make
only an indistinct impression on the mind. In particu
lar, all the prophetical parts would be words without
meaning. We could not know whether they were pro
phetical or not; and for aught that we could tell, they
might be the wild ravings of fancy, or descriptions
written after the event in the oracular form, for the
amusement of the authors, or with a view to make sport
of the credulity of others. The evidence arising from
prophecy in favour of the inspiration of the Scriptures
would be lost as there would be no proof that it had
been fulfilled. An acquaintance also with natural his
tory, and with the arts of life, is highly useful, as there
is mention made of plants and animals, several of which
are unknown to us, but are described by philosophers
and travellers ; and there are frequent allusions to hus
bandry, gardening, commerce, and the pastoral life.
And this leads me to remark, that no man can under
stand many passages of Scripture, and explain them
satisfactorily to others, without some knowledge of an
cient customs and manners. I shall take notice of two
or three familiar examples. When Moses says that
the Israelites should sacrifice the abomination of the
Egyptians, and run the risk of being stoned, a common
reader must be utterly at a loss to apprehend what he
means, till he is informed that heifers, rams, and goats
were held sacred by the Egyptians, and that to offer

them in sacrifice was accounted a daring act of impiety.
Mention is frequently made of going up to the house
top, walking, praying, and conversing upon it. All
this must seem strange to a native of this country, who
has seen houses only with sloping roofs; but his sur
prise will cease as soon as he. learns, that in Judea the
roofs of the houses were flat, and were accessible by
steps erected for the purpose. Again, we might won
der that our Lord speaks of putting new wine into new
bottles for safety, and not into old ones, which might
burst, because from the nature of the bottles which we
use, greater danger is to be apprehended from the new,
which have not been tried, than from the old, which
have stood the test. But we perceive the reason why
he prefers the former to the latter, when we are told,
that bottles being then made of skins, as they still are
in the eastern countries, those which had been often
moistened and dried, and exposed to the heat of the
sun, were much more apt to give way than such as had
been recently made. But I must bring this subject to
a conclusion. I intended only to give you a few hints
respecting the means to be employed in the study of
the Scriptures. There is, however, one thing of which
I would remind you, that the literal ought always to
be considered as the true and only sense of Scripture,
except in those cases in which it is evident that some
thing more is intended. In parables and allegories, we
ought not to rest in the letter, but should search out the
hidden meaning. In passages, too, which relate to
typical persons and events, a double sense must be ad
mitted; and in general, when figurative language is
used, we must attend, not to the literal signification of
words, but to the ideas which, by a trope, they are used
to represent. But in historical narration, in the enun
ciation of doctrines, and in moral precepts, the gram
matical sense alone is to be considered. The practice
of spiritualizing the Scriptures, of finding mysteries in
the plainest things, which has long prevailed in the
church, is a sad proof of the want of judgment and
taste. It should never be indulged, although it may
excite the admiration of the ignorant; for with what
ever appearance of piety it may be clothed, it is a per
version of the word of God, is calculated to expose it
to the ridicule of the profane, and instead of edifying,
inflates the minds of men witb reveries and dreams.
In studying the Scriptures, we should bear in mind,
that they are the only standard of religion. As this
idea will inspire us with reverence for their authority,
so it will excite us to inquire into their meaning with
the utmost care. The church of Rome makes tradition
the standard of religion as well as the Scriptures, and
explains the latter by the former; thus distracting the
attention between the word of God and the word of
men, and, in fact, giving greater authority to tradition
than to the Scriptures. It is, therefore, of as much im
portance, at least in that church, to know what the
fathers have said, as what the prophets and apostles
have taught ; and accordingly, their writings are much
studied by popish divines, and their sentiments are
quoted as decisive in matters of faith and practice.
Protestants acknowledge the Scriptures alone as the
standard of truth. They have drawn up articles or
confessions of faith, to which the title of Standards is
given; but they are called subordinate standards, and
it is always in this light that they should be regarded.
The great Protestant principle, that all appeals should
be ultimately made to the Bible, is not always, I am
afraid, practically maintained. There is apt to grow
up in the mind an undue reverence for the standards of
a church, which, by being never subjected to revision,
seem to be considered as absolutely perfect, and as
enacted for all time to come, and in this country have
acquired an air of inviolable sanctity by certain transac
tions of our fathers, which seemed to ratify them, as
the law of Moses was ratified by the solemn covenant

70

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

between God and the Israelites. Hence there are
some persons who think, that they have answered your
objections and refuted your opinions, by quoting a pas
sage from the Confession of Faith, and charge you
with the most criminal presumption for daring to sug
gest a doubt of the truth of any part of it. In the
same spirit, the papist refers you to the decrees of
councils, and the dogmas of the fathers. When the
question is, whether a particular opinion is agreeable
to the doctrine of the church, the proper appeal is to
the standards of the church ; but when the question is,
whether a particular opinion is true, the appeal ought
to be to the Scriptures. I care not, nor should any man
care, what the church of England, or the church of
Scotland, has determined. My business is with the
word of God, which alone is infallible. The supreme
judge of all controversies is the Scriptures, or rather
the Holy Ghost, speaking in the Scriptures.
It has been a subject of controversy, whether it is
lawful to draw inferences from Scripture, and what au
thority should be assigned to them. It is not easy at
first sight to conceive, why there should have been a
diversity of sentiment upon a point which seems to admit
of no dispute ; for nothing is more plain than that, when
a proposition is laid down from which certain infer
ences naturally arise, it is the office of the understand
ing to draw the conclusions, and to rest in them with
equal confidence as in the premises from which they
are deduced. This is the mode of procedure of all in
telligent creatures, in the matters to which they turn
their attention. Human knowledge would be exceed
ingly circumscribed and imperfect, if our views were
Strictly confined to facts ; and these would be of little
use, if we were not permitted to educe from them, ob
servations and maxims for the regulation of our con
duct. Had every thing, which it is necessary for us to
know, been delivered in express terms in the Scrip
tures, the bible would have been too voluminous for
general use ; and besides, such minuteness was not ne
cessary. God does not speak in it. to children, but to
men, who are capable of reasoning on the common af
fairs of life, and can use this power in matters of relig
ion. It is remarked by Theodoret concerning some
persons in his time, who affirmed that we should re
ceive the simple words of Scripture without endeav
ouring to ascertain their import, that they overturned
all human things, divested men of reason, and convert
ed them into brutes. The objection against deducing
consequences from Scripture is made with a design to
serve a particular purpose; to protect certain opinions,
which are contrary to Scripture, by the plea that the
opposite opinions are nowhere affirmed totidem verbis.
It is a miserable shift, as there is no fundamental error
which may not be refuted by the very words of inspi
ration, without any commentary upon them ; but it so
far answers their intention, that it leaves them the ad
vantage of concealing their real sentiments, and assum
ing the appearance of orthodoxy, while they express
themselves in the language of Scripture, but secretly
affix a meaning to it which is subversive of its obvious
import. If you say that Christ is the Son of God, they
will assent; but if you proceed to say, that the only-
begotten Son of God, his proper Son, must be a parta
ker of his essence and perfections, they exclaim that
they find no proposition so expressed in the bible. The
true reason why some cry out so loudly against con
fessions of faith, is, that although they have learned to
use the words of Scripture in any sense which best
suits them, they find in confessions the doctrines which
they controvert, expressed in terms which can by no arti
fice be twisted to their purpose, and the collected sense
of different passages imbodied in articles, by which
their systems of error are confronted and demolished.
The denial of the lawfulness of drawing consequences
from Scripture goes much farther than its opponents are

aware, and would place them and us in the most awk
ward and ridiculous situation ; for it would follow, that
we must never write or speak about religion but in the
words of inspiration, and that all theological books and
all sermons should be discarded ; for, of what do they
consist but of inferences from Scripture, when they do
not merely retail its words, but attempt, to explain their
meaning ?
Before concluding, I would call your attention to
the conduct of the church of Rome, in reference to the
Scriptures. She has interposed her authority to hinder
the study of them, in direct opposition to the express
command of our Saviour.* While the council of
Trent declared the Vulgate, that is, the Latin transla
tion which had been used from the days of Jerome, to
be authentic in all public readings, disputations, preach
ings, and expositions, it did not absolutely discourage
versions into the vernacular tongues, but prescribed
such regulations as were calculated to limit the use of
them. The following is the sum of the fourth of the
Rules concerning Prohibited Books, which were drawn
up by certain Fathers appointed by the council for this
purpose, and were sanctioned by Pope Pius the Fourth :
— " That since it is manifest from experience, that if
the Bible be indiscriminately permitted in the vulgar
tongue, more injury than benefit will result through the
rashness of men, the use of Catholic versions shall be
granted, by the advice of the priest or confessor, to
those alone who it is understood will not be hurt by the
reading of them, but will be advanced in faith and pie
ty." Conformable to this- virtual proscription of the
sacred writings, are the representations which are giv
en of them by Popish divines, with a view to deter
men from any attempt to become better acquainted with
them. The Bible has been pronounced to be very ob
scure, and indeed unintelligible ; to have no authority
in itself, and were it not for the authority of the church,
to be not more credible than jEsop's fables ; to be inca
pable of making men wise unto salvation, and to be cal
culated rather to lead them astray; to be the cause, or
at least the occasion, of all errors and heresies. If this
be the true character of the Scriptures, we cannot won
der that the church of Rome, in her great solicitude for
the spiritual and eternal welfare of men, should exert
all her power to keep them out of their hands, as we
would keep edge tools out of the hands of children.
After all, the Bible, according to her, is an imperfect
book, containing only a part of revelation, the remainder
being laid up in the traditions of the church, without
which the Bible cannot be understood, and which we
are therefore commanded by the Council of Trent to re
ceive, pari pieiatis effectu ac reverentia, with equal rev
erence and affection as the writings of the prophets and
apostles. I need not spend time in showing how contrary to
the obvious design of revelation, as well as to its ex
press principles, are all endeavours, whether by au
thority or by argument, to prevent it from becoming the
subject of general study. The thing, indeed, is so ab
surd, that it would never have been proposed or thought
of, if there had not been some sinister purpose to ac
complish. No man is displeased that others should
enjoy the light of the sun, unless he be engaged in
some design which it is his interest that they should
not see; and in this case, he would wish the gloom of
midnight to sit down upon the earth, that he might
practise his nefarious deeds with impunity. It is an
interest contrary to the Scriptures which has impelled
the church of Rome to exert her power to hinder the
circulation of them, and to open her mouth in blasphe
my against the God of heaven, as if he had delivered
to the world, as a rule of faith, a book so obscure that
it cannot be understood, and so dangerous that, if the
* John v. 39.

DISPENSATION OF RELIGION.

71

common people meddle with it, -it will be at their per
il. If that church were convinced that her constitution,
and doctrines, and religious rites were conformable to
the word of God, we cannot doubt, after what we know
of her eager desire to establish a universal dominion,
that she would not fail to display everywhere evidence
so overpowering. No man will withhold, especially
when his claims are controverted, the proofs by which
they are substantiated. When the apostate church de
claims upon the obscurity of the Scriptures, and the
dangerous consequences of putting them into the hands
of the people, we seem to hear Milton's Satan telling
the sun how much he hates its beams, because they
remind him of the splendour from which he has fallen.
This is the secret of her opposition to the Scriptures ;
and although Papists would willingly conceal it from
us, they have not been ashamed to speak of it among
themselves : " Among all -the counsels which wo can
give at this time," said the bishops met at Bononia, to
consult for restoring the dignity of the Roman See to
Pope Julius the Third, " we have reserved the most
weighty to the last. You must strive with all your
might, that as little of the Gospel as possible, especial
ly in the vulgar tongue, may be read in the cities under
your jurisdiction ; the little which is in the Mass ought
to be sufficient, neither should it be permitted to any
mortal to read more ; for as long as men were content
ed with that little, all things went well with them, but
quite otherwise since more was commonly read. This
book, above all others," they add, "has raised the
storms and tempests with which we are carried away.
And truly, if any man diligently exairiine it, and then
consider the things which are practised in our churches,
he will see that they differ very much from one another,
and that our doctrine is altogether different from it, and
often contrary. These sheets are therefore to be con
cealed with great caution and diligence, lest we should
be involved in greater troubles and tumults."*
The knowledge of the original languages, and of the
rules of interpretation, are necessary to enable us to
ascertain the meaning of the Scriptures. They are of
essential importance to all who are already employed,
or hope to be employed, as teachers of the Christian
people. A man is despised who engages in a profession
for which he is not prepared ; but an unqualified minis
ter of religion is not only contemptible but criminal,
because he has intruded himself into an office to which
he was certainly not called ; and through his ignorance
and incapacity, incalculable injury may be done to those
who are unhappily placed under his care. " The priest's
lips should keep knowledge, because the people seek
the law at his mouth." It would be well for the
church, if all ministers and students were endeavour
ing, by diligence, and humble dependence upon the Di
vine blessing, to answer the description which Solo
mon has given of himself: " Moreover, because the
preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowl
edge ; yea, he gave good heed and sought out, and set
in order many proverbs. The preacher sought to find
out acceptable words ; and that which was written
was upright, even words of truth."f
But let every one of you consider, that he has a per
sonal interest in the Scriptures, and should study them
for his own benefit. He should labour not only to
understand their meaning, but to feel their power. They
are able to make you wise unto salvation, through faith
which is in Christ; but what will it avail you, if they
are not thus received ? By the diligent use of your
natural talents, you may preach to the advantage of
your hearers, but you will be like a lamp which wastes
away as it gives light to others, and then expires. Be
ware of forgetting your own interests, while you are
* Consil. de Stabilienda Rom. sede, p. 6.
i Ecclesiastes xii. 9, 10.

attending to those of your fellow men. The Bible
addresses itself to you in every page ; and it is your
duty to listen, with serious attention, to its important
and varied lessons. A minister of religion ought not
to be like an actor, who recites to others tales which
do not affect himself, and seeks the applause of his au
dience by assuming the appearance of passion which
he does not feel. That he may possess genuine anima
tion, and that the warmth of his heart may correspond
with the fervour of his language, let him be deeply
impressed with the alarming and consoling truths
which so often come under review. Let him remember
that he cannot, without being self condemned, call up
on his hearers to believe, while he contents himself with
a cold assent; and that in this state of mind, his ex
hortations must freeze upon his lips, or if they are pro
nounced with earnestness, it is the earnestness of hypoc
risy, for which, if any portion of moral sensibility re
mains, he must in the hour of reflection despise him
self. Happy is he who has the Bible in his head and
in his heart ! The knowledge of its truths will make
him wise, and its inspiring influence will render him
eloquent. His discourses will be virtually a detail of
his own experience ; he will be able to say, " I speak
that which I know, and testify that which I believe."

LECTURE XIV.
THE DISPENSATION OF RELIGION.
Origin of our Religion — First Promise of a Saviour — Institu
tion of Sacrifices — State of Religion' in Patriarchal Times —
Institution of the Jewish State — Its Codes — Design of the
Ceremonial Law — Character of the Mosaic Dispensation.
About a hundred years ago, a book was published
in England, by the celebrated infidel, Dr. Tindal, bear
ing this title, "Christianity as Old as the Creation ;"
the. object of which was to show that the Gospel is a
republication of the law of nature, and that there nei
ther is, nor can be, any revelation distinct from what
he calls the internal revelation of that law in the hearts
of all mankind. In opposition to this bold and impious
assertion, we maintain, with President Forbes in his
Thoughts concerning Religion, Natural and Revealed,
that Christianity is very near as old as the creation.
We deny that it was the primitive religion of mankind ;
but we are ready to prove, that only a very short time
elapsed before it became their religion; or in other
words, that substantially the same system of religion
which we at present profess, was made known to our
first parents, and has been received and acted upon by
the people of God in every subsequent age.
As, in consequence of the permanent relations in
which man stands to God and his fellow-creatures, the
moral law is immutable, and requires the same duties
in every new period, and from every successive gene
ration, so to man considered as in a state of guilt and
pollution, there could at no time be any essential differ
ence in the mode of intercourse with his Maker, and
the only conceivable variety would be in the form.
The same views of the divine character were necessary
to relieve him from the disquietudes of conscience, and
the same promises to encourage his confidence and hope.
We are accustomed to give the designation of Chris
tianity to the religion which was published to the world
about eighteen hundred years ago, by our blessed Sa
viour and his apostles, and thus to distinguish it from
the preceding revelations; but our design is not to sig
nify that it was a new religion. The church is built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, holds
the truths taught by both, and acknowledges as her
Head the same divine Redeemer who is the subject of
their united testimony.

72

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

Although God at first created the world in a state of
perfection, he has since carried on its affairs by second
causes, which produce their effect by a regular but gra
dual process. The full evolution of the human body,
from the seminal principle in the womb of the parent,
is the work of years, and so is the growth of plants
and trees. Light increases slowly, from the faint dawn
in the east, to the full splendour of noonday ; and human
reason, rising up amidst the instincts of childhood, de-
¦velopes itself by successive steps, till after a long
course of experience and discipline, it attains maturity.
Religion has advanced to its present state by a similar
progress. At first it was like the seed which the hus
bandman throws into the soil, which, although contain
ing the germ of the future plant, gave no promise to the
eye of what it would become; but under the care, and
by the renewed influences of Heaven, it has waxed
gTeater and greater, and now it is presented to us in all
its luxuriance and beauty.
In this lecture, I shall direct your attention -to the
dispensation of religion, prior to the coming of Christ.
Immediately after the fall, God made known his gra
cious design to our first parents indirectly, and in figura
tive language, while he was pronouncing sentence upon
the malignant being who had deceived them. "And
I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head,
and thou shalt bruise his heel."* To suppose nothing
more to be intended by these words, than that there
should be henceforth war between the tribe of serpents
and the human race, that serpents should sometimes
bite men, and men should sometimes destroy serpents,
js to interpret Scripture with as little regard to common
sense as to piety, and seems designed to turn it into
ridicule. There is no doubt that, although the serpent
is mentioned, it was not against it that the curse was
directed, but against the invisible agent, who used it
as his instrument in the seduction of Eve, and appears
to have been the prince of the apostate angels, who, in
reference to this transaction, is said to have been a liar
and murderer from the beginning; and in allusion to
the character which he assumed, is called the old ser-
pent.f The antagonist would be a descendant of the
woman, and the nature and effects of the conflict are
described in terms accommodated to the circumstances
of both. The man would be wounded in the heel ; the
serpent would be bruised on the head. The heel is
most exposed to the bite of a serpent, which creeps
upon the ground, particularly when a person is attempt
ing to crush it with his foot; and if the head of a ser
pent be trodden upon, it will inevitably die. The heel
is the human nature of our Saviour, which alone could
be injured by Satan, and which he contrived, by means
of his agents upon earth, to nail to the cross ; the head
is the power of Satan over mankind, which our Lord
abolished by his death. The event enables us to under
stand this prediction, and it seems clear in the light of
jts fulfilment; but how far its meaning was apprehended
by our first parents, it is impossible to ascertain. It
was unquestionably intelligible in some degree to Satan,
as it was evidently intended that he should immediately
know how miserably his scheme would terminate for
himself; and it may be presumed that it was also, in
Some degree, intelligible to Adam and his wife. Being
pronounced in their hearing, it was designed for their
use, to relieve them from their fears, to awaken their
hopes, to encourage them to return to their Maker, to
/ay the foundation of a new and friendly intercourse
With him. They learned from it, that notwithstanding
their great offence, God would be merciful to them,
and would not doom them with their adversary to irre
mediable destruction. They learned that he would re
ceive them again into favour, as is manifest from the

* Gen. iii. IS.

f John viii. 44. Rev. xii. 9.

declaration concerning the woman, from which, un
doubtedly, the man was not excluded, that he would
put enmity between her and the serpent, changing her
heart by his grace, and uniting her in friendship with
himself. They learned that their deliverance would be
effected by one of their own offspring, the Seed of the
woman in a peculiar sense, who, although a sufferer in
the warfare with their enemy, should obtain the vic
tory, and destroy the empire which he had established
over them. From all this it follows, that the gospel
was first preached to our progenitors in paradise ; and
the words which we have considered were the dawn
of the dispensation of grace, the first rays of the Sun
of righteousness which began to dispel the moral dark
ness that had overspread the earth.
That the revelation of a Saviour was accompanied
with the institution of religious rites, and particularly
of sacrifices, may be inferred from the use of, them in
the service of God. As he afterwards prohibited, in
the most express terms, every species of will-worship,
and regulated with the greatest minuteness all the
forms of religion, it is incredible that our first parents
were left to devise a ritual of their own ; and particu
larly, that so important a rite as the offering of sacrifi
ces, which were of indispensable obligation, and served
the high purpose of typifying the great redemption, was
the fruit of human invention. It is indeed inconceiv
able, that the mind of man should of itself have con
trived sacrifices as the means of propitiating the Deity,
because reason can perceive no connexion between the
slaying of an animal and the averting of his wrath ;
and it might rather seem to be a new offence to put an
innocent creature to death, because we were doomed to
die, and were desirous to make our escape. There is
no doubt that our first ^parents were supernaturally
guided to this mode of at once acknowledging their
guilt and imploring the mercy of their Maker, with a
reference to the future substitution and atonement of
the seed of the woman. Some have supposed that the
coats of skin, with which God is said to have clothed
Adam and Eve, because, by. his direction, they used
them as garments, were the skins of animals which
had been offered on the altar. Be this as it may, we
find their two sons, Abel and Cain, presenting their
offerings, the one the firstlings of the flock, and the
other the fruits of the ground. A remarkable differ
ence in the reception of their oblations is pointed out
by the sacred historian, when he says, "the Lord had
respect unto Abel, and to his offering; but unto Cain
and to his offering he had not respect;"* and it is thus
explained in the epistle to the Hebrews : " By faith
Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice, m-xacya,
dwntv, than Cain."f Much criticism has been em
ployed about these words ; but whether we translate
them, more sacrifice, a greater sacrifice, or a fuller sacri
fice, the result is the same, that the sacrifice of Abel,
being of a propitiatory kind, and presented in the faith
of God's mercy through the promised Redeemer, was
accepted; while Cain, neglecting to bring such an
oblation, and contenting himself with a sacrifice of
thanksgiving, met with the doom which every sinner
may expect who presumes to draw near to God with
out an atonement. The faith for which Abel is cele
brated, implies that his sacrifice was founded on a
divine institution accompanied with a promise of ac
ceptance, and that it bore a typical relation to the great
Redeemer, who, by dying, was to restore life and hap
piness to our guilty race.
The next fact in the history of the primeval religion
occurs in the following words. "And to Seth also,
there was born a son, and he called his name Enos;
then began men to call upon the name of the Lord."|
There has been considerable discussion respecting the

* Gen. iv. 4.

f Heb. xi. 4.

} Gen. iv. 26

DISPENSATION OF RELIGION.

73

meaning of these words, and they have been explained
in different, and even opposite senses. It has been
supposed by some, that the proper translation is, "Then
began men to profane in calling upon the name of the
Lord," from which they have inferred, that at this time
the practice of idolatry commenced. But although sin
was in the world almost from the beginning, and the
conduct of Cain is a proof that atrocious deeds were
early committed, it is altogether improbable, that while
the memory of the creation was fresh, and our first
parents were living among their descendants, any of
them should have erred so much against the clearest
dictates of reason and religion, as to exalt any imagi
nary being to the throne of their Maker, or to assign to
the works of his hands equal honour with himself. It
is a confirmation of this reasoning, that although men
tion is made of the great wickedness of mankind, and
of the violence with which the earth was filled, there
is not a single hint in the Scriptures which would lead
us to think that idolatry was one of the sins of the
antediluvian generations. There are two ways in which
the words have been understood in reference to the
true worshippers of God. "Then began men to be
called," or to "call themselves, by the name of the
Lord;" that is, in the days of Enos, an open separa
tion took place between the pious and the profane ; the
former making a public profession of religion in oppo
sition to the latter, who lived without God in the world.
They seceded from the ungodly multitude, and formed
themselves into societies dedicated to the worship and
esrvice of Jehovah. These separatists are the sons of
God mentioned in the sacred history, who, in process
< f time, relaxed their strictness, and lost their purity,
ly taking for wives the daughters of men, or by inter
marriages with the corrupt race amidst which they
lived. The other way in which the passage may be
lead, is adopted by our translators. "Then began men
lo call upon the name of the Lord," but the precise
sense which should be affixed to these words is doubt
ful. To suppose them to mean, that at this time men
began to hold public assemblies for the worship of God,
is liable to this objection, that it is altogether improba
ble, that for a period of between two or three centuries,
God had been worshipped only by individuals, or by
families. Perhaps the words refer to some revival of
religion ; to some new and more vigorous efforts made
by good men for the honour of God, and the more gene
ral observance of his institutions. At any rate, it is
certain that a new epoch is marked in the history of
relipion. The only thing which remains to be noticed prior to
the flood, is what is related of Enoch, who was distin
guished by his faith and piety, and was honoured with
a miraculous testimony of the divine approbation.
"And Enoch walked with God, and he was not: for God
took Him."* Paul explains these words, by informing
us, that he was translated to heaven. f This was a per
sonal favour to Enoch, who was exempted from the ope
ration of the general law of mortality; but we have rea
son to think, that something farther was intended, and
that the ultimate design was to give a public testimony to
the truth of religion before a sinful and incredulous race.
In the antediluvian world, great corruption of manners
prevailed ; and as this state of things is the conse
quence of a disbelief of the doctrines of religion, we
may conclude, that the principles of impiety were gen
erally entertained. God and eternal things were disre
garded ; and with the exception of a few whom divine
grace preserved pure and faithful, the rest were intent
solely upon their gains and their pleasures. At this
crisis, God was pleased to translate a good man to hea
ven, no doubt before competent witnesses, to remind
those who were left behind that there is an invisible

* Gen. v. 24
K

f Heb. xi. 5.

world, in which the righteous shall be rewarded, and
consequently that there is a God who judges in the earth.
As this extraordinary termination of his earthly course
eminently contributed to uphold the authority and in
terests of religion, so the time which he spent among
men was devoted to the same important purpose. He
was a prophet and a preacher of righteousness, who in
structed, and comforted, and established the people of
God who were his contemporaries, testified against the
conduct of the wicked, and forewarned them of the day of
vengeance and recompense. " And Enoch also," says
Jude, " the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these,
saying, Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of
his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to con
vince all that are ungodly among them, of all their un
godly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and
of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have
spoken against him."* This is a plain prediction of
the second coming of Christ and its circumstances ;
and it is worthy of attention, that that event was known
and announced in this early age of the world. It is
not Moses, but Jude, who informs us that it was deliv
ered by Enoch ; and had not the apostle been directed
to record this prophecy, we might have doubted wheth
er men were then apprized of the general judgment.
One inference may be deduced from it, namely, that we
are imperfectly acquainted with the degree of religious
knowledge which the antediluvians possessed ; and
that it was greater than we should have supposed, from
the few particulars respecting them which Moses has
transmitted to us. It is manifest that more was told to
them than was contained in the first promise, or that
other revelations were occasionally made to them, of
which there is not a trace in the history, and by which
their views were directed to the promised Redeem
er and the life to come; so that believers among them
rose superior to the world by the hope of immortality,
and lived as strangers and pilgrims upon earth ; and
hence we see how rashly some have concluded, that the
Jews were ignorant of a future life, because there is no
express mention of it in their law.
After the flood, the dispensation of religion was car
ried on for a considerable time in the same manner as
before it. There was no written record of the Divine
will ; but the faith of the people of God was sustain
ed^ and their practice was directed, by such occasional
communications as infinite wisdom deemed it proper
to make. The person by whom these were enjoyed in
the greatest abundance, was Abraham, whom God had
called from his native country to sojourn as a stranger
in the land which was afterwards to be possessed by
his posterity. While the hope was given him of a
numerous offspring, and of their future settlement in
Canaan, the promise of the Redeemer was repeatedly
renewed to him, and he was informed that he should
spring from his loins. " In thy seed shall all the fam
ilies of the earth be blessed." It would be a perver
sion of this promise to suppose it simply to mean, that
the world should be indebted to his posterity for the
knowledge of the true God, which havingbeen preserv
ed among them when it was lost among other nations,
should afterwards be communicated to the Gentiles.
It relates to an individual who would be the Saviour of
the human race, and we are assured by an apostle that
the seed is Christ. It may be presumed, that Abraham
had a much more distinct and extensive knowledge of
his illustrious descendant than these few words would
lead us to suppose. Unless explanations had accom
panied this and the first promise, both he and our first
parents could have formed only a confused and general
idea of some great thing to be done for our guilty race,
which would have given but little satisfaction to their
minds. There is no doubt, that the revelation was more

* Jude 14, 15.

74

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

ample than it is here expressed ; so as to impart, not
indeed the same views of the Messiah which we have
attained by the Gospel, but such apprehensions of his
character and work as laid the foundation of peace of
conscience, and joy in God, and the exhilarating hope
of eternal life. That this is not a mere conjecture,
may be inferred from these words of our Lord to the
Jews : " Your father Abraham rejoiced," or desired,
" to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad ;"* words
which obviously import, that he was favoured with a
discovery of the future redemption, which satisfied his
earnest wish, and filled him with ineffable delight.
There is nothing farther to be noticed in the period
between the deluge and the exodus, but the repetition
of the promise of the Messiah to Isaac and Jacob ; by
the latter of whom, when in his last years he was bles
sing his sons, the advent of that illustrious person was
foretold in the following terms : "The sceptre shall
not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between
his feet, until Shiloh come ; and unto him shall the
gathering of the people be."f As the time drew near
er, the information became more particular. The Re
deemer had at first been announced as a man, and after
wards as a descendant of Abraham ; but now the tribe,
from which he should arise, is pointed out, and the era
of his appearance is fixed, namely, while the civil pol
ity of Judah should subsist, and the consequence is rep
resented to be the gathering of the people to him, or
the adoption of his religion hy the nations of the world.
The time at last arrived when God was to make a
change in the dispensation of religion, by establishing
it in a single nation and in a particular country, by giv
ing to his people a written rule to guide their faith and
practice, and by enacting a variety of laws for the pur
pose of exercising their obedience, directing their views
to the Redeemer and his atonement, and preserving
them in a state of separation from the rest of mankind.
With this design, when the appointed day was come,
four hundred and thirty years after the covenant with
Abraham, he delivered his seed, who had increased to
a great multitude in Egypt, from the yoke of their op
pressors, led them through the Red Sea into the wilder
ness, where they were detained for forty years, and
finally put them in possession of the land which he
had promised to their fathers. During the successive
steps of this process, a series of miracles was exhibit
ed, of which it was the object to convince the Egypt
ians, the Canaanites, and the neighbouring nations, of
his superiority to the gods whom they worshipped,
deeply to impress upon the minds of the Israelites the
fundamental truth, that he was Jehovah, the Creator
and Governor of the world, and the author of those
laws which were delivered to them by Moses his ser
vant, and to assure them that in yielding the obedience
which he required, they should be safe and prosperous
under his protection.
The religion of the Israelites was virtually the same
with the patriarchal religion, in respect not only of the
truths to be believed, but also of some of the rites to
be performed ; but as they were 'unbodied into a nation
and brought into a more perfect state, there was given
to them a code of laws, adapted to the circumstances
in which they were placed. It was promulgated on
Sinai, partly by God himself with an audible voice,
and partly by a private communication to Moses, who
conveyed to the people his messages and commands.
The laws may be divided into three classes, the judicial,
the moral, and the ceremonial.
With regard to the first, we may pass them with a
brief notice, because they did not properly constitute a
part of the religion of the Jews, except so far as they
were to be obeyed from respect to the Divine authority,
but were merely national laws, enacted like those of

* John viii. 56.

f Gen. xlix. 10.

any other country by the supreme power for the inter
nal government of the people, regulating marriages,
contracts, purchases, and such other matters, as are
elsewhere the subjects of human legislation. They
respected the Israelites merely as a civil community.
They were temporary institutions, that is, being inten
ded for this nation alone, they were to last no longer
than it continued as a political body. They are bind
ing upon no other people, except so far as they are
founded on the principles of immutable justice ; and
in such cases the obligation arises not from their hav
ing been delivered to the Jews, but from their essential
rectitude, their conformity to the nature and relations
of things. That part of the code, therefore, which
regarded the Jews as a civil society, may be considered
as abolished.
The moral law is contained in the ten commandments
engraved upon two tables of stone, and was the only
part of their religion which was promulgated by God
himself with an audible voice. It is the same law
which was written upon the heart of man at his creation,
and is the rule of righteousness under all dispensations.
Its solemn republication at this time was necessary,
because the Israelites may be conceived to have lost
just notions of morality, during their residence in Egypt,
where they did not enjoy the benefit of regular instruc
tion, and were exposed to be corrupted by the maxims
and example of an idolatrous people; and at the same
time it was the design of God, by whose finger it was
recorded, and by whose command it was transcribed
into the writings of Moses, to establish a perpetual
standard of duty from which there should be no appeal.
But the law, which the design of this Lecture re
quires us particularly to consider, is the ceremonial,
the object of which was twofold, to separate the Is
raelites from all other nations, and to direct their at
tention to the great redemption, and the means of its
accomplishment. It was the will of God to make a particular people
the depositaries of the true religion, and for a time to
leave the rest of mankind without any other means of
instruction than their own reason, and some traditionary
notices. The rejection of the Gentiles is to be dated
from the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian
bondage, or from their settlement in Canaan. Prior to
this period there had been in every nation, good men
who feared God and wrought righteousness ; and who,
guided by the light of revelation, which was universal
in the family of Noah, and favoured with the influen
ces of grace, were acceptable to him. But henceforth,
" darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the
people." No interposition on the part of Heaven was
made in their behalf; no prophet was sent to reclaim
them from idolatry to the knowledge and worship of the
true God ; no miracles were wrought to display his
power, and confirm the truth of his oracles. It was
partly with an intention to maintain this separation that
the ceremonial law was given to the Israelites ; and
that it was well fitted to accomplish this design, is
evident from the religious rites which it prescribed, and
which were contrary to those of other nations, and
from the rules which it laid down with respect to some
of the common usages of life. Tacitus has justly de
scribed the character and spirit of the Mosaic institu
tions, when he says, " Moses, quo sibi in posterum
gentem firmaret, novos ritus contrariosque ceteris mor-
talibus indidit. Profana illic omnia, qua? apud nos sa
cra, rursum concessa apud illos, qua; nobis incesta."*
He perceived the studied opposition of the Jewish rites
to those of other nations, and regarded it as an expe
dient for preserving that people distinct and separate.
This was, in a particular manner, the design of those
laws which related to meats, and pronounced some to

* Hist. lib. v. 4.

DISPENSATION OF RELIGION.

75

be clean, and others to be unclean: "lam the Lord
your God, which have separated you from other people.
Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts
and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean ;
and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or
by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth
on the ground, which I have separated from you as un-
clean^ And ye shall be holy unto me ; for I the Lord
am holy, and have severed you from other people, that
ye should be mine."* The Israelites could not associate
with their neighbours on familiar terms, and sit down
at table with thern, because there was danger of con
tracting pollution by eating their food.. The ultimate
intention was to prevent free intercourse with the hea
then, by which the Israelites might have been led to
join in their idolatrous worship. It was the will of
God, that the people should dwell alone, and should
riot be reckoned among the nations, and that all temp
tation should be taken away to corrupt the religion
which had been committed to their trust.
The other design of the ceremonial law, was to pre
figure Christ, and redemption through his blood. Its
institutions were typical. A type is a person or thing
by which another person or thing is adumbrated. That
which corresponds to it, is called the antitype. The
latter is considered as future ; and in this view, the
type partakes of the nature of a prediction. To serve
its purpose, it must be instituted by God, who alone
can establish the relation ; and it is by no means suffi
cient, that between two distinct persons or events there
should be an accidental resemblance. The essence of a
type consists, not in its similarity to another object, but
in its being divinely appointed to be a representation of it.
That the Mosaic institutions were typical, is a point
about which there has been little difference of opinion.
Some, indeed, have denied it, and laboured to show that
in the New Testament there are only allusions to them,
as if the writers had merely taken advantage of a resem
blance between the two dispensations, to illustrate the
one by the other. The ground of this opinion is not
any solid, or even any plausible reason, but a wish to
evade the evidence in favour of the atonement of Christ,
arising from the vicarious and propitiatory nature of
the sacrifices of the law. We detest the disingenuity
which resorts to the most unfair means to establish a
favourite point, and the impiety which impeaches the
veracity and judgment of an apostle. Nothing can be
more explicit than the affirmation of Paul, that the cer
emonial ordinances were shadows of good things to
come ; and the professed design of his Epistle to the
Hebrews is to illustrate this position by a variety of
particulars. The high-priest represented Jesus Christ ;
the sin-offerings were symbolical of his expiatory ob
lation on the cross ; the aspersions of blood were sig
nificant of the application of the virtue of his atone
ment to the conscience ; and the annual entrance into
the holy of holies was a figure of his entrance into
heaven, in the name of his people, to plead the merit
of his death in their behalf, and to procure the enjoy
ment of spiritual blessings.
A type, T have said, bears a resemblance to the anti
type. But however exact the likeness might be, it
could not of itself have led the mind to the antitype,
which was distant and future, and either altogether un
known or imperfectly understood. Notwithstanding,
therefore, the perfection of the Levitical law as an ad
umbration of good things to come, it would not have
served its great purpose, by directing the views of the
Israelites to the Messiah, if it had been given alone.
It contained the substance of the Gospel ; but it was
the Gospel in a mystery, the sense of which no human
sagacity could have discovered without assistance.
Had no light been thrown on its design, it, would have

* Lev. xx. 24.-36.

appeared a series of unmeaning observances; or it
would have suggested false ideas to the Israelites, as
if its animal sacrifices were sufficient to atone for their
guilt and reconcile them to God, and its external ablu
tions could purify them from the defilement of sin.
But prior to the establishment of this law, the people
of God were in possession of information concerning
the redemption which was to be effected by the prom
ised Redeemer; and when sacrifices were first appoint
ed, we may presume that men received some general
instruction respecting their ulterior design. Whether
Moses explained his institutions to the Israelites, we
cannot tell, as the history is silent on this subject ; but
it is certain, that under the legal economy many inti
mations are given of the future Saviour, and of the new
dispensation which it was the purpose of God to intro
duce. Prophets arose in succession, who admonished
the people not to rest in the sacrifices which were re
quired by the law, but to look to him who would put
away our sins by the oblation of himself. If he was
sometimes described as a mighty conqueror, and his
kingdom was portrayed in all the pomp and magnifi
cence of a worldly monarchy, the triumph of his reli
gion being exhibited under these figures ; at other times
he was held out to view as an humble, lowly person,
a sufferer, wounded, bruised, and put to death ; a pia-
cular victim, through whom peace with God would be
established, and whose blessings would be all of a
spiritual nature.
In this manner the Jewish church was instructed,
and under this form of administration religion subsist
ed from the days of Moses to the coming of Christ, a
period of fifteen hundred years. To some, the ceremo
nial system of worship may seem too carnal to have
been given by a spiritual Being, and the apparent child
ishness of its rites may be deemed unworthy of the
majesty of God. Viewing it, indeed, in itself, we per
ceive nothing which might lead us to refer it to a di
vine origin, and with Tacitus, we might attribute it to
the political contrivance of Moses. But when consid
ered in its relation to the future economy which it pre
figured, it assumes a new aspect, and affords a striking
display of the wisdom of its author. As there were
reasons why the Redeemer should not be manifested
till the fulness of the. time was come, and it was neces-
sarythat sinful men should possess some knowledge
of him, to encourage them to worship God and hope
in his mercy, it was evidently proper that they should
be instructed not only by prophecies, the meaning of
which could not be distinctly understood prior to their
fulfilment, but also by symbols and symbolical actions,
which would throw light upon the prophecies, by giv
ing as it were a body and form to the event which they
announced. No idea could have been affixed to the
declaration that the Messiah would die for the sins of
men, if they had not been accustomed to see sacrifices
substituted in their room, and slain to avert the anger
of God from the offerers. As images and pictures have
been called the books of the unlearned, so types were
instituted to enable those who could not read, or could
not understand, to form some conception of the funda
mental truth upon which the religion of sinners de
pends, the suretiship and propitiatory sufferings of the
Seed of the woman.
But all the information which could be derived from
typical institutions and unfulfilled prophecies, was lim
ited and indistinct. A general expectation was excited
of a Redeemer, who would restore our forfeited happi
ness, and a vague idea was perhaps entertained of the
means by which his benevolent design would be ac
complished, but the particulars were unknown till time
developed them. Many prophets and righteous men
desired to see and hear those things which the disci
ples witnessed, believing that more glorious discove
ries were reserved for their successors. So great, in

76

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

deed, is the difference between the degree of knowl
edge under the past and the present dispensation, that
the former is represented as the night and the latter as
the day: "The darkness is past, and the true light
now shineth."* Let it be observed, however, that this
is figurative language, and ought not to be too rigidly
explained. It is not true that under the legal economy
there was absolute darkness ; but, so much clearer are
the manifestations of divine things which are now
made, that the prior revelation seems to be wrapt up in
obscurity. The Sun of righteousness has now ascend
ed above the horizon, and diffused his bright and salu
tary beams.
We may remark also concerning the former dispen
sation, that it was very burdensome in consequence of
the nature and the multiplicity of its injunctions, — a
yoke, as Peter says, which the Jews were not ableto
bear.f The observance, of many holidays was enjoin
ed, which caused frequent interruptions of their neces
sary labours. The laws respecting meats must have
required much caution and care in the preparation of
their food, and would subject them on many occasions
to great inconvenience. They might be polluted, not
only by what they ate, but by what they touched, and
by other causes over which they had no control ; and
in such cases, it was necessary to wash their bodies
and their garments, and to remain unclean until the
evening. When they had committed any sin, it could
not be expiated without a sacrifice, and Jerusalem was
the only place in which it was lawful to offer it. To
Jerusalem, all the males were commanded to repair
three times in a year ; and as it was situated at a great
distance from some parts of the country, many of them
must have performed long and fatiguing journeys.
The offerings demanded from them were costly, a lamb,
a ram, a bullock, or a he-goat ; and a single sacrifice
would have cost an Israelite more than most Christ
ians are called to give in a year for the support of the
simple institutions of the Gospel.
Notwithstanding these disadvantages, the Israelites
enjoyed the true religion, and the law was a school
master to lead them to Christ. It is a great error, in
comparing the two dispensations, to exalt the one, as
some do, at the expense of the other, by representing
the Christian as spiritual, and the Jewish as altogether
carnal. Let it not be imagined, that when an Israelite
had gone through the forms of bis religion ; when he
had offered sacrifices, and performed ablutions, and ob
served holidays, he had fulfilled all its demands. He
who is a Spirit must require the same worship in every
age of the world. It was the service of the heart which
alone was acceptable to him then, as it is now; the
ordinances were carnal, but the intention of them was
spiritual ; and between the two dispensations this is
the difference, that the spirituality of the worship is
now more evidently signified, because the multitude of
ceremonies is abolished, and only a few simple forms
are left to express the devotion of the soul. In the Old
Testament, the most exact conformity to the Mosaic
ritual is treated as a thing of no value, and indignantly
rejected, when not accompanied with pious sentiments,
and the practice of holiness.
There is another mistake, against which it is neces
sary to be on our guard, and the more so, because it
may seem, on a superficial view, to be countenanced by
Scripture itself, when it describes the times of the
Gospel as the dispensation of the. Spirit, and may be
understood to confine it to that period. The Gospel,
indeed, is called " the ministration of the spirit,"f and
a copious effusion of his influences is mentioned by the
prophets as the privilege and glory of the new economy.
But we are not to conclude that he was not given be
fore the coming of Christ. Without him, religion
* 1 John ii. 8. f Acts xv. 10. } 2. Cor. iii. 8.

would have been a cold and lifeless form ; there would
have been no faith, no repentance, no love, no holiness,
for these, we know, are the fruits of the Spirit. Besides
the express testimonies in the Jewish Scriptures to his
presence with the people of God under the law, the
existence of genuine piety in the hearts of many indi
viduals is a proof that they were the subjects of his
gracious operation. The high attainments of some of
the ancient saints, the faith of Abraham, which is a
pattern to all succeeding generations, the sublirne de
votion of David, and the patience of Job, demonstrate
that they enjoyed no ordinary share of his influences.
After all, the. church was in a state of infancy. The
dispensation was too imperfect to be final ; it was ac
commodated to the times which then were, and it did
not realize all that the people of God were taught to
expect. God had provided some better things for us,
which we enjoy through the ministry of his Son, by
whom he has spoken to us in the last days. Of the
Christian dispensation, I shall speak in the next Lecture.

LECTURE XV.
THE DISPENSATION OF RELIGION.
Ministry of John the Baptist — Appearance of Christ — Abroga
tion of the old Dispensation — Characteristics of the Chris
tian Dispensation : its Author ; its Revelations ; its Minis
ters; System of Worship; Advantages and Attainments of
its Subjects; its Catholicity.
The Old Testament closes with the following pro-
diction and command : " Unto you that fear my name,
shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in his
wings. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant,
which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel,
with the statutes and judgments. Behold I will send
you Elijah the prophet before the_coming of the great
and dreadful day of the Lord ; and he shall turn the
heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the
children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth
with a curse."* The system of laws and ordinances
which God had delivered to his chosen people by the
ministry of Moses, was to be carefully observed in all
their generations. No change was to be made in it for
a long succession of years ; and religion was to consist
in a close and devout adherence to its institutions. But
an event was announced, which would be introductory
to a great revolution, the rising of the Sun of Righte
ousness, the appearance of the Messiah, who would
come, not. to give the sanction of his authority to the
law of Moses, but to establish a new law of superior
excellence, and perpetual duration. A messenger would
precede him to proclaim his advent, by whose ministry
the expectations of men would be excited, and they
would be prepared to receive the Redeemer himself.
That messenger was John, the son of Zacharias and
Elizabeth, who, endowed with the spirit and power
of Elijah, appeared on the banks of Jordan, preaching
the baptism of repentance, and telling the people that
there was one coming after him, " the latchet of whose
shoes he was not worthy to unloose, who would baptize
them with the holy Ghost, and with fire."f As when
great monarchs were to undertake a journey to any
part of their dominions, pioneers were sent before them
to put the highways in a complete state of repair, that
there might be no obstacle to their progress, to level
mountains, and to fill up valleys, so the object of the
mission of the Baptist was to awaken the Jews to a
sense of their sins, to overthrow the vain confidence
which they placed in their descent from Abraham, and
their external privileges, that, feeling their need of a

* Mai. iv. 2, 4—6.

f- Luke iii. 16.

DISPENSATION OF RELIGION.

77

spiritual Saviour, they might give him a cordial recep
tion. " Behold, I send my messenger before thy face ;
he shall prepare the way before thee." Upon the great
er part of his. hearers, the doctrine of the Baptist made
no impression ; but the attention of many was directed
to the Messiah, and in consequence of the instructions
and exhortations of his forerunner, they resorted to him,
and became his disciples.
The Baptist held an intermediate place between the
Old and the New Dispensation, between the Prophets
and the Apostles. He was superior to the Prophets,
and inferior to the Apostles. His superiority to the
Prophets arose from the near relation in which he stood
to our Saviour, whose approach he proclaimed, and
from his seeing him and conversing with him ; in con
sequence of which, his views were clearer and more
extensive than those of the most distinguished persons
who lived at such a distance from the event. But the
Apostles enjoyed greater advantages, because they were
the familiar associates of the Messiah, hearers of his
doctrine, and witnesses of his miracles, and death, and
resurrection ; and* because they received more ample
measure of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, by whom they
were fully instructed in the scheme of redemption. In
deed, so much light is thrown upon the prophecies by
their fulfilment, so much more distinctly are the charac
ter and work of the Messiah now understood, that the
knowledge even of an uninspired Christian exceeds
that of tbe JJaptist. "Verily I say unto you, among
them that are born of women, there hath not risen a
greater than John the Baptist : notwithstanding, he that
is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."*
When John had executed his office for some months,
our Lord himself came forth to public view ; and hav
ing received baptism from the hand of his forerunner,
began to preach in Galilee and Judea. With respect
to the period of his manifestation we may remark, that
it is called to TtkxpiefMt ton xponv, " the fulness of the
time ;"f an expression which imports, that it was the
exact time pointed out by prophecy, and that it was
chosen by divine wisdom as the fittest. If it should
be asked, why there was so long an interval between
the fall and the mission of our Saviour as four thousand
years ; why he was not sent sooner, and the cumber
some apparatus of the ceremonial institutions super
seded ? different answers might be returned ; and the
preference of the actual period might be justified on
various grounds : but after the general consideration,
that it was so determined by him who sees all things
in their connections and consequences, and has reserved
the times and the seasons in his own power, it is the
most satisfactory answer, that, by this delay, an oppor
tunity was given fully to demonstrate the necessity of
his interposition. Had he appeared immediately after
the fall, it might have been said, that the case did not
require such extraordinary means, that the evil might
have been remedied by a less costly expedient, that no
time had been given to try what man could do to extri
cate himself from sin and its effects. But when ages
after ages had rolled on, and no relief was found ; when
the human race, instead of growing wiser, sunk deeper
and deeper in ignorance, and crimes multiplied as the
World advanced ; when philosophy had discovered noth
ing of any value, and religion had provided no atone
ment ; when even the sacrifices of divine institution
had failed to take away the conscience of sin, and the
ceremonial law was proved to be only a shadow ; a con
viction was produced on every reflecting mind, that
some more effectual method was necessary to restore
sinners to the favour of God ; and the mission of Christ
was seen to be at once a display of his love, and a de
monstration of his wisdom.
There have been different opinions respecting the

* Marsh, xi. 11.

f Gal. iv. 4.

time which our Lord spent in his public ministry, some
reducing it to a year, and others extending it to three
years and a half. The first is too short, and cannot be
reconciled to the evangelical history. Whatever was
its duration, he employed it in preaching the gospel of
the kingdom, or the good news of the reigri of grace,
in performing miracles to attest his mission, and in
making preparation for his death, in which its design
would be fulfilled. In one view, the old dispensation
may be considered as having terminated when his min
istry commenced, or rather at the commencement of the
ministry of his forerunner; and this seems to be the
meaning of the following words : " The law and the
prophets were until John : since that time the kingdom
of heaven is preached, and every man presseth into it."*
The law, indeed, had not yet lost its authority, nor were
the prophecies fully accomplished ; but a new state of
things then began, which would issue in the establish
ment of a new mode of administering religion. In
another view, the beginning of the new dispensation
may be dated from the death and resurrection of Christ,
when the sacrifice and oblation legally ceased, although
for reasons which will be afterwards mentioned, they
were permitted to continue for a time, and when the
Apostles were sent forth to erect a church distinct from
that of the Jews, observing new ordinances, and gov
erned by new laws. This change was announced by
the prophets, sometimes in highly figurative language,
and at other times in plainer terms. It was foretold as
the abolition of the old covenant which God had made
with the Israelites, and as the making of a new one.
" Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with
the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that
I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them
by the hand to bring tbem out of the land of Egypt:
but this shall be the covenant that I will make with
the house of Israel ; After those days, saith the Lord,
I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in
their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be
my people. And they shall teach no more every man
his neighbour, and every man his -brother, saying,
Know the Lord : for they shall all know me from the
least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord ¦
for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember
their sins no more."f It was predicted as a state of
things, under which the Gentiles should be associated
in the church with the Jews, should partake of the
same spiritual privileges* and should be admitted to
the holy offices which had exclusively belonged to the
priests and the Levites. "And I will set a sign among
them, and I will send those that escape of them unto
the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the
bow ; to Tubal and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have
not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and
they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles. And
they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto
the Lord, out of all nations, upon horses, and in cha
riots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift
beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord,
as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean
vessel into the house of the Lord. And I will also
take of them for priests, and for Levites, saith the
Lord.":): Once more it is represented under an image
which is not uncommon in the prophetical writings,
namely, that of a new creation, which implies an exer
tion of almighty power similar to that by which the
universe was produced. " Behold, I create new hea
vens, and a new earth : and the former shall not be
remembered, nor come unto mind. But be ye glad and
rejoice for ever in that which I create; for behold, I
create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and^her people a joy."||

* Luke xvi. 16.
\ Is. lx-vi. 19. 21.

+ Jer. xxxi. 31—34.
II Is. lxv. 17, 18.

78

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

In the Christian dispensation, there are four particu
lars by which it is characterized ; a greater degree of
light; a new system of worship; a more abundant
effusion of the Spirit; and its universality.
First, under the Christian dispensation, the light is
greater, because the Sun of righteousness has arisen
upon us, with healing in his wings. One important
part of the office of the Messiah, was to make known
the will and counsels of God ; and how he was quali
fied for this duty, we learn from these words of Isaiah,
which are applied to him in the New Testament. " The
Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord
hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the
meek."* If it should be asked, what qualification he
could need, who, being the Son of God, was possessed
of every possible perfection? I answer, that, in the
passage quoted, he is spoken of as incarnate, and
as receiving in our nature which he had assumed, a
more ample measure of gifts and graces than was ever
conferred upon the most eminent prophet or apostle.
A child may know, although some men seem to have
considered, that what is said concerning his unction and
the communication of the Spirit, refers to his human
nature alone, because it was equally impossible that
his Divine nature should receive, as that it should lose
any perfection. It was the Messiah who was anointed,
but he was anointed in his human nature ; as the Mes
siah died, but suffered death only as a man. God had
promised to raise up to his people a prophet from among
their brethren, or a prophet who should be one of them
selves; and every created nature, angelical or human,
whether it subsists by itself, or is mysteriously related
to the Deity, derives all from the Creator. Its exist
ence and its endowments emanate from the Source of
life and intelligence; its talents and virtues are inspired
by that omnipresent and beneficent Being who pervades,
and sustains, and animates the natural, and moral, and
spiritual world. It was thus, according to the Baptist,
that our Saviour was furnished with all necessary know
ledge, and fitted to reveal the counsels of his Father to
mankind. " He whom God bath sent, speaketh the
words of God ; for God giveth not the Spirit by mea
sure unto him."f
Our Lord grew in wisdom as well as in stature ; but
when he entered upon his public ministry, he was fully
prepared for all the duties of his office. He under
stood, in its whole extent, the scheme of redemption,
which is the subject of inquiry and profound meditation
to angels and men. How pure was the light which
irradiated his mind ! It not only excluded the slightest
error, but gave a full manifestation of truth in its most
sublime mysteries and most minute details; so that the
gospel preached by himself and by the Apostles with
bis assistance, is a system in which nothing is wanting
to perfect the knowledge, and support the faith, and
promote the consolation of the church in its militant
state, and discoveries are made which intelligences of
the highest order admire, and those who are savingly
enlightened prize above all the wisdom of the world.
To him the most obscure subjects were clear, the most
profound were of easy apprehension, the most magni
ficent and awful were familiar, so that he spoke of them
with all the calmness which we feel in talking of com
mon objects, and the daily occurrences of life. That
his mind was richly furnished, we learn from many
circumstances in his history. When a question was
proposed, he was always ready to return an appropriate
answer; when an objection was started, it was repelled
by a few words in reply; when information was hum
bly asked, it was immediately given. Ideas and words
were at command ; he could discourse upon any subject
wit'nout premeditation ; and from his lips there flowed,
without an effort, a stream of heavenly eloquence,

* Is. Ixi. 1. Luke iv. '.8.

f John iii. 34.

which delighted bis friends and confounded his ene
mies. "Never man spake like this man."* This is
the Wisdom of God ; this is the Teacher in comparison
of whom philosophers are fools, and the ancient pro
phets were children. " No man hath seen God at any
time ; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him."f
In the preceding lecture, something was said con
cerning the obscurity of the former dispensation. To
the increasing clearness of revelation, we may apply
the words of Isaiah : "The light of the moon shajl be
as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall
be seven-fold, as the light of seven days."f: The dis
coveries of divine things were gradual and progressive.
We must suppose revelation in every age to have been
sufficient to guide men into the way of salvation, or it
would have been given in vain. Under the Mosaic
economy, it was clearer than under the patriarchal ; but
the law and the writings of the prophets must yield in
perspicuity and fulness to the gospel of Christ. Typi
cal institutions, as we have seen, were delineations,
more or less distinct, of future transactions and events;
but it requires little reflection to perceive, that in them
selves they could convey no information, and that their
significance depended solely upon the explanation which
accompanied them. This was, in part at least, given
by prophecy ; but however plain particular predictions
may now appear to us, they did not afford an equal de
gree of light in ancient times; and those who then lived
must have felt the same difficulty in discovering their
meaning, which we experience in the interpretation of
prophecies which are not yet fulfilled. How little we
know of them, it is unnecessary to say. But now the
means of instruction' are different; theevents'prefigured
by the institutions of the law have been accomplished ;
prophecy has been turned into history; the Messiah is
not exhibited under the vague notion of a mighty de
liverer, but as the incarnate Son of God, who was born
in Bethlehem, and died on Calvary ; and the spiritual
nature of his salvation is distinctly understood. The
views of the untutored Christian, who reads his Bible
with humble prayer for divine teaching, are much more
enlarged than those of the most eminent Jewish sages.
In consequence of the greater clearness and fulness of
the revelation, the abundance of the means of instruc
tion, the facility of access to them, and the mission of
the Spirit, of which we shall afterwards speak, the pre
diction is now fulfilled, "they shall teach no more
every man his neighbour, and every man his brother,
saying, Know the Lord : for they all shall know me,
from the least of them unto the greatest of them."||
When we speak of the perfection of the Christian
revelation, we must be understood to refer to it, as com
pleted by the ministry of the apostles. The whole is
the revelation of Christ, because it was delivered either
by himself in person, or by others whom he bad com
missioned and inspired. It is the word " which began
to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us
by them that heard him."§ During his lifetime upon
earth, he announced himself as the Messiah, and
preached the gospel in Judea and Galilee ; but even to
his own disciples, to whom it was given to know tha
mysteries of the kingdom, he did not make a full dis
closure of the counsels of his Father. He adapted his
instruction to the time and to their capacity, and re
served much to be communicated by the Holy Ghost,
whom he would send after he had ascended to heaven.
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye can
not bear them now."^ He is commonly supposed to
refer to the change which he intended to make in the
constitution of the church, for which they were not pre
pared while their Jewish prejudices continued ; but I

* John vii. 46.
II Jer. xxxi. 34.

t John i. 18.
{ Heb. ii. 3.

X Is. xxx. 26.
V John xvi. 12.

DISPENSATION OF RELIGION.

79

apprehend that he meant also the nature of his salva
tion, of which they entertained erroneous notions,
which nothing would correct but his death and resur
rection, and the coming of the Spirit to enable them to
understand the true meaning of the prophecies. The
revelation which God has given to the church as the
rule of faith and obedience, is contained in the gospels
and the epistles. It is a -most unfounded distinction
which some make between these writings, when they
ascribe greater authority and importance to the former,
as if our ideas of Christianity were to be derived exclu
sively from them ; and there is not the slightest pretext
for it, unless it could be proved that the gospels were
inspired, but the epistles are only human compositions.
The truth is, that those who insist upon this distinc
tion, call in question the inspiration of both Apostles
and Evangelists ; and, assuming a right to themselves
to determine the comparative merits of the different
portions of the New Testament, they wish to lower
the authority of the epistles, because they teach so
clearly the doctrines which they are unwilling to ad
mit, among which the vicarious death and propitiatory
sacrifice of Christ hold a prominent place. Paul is
particularly obnoxious to them; and, in a bold tone of
impiety, he has been charged with mysticisrii, false
reasoning, and inextricable confusion. The New Tes
tament is a whole : and while the gospels relate the
history, and discourses, and miracles of our Saviour,
the epistles unfold, under the guidance of the Spirit,
the nature of the religion which he died to establish.
The revelation of Jesus Christ being perfect, is con
sequently final ; nothing will be added to it, for nothing
is wanting to its integrity. It is the only plan accord
ing to which God will ever deal with the human race.
Mosts foretold a prophet who should arise after him,
arid commanded the people to hear him ; but Christ
gave no intimation of any successor. The Spirit would
come, but he would come in his name, to take of his
things, and show them to his followers.
The second particular, which characterizes the new
dispensation, is the introduction of a new system of
worship. "The priesthood being changed," as Paul
observes, " there is made of necessity a change also
of the law."* The ceremonial law was connected with
the ministry of Aaron and his sons, and prescribed the
mode in which they were to conduct the service of the
sanctuary ; but as soon as they were superseded by a
new priest, it became obsolete, and circumstances de-
manded a different ritual. The very design of the cere
monial law is a proof, that although it was sometimes
spoken of as a statute for ever, nothing more could be
intended than that it was to last till the advent of the
Messiah ; and that then, like every other thing which
has fulfilled its purpose, it wcuild be abolished. As a
shadow it was of no value to those who possessed the
substance ; as a notification of good things to come, had
it been retained in the worship of God, it would have
proclaimed a falsehood, signifying that the events pre
dicted were still to be expected, although they had been
fully accomplished. As soon as our Saviour died upon
the cross, the sacrifice and oblation legally ceased ; the
temple of Jerusalem was no longer the habitation of
God; the priests had no right to minister in it; the
covenant of peculiarity was disannulled, and the privi
leges of the people of God were extended to men of
every nation under heaven. The temple, indeed, stood
almost for forty years, and the priests performed the
service after the usual manner; but the sanctity of the
place, and of the ministrations, had passed away. God
did not any more require the fat of rams and sacrifices
of fed beasts; a sacrifice of a different kind had been
offered without the gates of the city, in which he had
smelled a sweet savour of rest. He therefore rejected
* Heb. vii. 12.

the splendid apparatus by which it bad been prefigured,
and the hopes of men had been directed to it. But be
delayed for some time the visible abrogation of the
ceremonial law, which could not be effected but, by the
dissolution of the Jewish state, in order that an offer of
salvation might first be made to the Jews in their
national capacity, and that, before their dispersion,
such of the elect as were among them might be gather
ed into the Christian church.
Under the new dispensation, the mode of service is
entirely changed. There is now no magnificent temple
appointed to be the seat of worship, to which men are
required to repair at stated seasons from their distant
dwellings ; but in every place they are commanded to
worship the Father. There is now no particular family
who alone are authorized to minister in the sanctuary,
and by whom the oblations of the people must be pre
sented, that they may be acceptable. God chooses his
servants from every class of society, and gives a com
mission to those, whom he has called by his providence
and grace, whatever may be their parentage and con
nections, to dispense the ordinances of religion. There
are now no sacrifices of the flock and the herd, nor the
smoke of incense ascending from the censers of the
priests ; the only oblations are those of prayer and
praise, and of a devout and holy heart. The new ritual
is distinguished by its simplicity, and contains little
that is addressed to the senses ; there is no sensible
representation of things to come, and we have only in
the sacred Supper, a memorial of the past, intended
to recall and to impress upon the mind, the great facts
and truths of Christianity. It is therefore spiritual wor
ship that is enjoined under the gospel ; not, as I remark
ed in the last lecture, that under the Jewish economy,
carnal worship only was required, but that the spiritu
ality is now more manifest, as the multitude of cere
monies is abolished, and divine things are brought, if
I may speak so, into closer contact with the mind. Ex
cept in the sacraments, which are symbolical institu
tions, without any gorgeous display, however, any im
posing ceremonies to rivet the attention upon the exter
nal rite, there is nothing to attract the eye ; the ear only
is addressed in the words of truth and soberness, and
men are called upon to present to God the homage of
humble faith and fervent love.
You will perceive that I refer to the system of wor
ship which is found in the New Testament, and was
practised in the apostolic age. It soon, however, under
went a change, and by one addition after another, be
came as pompous as the Jewish, and acquired a near
resemblance to the ritual of Paganism. From an ill-
judged intention to recommend Christianity to the
heathens, the ceremonies to which they were accustom
ed were adopted, till the simplicity of the primitive
times was lost amidst a mass of superstition, and idol
atry profaned the temple of God. In this corrupt and
spurious form, religion is still exhibited in the church
of Rome. Although the Reformation restored the
purity of doctrine, circumstances prevented in some
places a return to the original order and discipline of
the church ; and besides the form of their government,
which appears to us to be unscriptural, we find in cer
tain Protestant societies rites of which there is no
vestige in the New Testament; as kneeling at the
sacrament, the sign of the cross in baptism, bowing
at the name of Jesus, and the observance of holidays.
The simplicity of our worship is a subject of censure
and ridicule to them as well as to the followers of anti
christ, and both reproach us with having made religion
too naked and too spiritual for human nature, which
requires to be excited through the medium of the senses.
But in accusing us, they accuse the Author of our re
ligion, to whose word we appeal, and from reverence
for whom we reject these superstitious additions. Su
perstitious we justly call them, because this epithet is

80

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

properly applied to the inventions of men in the service
of God ; and we reject them, because we know that
he guards his own institutions with jealous care, and
is offended at the presumption which deteriorates, under
the pretext of improving them.
A third particular which distinguishes the Christian
dispensation, is a more abundant communication of
heavenly influences. I observed in the last lecture,
that it would be a very great error to suppose that the
Spirit was not given prior to the coming of Christ,
because there could in this case have been no genuine
religion, no acceptable worship, — faith, and repentance,
and holiness, which are essential to it, being the ef
fects of his operations on the soul ; and the Jews might
as safely have wanted an external revelation, as have
been denied the supernatural grace by which only they
could be. enabled to understand and believe it. We
hear Wisdom saying, in the days of Solomon, and to
sinners of that age, " Behold, I pour out my Spirit
upon you." But there were promises of another and
a more copious effusion at a future period, or in the last
days, which means the times of the gospel. It may
be supposed, indeed, that these promises refer to mir
aculous gifts, which were liberally communicated in
the apostolic age; and that some of them may be so
explained, is evident from the application of the follow
ing prophecy of Joel, to the descent of the Holy Ghost
on the day of Pentecost, when the apostles began to
speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them
utterance : " It shall come to pass in the last days,
(saith God,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all
flesh : and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions, and your old
men shall dream dreams: and on my servants, and on
my hand-maidens, I will pour out in those days of my
Spirit, and they shall prophesy."* But it is impossible
to understand, in this limited sense, all those passages
of Scripture which speak of heavenly influences falling
in the days of the Messiah as rain and dew on the
grass, breaking forth as streams and rivers in the wil
derness, and flowing through barren land to convert it
into a fruitful field. They are rightly interpreted of
those ordinary operations of grace, by which men are
endowed with holy dispositions, and rendered active in
the service of God. That they foretell the enjoyment
of a more ample measure of grace, is evident not only
from the terms in which they are expressed, but from
many specific declarations in the Christian Scriptures,
in which we are informed that the Holy Ghost was not
given while Jesus was not glorified ; that the great
promise which he made to his disciples to comfort them
in the view of his departure, was the mission of the
Spirit ; that on his ascension he received him from his
Father, and then poured him out on his disciples ; and
that the gospel is more glorious than the law, because
it is the ministration of the Spirit. " If the ministra
tion of death, written and engraven in stones, was
glorious, so that the children of Israel could not sted-
fastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his
countenance, which glory was to be done away; how
shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glori
ous ?"f It is imported in this description of the new
economy, that the Spirit is given in greater abundance
than under any former dispensation.
If we take into the account the superior clearness of
the Christian revelation, and the more liberal commu
nication of heavenly influences, is it not a natural in
ference, that as the privileges and advantages of the
people of God are now greater, their attainments also
are higher? Considered in a collective capacity, the
Jews will not bear a comparison with Christians; the
Scripture speaks of the former as children, and of the
latter as men. From the difference of their circum-

* Joel ii. 28. Acts ii. 17, 18. f - Cor- iii. 7, 8.

stances, there must be a degree of knowledge, and
consequently of faith and holiness, among Christians,
which could not be expected among the Jews. It may
be objected, that of the ancient saints some rose to
great eminence in piety, and are proposed to us as
examples, and that they are models which we may faint
ly imitate, but cannot hope to equal. We acknowledge
their excellence, we admire their virtues, but we deny
that it is impossible to rise to their level, and know of
no ground on which such an idea should be entertained.
It is a mere prejudice, which will not bear to be can
vassed. I have no doubt that they have been often
equalled, and I will venture to add, have perhaps been
excelled by not a few in the Christian church. Why
should it seem incredible that the holiness of many a
believer, who had a nobler example before his eyes
than that of Abraham, or Job, or David, the perfect
example of our Lord Jesus Christ ; who enjoyed clearer
discoveries of life and immortality, and was animated
by the spirit of liberty and love ; why should it seem
incredible that the holiness of many a believer, thus
advantageously situated, has even surpassed the holi
ness of patriarchs and prophets, been less mingled
with the infirmities of the flesh, and less sullied with
stains and blemishes ? Have the superior privileges of
the present dispensation been bestowed in vain ? If
Christians behold the glory of the Lord with uncover
ed face, do they attain no higher degree of conformity
lo his image than those by whom it was dimly seen
through a veil 1 While they have gained so much in
knowledge, have they gained nothing in purity, which
is the end of knowledge 1 Whatever opinion may be
formed with respect to individuals of former times, it
is unquestionable that Christians in general claim the
pre-eminence above those who preceded them. The
spirit of the law was a spirit of bondage ; but the
Spirit of the Gospel' is a spirit of liberty, elevating
the faith of the people of God, inflaming their love,
brightening their hopes, and powerfully but delight
fully impelling them forward to perfection. The days
of the Messiah are come, in which it was foretold that
the righteous should flourish, and abundance of peace
should be enjoyed.
The last particular which characterizes the new dis
pensation, is its universality, of which frequent notices
were given in ancient prophecy ; as when it was fore
told, that " from the rising of the sun even unto the
going down of the same, the name of God should be
great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense
should be offered, and a pure offering ;" that " his do
minion should be from sea even to sea, and from the
river even to the ends of the earth ;" that " all kings
should fall down before him, and all nations should
serve him ;" and that " men should be blessed in him,
and all nations should call him blessed."* In the
fifty-sixth chapter of Isaiah, the comprehension in the
dispensation of grace, of those who had hitherto been
excluded from it, is described in language suited to that
age, and by images which were then familiar. To the
" sons of the stranger," or to the Gentiles, who are
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, it is announ
ced, that " God would bring them to his holy moun
tain, and make them joyful in his house of prayer."
There is an evident allusion to the mountain or elevated
ground on which the temple was erected, and to the
temple itself, in which the solemn services of the
ancient worship were performed, and which, as we
learn from the words of Solomon at its dedication, was
in particular intended to be a place in which supplica
tions should be presented to God. It is implied in the
promise "to bring the sons of the stranger to his holy
mountain, and make them joyful in his house of pray
er," that he would call them to the knowledge of salva-
* Mai. i. 11. Zecli. ix. 10. Ts. lxxi!. 11, 17.

DOCTRINES OF THEOLOGY.

81

tion by the gospel, and confer upon them all the privi
leges of the new dispensation : " Then their burnt-
offerings and sacrifices would be accepted on his altaT."
Such sacrifices as were enjoined by the law of Moses,
would no longer be offered ; but by this figure, which
it was so natural to a Jew to employ, the worship of
the Christian church is described. The time would
then be, when " neither in Jerusalem nor in Mount
Gerizzim men should worship the Father, but the true
worshippers should worship him in spirit and in
truth."* It was the design of God, who had long distinguish
ed the seed of the patriarchs as his peculiar people, to
extend his favour to other nations. It is in reference to
the universality of the new dispensation, that he is said
to have loved the world, and John calls Christ " the
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also
for the sins of the whole world ;"f meaning, not every
individual from the, beginning to the end of time, but
the human race in general, as distinguished from the
Jews, to whom divine mercy had been hitherto con
fined, and for whom exclusively the ancient sacrifices
were offered. The commission given to the apostles
was unlimited, " Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature ;"\. and the apostles acted
upon it, to the great displeasure of many of their coun
trymen, who, not entering into the benevolent views of
prophecy, wished to continue the monopoly of the gifts
of heaven which they had enjoyed for ages.
It is evident, from the nature of the former dispensa
tion, that it was intended solely for a particular people.
As the obvious design of some of its institutions was
to prevent them from associating with other nations, so
its system of worship was not practicable but in a
country of limited extent. There was only one altar
on which sacrifices could be offered ; and there were
three annual festivals at which all the males were com
manded to appear in the capital, and were therefore
supposed to be living within a reasonable distance.
These things are changed under the Christian economy.
There are now no sacred places to which it is neces
sary to repair, because' in them alone God is to be
found ; but his people may assemble any where to
serve him, and their prayers and praises are equally
acceptable to him in the open air as in a magnificent
building. Thus the church is opened to all the families of the
human race. The distinction of circumcised and un-
circumcised is abolished. They are no more twain,
but " one new man in Christ, who has broken down
the middle wall of partition, and made peace by the
blood of his cross." It is the glory of Christianity,
that it has united those who were long and, in appear
ance, for ever separated, and that, by its influence,
many nations have been turned from idols to serve the
living and true God, and to wait for his Son from
heaven. The establishment of the religion of the Mes
siah in a single nation would not have been an ade
quate reward of his humiliation and sufferings, some
thing greater was promised to him, and something
greater has in part been accomplished. " It is a light
thing that thou shouldest be my servant, to raise up the
tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel:
I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that
thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the
earth."|] As the new dispensation is universal in intention, no
part of the human race being excepted in the apostolic
commission, so we believe that it will be universal
in fact. However improbable it may seem that the
whole world should be christianized, we know that
God is able to perform what he has promised. The

* John iv. 21. 23.
i Mark xvi. 15.
L

| 1 John ii. 2.
|| Is. xlix. 6.

great revolution commenced immediately after our
Saviour's ascension ; and although for ages it was
stationary, or rather retrograde, it has been° advancing
since the era of the Reformation, and is going on in our
days with renovated vigour. A future generation will
witness the rapidity of its progress; and long before
the end of time, " the knowledge of the Lord will cover
the earth as the waters cover the sea." Christianity
will gain a complete triumph over all false religions;
and the visible kingdom of Satan will be destroyed, or
reduced within narrow limits, during the happy period
when, in the figurative language of the Apocalypse,
" he shall be bound."
Here we close our survey of the dispensation of re
ligion. It will be commensurate with time, and " then
cometh the end, when Christ shall deliver up the king
dom to God, even the Father, and God shall be all in
all."* i

INTRODUCTION TO THE
DOCTRINES OF THEOLOGY.
I kot proceed to enquire into the contents of the Sacred
Records, or to give in detail a summary account of the reli
gion taught in the Old and New Testament. Of its doc
trines, some are discoverable, or at least demonstrable by
reason, and others are matters of pure revelation, truths
which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of
man conceived. To the former class belong what are called
the doctrines of Natural Religion ; the existence and perfec
tions of God, providence, the rules of duty, and a future
state of rewards and punishments. Without inquiring what
knowledge of these articles may be acquired by the unas
sisted efforts of the human mind, with the Scriptures in our
hands, it is our wisdom to consider them as they are there
exhibited with far superior evidence and authority. The
doctrines of pure revelation are those which relate to the
scheme of redemption, which, being founded on a free act
of the Divine will, and on a new state of things superin
duced upon the primitive arrangement, is necessarily placed
beyond the sphere of human speculation.
The natural order requires that we should begin wilh God,
his attributes, the distinctions in his essence, with his imma
nent acts, or the purposes which he formed in himself while
he existed alone. From these, we proceed to his transitive
acts, or his external operations ; and here a wide field opens
to our view. We see the universe rising out of nothing at
his command, and arranged in admirable order by his wis
dom ; and we see man occupying the chief place in this)
world, adorned with the image of his Maker, and happy in
the enjoyment of his favour. But the scene is suddenly
changed, and man, fallen from his high estate, appears de
graded, miserable, and pursued by the vengeance of hi«
Creator. From this melancholy spectacle, our attention is
summoned to the contemplation of that wonderful expedient
by which he is recovered from guilt, and reinstated in happi.
ness; and here it is necessary to consider the original plan,
the person appointed to execute it, the means by which he
has effected his design, and the benefits resulting from it,
which embrace a history of the proceedings of Divine grace,
from its first exercise to the sinner to the completion of its
work in the perfection of the heavenly state. This is only
a general sketch, and does not comprehend a great variety
of particulars which are connected with the main subject,
and hold an important place in the system. Let us humbly
pray that the Divine Spirit may lead us into all the truth ;
and that while our understandings are enlightened, our
hearts may feel the holy emotions which the diversified
* 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28.

82

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

views of the Divine character and conduct are calculated to
excite. And let us not forget that it is life eternal, spirit
ually to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he
has sent.

LECTURE XVI.
ON GOD.
His Existence — Belief of it universal — Dr. Clarke's argument
a priori : its fallacy — Idea of God— Argument for his Being
founded on the idea of Him; estimate of its force — Argument
from the existence of a material Universe — Argument from
the marks of Design in the Universe.
- The primary article of Natural and Revealed Reli
gion is the existence of God. If there is such a being,
he is the proper object of the reverence, adoration,
thanksgiving, and confidence of his intelligent crea
tures, and of all the other exercises and duties which
are implied in the notion of religion. If there is no
such Being, men have nothing to hope or to fear be
yond the passing events of time, are subject to no law
but that of blind and stern necessity, and can rationally
propose no higher end, during their fugitive existence,
than to take care of themselves, and secure their happi
ness by every expedient in their power. . Virtue and
vice are words without meaning, and the only founda
tion of a distinction of actions is prudence, or a selfish
regard to their present interests, which are paramount
to beings who know that they shall soon cease to think
and feel.
The belief of the existence of God may be said to
be natural to man. Were the reason of a human being
matured, it may be presumed, that on contemplating
the objects around him, he would be led to the conclu
sion that there is an intelligent Power which created
the universe, or at least sustains and governs it ; and
this idea seems to be favoured by the words of an in
spired writer, that "the invisible things of God, from
the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being under
stood by the things which are made."* But as this
point has been disputed, we may affirm, that the notion
of a First Cause, the Author of life, and motion, and
order, is so agreeable to the dictates of reason, and
so exactly accords with the appearances of nature, that
as soon as it is proposed, it will meet with the cordial
assent of every person who is not prejudiced. Hence
it may be deemed unnecessary to enter upon a proof of
the existence of God ; and to some it may appear to be
presumptuous and irreverent, because it seems, in the
first instance, to call in question a truth of which it is
impiety to doubt. But there are two considerations
which justify our procedure.
Let it be remarked, that although men, with a very
few exceptions, have in all ages admitted the existence
of God, yet many have paid little attention to the sub
ject, and having received it upon authority, without
exercising their own thoughts, would be much per
plexed if they were called to give a reason of their
faith. They may be regarded as children in religion,
who require to be taught to read the characters of their
Maker's glory, which are stamped upon his works ; and
those upon whom the office of teaching them devolves,
should be previously furnished with the requisite know
ledge. Besides, a review of the argument may be emi
nently useful to such as are already convinced. It is
impossible that a truth so important and sublime, on
which the hopes and fears, the duty and the happiness
of mankind are suspended, can occupy their attention
too much, or be too deeply impressed upon their minds.
We have all to lament that the impression is so faint,
and the obvious remedy for this evil, is frequent and
attentive meditation on the signatures of the power and

* Rom. i. 20.

majesty of the Divine Being with which we are sur
rounded. I may add, that however firm our belief may
at present be, we cannot tell to what trials it may be
exposed, and with what objections it may be assailed.
Some of the most devout men whom the world ever
saw, have complained that there were moments when
they were disturbed with doubts respecting not only
the dispensation of providence, but the perfections and
the existence of God.
In ancient times, certain Pagans were stigmatised as
atheists ; justly in some cases, but in others it may be
questioned whether the charge was not founded on their
disbelief of the popular systems of religion. Lord
Bacon expresses himself as if he doubted whether any
man could be really an atheist. " The Scripture saiih,
' the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.' It is
not said, the fool hath thought in his heart, so as he
rather saifh it by rote to himself, as that he would have,
than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded
of it. For none deny there is a God, but those for
whom it maketh there were no God. It- appeareth in
nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in
the heart of men, than by this ; that atheists will ever
be talking of that their opinion as if they fainted in it
within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthen
ed by the consent of others."* It is certain, however,
that atheism has been avowed, and in no period more
openly than in the present age, when the spirit of im
piety has gone forth, and is labouring by the arts of
sophistry, to persuade men to throw away their Bibles
and their reason, and with the discipline, to renounce
the hopes, of religion. Modern philosophy pretends
to demonstrate, that there is no intelligent Being who
presides over nature, no Lawgiver whom we are bound
to obey, no Judge who will call us to an account ; in
short, that the idea of a God, wise, righteous, and holy,
is a tale of the nursery, a dream of superstition. What
ever misgivings of mind professed atheists may experi
ence, whatever suspicions of their own reasonings may
at times check their confidence, their public dissent
from the general opinion on this momentous subject,
calls upon us to be prepared to encounter their argu
ments, and to secure the foundation of our faith.
The existence of God has been proved by metaphy
sical arguments, which it requires acuteness of intel
lect and close attention to understand, and which are
therefore useless to the greater part of men ; and by
arguments of a simpler kind, adapted to common capa
cities, and founded upon the things which are obvious
to our senses. When the celebrated Mr. Whiston was
conversing with Dr. Clarke about his Discourse con
cerning the being and attributes of God, pointing to a
nettle, he told him that that weed furnisbed more satis
factory evidence than all his abstruse reasoning; to
which the Doctor answered, that it was true, but that
since the adversaries of religion employed metaphy
sics against it, it was necessary to repel them with
their own weapons.
In demonstrating this fundamental truth, recourse
may be had to the argument a priori, or to the argu
ment a posteriori. The argument a posteriori infers the
cause from the effect, and proves the existence of a
Creator from the works of creation. It is an ascending
process, by which we rise from what is seen to what
is unseen, from things to their first principle. The
argument a priori infers the effect from the cause, and
consequently supposes something to exist before that,
the existence of which is deduced from it. Hence it
should seem that this argument can have no place in a
demonstration of the existence of God, who preceded
all other beings, and is the cause of every thing which
exists. To this objection it has been replied, "that
though no thing nor being can be prior to that Being,
* Bacon's Essays. Of Atheism.

ON GOD: HIS EXISTENCE.

83

which is the First Cause and Original of all things ;
yet there must be in nature a ground or reason, a per
manent ground or reason, of the existence of the First
Cause; otherwise its existence would be owing to, or
depend upon, mere chance." " The existence, therefore,
of the First Cause is necessary ; necessary absolutely
and in itself. And therefore, that necessity is a priori,
and in the order of nature, the ground or reason of its
existence."* But although it is Dr. Clarke who rea
sons in this manner, I suspect that we cannot form any
distinct conception of his meaning. Necessity is an
abstract idea, and when applied to the present subject,
can only signify, that there must be a First Cause. But
how do we come by this notion ? It is by profound
meditation upon the nature of necessity, and does it
hence appear, as an unavoidable inference, that a First
Cause must exist? This indeed would be the argu
ment a priori; but it is not in this way that we arrive
at the conclusion. Our belief of a First Cause is
founded on the fact that other beings exist, who could
not have made themselves, nor have existed in an eter
nal succession, as we shall afterwards see, and must,
therefore, have been created by a Being who existed
without a cause. But this is the argument a posteriori.
It is by this argument that we rise to the knowledge
of the uncaused existence of the Author of the universe,
and not by abstract speculations on necessity. We
should never have known that he exists, but from our
own existence and that of other beings around us ; and
as in this way we ascertain that he does and must
exist, it seems absurd to talk of proving his existence
a priori. Whatever use may be made of this argument
to prove his perfections, it cannot be employed in proof
of his being. Dr. Clarke himself acknowledges, that
"the argument a posteriori is by far the most generally
useful argument, most easy to be understood, and in
some degree suited to all capacities; and, therefore, it
ought always to be distinctly insisted on."f
When we profess to demonstrate the existence of
God, we speak of a Being, underived, independent, im
mutable, and possessed of every possible perfection.
It is evident that in the idea of God every perfection is
included, because if one or more were wanting, we
could conceive another Being who possessed them all,
and that other would be God. We therefore ascribe to
him every excellence, intellectual and moral, not only
power but wisdom, not only goodness but purity.
These perfections subsist in the highest possible de
gree. If they were subject to any limitation, there
might be a Being who possessed them without limita
tion ; and to him, as soon as he was known, it would
be our duty to transfer the homage which we had
hitherto paid to another, whom we now found to be in
ferior to him. In short, God is a Being to whom
the designation of Optimus Maximus, with which the
heathens dignified him under the name of Jupiter, justly
belongs. He is the Greatest and the Best, incompre
hensible to finite minds, of whom we cannot form an
idea but by uniting every conceivable excellence in one
assemblage, and supposing them to extend beyond the
highest attainments of the most exalted creatures, and
the utmost reach of the most enlarged understanding.
I now proceed to lay before you the arguments by
which the existence of God is evinced.
1. An argument which has been frequently advanced
by metaphysical writers, is founded on the idea of God.
As it is very abstruse, and I am not sure that I dis
tinctly apprehend it, I shall give you a statement of
jt, nearly in the woTds of Bishop Stillingfleet, in whose
Origines Sacrae,^: it is fully detailed, fie begins with
¦observing, that such things are contained in the idea of
* Clarke's Discourse concerning the being and attributes of
God. Edit. 10th, p. 498. Answer to Seventh Letter.
f Ibid. p. 499. t Eook iii. Ch. i. { 14.

God, as necessarily imply his existence. The force of
the argument lies in this, that what we clearly and
distinctly perceive to belong to the nature and essence
of a thing, may be with truth affirmed of the thing
itself; as, if I clearly perceive that to be an animal
doth belong to the nature of man, I may with truth af
firm that man is a living creature ; if I find it demon
strably true, that a triangle has three angles equal to
two right ones, I may truly affirm it of any triangle.
But now we assume, that upon the most exact search
and inquiry, I clearly perceive that necessary existence
doth immutably belong to the nature of God, therefore
I may with as much truth affirm, that God exists, as
that man is a living creature, or a triangle hath three
angles equal to two right ones.
In order to manifest more 'clearly the force of thi
argument, in which some kind of sophism may be
suspected, he proceeds to observe, in the first place,
that the greatest evidence we can have of the truth of
a thing, is a clear and distinct perception of it in our
minds. When we speak of clear and distinct percep
tions, we suppose the mind to proceed upon evident
principles of reason, or to have such notions of things,
which, as far as we can perceive by the light of reason,
do agree with the natures of the things which we ap
prehend ; if in such things then there be no ground of
certainty, it is as much as to say that our faculties are
to no purpose, which highly reflects either upon God
or nature. In the second place, we have clear and
distinct perception that necessity of existence doth be
long to the nature of God. We are to consider the vast
difference which there is in our notion of the nature of
God, and of the nature of any other being. In all other
beings, I grant we may abstract essence and existence
from each other; now, if I can make it appear that
there is evident reason, ex parte rei,* why I cannot do
it in the notion of God, then it will be more plain that
necessity of existence doth immutably belong to his
nature. It is manifest to our reason, that in all other
beings of wbich we apprehend the natures, nothing
else can be implied in the natures of them beyond the
bare possibility of existence, no, although the things
which we do apprehend do really exist, because, in
forming an idea of a thing, we abstract from it every
thing which is not implied in the very nature of the
thing ; now existence being only contingent and pos
sible as to any other being, it cannot be any ingredient
of its idea, because it doth not belong to its essence ;
for we may fully apprehend the nature of the thing
without attributing existence to it. But now, in our
conception of a Being absolutely perfect, bare possi
bility or contingency of existence speaks a direct re
pugnancy to the idea of him; for how can we conceive
that Being absolutely perfect, which may want that
which gives life to all other perfections, namely, exis
tence 1 The only scruple in this case is, whether this
necessary existence doth really belong to that Being
whose idea it is, or is only a mode of our conception
in apprehending God. Here we have no rule so cer
tain and evident as this, that in those things which are
merely joined together by the act of the mind, the un
derstanding can abstract them, and divide them in its
conceptions from each other ; but in such things as
cannot be divided without altering the essence of the
subject to which they are ascribed, it is a certain evi
dence that they were not conjoined by the mere act of
the mind, but do immutably belong to the natures of
the things themselves. The reasons which make us
attribute bare possibility of existence to any being, are
taken away when we conceive a Being absolutely per
fect, for then existence is implied among the number
of perfections, and this Being is independent upon all
others, and infinitely powerful, so that nothing can

* On the part of the thing, or from the nature of the thing.

84

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

hinder its existence, and therefore we must conclude
that necessity of existence doth belong to the nature
and notion of God, and is not any mode only of our
conception ; because, if we take away necessity of
existence from God, we lose the notion of a Being ab
solutely perfect. It not only follows as a necessary
conclusion from these preliminaries, but is in itself
evident to the reason of any person, that if necessary
existence belongs to the nature of God, he exists ; for
it implies no less than a contradiction, for a being to
exist necessarily, and yet that it should be questionable
whether he doth exist or not.
Such is the celebrated argument for the existence of
God, which was brought forward by Des Cartes, and
had been hinted at by some of the Schoolmen. I know
not whether you have been able to follow the reasoning,
and what impression it has made upon your minds. By
some it has been considered as a complete demon
stration, which supersedes all other arguments; but
others have viewed it in a different light. It is one ob
jection to it, that it is not easily apprehended, and al
most eludes the grasp of the understanding : and it is
of too shadowy a nature to produce a strong and vivid
effect. By many distinguished metaphysicians and
divines, it has been pronounced to be a sophism. It is
acknowledged that whatever properties are included in
the clear idea or notion of a subject, do certainly belong
to it ; and indeed, it is a selfevident and tautological
proposition, that all things comprehended in any con
ception of the mind, may be predicated of it. But
here the reasoning fails, in that it infers the actual exis
tence of an object in rerum natura,* from the existence
of the idea of it in the mind. "It seems to extend
only," as Dr. Clarke observes, " to the nominal idea
or mere definition of a self-existent Being, and does
not, with a sufficiently evident connection, refer and
apply that general nominal idea, definition, or notion,
which we frame in our own mind, to any real particular
being actually existing without us."f All that can be
legitimately inferred is this, that if there exists any
Being, in the clear idea of whom necessary existence
is involved, that Being exists by a necessity of nature.
If you say, but necessary existence is involved in the
idea of God, it is manifest that the only just inference
is, if God exists, necessary existence ought to be affirm
ed of him. You do not demonstratively prove that
God exists in opposition to the atheist ; you merely
conclude hypothetically, that if there is a God, his ex
istence is necessary. This the atheist will readily grant,
and at the same time retain his opinion; because all
that you have done is to settle the true idea of a God,
while it still remains a subject of dispute, whether such
a Being exists. I conclude with the words of Mr. Locke,
who, declining to enter upon this argument, contents
himself with the following genera] remark, " that it is
an ill way of establishing the existence of God, to lay
the whole stress of so important a point upon that sole
foundation, and take some men's having that idea of
God in their minds, (for it is evident some men have
none, and some worse than none, and the most very
different.,) for the only proof of a Deity, and out of an
over-fondness of that darling invention, cashier, or at
least endeavour to invalidate, all other arguments, and
forbid us to hearken to those proofs as being weak or
fallacious, which our own existence, and the sensible
parts of the universe, offer so clearly and cogently to
our thoughts, that I deem it impossible for a consider
ing man to withstand them.":):
II. Our second argument is, that since something
exists now, something must have existed from eternity.
The foundation of this argument is, the present, existence
of ourselves, and of the other parts of the universe.

» In the world, or universe. f Clarke's Discourse, p. 20.
\ Essay on *he Human Understandings B. iv. c. 10

We are assured of our own existence by consciousness,
and of the existence of other beings by the evidence of
our senses, to which we give implicit credit by the law
of our nature, without paying the least regard to the
attempts of sceptical philosophers to invalidate their
testimony. Hence we infer that something has existed
from eternity, for nothing is more evident than that if
there ever had been a time when no being existed, it
was impossible that any being should have ever come
into existence. Every being has a reason or ground
of its existence, either in itself, and then it is self-
existent, or in the will and power of some other being.
But according to the supposition, no being necessarily
exists, for there was a time when no being was ; and
consequently there was no reason or cause why any
being should ever exist. There'was a time when there
was nothing, and how could something have been pro
duced ? Beings could not make themselves ; for this
would suppose them to have existed before they existed ;
and they could not have sprung up by chance, for chance
signifies no cause of auy kind, and is merely a word
expressing our ignorance of the cause.
It is then certain, that since something now exists,
something must have existed from eternity. About the
truth of this proposition, there is in fact no dispute. It
is admitted by atheists themselves; and, accordingly,
the most celebrated of them in ancient times, Epicurus
and his followers, while they maintained that the world,
or the present system of the universe, was formed by a
fortuitous concourse of atoms, felt the necessity of ac
knowledging that atoms had moved in infinite space
from eternity.
The atheist, being compelled to concede that some
thing has existed from eternity, will tell us that it is
the universe itself. Nature is underived and self-exist
ent ; we can trace no vestige of a beginning, and we
see no prospect of an end. He has no objection to the
idea of an eternal Being, if that being is not understood
to be endowed with intelligence and power, and above
all, to be possessed of such moral perfections as justice
and purity, the thought of which would lay a restraint
upon his conduct, and create the disquieting apprehen
sion of a future reckoning.
Let us examine his position, and see whether it is
consonant to reason. The human race is an important
part of the universe, which, according to this hypothe
sis, has always existed by an eternal succession. Of
the individuals who compose this succession, not one
is self-existent, but each is derived from his immediate
predecessors. The present generation has sprung from
that which preceded it, and that generation from an
other, and so on as far as the series can be traced.
Here then is a succession, every part of which had a
beginning. To tell us that it is eternal, is to substitute
a mere assertion for proof, and to hurry us on to the
conclusion, without giving us time to inquire whether
it is possible that such a succession could be eternal.
We ask, how could a succession be eternal, although
all its parts had a beginning] How could all the parts
have a beginning, and yet the whole be without begin
ning? How could the individuals be dependent in re
spect of their being, having each derived it from his
parents, and yet the race be self-existent? I am unable
to conceive a more express contradiction, than to assert
that all the parts had a beginning, but that the whole
had no beginning; that the parts are finite, but that the
whole is infinite. When we see a chain extended, we
perceive the limits of each link, and conclude that, if
we had time and opportunity, we could trace it to the
first link. It would never enter into our minds that the
chain was stretched out in infinitum.* The human
race is a chain; individual men are the links; and we
conclude as naturally and rationally in this as in the

Infinitely.

ON GOD: HIS EXISTENCE.

85

former case, that there is a first link on which the rest
are dependent. No, says the atheist, the chain has no
beginning; there never was a first man, the human race
is eternal. In other words, he tells us that there is a
chain which has only one end. Were any person to
say so of a real chain, he would be supposed to have
lost his senses; but when some men affirm that the
human race had no beginning, they would have us be
lieve that they are wiser than all the world besides,
and assume the name of philosophers. Common sense
revolts at this assertion, and every good man will re
joice to find that impiety is compelled to take refuge in
palpable absurdity. We may apply this reasoning to
the other parts of the universe. The various races of
animals and vegetables ; the diurnal motion of the earth ;
the revolutions of the heavenly bodies; and in a word
all things, the duration of which is measured by hours,
and days, and years, must have had a beginning.
Some disprove the eternity of the universe in the fol
lowing manner : — If it has subsisted from eternity, it
must have subsisted as it is ; there being, on the hypo
thesis of atheists, no cause to produce a change, and a
change being inconsistent with the idea of necessary
existence. Hence we see, by the way, that matter
cannot be that being which has existed from eternity.
If it existed from eternity, it exists by necessity of na
ture. But it is an express contradiction to suppose
that which exists necessarily, not to exist; and yet we
are all sensible that there is no contradiction in suppos
ing the non-existence of matter, for we can all conceive
it to be annihilated. It is a contradiction to suppose
that which exists necessarily, to exist in any other state
or form. But we can conceive matter to be in motion
or at rest; and finding some parts of it in the one state,
and some in the other, we conclude that its existence is
not necessary, but contingent. We can conceive it to
be differently modified ; that it might have wanted some
of its properties, and possessed others which do not be
long to it ; that the frame of the universe might have been
different; and that in our system there might have been
more or fewer planets, and these might have been at
tended with more or fewer satellites. But if the uni
verse is self-existent, it must have always been as it
now is. The sun must always have been the centre of
this system, and the planets must have always described
their orbits around him. There must have been eternal re-
Volutions of Saturn and the Georgium Sidus, and eternal
revolutions of the Earth and Mercury. Now, as these
revolutions are performed in different times, and, on the
supposition of their eternity, are all infinite in number,
it follows that we have infinites which as infinites must
be equal, but being made up of revolutions performed
in unequal times, are unequal. But this is impossible,
and the hypothesis from which it is deduced is absurd.
It has been objected, that according to the doctrine of
the infinite divisibility of matter, there may be one infi
nite greater than another, as the parts of matter differ in
size.' But the infinite divisibility of matter is a mere
figment of the imagination; and, besides, only implies
that our minds can affix no limit to the division, while
here the division is actually made; revolutions have
been described in periods longer and shorter, and yet
they are equal in number, for they are all infinite.
From the whole of the preceding reasoning, we are
authorized to draw these conclusions ; that something
has existed from eternity; that that eternal Being is
not matter or the universe; and, therefore, that there is
a God, underived and independent, the Author of every
thing which exists.
III. The next argument is founded on the proofs of
design in the universe, according to the obvious dictate
of reason, that where design appears, there must be a
designer. An argument is freque.ntiy drawn from the
creation of the universe; and certainly if it can be
6bewn that the heavens and the earth had a beginning,

it follows that there is a Being of almighty power who
called them out of nothing, because it is manifest that
they could not give existence to themselves. Some
remarks have been already made, in order to shew that
matter could not be eternal; and we have thus antici
pated a part of what might be said upon this head.
Few, or perhaps none, of the heathen philosophers be
lieved the creation of matter; but, in general, they ad
mitted that it was arranged by divine agency, and con
sequently, that the present system had a beginning. A
traditionary account of its origin seems to have pre
vailed among all nations ; and the antiquity of the ac
count is manifest from the writings of Moses, which,
without assuming their inspiration, ought to be con
sidered as a record of the opinion entertained upon this
subject in his age, which preceded that of authentic
profane history by a thousand years. The recent in
troduction of arts, which in many instances can be
traced to their inventors ; the late origin of nations ; the
total want of any credible accounts reaching farther
back than about six thousand years ; the imperfect oc
cupation of the earth, which must long since have been
fully peopled if it had existed from eternity ; all these
undeniable facts concur to prove, that it is not long
since our globe and its inhabitants were brought into
being, and consequently, that there is a great First
Cause, by whose will and power they were produced.
Not to dwell upon this argument, I would call your
attention to the evidences of intelligence in the works
of nature, from which we are authorized to infer the
existence of an intelligent cause. If any man should
deny that there are marks of design, I could not answer
him better than in the words of Cicero: "If those
things which are formed by nature are better than those
which are executed by art, and art effects nothing with
out reason, certainly nature is not to be accounted des
titute of reason, flow is it consistent, when you have
looked at a statue or a painting, to acknowledge that art
has been employed; when you have seen the course
of a ship, not to doubt that it is guided by reason ; when
you contemplate a sun-dial, to be convinced that the
hours are pointed out, not by chance, but by skill; and
at the same, time to be of opinion that the world, which
comprehends those arts, and the artists, and all things,
is without reason and counsel ? If any person should
carry into Scythia or Britain the sphere lately con
structed by our friend Posidonius, the movements of
which produce the same changes with respect to the
sun, and the moon, and the five planets, which take
place every day and night in the heavens, who in these
barbarous countries could doubt that that sphere was
constructed by reason'! But these," namely, certain
philosophers to whom he refers, " doubt concerning
the world, whether it was made by chance, or by neces
sity, or by the divine reason and mind ; and think that
Archimedes had more concern in imitating the motions
of the sphere than nature in effecting them."* Such
are the reflections of that eloquent orator, and they
command the approbation of every reflecting mind. If
we lighted upon a book containing a well-digested
narrative of facts, or a train of accurate reasoning, we
should never think of calling it a work of chance, but
would immediately pronounce it to be the production
of a cultivated mind. If we saw in a wilderness a
building well proportioned, commodiously arranged,
and furnished with taste, we should conclude without
hesitation, and without the slightest suspicion of mis
take, that human intellect and human labour had been
employed in planning and erecting it. In cases of this
kind, an atheist would reason precisely as other men
do. Why then does he not draw the same inference
from the proofs of design which are discovered in
the works of creation ? While the premises are the

De Nat. Deor. lib. ii. { 34.

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

same, why is the conclusion different! Upon what
pretext of reason does he deny that a work, in all the
parts of which wisdom appears, is the production of an
intelligent author? and attribute the universe to chance,
to nature, to necessity, to any thing, although it should
be a word without meaning, rather than to God 1
It is impossible to survey the objects around us with
any degree of attention, and not perceive marks of de
sign, ends aimed at, and means employed to accomplish
those ends. We need to go no farther in quest of evi
dence than our own frame, which appears the more ad
mirable the more carefully it is examined, and the more
intimately it is known. No person who considers the
use of the eye, and is acquainted with its internal
structure, so skilfully adapted to the transmission and
refraction of the rays of light, can any more doubt that
it was intended for the purpose of vision, than he can
doubt, when he understands the construction of a teles
cope, that it is intended to enable us to see objects at a
distance. No man can doubt, when he examines the
external form and internal configuration of the ear, that
it is an instrument expressly provided for the convey
ance of sound ; or that the lungs were made for respi
ration ; the stomach for the reception and concoction of
our food ; and the wonderful system of vessels known
by the names of arteries and veins, for carrying the
blood from the heart to every part of the body, and
then returning it to its source ; in one respect resem
bling the pipes by which water in the fountain or reser
voir, is distributed through all the streets and lanes of
a city. No man can doubt that the design of glands
is to secrete ; of nerves, to propagate feeling and mo
tion ; of the teeth, so differently formed, to cut and
masticate ; of legs, to support the body, and move it
from place to place; of arms and hands divided into
fingers, to perform the various operations which are ne
cessary to our subsistence and comfort. These instan
ces are quite sufficient to satisfy any reasonable inquirer.
Marks of design are equally apparent in the bodies
of the inferior animals, which in their general structure
bear a striking analogy to our own. When a difference
is found, the proofs of wisdom multiply upon us, for
it manifestly proceeds from an intention to accommo
date the animal, or to adapt it to its peculiar circum
stances. It is comprehensive wisdom ; wisdom which
can command not only one system of means, but a va
riety of expedients, to meet the diversity of cases
which were necessary to the replenishing of the dif
ferent parts of nature with inhabitants. For example,
if one animal lives upon herbs, another upon seeds, and
a third upon the flesh of other animals, we find that
while they are in common furnished with a stomach,
this member is differently constructed in each, so as to
receive and digest its peculiar food. We observe again,
that whether animals move upon the surface of the
earth, or fly in the air, or swim in the waters, their
external form and internal organization are admirably
accommodated to their mode of life, and to the place
of their habitation. This variety amidst uniformity is
an evidence upon which we may confidently depend,
that what appears to be design is not the effect of
chance, or of a blind necessity which would always
produce the same results, but of an intelligent mind,
wondjerful in counsel and excellent in working ; of a
Being fertile in contrivances, and in every instance
choosing the best.
The doctrine of final causes cannot be admitted,
without at the same time acknowledging a First Cause,
possessed of knowledge and wisdom. Atheists have
therefore exerted themselves to obscure its evidence,
and to bring it into disrepute ; but their attempts in
this way have reflected no honour upon their under
standings and their hearts. " Our bodily organs,"
says Lucretius, " were not formed that we might use
them, but their prior formation suggested the use.

Sight was not before the eyes were made, nor hearing
before the ears ; but the ears existed long before any
sound was heard, and all our members before their
office was discovered."* In short, according to this
philosopher, for such he is called, eyes were not intend
ed to see, nor tongues to speak, nor legs to move ; but
somehow they belonged to the body, and men ingenious
ly contrived to turn them to good account. There was
no prospective contrivance in any of our organs and
members; they were formed by chance; but luckily,
it happened that they might be made to serve the vari
ous purposes of our being, and as luckily, men made
the discovery, and wisely resolved to take the advan
tage of them. How long it was before -this discovery
was made, and if some time elapsed, how men contriv
ed in the meantime to live without speech, and hearing,
and sight, and motion, this hierophant of atheism has
not condescended to inform us. It would be a waste
of time to refute downright nonsense. You would
laugh at a man who should tell you, that a telescope
was not constructed with a design to view distant ob
jects, but that after it was made, it was discovered
that it would serve this purpose, and was therefore ap
plied to it ; and you may laugh at Lucretius, or any
other fool, who affirms that sight is not the original de
sign, but an accidental use of the eye.
The theories of modern atheists are not more -wise,
or more worthy of attention. Thus, some account for
the production of living creatures, by what they call
the principle of generation, that is, by a word ; others,
by the supposition, which you will observe is only a
supposition, that nature is full of living particles,
which have a tendency to arrange themselves in organ
ized forms : and others, by what they call appetencies,
" or propensities in parts of matter to particular actions,
which by continual endeavours, carried on through a
long series of generations, work themselves gradually
into suitable forms, and at length acquire an organiza
tion fitted to the action which their respective propen
sities led them to exert."
" We know a cause," says Dr. Paley, " adequate to
the appearances which we wish to account for ; we
have this cause continually producing similar appear
ances ; yet, rejecting this cause, the sufficiency of
which w,e know, and the action of which is constantly
before our eyes, we are invited to resort to suppositions,
destitute of a single fact for their support, and confirm
ed by no analogy with which we are acquainted. The
' suppositions' here alluded to, all agree in one char
acter. They all endeavour to dispense with the neces
sity in nature, of a particular, personal intelligence ;
that is to say, with the exertion of an intending, contri
ving mind, in the structure and formation of the organ
ized constitutions which the world contains. They
would resolve all productions into unconscious energies,
of a like kind, in that respect, with attraction, magnet
ism, electricity, &c. without any thing farther."f
I shall resume this argument in the next lecture.

LECTURE XVII.
ON GOD.
Argument for his Being from the marks of Design in the
Universe, continued — Argument from general consent ; its
just force — Argument from Historical Evidences of a Super
intending Providence — Reflections drawn from the Existence
of God — Eternity of God ; proof of it — Different from the
perpetual duration of creatures — Speculations respecting his
Eternal Existence — Spirituality of God — Doctrine of Mate
riality ; contrary to Scripture and Reason.
In the last lecture, I entered upon the argument for
the existence of God, from the proofs of design which

* Luc. de Rer. Nat. 1. iv. 832.

f Pal. Theol. c. 23.

ON GOD: HIS EXISTENCE.

87

are discovered in the works of nature, and illustrated
it at considerable length. I directed your attention to
the evidence presented by our own bodily constitution,
and by the organization of other animated beings.
Proofs multiply upon us when we extend our obser
vation to the various parts of the universe, and are not
less striking and convincing in inanimate objects. To
begin with those which, although organized, cannot be
Considered as endowed with consciousness and a prin
ciple of activity, there is not a tree, or a plant, or an
herb, however insignificant it may seem, in which the
signatures of divine wisdom may not be perceived. In
the structure of vegetables, there is an arrangement,
different indeed from what is observable in animals,
but affording proofs not less satisfactory, of wise inten
tion directed to the same general end, the subsistence,
health and growth of the individual, and the continua
tion of the species. There are vessels for drawing
nourishment from the soil to which they are attached ;
vessels for conveying the juices to every part; vessels
for admitting and expiring the air ; vessels for the pro
duction of flowers and fruits. Between a vegetable
and a stone or a clod, the difference is great, and can
be accounted for only by the agency of an intelligent
Being. In the latter we see simple existence ; but in
the former we perceive design.
When we survey the surface of the earth, and ob
serve the disposition of its parts, it is impossible for
any person in his senses to suppose that they were
huddled together by chance. There are clear indica
tions of a wise and benevolent plan. We see the earth
in one place, stretching out into plains, and in another,
rising into hills and mountains ; and the reason of this
diversity is apparent. The plains would be arid wastes
famishing no sustenance for man and beast, with
out the higher parts, which attract the clouds, and im
bibing their watery treasures, distribute them to the
lower regions in springs and streams which fructify
tfie vallies, and give drink to their inhabitants. The
surface of the globe is divided into the sea and the dry
land. The dry land affords firm footing to man, and all
terrestrial animals, as well as produces the vegetable
substances which serve them for food. The sea is an
inexhaustible source of vapours, which rising in the
atmosphere, are there condensed, and descend in mists
and rains ; and at the same time, it facilitates the inter
course of nations, and the transportation of the produc
tions of one region to another. Had there been no
sea, the earth would have been a desert, the silent abode
of desolation and death.
Once more, proofs of design present themselves to
us when we look beyond this earth, and contemplate
the system to which it belongs. In the centre is placed
the sun, and around him the planets, retained in their
orbits by an invisible power, perform their unceasing
revolutions, while light and heat flow from this inex
haustible fountain to cheer their inhabitants. In par
ticular, with respect to our earth, no rational man can
doubt that its double motion is the effect of design, who
considers that, by turning round its own axis once in
twenty-four hours, the succession of day and night is
produced ; and that its annual motion round the sun
gives rise to the changes of the seasons.
But of examples of contrivance there is no end. A
few are sufficient to satisfy a candid inquirer ; btft in
proportion as they are multiplied the argument becomes
stronger; because, while it is possible that chance
might produce the appearance of design in a solitary
instance, although it has never yet formed a watch, a
house, or the simplest instrument of labour, it is con
trary to the idea of chance, that such appearances
should be uniform or frequent. Our argument then is,
that where there is design, there must be a designer ;
where there is a plan there must be a mind in which it
was conceived. The adaptation of means to an end,

presupposes a being who had the end in view, and per-
ceived the fitness of the means. The universe is full
of designs. They are visible in its general frame and
in its particular parts. The refuge of the atheist is to
say, that the wisdom is in nature; but he speaks unin
telligibly, and we are sure does not understand him
self. Wisdom is an attribute of mind, and must re
side in a being distinct from the universe, as the maker
of a machine is distinct from the machine itself. That
Being is God, " wonderful in counsel, and excellent in
working." IV. An argument for the existence of God is found
ed on the general consent of mankind. It has been be
lieved in all ages and nations, and is therefore conso
nant to the natural unbiassed dictates of the mind.
The fact of a general consent is, in the first place, to
be proved ; and for this purpose, we appeal to the his
tory of the human race, of which religion makes a
prominent part. It is objected, that some nations have
been found without religion, or any idea of a God ; but
we have two answers to return. In the first place, the
allegation has been made upon insufficient grounds in
some cases at least, upon a superficial acquaintance
with certain tribes, by persons ignorant of their lan
guage, and who had no proper opportunity to investi
gate their customs and opinions ; and a more intimate
knowledge of them has demonstrated that the account
was a hasty and unjust assumption. But suppose that
there were some tribes who had no notion of religion,
the strength of the argument would be little impaired;
because we do not affirm that men have an innate idea
of God, but that the idea presents itself, with the evi
dence of truth, to those who are capable of thinking as
rational beings ; and if in the persons supposed, rea
son has not been exercised, if it is almost in a dormant
state, and they in fact differ little from brutes, it is no
more wonderful that they have not discovered this truth
than it is that a blind man does not see. But it may
be said, that the existence of God has been denied by
men, who had cultivated reason, and were dignified
with the name of philosophers. It is not certain, how
ever, that they really disbelieved it, although the love
of singularity might lead them to say so ; but if they
really did disbelieve, we know that prejudice and so
phistry sometimes pervert minds, which deem them
selves completely free from their influence, and that
there is no truth, not even the evidence of the senses,
which some person or other, calling himself a philoso- -
pher, has not controverted. At any rate, they are but
a few against many, a minority not to be considered,
when opposed to the innumerable millions who have
maintained the contrary doctrine. " Let it be suppos
ed," says Bishop Wilkins, "that some men have de
clared a disbelief of the divine nature in general ; yet
as there have always been some monsters among men,
in respect of their bodies, so may there be likewise in
respect of their minds ; and this is no prejudice to the
standing laws of nature."*
It may be objected farther, that mankind have not
agreed in the belief of one God, but of a multiplicity
of Gods, and that, with the exception of the Jews, poly
theism was the system of all nations in ancient times,
as it still is, where neither Christianity nor Mahomet-
anism has been introduced. But even among such
nations, the general principle was admitted, that there
is a nature superior to man, by which the universe was
arranged in its present form, and its affairs are still ad
ministered : besides, it should be remarked, that al
though the doctrine of the unity was much obscured,
yet it was not altogether obliterated ; for even the gross
est idolaters retained the notion of a supreme deity,
called Zas and Jupiter, by the Greeks and Romans, and

* Principles and Duties of Natural Religion, Book i.
chap. 4.

88

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

described by the latter, as hominum Sator alque Deorum.*
Some of their philosophers approached still nearer to
the truth, and conceived him to be exalted far above the
gods of vulgar adoration, and as requiring to be wor
shipped, not by images and sacrifices, but by devout
meditation and virtuous conduct.
The atheists of the school of Epicurus, accounted for
this general belief by the principle of fear. Primus in
orbe deos fecit timor.\ But this seems to be reasoning
quite worthy of the system which it is brought to sup
port. It puts the effect before the cause. Other men
would have supposed that fear proceeded from the pre
vious belief of a power or powers superior to mortals,
which were able to injure them. Every other affection
is excited by a suitable object ; but in the present case,
men by some inexplicable impression began to be afraid
of something, they knew not what; and thinking this
very unreasonable, as it undoubtedly was, set about
finding out an adequate cause of their fear, and luckily
lighted upon the idea of Gods, terrible beings whom it
was hazardous to offend. We need say nothing more
about this theory, nWever ingenious it might appear
to its inventors.
Another attempt was made to account for this gene
ral belief, by ascribing it to the artifice of statesmen,
who contrived in this manner to give greater authority
to their laws, and to retain men in subjection by the
sanctions of religion. But an assertion without proof,
we are at liberty to deny. By what historical facts is
it supported ? Who was the first legislator, who pro
pagated the story of the existence of the Gods ? And
how did he succeed in persuading a whole people to
give credit to a dogma, of which they had no evidence
but his affirmation, and had never heard a whisper be
fore ? If one legislator was the inventor of it, how did
it come to spread rapidly over the whole earth ? Or did
all the princes and statesmen of the world assemble in
congress, and having agreed upon this expedient for
maintaining their authority, return to their respective
countries to put it in practice] Was there in ancient
times a holy alliance? And how did it happen that
they became the dupes of their own stratagem, and be
lieved in the Gods as firmly as their subjects?
With a few exceptions, the belief of a superior Being,
obscured indeed by polytheistic notions, has prevailed
among mankind. We do not appeal to this fact, as if
the existence, of God were to be decided by the number
of suffrages, or rested upon the feeble basis of opinion.
We would not represent it as conclusive in itself, inde
pendently of other proofs; nor is it the strongest argu
ment in favour of the doctrine, but can be viewed only
in the light of a subsidiary one. The amount of it is
this, that there is something in the constitution of the
human mind, which leads to this belief; or that it is
the result of the due exercise of the rational powers,
with which man is endowed. When we find men in
distant countries, who had no intercourse with one
another, born in distant ages, and differing widely in
language, and manners, and modes of thinking, united
in believing that there exists a great Being, who is the
Maker or the Ruler of the world, what can we infer,
but that the proofs of his existence are exhibited
throughout all nature, and are so conspicuous as to be
seen by every eye ? The consent of nations corrobo
rates the argument, which we have drawn from the
marks of design in the works of creation ; as it shews
that the inference deduced from them is not a local pre
judice, but a legitimate conclusion from the premises.
"What nation is there," says Cicero, "or race of men,
which does not entertain some notion of the Gods
prior to instruction ? When, therefore, this opinion is
not established by instruction, or custom, or law, and
* Father of men and gods.
f Fear first made gods in the world.

all without exception firmly assent to it ; it is necessary
to understand that there are Gods, since we have im
planted or rather innate knowledge of them. It is ne
cessary that that, in which all naturally agree, should
be true."*
V. The existence of God may be inferred from a
variety of facts in the history of human affairs. Every
argument which proves a superintending Providence,
proves that there is an intelligent and active Being by
whom the universe is governed. When we appeal to
the order and regularity which prevail, and to the bene
ficial results of the operations which are incessantly
going on around us, the atheist tells us that these are
the laws of nature. But what is nature? is it some
thing, or nothing; a being distinct from the universe,
or the universe itself? If nature means the universe,
he has given us no information. We inquired how
there is such order in the universe, and how such bene
ficial effects are produced; and he deems it sufficient to
say, that such is the constitution of things. Such an
answer we might-receive from an ignorant man, whom
we had interrogated respecting something which he did
not understand. He would say, I do not know, but so
it is. But surely we should never think of calling this
man a philosopher. With the exception of professed
atheists, all men have acknowledged a Providence; and
events occur of such a character, as lo lead the mind
away from the mere succession of natural causes and
effects, to the interposition of an almighty and intelli
gent Agent. When we see an undoubted instance of
retributive justice — and such instances are not rare even
under this mixed dispensation — we unavoidably think
of an invisible Judge; and when we observe tokens of
wisdom more than human, directing and controlling,
and over-Tuling events to its own ends, we have re
course to Him who works all things according to the
counsel of his will. The atheist may talk of such
events in the jargon of his system, but he cannot fully
satisfy his own mind, and still less the minds of others.
Hence it sometimes happens that, bold when there is
no danger, but a coward when calamity and death seem
to be near, he is dismayed at the tokens of a present
Deity, and with a voiee of terror, implores the mercy
of the Being whom he lately scorned as a phantom.
Under this argument supernatural facts have been
adduced as proofs of the existence of God. By these,
we mean facts which cannot be accounted for by the
known laws of nature. There may be facts of an ex
traordinary kind wbieh cannot be ealled miraculous,
because, although they show a deviation from the ordi
nary course, they do not imply a suspension of the
laws, or the interposition of a power superior Jo them..
They are the result of natural causes unusually com
bined ; and in this way, we explain the production of
monsters, and strange phenomena, which excite won
der. But if it can be proved, that on any occasion, a
law of nature has been suspended or reversed, it is
a legitimate inference that there exists somewhere a
power by which nature is controlled. I allude to two
kinds of facts as indicating the agency of a Being
greater than nature and its laws, namely, miracles and
prophecy; and in appealing to these, I tread in the steps
of the most illustrious philosophers of antiquity, who
considered omens, prodigies, and oracles, as proofs of
the existence and providence of the gods. It would be
preposterous at present to quote Scripture as authorita
tive, because we must first be assured that there is a
God, before we can know that any bcok contains a re
velation of his will. I refer to the sacred writings only
as records, the genuineness of which has been fully
established, and from which we learn that works, which
may be strictly called miraculous, have been performed ;
and that predictions were delivered many ages ago,
* Cic. de Nat. Deorum, Lib. i. { 17.

ON GOD: HIS EXISTENCE.

89

which have been subsequently fulfilled with the ut
most exactness. If a miracle is an event which could
not be brought to pass by any law of nature, it
cannot be denied, that to give sight to a man born
blind, to restore an arm or a leg which was wanting,
and to still a storm by a simple command, were
miracles: and what conclusion could those who wit
nessed them draw, or what conclusion can be
drawn by those who are assured of them by com
petent testimony, but that there is a Being who sways
the sceptre over the universe, and is possessed of
power sufficient to the production of any effect?
The same conclusion follows from prophecy, which,
supposing knowledge in the prophet that does not be
long to man, must have proceeded from an intelligent
Being, to whom the future is as manifest as the pres
ent, and who possesses such dominion over physical
and moral causes, over the material system, and the
thoughts and volitions of men, as to accomplish with
unerring certainty whatever he had foretold. That
Being is God.
Such are the arguments by which we demonstrate
this fundamental doctrine of religion. Some of them
are conclusive by themselves ; and when taken togeth
er, they compose a mass of evidence which must give
complete satisfaction to every person who fairly con
siders them, and which nothing can resist but prejudice
and obstinate incredulity.
Before I proceed further, I shall lay before you two
or three reflections upon the truth which we have es
tablished. First the doctrine of the existence of God diffuses
light and order over the whole system of creation. The
atheist can account for nothing ; his creed is embarrass
ed with inextricable difficulties. He ascribes eternity
to beings who must have had a beginning: he speaks
of contrivances which had no contriver ; he sees many
bodies in motion which observe a constant and regular
course, but denies that there is a first mover. To him
the universe is a riddle, and a mystery. A Deity ex
plains the phenomena of nature. As soon as he is
recognized, we have power which could call the things
which are out of nothing ; wisdom capable of arrang
ing and governing them; and goodness, the source of
the beauty which charms our eyes, and of the happi
ness which is felt through all the ranks of animated
beings. I cannot conceive an atheist to experience any
pleasure from the contemplation of objects in which he
perceives no marks of intelligence and benevolence,
nothing on which an enlightened and feeling mind
would delight to dwell. But, to the religious man, na
ture is a mirror which reflects the glory of its Maker.
It is animated by his presence ; it brightens under his
smile ; it speaks of him to all nations, and proclaims
him to be wise and good.
Secondly, the doctrine which we have established by
so many arguments shews us at the head of nature, a
Being, the contemplation of whom is calculated to
rouse the noblest energies of our souls, the best affec
tions of the heart. The atheist sees no being in the
Universe better than himself, and hence selfishness be
comes the distinguishing feature in his character. He
lives to himself, and regards his own interests as of
paramount importance ; and nothing but the dread of
reaction and retribution, restrains him from making in
roads upon the happiness of others. To the moral dis
cipline of the mind; to acts of self-denial and disin
terested beneficence ; to the abhorrence of crime for
its own sake ; to the maintenance of purity and inno
cence, even when there is no danger of detection, and
no fear of any painful result ; there is no motive in
the system of the atheist. But the idea of a God holds
out to view an assemblage of perfections which com
mand our reverence and our love, and create the desire
of approximating, in some faint degree, to the standard

of excellence. From this idea flow all the sentiments
and emotions of piety, and the various exercises of
virtue in the mortification of unhallowed appetite, the
patient endurance of evil, and the practice of justice
and charity. Religion is the parent of every good
quality in man ; the glory of his nature consists in the
impress which it bears of the image of his Maker.
Lastly this doctrine is replete with consolation amidst
the vicissitudes and troubles of life. In the hour of
extremity, the atheist has no resource but reluctant and
sullen submission to necessity. He has nothing to
reconcile him to the evils of life, which come, he knows
not how, and rob him of a portion of his happiness
without any compensation. His ultimate prospect is
annihilation or unconsciousness, when the bubble of
existence shall burst, and mingle with the elements.
He lives like a beast, and like a Deast he shall die.
Amidst the distresses of the present scene, religion
points to God, the Father of our spirits, the friend and
guarcKan of the righteous, from whose omnipotent love
there is every thing to hope. It teaehes us to resign
ourselves to his merciful disposal ; to be thankful even
for afflictions, because they are instruments of good ;
and to trust, in the most forlorn circumstances, amidst
the decays and failure of our bodily constitution, that
he will bestow upon us, in another state of being the
happiness which it has seemed meet to his wisdom to
deny us in this world.
This great and glorious Being, whose existence we
have proved by a variety of arguments, is -eternal.
According to our conceptions, eternity is distinguished
into anterior and posterior ; or, in the language of the
schools, into eternity a parte ante, and eternity a parte
post; that is, we conceive of it as a duration preceding
the present moment, which had no beginning, and a
duration following, which will have no end. W'e have
already seen that since something exists now, some
thing has existed from eternity ; that that something
is not matter, or the universe, but a living, intelligent
Being, a designing Cause, the Author of the manifold
contrivances which we observe in the creation. There
was a time when he existed alone, and there never was
a time when he did not exist. This existence is not
contingent, but necessary. He exists in and of himself;
and to suppose any anterior reason of his existence,
would be to strip him at once of eternity and indepen
dence ; and would prove that we had erred in conceiv
ing him to be God, and that the name ought to be trans
ferred to the prior cause. It is evident, that what ex
ists by necessity of nature, must have always existed.
The idea of the Epicureans, that the Gods were formed
by the same chance, to which they attributed the for
mation of all other things, was absurd ; and their sole
design in allowing their existence, was to avoid the
charge of atheism, by a seeming acknowledgment
of the popular system. The ancients justly remarked
that they granted it in name, but denied it in fact.
As God has existed from eternity, so he will exist to
eternity ; to use the language of inspiration, " his years
shall not fail." No conceivable reason can be assign
ed, why he should cease to be. There is no superior
Being upon whom he is dependent for existence, and
who might revoke his gift ; and in his nature there is
no principle of decay. From the one or the other of
these causes, every other being might be annihilated
or reduced to a state of unconsciousness ; but the Cre
ator is manifestly not exposed to their influence. " A
principle," says Plato, " has no origin, for all things
arose from a principle, but the first principle arises from
nothing, neither were it a first principle, if it were orig
inated by some other. And if it has no beginning, it
can have no end." The eternity of God has been prov
ed from his immensity in the following manner. "The
mode of existence," says Gale, " always follows the

DO
mode of essence, because existence, according to the
confession of the schools, adds nothing to essence but
actuality ; neither is it indeed really distinct from es
sence. Now duration is nothing else but continued ex
istence; whence it necessarily follows, that if God's
essence be infinite, his existence and duration must be
also infinite."* But as we have not yet demonstrated
the infinitude of the Divine Essence, we shall not de
duce an argument from it in proof of its eternity. We
think, that its eternity is manifest from its necessary
existence ; for hence, it is equally evident that it shall
never cease to be, as it is that it never began to be.
Necessity operates alike at all times. It is a perma
nent reason ; it is the same now as it formerly was ;
and it will be the same hereafter as it is now. Contin
gent beings exist at one time, and may not exist at
another, because there is nothing in their own nature
which secures their continuance; but a necessary Be
ing is immutable in duration. What he at present is,
he always will be.
From what has been said, we perceive an important
difference between the eternity of God and that which
may be predicated of some of his creatures, as angels
and human spirits. Both are destined to exist for ever,
but they are not necessarily immortal, and there is no
contradiction in supposing them to be annihilated ; nor
is their existence without beginning, as it will be with
out end. There was a time when they were not ; and
all that can be said of them is, that having begun, they
shall never cease, to exist. Their life is an intermin
able series ; it will flow on without intermission, and
never approach nearer to a close. It is an infinite du
ration, not absolutely, but as it is incommensurate, ad
mits of no limits, and will be perpetually progressive.
The eternity of God comprehends the past as well as
the future, and is thus expressed by an inspired writer :
" Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou
hadst formed the earth and the world, even from ever
lasting to everlasting thou art God."f And hence we
may see why, although angels and the souls of men
shall subsist for ever, it is said of God, that "he only
hath immortality."f: To him exclusively belongs the
attribute of absolute, underived, independent, and ne
cessary eternity. The creatures to whom we have re
ferred, shall never die, but their continuance in life is
the result of the will of their Creator ; and besides, to
speak in our imperfect manner of so mysterious a sub
ject, it is only half an eternity which is allotted to
them as their portion, the half which is to come, while
eternal ages had revolved before they were called out
of nothing. But there is still a more important differ
ence between the eternity of God, and that of creatures.
Theirs is not wholly possessed at once; it is enjoyed
in detail, and consists in a perpetual succession of mo
ments. It unites stability and change ; stability, as
their existence is infallibly secured, and change, as it
is a constant transition from one part of duration to
another. But the eternity of God has been defined to
be the interminable possession of life, complete, per
fect, and at once. Mternilas est interminabilis vitas tola
simul et perfecia possessing The import of this defini
tion is, that the divine existence is not like that of crea
tures, successive ; but comprehends what we call the
past, the present and the future. These are divisions
of time ; but the first and the last have no place in the
duration of the Supreme Being, to whom nothing is
past, and nothing is future. The Schoolmen call it
punctum stans, or nunc semper stans,§ and a celebrated
poet has thus expressed it :

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

* Court of the Gentiles, part iv. B, ii. c. 4. 8 3.
f- Ps. xc. 2. J 1 Tim. vi. 16.
|| Eternity is the interminable, and at the same time, entire
and perfect possession of life.
{ An immoveable present, or an everlasting now.

Nothing there is to come, and nothing past,
But an eternal NOW does always last.*
These have been pronounced to be words which have
no meaning; but with the same critic we must ac
knowledge, " that as some being must necessarily have
existed from eternity, so this being does exist after an
incomprehensible manner, since it is impossible for a
being to have existed from eternity after our manner or
notions of existence. Revelation confirms these natu
ral dictates of reason in the accounts which it gives us
of the divine existence, where it tells us, that he is the
same yesterday, to-day, and for ever; that he is the
Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending ; that
a thousand years are with him as one day, and one day
as a thousand years ; by which and the like expres
sions, we are taught, that his existence with relation to
time or duration, is infinitely different from the exist
ence of any of his creatures, and consequently that it
is impossible for us to frame any adequate conceptions
of it."f
Whatever objections may be made to an eternal now,
and a punctum stans, as abortive attempts to express
the mode of the divine existence, the truth which they
are intended to signify, however confounding to our
apprehensions, namely, an eternal existence without
succession, may be established by this argument ; that
a past infinite succession is impossible, as we showed
in the preceding lecture, when proving that creatures
could not have existed from eternity. We can con
ceive a future infinite succession, or a line continually
extending ; but we cannot conceive a past infinite suc
cession, or a line which had not a beginning. Hence,
whatever difficulty we may experience in annexing an
idea to our words, we must pronounce the eternity of
God to be stationary, and not like ours, in motion. It
may be objected, that in Scripture, his eternity is des
cribed by differences of time, and in particular that he
is represented as one, " who was, and is, and is to
come."f But it may be answered, that these are only
adaptations of the subject to our modes of thinking, of
which we have other examples in the attribution of cor
poreal members and human affections to the Deity.
We have no word which properly expresses the stable
nature of his eternity, and are under the necessity of
applying to it words in common use, founded on the
divisions of time. " In eternity," it has been said,
" there is no divisibility, no majority or minority, no
priority or posteriority, no accession, recession, ot suc
cession ; no difference of time, but one indivisible,
simple, and permanent instant." Passages have been
quoted from Heathen Philosophers, which prove that
this idea did not originate among Theologians, but was
entertained long before the Christian era. I shall men
tion only the saying of Plato, " that the parts of time,
it was, and it is, agree not to eternity, because these im
ply motion and succession ; but eternity is always im
mutably the same."
A subject so far above our comprehension may be ea
sily perplexed by objections. It has been said, that if
there is no succession in the eternity of God, all suc
cession among creatures is impossible ; what is past
must be present, as well as what is to come. It has
been replied, "that in the co-existence of God with
creatures, there is priority and posteriority, not in God,
but in temporary beings. The co-existence of things
with God is successive, according to the necessitude
of the things, and so the co-existence of God with the
creatures admits of some kind of succession as to ex
ternal denomination ; not as if there were any new ex
istence of God with the creatures, but only by reason
of the new existence of the creatures with God." I
know not whether this answer is satisfactory ; but we
may be equally puzzled with respect to the immensity
* Cowley, f Spectator, No. 590. { Rev. iv. 8.

ON GOD: HIS SPIRITUALITY.

91

of God, and it may be asked, how can he be present
In different places without being extended ? as well as,
how can he co-exist with creatures, without a succes
sive duration ? It is no reason for rejecting a doctrine
established upon solid grounds, that there are objec
tions to it, which we cannot answer. It is acknowl
edged on all hands, that the divine existence is myste
rious ; and I think, it has been proved from the nature
of time, that this cannot be the measure of it. In a
Being who had no beginning, succession is impossible.
Having found that there is a Being self-existent and
eternal, we are naturally desirous to obtain some more
intimate knowledge of him, and in the first place, to
ascertain what is his nature. Of the essences of all
beings, we are profoundly ignorant: we are acquainted
only with their properties ; but these we arrange in dif
ferent classes, and call that to which the one class be
longs, matter, and that to which the other belongs,
spirit. Both substrata, or subjects, are equally con
cealed from us by an impenetrable veil. The objection
against the existence of spirit, that we can form no con
ception of it, holds in full force against the existence
of matter, for we have no idea of it distinct from its
qualities. As it has already appeared, that matter is not eternal
and self-existent, it has been virtually proved, that God
is not a material being. If he were material, he could
not be immense, for it is not more absurd to speak of an
infinite duration which is past, than of an infinite exten
sion, that is, of an infinite whole made up of finite parts.
It is certain that matter must have limits, however dif
ficult it may be to imagination to fix them. Besides,
according to the acknowledged doctrine of the impene
trability of matter, or that two bodies cannot occupy
the same portion of space, were the Deity material, he
would be necessarily excluded from every place which
is filled up by the visible creation. Were God mate
rial, he would be divisible; for divisibility is an essen
tial property of matter. His substance might be sepa
rated, and would be actually separated by other corpo
real beings ; who, occupying certain portions of space,
would not only exclude him from them, but would in
terpose between one part of his essence and another, as
the continuity of a stream is destroyed by the rocks
which rise above its surface. He would also be sub
ject to change from every interposition of this kind;
would now be expelled from one place, and then fill up
another, as different bodies advanced or retired ; in'short,
as mutability is essential to matter, although there were
no cause of mutation in himself, he would be continually
exposed to impressions from external objects. I will
not add, however, that if he were a material being, he
would be visible ; because this is not a necessary conse
quence ; there being much matter which is not perceived
by the eye, as the atmospheric gases, the magnetic
fluid, and electric matter not in a state of ignition.
It will not be deemed superfluous to prove, that God
is not a material being, if you reflect, that erroneous
ideas upon this subject have been entertained, not only
by heathens, but by professed Christians. Some of the
Fathers appear to have thought, that God had a bodily
shape. The same was the opinion of the Anthropomor-
phites, who believed, as their name imports, that when
man is said to have been created in the image of God,
there is a reference to his body as well as his soul.
Among the older Socinians also, the same gross appre
hension prevailed'; and some of them maintained, that
God was confined to heaven, and might be seen there
with our bodily eyes.
The passages of Scripture, which are supposed to
favour this impious opinion, have been misunderstood.
The image of God in which man was created, is ex
pressive of a moral resemblance to his Maker, and is
elsewhere said to consist in knowledge, righteousness,
and holiness. Appearances of the Deity, in ancient

times, were intended solely to affect the mind through
the medium of the senses, and not at all to suggest the
idea, that he was in himself such a being as was per
ceived by the eye. We have no reason to suppose,
that any of the persons who were favoured with such
appearances, fell into this mistake. The ascription
of bodily members to the Most High, can be easily
accounted for. It is simply an accommodation to
our modes of thinking; and is designed to teach us,
that there exist in the divine nature, qualities corres
ponding to those in men, which are exerted by means
of corporeal organs. Eyes and ears are expressive of
his knowledge, and hands of the power by which he
performs his mighty works. We may add to these
considerations, that in other places of scripture, such
descriptions are given of the transcendent greatness of
Jehovah, as are utterly irreconcilable with the notion
of corporeal and limited existence. He who measures
the waters in the hollow of his hand, and metes out the
heavens with a span, and comprehends the dust of the
earth in a measure, may justly ask, " To whom will
ye liken God ? or what likeness will ye compare unto
him?" The conclusion to which we are led by the preceding
reasoning, is, that God is a Spirit. We cannot tell
what a spirit is, but we know, that it is not com
pounded, that it is not divisible, that it is not the object
of sight or of touch. There are other properties of
spirit, which strengthen, our argument, because we have
undoubted evidence, that they belong to the divine es
sence, but cannot be predicated of matter.
First, he is a living being, as we infer from the fact,
that there is life in the universe, which is replenished
with various orders of animated creatures ; and it is a
dictate of reason, that there cannot be more in the
effect, than there is in the cause. Now, life is the
peculiar attribute of spirit. Matter is dead. If our
bodies are said to be alive, it is solely because they are
connected with another substance by which they are
actuated ; and hence, as soon as the union is dissolved,
they are reduced to the same state of insensibility with
the earth in which they are deposited. God is called
in Scripture "the living God," and "Jehovah," which
is his incommunicable name, and imports that he pos
sesses all life in himself, underived, independent, and
immutable. He is the fountain of life; and all that
feel and think, all that exert the various energies of
body and mind, live, and move, and have their being
in him.
Secondly, he is an intelligent being, as we collect
from the appearances of design in his works. But
knowledge is an attribute of spirit or mind. There is
frothing in the properties of matter which is allied to
thought and feeling. Divide or combine it as you will ;
take it in its state of greatest refinement, pure as a ray
of light, and subtle as an impalpable ancUjjjjLvisible gas ;
it makes no nearer approximation to thought than in its
rudest and most unshapely form. Even when organ
ized, it is still unconscious ; and merely serves as the
instrument of sensation to the principle with which it
is united. It is not the eye which sees, or the ear
which hears, but the soul. Matter being incapable of
intelligence, all the proofs of wisdom in the universe,
are at the same time proofs, that the divine essence is'
spiritual. God is a being possessed of understanding.
He certainly knows every thing in the system which
he made and governs; and we may presume, also
knows every thing possible, every thing which his
power could effect.
Thirdly, he is an active being. He is the first cause
of all things which exist, the prime mover of this great
machine. We are conscious of the activity of our own
spirits, which are employed without interval when we
are awake, and are often equally busy in sleep. Matter
is essentially inactive. It moves only by impulse; and

92

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

as it cannot begin, so it is incapable of stopping or
altering its motion. Power belongs to God, as we
know from its effects; and it belongs to him, because
he is a Spirit. As he is possessed of intelligence, so
he is possessed of will ; and its acts are omnipotent.
He speaks, and it is done; that is, the effect follows
the volition, without delay and withoutdifficulty. His
work is perfected in a moment, as it was in the begin
ning, when he said, " Let there be light, and there was
light." It follows from the spirituality of his essence, that he
is the object of mental contemplation. We neither see
his shape, nor hear his voice. Wrapt up in the mys
tery of his nature, he is concealed from the eyes of
mortals. He addresses our senses in his works and
his word ; but in this case, the senses serve only to
convey to the mind materials of reflection, from which
we rise by a gradual ascent to a conception, imperfect
indeed, but not altogether unworthy of the Being of
beings ; with whom none in heaven or earth can be
compared, and whose glory the highest created under
standing cannot fully comprehend. He is "the King-
eternal, immortal, and invisible, dwelling in the light
which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath
seen, nor can see."

LECTURE XVIII.
ON GOD.
The Unity of God: inferred from the harmony of the Universe;
just force of this Argument: Unity inferred from various
other Properties in the Divine Nature — Unity opposed to
Polytheism and Dualism — Account of Dualism — Unity con
sistent with a Trinity in the Godhead.
We have proved that there is a Being distinct from
the universe, who has existed from eternity by neces
sity of nature, and upon whom all other things depend.
We have neither seen his shape, nor heard bis voice;
he is concealed from all our senses; and it is solely
by the deductions of reason from the objects around us,
that we arrive at the knowledge of him. The argu
ments in support of this fundamental truth are conclu
sive, and produce, in every unprejudiced mind, a con
viction not inferior in strength to that which we enter
tain of our own existence. But our inquiries will not
stop here. We must feel a desire to be more fully ac
quainted with this mysterious Being ; to make some
partial discovery of his character ; to ascertain what he
is in himself, and in his relation to us; what are the
distinguishing properties of his nature; what homage
we owe to him, and what expectations we are author
ized to entertain.
In our reasoning in proof of the existence of God,
we have proceeded on the assumption that there is only
one eternal and self-existent Being; nothing occurred
in our progress which could lead us to suspect, that
there is a plurality. Those who argue from the idea
of God, include in it every possible perfection, and con
sequently unity ; for certainly a Being existing alone,
without any equal, is more perfect and glorious than he
would be if there were other beings independent and
possessed of the same excellencies. The argument,
that since something now exists something must have
always existed, does not require that there should be
more than one; for this is its amount, that since the
universe could not have started into being by chance,
nor have subsisted from eternity, because an infinite
past succession is impossible, there must have been a
self-existent First Cause, and more than one do not ap
pear to be necessary. In like manner, when we reason
from the proofs of design, that there is a designing
Cause, we meet with nothing which suggests the idea

of combined operation ; but as we shall presently see,
the uniformity which prevails, indicates a single agent
throughout the whole system, as far as we are able to
trace it. The consent of nations seems at first not to
be favourable to the. point which we purpose to estab
lish, because polytheistic notions were generally a-
dopted ; but it will appear, that amidst the strange
aberrations of the human mind, the idea of unity was
more or less explicitly retained. Lastly, the extraor
dinary events which imply the existence of a Cause
different from nature, and superior to it, may be ac
counted for without referring them to more than one
Agent; or rather, as all such are properly connected
with the same dispensation, and aim at the same end,
they are all referrible only to one.
These are only introductory hints respecting the im
portant truth which it is my present design to illustrate,
namely, the unity of God. It will be necessary to enter
into a full view of the arguments by which it is evinced,
and at the same time to consider the opinions which
are, or are understood to be, opposed to it. The pro
position which it will be the business of this lecture to
establish, is, that although there are many beings to
whom the name of God has been given by idolaters,
and some to whom it has been given by higher author
ity, in a metaphorical sense, yet there is only one
Being who is God by nature, self-existent, independent,
and infinitely perfect.
The unity of God maybe proved, first, from the con
templation of nature, and secondly, by metaphysical
arguments. The first argument is founded on the uniformity of
the works of nature, and is level to every capacity.
The system of creation, as far as it comes under our
observation, is regular and harmonious, and furnishes
no ground to suspect that there was more than one
agent concerned in it. In order to perceive the truth
of this argument, it will be necessary to enter into a
detail of particulars.
Let us begin with the human race, which is scattered
over the surface of the earth, but in all its modifications
is manifestly the production of the same almighty and
beneficent Author. We observe some points of differ
ence among the families and tribes into which it is
divided, in the features of the face, the colour of the
skin, and I believe too, in the configuration of some of
the bones. These varieties, however, may be accounted
for from the operation of local causes, upon the hypo
thesis that they are- strictly one race, descended from
common progenitors ; but laying revelation at present
out of the question, and admitting for a moment that
th'ey are distinct races, we shall find the argument
rather strengthened than weakened ; because the same
ness amidst partial diversity, the sameness in every
thing essential, while the diversity relates only to
minute and trivial circumstances, irresistibly demon
strates that one Being made them all. They have all
the same external form, the same instruments of motion
and action, the same organs of sense. When we exam
ine their internal structure, it appears that there is
the same provision of means for the sustenance of life.
Blood is circulated by the same apparatus of veins and
arteries ;Tood is digested by the same process ; and the
same secretions are going on in the system. When
they are viewed as intellectual beings, they present a
considerable diversity, but not such as to infer a differ
ent origin. All the differences arise, not as some dream
ing speculatists have imagined, from a difference of
minds, but from a difference of circumstances ; and, ac
cordingly, we find that every where men possess the
powers of perception, observation, comparison, and rea
soning, the power of volition, and the affections of love
and hatred, fear and hope, joy and sorrow, to which we
add, a sense of moral obligation.
When we turn our attention to the other inhabitants

ON GOD: HIS UNITY.

93

of the globe, we observe that in some respects they
differ widely from men, as they differ from one another,
but still we perceive a general resemblance. Although
in shape quadrupeds are unlike us, yet the same com
ponent parts are found in their bodies as in ours. They
have the same organs of sense, organs of seeing, hear
ing, smelling, tasting, and feeling. In their internal
organization, there is a surprising conformity. As they
have teeth to seize, cut, and masticate their food, so
they are furnished with a stomach in which it is lodged
and digested, and with vessels for conveying the nu
triment to the various parts of the body, by means of
the blood with which it is incorporated, and which is
circulated in the same manner as in the body of man.
When the end is the same, and the contrivance for ac
complishing it is the same, we cannot reasonably doubt
that the Artificer is the same. Birds which fly in the
air are very different from quadrupeds which walk upon
the earth, and fishes which swim in water are different
from both; but while, their respective forms are adapted
to the elements in which they are destined to move,
they resemble each other in their internal organization,
so far as their different kinds of life will permit, in so
much that it maybe confidently affirmed, that the same
intelligence which contrived the quadruped, contrived
e'jo the fowl and the fish.
The analogy is not so striking in the case of vegeta
tes ; but still there are so many points of resemblance
s to justify the introduction of them in the present ar
gument. They do not possess life, as implying sen
sation and consciousness ; but they are said to live,
because they are nourished and grow like animals, and
like them are subject to disease, the effects of old age,
and dissolution. Fixed to the soil, they are provided
with the means of drawing nutriment from it and from
the surrounding atmosphere, by their roots and leaves.
They are also furnished with vessels corresponding to
those in animated beings, for conveying the nourish
ment received by the roots to the extremities. The
juices flow in them as the blood flows in our bodies ;
and, according to the opinion of some naturalists, cir
culates like the blood. The leaves serve the same
purpose which lungs serve to us, by taking in and giv
ing out air, which is necessary to the health and life of
the vegetable. Lastly, all vegetables are endowed
as well as animals, with the power of propagating
their kind.
Hitherto we have pursued the argument throughout all
living nature. We see one Spirit working in all. When
we pass to the consideration of the terraqueous globe,
the proofs of God multiply upon us. Of animated beings,
some are fitted to move on a solid surface, others are ca
pable of pursuing their course in the air, while others can
live only in water. To provide for this variety, the globe
consists of dry land and of sea, and is surrounded by
an atmosphere. Thus the habitation is accommodated
to the inhabitants, and both have evidently been con
trived by one Mind. The argument is precisely the
same, if we suppose, as was actually the case, the
globe to have been first formed, and then its inhabitants.
The adaptation, in either case, suggests the same origi
nal, unless we give way to imagination, and absurdly
fancy that the globe was created by one Being, and
that another, finding it a useless solitude, produced a
variety of creatures to fill up its vacant spaces ; an
idea not more probable, than it would be to say, that
one generation of men built houses without any object
in view, and another discovering that they would serve
admirably for dwellings, took possession of them, and
furnished them. '
Throughout its whole extent, our globe exhibits
proof of its having been formed by the same almighty
hand. Every where the dry land is composed of the
same materials, and the sea has the same properties.
"New countries," says Dr. Paley, "are continually

discovered, but the old laws of nature are always found
in them; new plants perhaps, or animals, but always in
company with plants or animals which we already
know, and always possessing many of the same gener
al properties. We never get amongst such original, or
totally different modes of existence, as to indicate that
we are come into the province of a different Creator,
or under the direction of a different will. In truth, the
same order of things attends us wherever we go: The
elements act upon one another ; electricity operates, the
tides rise and fall, the magnetic needle elects its posi
tion in one region of the earth and sea, as well as in
another. One atmosphere, invests all parts of the globe,
and connects all ; one sun illuminates ; one moon ex
erts its specific attraction upon all parts."*
But the argument is not confined to this globe, which
constitutes a very minute part of the universe. The
Being whose existence we have demonstrated, is the
Author of nature in its wide extent, and proofs of his
unity are furnished by the most distant regions to which
our observation extends. We know but little of them ;
but we discover enough to convince us that they are
sustained and governed by the same power which su
perintends the affairs of the earth. There can be no
doubt, that there is one Author of the great system to
which our globe belongs, since it is found to be a part
of the system, a wheel in the mighty machine ; for
surely it will not be supposed that it was introduced by
one Being among the works of another. While it per
forms its annual revolution around the sun, there are
other bodies revolving at the same time in their orbits,
and for the same purposes, at once to enjoy his light,
and to experience a vicissitude of seasons. Now, the
same law which retains our earth, retains them in their
respective paths, namely, the law of gravitation ; and
to a reflecting mind, what is gravitation but the power
of God ? His power then, acts from Mercury to Ura
nus or the Georgium Sidus ; it is one Being who ex
erts his energy throughout this mighty portion of space.
It will strengthen this conclusion to reflect, that some
at least of the planets are known to be surrounded with
an atmosphere as our globe is ; and that the same ex
pedient has been adopted to relieve the tedium of the
night, by the provision of satellites or moons which ac
company them, and supply light in the absence of the
sun. The eye extends beyond our system, immense as it
seems, and perceives many brilliant points, which we
know to be bodies of great magnitude, that resemble the
sun in being sources of light, and probably also of heat.
We can hardly do any thing more than form conjectures
concerning them. One thing, however, we certainly
know, that the light proceeding from them is subject to
the same laws with the light flowing from the sun, or
from any luminous body on the surface of the earth. It is
perceived by our eyes in the same manner, moves with
the same velocity, is reflected and refracted like any
other rays. Farther our knowledge does not extend ;
but here we have a proof, that he who made the sun
made the stars also. This induction of particulars, we
have been told, serves only to establish a unity of de
sign ; and, notwithstanding the uniformity of nature,
it is possible that it is the work of more agents than
one, who perfectly concurred in counsel and operation.
It may be that what has been said, does not amount to
a strict demonstration : but it cannot be denied, that it
amounts to a high degree of probability, and even to
moral certainty. It is evidence which fully justifies
us in confidently drawing the conclusion, that there is
one God. It does not leave the slightest ground for
suspecting that there are more than one. The mere
possibility that there are more, can have no effect upon
the question. The possibility is lighter than a feather
in the scale, is a mere nonentity, while it is presented
* Fall's Theology, chap. xxv.

04

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

to the mind as only a possibility, without even an at
tempt to prove its reality. With respect to every con
tingent fact, there is a possibility that it might have
been different; but this possibility does not in any de
gree weaken our belief of it, when it is fully attested.
And why should we be one whit more influenced by
the statement, that the uniformity of nature proves on
ly a unity of design ? especially when, in every other
case, from the unity of design we infer the unity of the
Agent or Author. In a composition of great extent,
and embracing a variety of topics, if we perceive the
same spirit, the same train of sentiment, and the same
style, supported from beginning to end, no man would
suppose it to be the production of different persons.
The critic who should give a hint that after all it might
be the work of several individuals, would gain little
credit by his conjecture. There is not more wisdom
in telling us, that all that can be inferred from the ap
pearances around us, is a unity of design. Sound rea
son concludes, without hesitation, that as nature is
one, so its Autbor is one.
But this is not the only argument by which the Di
vine unity is evinced.
First, an argument is drawn from necessary exis
tence. Necessity is simple, uniform, and universal,
without any possible difference, deformity, or variety ;
and all variety or difference of existence must arise
from an external cause, be dependent upon, and propor
tionable to, the efficiency of that cause. Necessity can
not, therefore, be the ground of existence of a number
of beings, however similar and agreeing ; because
without any other difference, even number itself is a
manifest deformity or inequality of efficiency or caus
ality. This is the argument of Dr. Clarke, to which
he adds, " that to suppose two or more beings existing
of themselves, necessarily and independently of each
other, implies this plain contradiction, that each of them
being independent on the other, they may either of
them be supposed to exist alone, so that it will be no
contradiction to imagine the other not to exist ; and
consequently, neither of them will be necessarily exist
ing. Whatsoever, therefore, exists necessarily, is the
one simple essence of the self-existing being."*
Again, it is affirmed, that the existence of more gods
than one is impossible. Let there be two, it has been
said, and let them be called Jupiter and Mars. Nei
ther of them can be acknowledged to be God, unless
both be acknowledged to be infinitely perfect. Does
then Jupiter possess the same numerical perfections
which Mars possesses, or not ? If you deny that he
does, you do not acknowledge Jupiter to be infinitely
perfect, since there are infinite perfections without him,
which he cannot claim. It is necessary, if Jupiter is
God, that he possess all possible perfections, and con
sequently those which are in Mars. But how is this
possible, unless he be the same Deity with Mars, and
consequently there are not two Gods ; or unless Jupi
ter contain in himself, as the cause, the perfections of
Mars, and have communicated them to him. But by
this supposition, the independence, and therefore the
divinity of Mars is destroyed. Hence it appears, that
it is not less contradictory to assert, that there are two
beings infinitely perfect, than that there are two infinite
extensions. But as these could not be without mutu
ally penetrating each other, that is, unless they be in
reality one, or neither of them be true extension, so
two infinitely perfect beings cannot be conceived,
unless the perfections of the one be contained in the
other ; and consequently, they are in fact, not two, but
one, or neither of them is infinitely perfect.
Further, the idea of God is exclusive of participa
tion ; it is appropriated to an individual, and does not
admit of application to more than one. He is not God,
* Clarke's Discourse concerning the Being of God, p. 47.

who has any thing above himself, or any thing besides
himself, which is not dependent upon him. What do
we mean by God, but a Being infinitely perfect, who
comprehends in his essence every conceivable excel
lence, in whom all the attributes of which the human
mind has acquired an idea by reflecting upon itself, 01
by observing other objects, are united and subsist with
out limit or change ? He is not only the First and
the Best, but the Greatest of beings, and consequently
stands alone in the universe ; and when he surveys it
from one end to another, can say, " Is there a God be
sides me? Yea, there is no God ; I know not any."*
The moment you suppose more tban one, you degrade
them all, whether few or many, from the rankofdivin-
ity. We could conceive a being greater than any of
them, a being who had no equal, and was the Supreme
Lord of all things in heaven and earth; and to himwa
should transfer our admiration and reverence. Two
equal Gods are a chimera ; the equality which is inten
ded to preserve their divinity, would destroy it. There
may be more kings than one, because royalty only im
plies, that each is invested in sovereign authority in his
own dominions ; but there cannot be a plurality of
Gods, because from the nature of things, only one can
be possessed of all possible perfection.
In the next place, the unity of God may be proved
from this consideration, that the supposition of more
than one deprives them all of independence, and, con
sequently, none of them would accord with the idea
which we necessarily form of God as the uncontrolled
Ruler of the universe. If there were two Gods, they
would be possessed of equal power ; for the slightest
inequality on the part of either of them, would exclude
him from the rank of Deity. It would be impossible,
therefore, for the one to act without the consent of the
other ; or if he should proceed to act according to his
own will, he would be immediately opposed by power
as great as his own. If it be said, that as both would
be perfect in wisdom, they would always concur in
their views, all that follows is, that there would be no
struggle between them ; but still it would be owing to
this concert, that either of them could act ; and there
fore, both would be dependent, each upon the will of
the other. How different are such beings from the
true God, whose will is the supreme law, who takes
counsel only with his own wisdom, who does not wait
for opportunities, but acts when he pleases, and eees
all his orders readily and punctually obeyed ! r
In the last place, the unity of God may be maintain
ed on this ground, that there is nothing to lead us to
the supposition of a plurality of Gods. Nature, as we
have seen, appears to be the production of one almigh
ty Agent ; and for all the effects which we observe,
one such Agent was sufficient. It is a principle of
science, that " more causes of natural things are not
to be admitted, than are both true and sufficient for ex
plaining their phenomena ;" and if this rule holds good
in the investigations of philosophy, it is of equal au
thority in Theology. Having ascertained that there
exists one Being possessed of infinite perfection, why
should we think of another ? The existence of another
would throw no light upon the system of things, ex
plain- no appearance, account for no effect. It would
introduce confusion into our thoughts, as we should be
unable to tell how the constitution of the universe gave
notice of only one, although there were in reality two ;
and we should be at a loss to know, without special in
formation, to whom we owed our existence, and the trib
ute of gratitude and obedience. The power of one
all-perfect Being was sufficient to create the heavens
and the earth ; the wisdom of one Being whose under
standing is infinite, is sufficient to govern them ; the
goodness of one Being whose resources are inexhaus-

* Is. xliv. 3.

ON GOD: HIS UNITY.

95

tible, is sufficient to supply the wants of all animated
creatures. One Being possessed of theSe attributes is
sufficient to conduct us in the path of life, to protect us
from evil, to excite and realize our most elevated hopes.
Another God would be superfluous and useless.
To the doctrine of the divine unity, there are oppos
ed polytheism, dualism, and, in the opinion of some,
the doctrine of the Trinity.
First, the divine unity is opposed to the opinion of
heathens, ancient and modern, who, with much diver
sity in their respective systems, have agreed in the be
lief of a multiplicity of gods. Whether idolatry began
before the flood, we have no means of determining from
the brief history which Moses has given of the antedi
luvian world ; but we know that it made its appearance
not very long after that event, for the family of Abraham
were worshippers of strange gods, at the time when he
was called to leave his country and his kindred. Of
its origin, or the manner in which it arose, we have no
particular account. It is one of the singular opinions
of Hume, that " polytheism was the primary religion
of men . Mankind, in the earlier ages, were incapable of
such reasoning as would have led them to. the belief
of one Supreme Being: and when, leaving the works
of nature, they traced the footsteps of invisible power
in the various and contrary events of human life, they
necessarily fell into polytheism, and the acknowledg
ment of several limited and imperfect Deities."* His
hypothesis is founded, as we might expect, upon a total
disregard of the authority of Scripture ; and assumes,
according to the dream of some philosophers which is
fit only to amuse children, that the human race origin
ally existed in a savage state, without reason as well
as without revelation ; and arrived step by step at the
knowledge which they at present possess. On the con
trary, we believe that Theism was the primary religion of
men, and that the various forms of idolatry which were
gradually introduced, were so many corruptions of it.
-It is probable that, dazzled by the splendour of the
heavenly bodies, men began to do homage to them as
visible representatives of the Deity, and that from their
real or apparent motions, they came to conceive them
to be animated, and ascribed divinity to them. This
kind of idolatry had commenced in the days of Job.
" If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walk
ing in brightness, and my heart hath been secretly en
ticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand, this also were
an iniquity to be punished by the judge: for 1 should
have denied the God that is above."f Imagination
thus awakened, and freed from the control of reason,
was active in peopling every region of the earth with
its own shadowy productions. The various operations
of nature were no longer understood to be the various
operations of one almighty Agent, but to be carried on
by a multiplicity of agents, who were distinguished by
peculiar attributes, and had different provinces and
offices assigned to them. One launched the thunder
bolt, and another governed the winds; one ruled the
sea, and another the dry land; woods, mountains,
springs, rivers, gardens, fields, had all their tutelar
gods. Poets, who may be called the theologians of
heathenism, enlarged and embellished the system by
their elegant fictions. Great additions were made to
the catalogue of deities by mistaken admiration and
gratitude. Those who had been distinguished by
eminent talents, illustrious achievements, and actions
honourable and beneficial to their respective countries,
were after their death not only celebrated in songs and
by festivals, but were elevated to the celestial regions,
and invested with authority over the affairs of this lower
world. The heaven of the ancient heathens was filled
with heroes, legislators, and the inventors of useful arts.
Men, not willing to retain God in their knowledge,
* See his Natural History of Religion, f Job. xxxi. 26—23.

became vain in their imaginations, and proceeded to
worship and serve the creature instead of the Creator.
The true God was invisible, and they wished a God
whom they could see. Hence they adored the heaven
ly bodies, the sun, the bright ruler of the day, and the
moon, the planets and the stars, whose lustre cheered
the darkness of the night. But as these deities were
too distant from them in nature and in place, their
weakness and wants led to a greater degradation ; and
gods were devised who more nearly resembled them
selves, corporeal gods in human shape, who were
nourished with food and drink, occasionally mingled
with mortals, and were actuated by the same passions
which distinguished the meanest of their worship
pers. It is unnecessary to produce a single argument in re
futation of heathen idolatry. It has been banished from
every country, where reason has been restored to its
proper authority by the aid of revelation ; and subsists
under various modifications, only among those nations
in which gross ignorance prevails.
It is worthy of attention, that amidst the errors of the
heathen world, some traces are discovered of the origin
al belief, in the notion which generally obtained of a
Supreme Deity. Even by the vulgar, who had sunk
into the grossest idolatry, one Deity was acknowledged
to be superior- to the other objects of religious respect,
and was honoured with the title of the Father of gods
and men. Some of the philosophers approached nearer
the truth, and conceived an idea of God as infinitely
superior to the popular divinities ; as a Being incorpo
real, invisible, and incomprehensible, possessed of all
perfections, and to be adored by devout meditation.
Many passages expressive of this sentiment have been
collected from their writings by the industry of learned
men. Pythagoras called God Monas or Unity, and
said, " *fx*i p*v «iw ftavaftt, that unity is the first
principle of all things." Plato declares that polythe
ism is contrary to reason, and Plutarch, that there can
not be many gods. To add no more, Maximus Tyrius
informs us, " that amidst the war of opinions about
many subjects, we may find this one law in all the
earth, that God is one, the king and father of all, and
that the many gods are his children, who rule with him.
These things the Greek says and the barbarian, the in
habitant of the Continent and of the Island, the wise
and the unwise."
Secondly, the divine unity is opposed to dualism, or
the doctrine of two principles, which was held by the
ancient Persians, and was adopted by certain heretics,
in the early ages of the church, and particularly by
Manes, who incorporated with it a variety of notions
borrowed from the Christian system. In general, dual
ism consisted in maintaining, that there were two prin
ciples, called by the Persians Ormusd and Ahriman,
who were either independent beings, or were produced
from all eternity by the first original Being. The for
mer dwelt in light, and the latter in darkness. Ormusd
created man capable of virtue, and furnished his habi
tation with the materials of happiness ; but Ahriman
introduced evil and misery. Hence there is a perpetual
struggle between them, which will terminate in the vic
tory of light over darkness. The following words of
Isaiah are understood to refer to the religious system
of the Persians, who, in the age when he flourished,
believed in two independent principles or supreme
beings: but Zoroaster, the reformer of their theology,
introduced a superior being from whom both were de
rived. They are addressed to Cyrus the king of Persia.
"I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God
besides me : I girded thee, though thou hast not known
me; that they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none besides me : I am
the Lord, and there is none else. I form the lie[ht, and
create darkness ; 1 make peace and create evil. I the

96

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

Lord do all these things."* It is probable that the
system as reformed by Zoroaster, who is supposed to
have had an intercourse with the Jews, was founded
on the tradition of one Supreme God, and angels crea
ted by him, some of whom are good, and others bad ;
and that in its original form, as teaching two indepen
dent beings, of whom the one was the author of good,
and the other of evil, it was a corruption of the tradi
tion concerning God and that apostate spirit, who
brought sin and death into the world. It is evident,
that if this was its origin, the doctrine of Scripture
was grossly misapprehended. Satan, whom the Per
sians called Ahriman, the principle of darkness, was
not created evil, but became evil by his own choice ;
he is not an independent agent, but although engaged
in constant opposition to God, the principle of light, is
subject to his control, can do nothing without his per
mission, nor is able by his most violent efforts to pass
the limits which are assigned to him.
The doctrine of dualism rests upon the mixed state
of things in our world, as its only support. There are
appearances which might lead hasty reasoners to con
clude that it has originated from two opposite causes.
Good and evil are blended together. If man is capable
of virtue, he is capable also of vice; and indeed is so
prone to it, that a general corruption of manners pre
vails. He is hurried headlong by his appetites to abuse
the gifts of the divine bounty, and stimulated by his
passions to deeds of violence and cruelty. Can such a
creature be the work, or exclusively the work of Him,
whom reason represents to us as all goodness and pu
rity ? And how can he be the Creator and sole Governor
of sueh a world as this ? The earth is encumbered with
rocks, covered with barren sands, produces briers and
thorns, and poisonous herbs ; is infested with ferocious
and venomous animals, and in many places is uninhab
itable on account of heat, or cold, or pestilential vapours.
Nature is subject to terrible convulsions ; the ocean
encroaches upon the land ; rain descending in torrents
inundates the fields; storms and earthquakes spread
devastation over provinces and kingdoms ; disease,
sorrow, and death, make havoc of the human race in
the northern and southern hemispheres. Is there not a
malignant power at work to counteract the benefieent
designs of the good Being ?
It is acknowledged, that the appearance of things
might create doubts in the minds of superficial obser
vers ; but it is capable of a satisfactory explanation
upon the principles of sound reason, especially as il
lustrated and confirmed by revelation. Man is a free
agent, as our own consciousness assures us ; he is not
fixed to a particular choice, but among the objects pre
sented to him, he may reject one, and give the prefer
ence to another. He is, therefore, a mutable being ;
and although it may be difficult to trace the process by
which a creature, perfectly virtuous, first deviated from
Tectitude, yet being acquainted with the constitution of
human nature, we are at no loss to understand in gener
al, how moral evil found its way into the world. It is
not the effect of an original mixture of good and evil
in our frame by two contending principles, who were
both concerned in its formation, but it is the result of
an improper use of the liberty with which we were
endowed. Man is the work of God, and when he
came from his hands, was the bright image of his ho
liness ; moral pollution does not belong to his essence,
but is an accident ; he has himself stained his pristine
glory, and covered himself with shame.
If the existence of moral evil can be reconciled with
the belief of one God, holy, just, and good, there is no
difficulty in shewing the consistency of the existence
of physical evil with the doctrine of the unity. What
some men would call imperfections in the works of
* Is. xiv. 5 — 7.

nature, do not at present come under our consideration.
It cannot be proved, we presume, that there are any
such ; but on the supposition that imperfections could
be pointed out, they would not impeach the unity, bu
the power or the wisdom of the Creator. Our concern
is with those facts alone which might be conceived to
indicate a different agent. It is plain that such an in
ference cannot be deduced from physical evils, the ste
rility and ruggedness of the soil, inclement seasons,
and the long train of diseases and casualties to which
mankind are subject ; because if moral evil exists, these
are its natural consequences, or consequences which
might be expected to follow it under the Divine admin
istration. It would be absurd to expect the habitation
of guilty creatures to be a paradise. Knowing their
character beforehand, we should have expected it to be
what it is ; or rather, we should have formed the idea
of a world less beautiful, and more sparingly stored
with accommodations, or of one darkened by the frown
of its Maker, having tbe signatures of his wrath im
pressed upon every part of it. It would never have
occurred to us, that its thorns and briers, its pains and
dangers, were the contrivances of a different being. It
is extreme folly to go about, as some do, to soften down
the evils which exist into some kind of harmony with
the beneficent character of the Deity. This is not ne
cessary to our present argument, unless it were ascer
tained that goodness is his only attribute ; and the
attempt is vain, for the things complained of have
been regarded, in all ages, as evils, and were meant
to be evils, by our righteous Judge, as none can
doubt who give credit to the testimony of Scripture.
"Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt
thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns also
and thistles shall it bring forth to thee ; and thou
shalt eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of thy
face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the
ground ; for out of it wast thou taken ; for dust thou
art, and unto dust shalt thou return."* The earth,
when contemplated in the light of religion, exhibits
no appearance of a divided empire, where two be
ings of opposite characters contend for the mastery ;
it is a rebellious province, in which both mercy and
severity are displayed, and the authority of the rightful
Sovereign is maintained, by wholesome discipline and
necessary punishments.
Lastly, the divine unity is opposed, in the opinion of
some, by the doctrine of the Trinity. The Scriptures
seem to teach, and most Christians believe, that there
are three persons in one undivided essence. The Fa
ther is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is
God. To each of these persons, understanding, will,
and power are ascribed, and they are farther Jistinguish-
ed by peculiar properties and operations. Now, say
the adversaries of this doctrine, whatever countenance
it may receive from the figurative language of Scripture,
it cannot be true, because it is absolutely inconsistent
with the unity of God ; for how is it possible to con
ceive three distinct persons, without conceiving them
to be three distinct beings ? Hence they conclude, that
the dogma of the Trinity ought to be rejected as sub
versive of this primary article of religion, and contrary
to the clearest dictates of reason.
If we fully understood this subject, and could cer
tainly pronounce the Trinity to be incompatible with
the Unity, we should be under the necessity either of
renouncing those passages of Scripture in which it is
taught, as uninspired, or of putting a different interpre
tation upon them. It is plain that the same thing can
not be one and three in the same respect; and were
this the doctrine commonly held concerning God, there
would be no presumption in rejecting it as impossible.
But it is well known that this is a gross misrepresen

* Gen. iii. 17—19.

ON GOD: HIS IMMENSITY.

9?

tation, and that Trinitarians believe God to be one in
one sense, and three in another. There is an error
into which men are in danger of falling, which is com
mitted by the opponents of this doctrine, and it consists
in transferring to the Creator notions derived from their
knowledge of creatures. We find that every living
creature is an individual ; that every man is a single
person ; and hence the ideas of one nature and one per
son are intimately and inseparably conjoined in our
thoughts. These ideas we carry with us, when God
is the subject of contemplation ; and forgetting the in
finite disparity between him and ourselves, we suppose
that there can be nothing in his nature which is not in
ours. It is a greater error than if a fly, endowed with
thought, should make itself a standard to man, and
maintain that he could possess no quality to which there
was not something corresponding in its own constitution.
In some instances, we are compelled to admit that
there are certain properties of the Divine nature which
have-no counterpart in us. We and all other creatures
are limited in being and powers, and are confined to a
place ; but his essence and attributes are infinite, and he
is present in every part of the universe. The duration
of creatures is measured by time, or a succession of
instants: but in the duration of him who is without.
beginning as well as without end, there can be no
succession, for reasons formerly explained. These are
as great mysteries, and seem to be as repugnant to
reason as the doctrine of the Trinity. How long will
it be till some men are convinced of the weakness of
the human intellect, by considering the objects around
them, none of which they are able to comprehend ?
How long will it be till they learn one of the first les
sons of philosophy, that we cannot penetrate into the
essence of things, and must content ourselves with the
simple knowledge of facts ?
If there is satisfactory proof of the doctrine of the
Trinity, and what higher evidence can we demand re
specting the nature of God than his own testimony, we
are bound to receive it without disputing, and to believe
that a plurality of persons is consistent with unity of
essence, although we do not know how to reconcile
them. It is no excess of humility in creatures, who
have just begun to open their eyes and to look around
them, to acknowledge that things may be, of which
they can form no conception ; that there may be truths
which their minds cannot grasp ; that between finite
beings, and Him who is infinite, no comparison can be
instituted ; and Consequently, that a conclusion founded
on the supposition that the one is the measure of the
other, is presumptuous and false.
The doctrine of the unity settles religion upon a firm
and immoveable foundation. We experience nothing
of the uncertainty and anxiety which distressed the
ancient heathens, who, amidst a multitude of gods,
were sometimes at a loss to determine whom it was ne
cessary to propitiate, by whose hand evils had been in
flicted, and benefits bestowed. Knowing that there is
only one God, we assure ourselves of his presence in ev
ery place, and of his agency in every event. If there
is evil in the city, he has done it; and if good come,
it can be traced to his bounty. Whithersoever we go,
his eye beholds, and his power sustains us. It is his
goodness which smiles around us in the fair scenes of
creation ; it is his inspiration which excites worthy
thoughts in our minds, and devout affections in our
hearts. We know to whom we should turn in the hour
of difficulty, and to whom the tribute of our grateful hearts
should be paid. " It is he that sitteth upon the circle of
the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers ;
that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spread-
eththem out as a tent to dwell in. To whom then will ye
liken me, or shall I be equal "! saith the Holy One."*

N

* Is. xl. 22, 25.

LECTURE XIX.

ON GOD.

Immensity of God: denied by some— Definition (f Immensity;
distinguished from Omnipresence; proofs of Immensity — Dis
tinguished from Infinite Extension — Unwarrantable Specu.
lations respecting it — Presence of God with his Creatures —
Practical Reflections.
Our inquiries concerning the existence and unity of
God, are not mere speculations which have no connec
tion with our duty and our happiness. Whether there
is a living intelligent Being, possessed of every possi
ble perfection1, would be a point which we might spare
ourselves the labour of ascertaining, if the investiga
tion were to terminate in the simple knowledge of the
fact. It is inconceivable, however, that a subject, con
fessedly the most sublime which the mind can contem
plate, should be so barren of advantage. If there is a
God, infinite in excellence, and the. Parent of the uni
verse, there must subsist certain relations between him
and men, whose existence and faculties are the gifts of
his bounty : there must be duties arising from those
relations, which the law of our nature binds us to per
form ; and there are expectations excited by the expe
rience of his goodness, which almighty power can re
alize. It is natural therefore to ask, Where is this
great Being so worthy of our admiration and homage,
that we may offer to him our tribute of adoration and
thanksgiving, and, with all humility, supplicate his
favour and protection ? W7ith a devout man in ancient
times, we may say, " Oh that we knew where we might
find him ! that we might come even to his seat."* Is
he afar off, or is he near ? Is he on earth, or in heaven ?
If there is some region of the universe which he has
chosen as his habitation, it may be so distant that our
feeble voice cannot reach it, nor can his arm be extend
ed to us.
The heathens who multiplied their deities, conceived
them to be limited beings, who were confined to par
ticular places, and had different provinces assigned to
them. We have proofs of these unworthy ideas espe
cially in the writings of the poets. They prevailed
not only among the Greeks and Romans, but among
other nations; and hence we find, that when the Syri
ans had been defeated by the Israelites, supposing Je
hovah to be only a local Deity, they said to their king,
" Their Gods are Gods of the hills, therefore they were
stronger than we ; but let us fight against them in the
plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they."f
Such of them, however, as rising above the vulgar su
perstition, approximated to more just conceptions of
the Supreme Being, seem to have entertained some no
tion of his universal presence. " Quocunque te flexe-
ris," says Seneca, " ibi ilium videbis occurrentem tihi :
nihil ab illovacat; opus suum ipse implet."^: We
meet him every where: no place is without him; he
fills his own work. Virgil too has these well-known
lines : Drum namque ire per omnes
Terrasque, tractusque maris, coslunique profundum ||
But we should remember when such passages occur,
that they admit of an interpretation different from what
the words suggest to us ; for, by some of the philoso
phers, God was supposed to be the soul of the world,
diffused through all its parts, and consequently a mate
rial Being.
Mahomet must have believed that God had a bodily
shape and a local residence, since he pretended to have
seen him when he was taken up into heaven, and tells
us that between his eyebrows the distance was equal

*Jobxxi'i.3. t lKingsxx.23. ( Benefic. Lib. iv. 8.
|| Virg. Gei.rg. iv. 221. For God pervades all lands, the
fields of ocear, and the lofty heavens.

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

98
to a journey of three days. Some of the elder Socini
ans appear to have fallen into the same gross error ;
and Biddle, against wljom Dr. Owen wrote his book
entitled, Vindiciae Evangelicae, maintained that " God
glisters with glory, and is resident in a certain place
of the heavens, so that we may distinguish between
his right and left hand by bodily sight."* In the
Racovlan catechism, or the catechism of the Sooinian
churches in Poland, the immensity of God is defined
to be, " the highest perfection of his dominion, power,
wisdom, and providence, extending to all things, and
excluded from no place."f Nothing is said respecting
the immensity of his essence.
In opposition to all these opinions, we%iaintain not
only that God knows all things, and rules over all
things, but that he is present in all places, and with
all creatures at all times ; or in other words, that he is
infinite in essence as well as in wisdom and power.
Bodies exist in space, which has been defined to be,
"extension void of matter or body, and capable of re
ceiving or containing matter or body." A particular
body occupies only a portion of space ; there are other
portions of space where it is not. As body consists of
parts, its limits are exactly defined. It has length,
breadth and thickness ; and the lines terminating these
constitute figure. The earth, the sun, mountains, trees,
and men, fill certain parts of space, and may be seen
from other parts of space, but in these they do not ex
ist. All this is quite obvious ; but we find greater dif
ficulty when we proceed to speak of spirits, because,
as they have no parts, no dimensions and figure, we do
not understand their relation to space. Of this, how
ever, we are certain, that, to use the language of the
Schools, they also have an ubi ; so that the question
may be asked, Where are they ? and an answer may be
returned, that they are here, and not there. They do
not fill the place where they are, because they are not
material ; but they are so in it, as not to be in any other
place. This is plain with respect to our own spirits. They
are so connected with our bodies, that they are where
these are, and no where else. In consequence of their
presence in a particular place, they can perceive ob
jects within a limited sphere; but beyond it their percep
tion does not extend. They are insulated, and can nei
ther act nor be acted upon by objects at a certain dis
tance, unless they are brought near, or some mode of
'communication with them is established. There is no
doubt, that all other created spirits exist in the same
manner in a place. This we are explicitly taught
concerning angels, who are represented as moving from
place to place and as at one time in heaven and at anoth
er time on earth. But you cannot ask, W"here is God ?
if you mean that he may be in one place and not in
another. His presence is not local; it is universal.
" Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God
afar off? Do not I fill heaven and earth ? saith the
Lord."t A distinction is made between the immensity, and
the omnipresence or ubiquity of God. When we call
his essence immense, we mean that it has no limits ;
when we say that it is omnipresent, we signify that it
is wherever creatures are. These propositions are not
the same, unless creation be infinite ; but although we
cannot trace its boundaries, and its extent surpasses all
calculation, yet there is this objection against suppos
ing it to be absolutely unlimited, that it would be to
suppose every part to be finite, but the whole infinite.
By the same reasoning which proves that there could
not be an eternal succession of beings, each of which
began to exist, it is proved that the whole mass of co
existing created beings cannot be infinite. The attri-

* Owen's Vind. Evang. Chap. ii.
t Catechesis Eccles Polon. Sew-- '%.. de Dei natura, cLap i
t Jer. xxiii. 23, 24

butes of God are distinguished into absolute and rela
tive. His absolute attributes are those which may be
considered without the supposition of any other thing;
his relative attributes are those, the exercise of which
supposes the existence of other beings, to whom they
have a respect. Immensity is an absolute perfection ;
it belongs to his essence, which, as it necessarily ex
ists, is necessarily infinite. Omnipresence is a relative
perfection ; for, to say that he is present with all things,
supposes that other things exist besides himself. At
the same time, this statement is so far inaccurate, as it
may seem to imply that immensity and omnipresence
are different ; for they are, in truth, the same perfection
under different aspects. Omnipresence is merely the
relation of immensity to the universe; and all that we
assert is, that God is present wherever his creatures
are, but his essence is not bounded by creation ; for he
is present where no creatures are, and consequently, if
new worlds were created, would be present also with
them. Some have attempted to prove the immensity of God
from his necessary existence. He exists by an abso
lute necessity of nature, and by the same necessity he
is infinite. This necessity being absolute in itself, it
has been said, and not depending upon any external
cause, it is evident that it must be every where, as well
as always unalterably the same ; or to express the idea
more plainly, this necessity is the reason of his exis
tence in every place, as well as throughout all duration.
A necessity which is not every where the same, is
plainly a consequential necessity only, depending upon
some external cause and not an absolute one in its own
nature ; for, a necessity absolutely such in itself, has
no relation to time and place, or any thing else. What
ever therefore exists by an absolute necessity in its
own nature, must needs be infinite as well as eternal.
To suppose a finite being to be self-existent, is to say
that it is a contradiction for that being not to exist,
while its absence or non-existence may be conceived
without any contradiction; which is the greatest absur
dity in the world. For, if a being can without a con
tradiction be absent from one place, it may without a
contradiction be absent likewise from another place,
and from all places ; and whatever necessity it may
have of existing, must arise from some external cause,
and not absolutely from itself; and, consequently, the
being cannot be self-existent. We can conceive no
reason why a necessary being should be in one place,
and not in another. To suppose it to be finite, suppo
ses some cause which determined that it should possess
such a quantity of being, and no more. That cause
must either be a voluntary cause, or else such a neces
sary cause, the quantity of whose power is determined
and limited by some other cause. But in an original
absolute necessity, antecedent in the order of nature to
the existence of any thing, nothing of all this can take
place, but the necessity is necessarily every where
alike. I have stated this argument nearly in the words of
Dr. Clarke.* Its abstruseness renders it difficult of
apprehension, and altogether useless to the great major
ity of mankind. It has even not given complete satis
faction to some who were as profound as himself. It
is plain, I think, that no reason can be conceived why
a necessary being should be limited ; and that limita
tion presupposes a prior cause, by which the measure
of any thing is determined. I confess, however, that
I do not understand the meaning of making necessity
in the order of nature antecedent to the existence of
God. Sueh necessity is an abstraction of which I can
form no idea, and seems to me as unintelligible as the
Fate of the heathens, to which gods and men were
* Discourse concerning the Being and Attributes of God
p. 44.

OxV GOD: HIS IMMENSITY.

99

alike subject.
ing more.

Both, I suspect, are words, and noth-

proceed to lay before you arguments which are
more level to common capacities.
In the first place, it has been already observed, that
when we speak of God, we mean a Being possessed
of every possible perfection ; because if only one were
wanting, we could conceive another being still more
perfect than he to whom we bad first directed our at
tention ; and that other would be God. We unite in
one assemblage all the excellencies which we observe
in creatures, free from mixture and limitation ; we join
to these every other excellence which we can conceive,
although in creatures no trace of it should appear ; and
we refer all, whether communicable or incommunica
ble, to the Divine nature, as their proper and original
subject. Now, the limited nature of creatures is evi
dently an imperfection ; and it is because such is our
judgment, that we consider those creatures which can,
if I may speak so, enlarge their being by the power of
locomotion, as having an advantage above those which
are fixed to a particular place. If vegetables were sen
tient beings, we should deem animals superior to them,
foi this single reason, that they were not like them at
tached to the soil. And among the qualities which ex
alt angels above men, this is one, that although they
cannot be in more places than one at the same time,
yet they can pass from heaven to earth, and successive
ly visit the various parts of creation. The limited na
ture of man is manifestly the cause of his imperfec
tion. His sensations, enjoyments, and operations,
are confined to a narrow sphere, beyond which events
are taking place over which he has no control, and
sources of happiness exist, from which he can draw
no supply. Hence fancy in its dreams has sometimes,
with a view to remedy this defect, invested him with
a power to transport himself from place to place at
his pleasure. The result is, that in our opinion it is
better for a being to be in many places than in few,
to be in all places than in many. To suppose, there
fore, God to exist only in one part of the universe,
to be in heaven but not upon earth, to circumscribe
his essence within any boundaries however wide
ly extended, would be to conceive of him as similar to
his creatures. It would be easy to imagine a being
still more perfect, for certainly he would be more per
fect who was present at the same time in heaven and
on earth. Thus it appears that it is agreeable to rea
son to ascribe immensity to God.
In the second place, immensity is necessarily implied
in the other perfections of the divine nature; or those
perfections are such, that unless the divine nature were
immense, they would not belong to it. What the per
fections of God are, and that he is actually possessed
of them, will be afterwards shewn ; and in the mean
time, we may be permitted to assume their existence.
Every sound theist ascribes infinite perfections to God,
infinite power, infinite wisdom, infinite goodness, and
consequently must believe his essence to be infinite;
for it would be a manifest absurdity to suppose a Being
to have infinite perfections and a finite nature, to be
limited and unlimited at the same time. It is one of
our clearest conceptions, that the degree of any quality
must be relative to the nature in which it is inherent,
as the effect is proportioned to the cause. We are
sometimes surprised to find a degree of power in cer
tain creatures, much exceeding what their appearance
had led us to expect; but we are never led to think
that it may be indefinitely increased so as to be equal
to every possible effect. It will be readily granted,
that the divine understanding is infinite, or that God
knows all things throughout the whole extent of the
creation. The question of the Psalmist contains its
own answer : " He that planted the ear, shall he not
hear1 He that formed the eye, shall he not see ? He

that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know ?"*
The source of intelligence must bean intelligent Being;
the Maker of all things must be acquainted with his
own works. But how should he know every thing in
the universe, ample as its boundaries are, and innumer
able as are the substances of which it is composed, if
he had a local habitation in a particular portion of space ?
Some things would be too distant to be seen, or too
minute to be observed, or transacted in such secrecy as
to be unknown to all who were not present on the spot.
The universal and particular knowledge of God, his
knowledge of all creatures without the exception of the
least or the most obscure, and of all the circumstan
ces relating to them, endlessly diversified and often too
subtile and slender to be the objects of human observa
tion, presupposes his immediate presence on the scene
of their existence. There is no intelligible way of ac
counting for his infinite knowledge, but that of the
Psalmist : " Thou compassest my path, and my lying
down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there
is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou know
est it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and be
fore, and laid thine hand upon me."f I might farther
illustrate this point, by shewing that the almighty
power of God presupposes the infinity of his essence,
but the observations which might be made will occur
under the next argument.
In the third place, the immensity of the Divine Being
may be proved from his works. The' creation of all
things out of nothing, required almighty power. The
power of God is not something distinct from his es
sence, but is his essence itself in energy, or God him
self working. But we cannot conceive any being to
act where it is not; the action of every being with
which we are acquainted, supposes its presence. The
actions of men are confined to the spot on which they
reside; and if they are said to act at a distance, it is in
a figurative sense, because their orders are executed by
persons employed in their service. But God made use
of no ministers, or subordinate agents, in the work of
creation, and must therefore have been present in eve
ry portion of space where any being exists besides
himself. If we turn our attention to the providential govern
ment of the universe, we shall be led to the same con
clusion respecting the omnipresence of God. Reason
and revelation concur in bearing testimony to this truth,
that the system of nature is sustained by the same
power which raised it out of nothing. To imagine,
that after it was arranged and subjected to certain laws,
it was left to itself, and that it moves, like a well con
structed machine, without requiring the interference of
the artist is an opinion which no man would adopt after
due reflection, and which in reality renders the. universe
independent of its Maker. The laws of nature, to
which its order and preservation are ascribed, are no
thing hut the established and uniform methods accord
ing to which his power is exerted. But where the
effect is, there also must be the cause ; where we see
displays of power, there we should seek for him to
whom the power belongs. We observe a variety of
changes taking place, and we can often discover the
immediate causes or antecedents; but we do not per
ceive the link which connects them. We know that
power is exerted; but the more we reflect, the more we
are convinced that the conclusion of sound philosophy
is just that it is not the power of creatures but of the
Creator. All the movements which we observe in the
universe, are so many proofs of a present Deity. Al
though he is not visible to mortal eyes, yet all nature
proclaims him to be near.
Where, I ask, is the region in which God may not
be found ? Go to the most dismal spot upon the globe ;

* Psiilm xciv. 9, 10.

f Psalm cxxiix. 3 — 5.

100
to a spot, if such exists, where no plant vegetates,
and no animal breathes ; in this dreary solitudeyou shall
trace him in the eternal snow which covers it, in the
rocks which rear their dark pinnacles to the sky, and
in the waves which beat upon its melancholy shores !
Retire to a wilderness impressed with no mark of human
footsteps, and you shall perceive him in every thing
which lives, in the waving grass and the flowers which
"waste their sweetness in the desert air;" for all live,
and move, and have their being in him ! Lift your eyes
to the heavens, and contemplate the splendid bodies
which are scattered there in magnificent profusion.
Remark their number, their magnitude, their revolu
tions, and their order; and then tell me, what could
sustain them, what could guide them in their course,
what could prevent them from running to confusion, but
the arm of Omnipotence which holds them in its grasp ?
Look into the abysses of space at a distance from us
which overpower the imagination : who kindled the
living fires with which they glow? who nourishes the
flame which has burned with undiminished brightness
for thousands of years ? Is it not the same Being who
breathed into our nostrils the breath of life? "Every
thing which you see, is God," said an ancient poet.
We may object to his language, as confounding the
Worker with his works ; but with a slight alteration
we may say, that every object which meets our eye on
the surface of the earth, and in the expanse above us,
announces the presence of God. By him the sun shines,
the winds blow, the earth is clothed with vegetation,
and the tides of the ocean rise and fall. Every where
he exists in the fulness of perfection. The universe isa
magnificent temple, erected by his own hands, in which
He whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain, mani
fests himself to his intelligent creatures. The Divine
inhabitant fills it, and every part shines with his glory.
It may occur to you, that these arguments prove only
the omnipresence of God, or his presence throughout
the whole creation, to know, to uphold, and to govern
it. It is acknowledged that this is the amount of the
evidence; but no person, I presume, who has gone so
far, will choose to stop and say, This is the limit of
creation, and the limit also of the Divine essence. No
reason could be assigned for circumscribing it; but as
we have found it in every step of our progress through
the universe, we naturally conclude, that if we couid
pursue the search, we should find it where it exists
alone. He who believes that the power of God is al
mighty, will not doubt that he could create new worlds,
and therefore must admit, that as he could not act
where he is not, he is present where no sun shines and
no planet rolls. For all practical purposes, it is enough
to know that he fills heaven and earth ; but truth re
quires us to acknowledge the absolute immensity of
his nature, because if he were bounded by creation,
we could conceive a Being still greater, and that Being
would be God.
In reflecting upon this subject, great caution is ne
cessary to avoid ideas derogatory to the honour of God,
and inconsistent with the spirituality of his nature.
Immensity we are apt to confound with extension, be
cause we are accustomed to think only of the presence
of bodies which fill space by their dimensions, and can
be made to occupy a larger portion of it only by beino-
extended. Thus, light fills the solar system by means
of rays propagated in all directions from the sun. In
like manner, the atmosphere is diffused over the whole
globe, and while it rests in the vallies, surrounds by
extension the tops of the highest mountains, being a
substance composed of parts placed one beyond another.
This idea, so familiar to our minds, we carry alono
with us in our speculations concerning the Supreme
Being, forgetting that as he is a Spirit, it is totally in
applicable. We believe that created spirits have a
place, so that it may be said that they are here, but. not

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

there; but we cannot conceive tbem literally to fill 8
portion of space, without contradicting ourselves, and
assio-ning to them one of the properties of body at the
very^moment when we speak of them as incorporeal.
No man would say that the soul fills a particular part
of the body, or that the place of an angel has dimen
sions; for it would follow that spirits, like bodies,
would be greater or less, that they might be divided,
expanded, or compressed ; that is, that they are spirits
and not spirits ; or that there are no such beings as spir
its, and those which are called such, are animated mat
ter in an invisible form. To suppose, then, the immensi
ty of the Divine essence to consist in boundless exten
sion, is to materialize the Deity, for that which is ex
tended has parts, and what has parts is' not a spirit Ex
tension consists in the addition of parts, each occupying
a certain portion of space. Infinite extension is impos
sible ; the addition of parts might go on _ for ever, and
the aggregate be always increasing, but it could never
be actually infinite. When men talk of an infinite se
ries, they cannot mean, if they reflect, a series which
at this moment is actually infinite, but a series which
is running on in infinitum, or never comes to an end.
In the nature of things, it cannot be that the Divine es
sence is infinitely extended. When each part is finite,
the whole cannot be infinite.
We must therefore form a different idea of the Di
vine immensity ; or rather, while we deny that the
Divine essence is extended, we must acknowledge that
we cannot comprehend its immensity. " Such knowl
edge is loo wonderful for us ; it is high, we cannot
attain unto it."* God, it has been said, is wholly in
the whole world, yet so as to be wholly in each of its
parts ; he co-exists with the world which is divided
into parts, but without parts in himself, and in an in
divisible manner. Wherever he is, he is wholly in all
things, yet beyond all ; included in no place, and ex
cluded from none ; and not so much in a place, because
finite cannot comprehend infinite, as in himself: and
hence the Rabbies call him place, to intimate that he is
not contained in place, but contains all things in him
self. The Schoolmen have said that God is every
where present instar puncti, like a point. Dr. Owen
remarks, that their design was to express how God is
not in a place, rather than how he is.f He is not pre
sent like bodies which have dimensions. Dr. Clarke
pronounces the expression to be altogether unintelligi
ble, but adds, " that which we can most safely affirm,
and which no- atheist can say is absurd, and which
nevertheless is sufficient to all wise and good purposes,
is this ; that whereas all finite and created beings can
be present but in one definite place at once, and corpo
real beings even in that one place very imperfectly and
unequally, to any purpose of power and activity, only
by the successive motion of different members and or
gans ; the Supreme Cause, on the contrary, being an
infinite and most simple essence, and comprehending
all things perfectly in himself, is at all times equally
present, both in his simple essence, and by the imme
diate and perfect exercise of all his attributes, to every
point of the boundless immensity, as if it were really
all but one single point."!;
Here we must stop, lest pushing our inquiries too far,
we involve ourselves in confusion and darken counsel by
words without knowledge. We are in the utmost dan
ger of doing so upon a subject confessedly mysterious ;
and in attempting to be profound, we may cease to be
rational, and make use of expressions which neither
we nor any other person can understand. God is pre
sent in every point of space after the manner of a
spirit, and is present every where in all the fulness of
perfection.

* Psalm exxxix. 6. t Vindicbe Evangelicae, p. 54.
t Disc, on Being and Attributes, p. 46.

ON GOD : HIS IMMENSITY.

101

¦ Some philosophers have indulged themselves in cu
rious speculations about space. God has been called
the substratum of space ; or in other words, as space
is supposed to be necessarily existing, and yet is not
itself a substance, it supposes a substance of which it
is a property, namely God, who exists by necessity of
nature. It is true, that we cannot conceive space to be
annihilated, and it may therefore be said necessarily to
exist; but if it were certain that there is no God, its
annihilation would still be inconceivable ; although in
that case it would not be a property of any thing, but
would subsist by itself, if it beany thing, and not mere
ly a mode, or the relation of beings to one another in re
spect of situation. Some have proceeded farther, and
maintained that space is God, because it is infinite,
eternal, immutable, and self-existent, as well as impas
sible and indivisible. It has been objected, that if
space be God himself, all bodies are situated in God as
in their proper place, and each of them occupies a
greater or less portion of his essence according to its
size ; that the Divine Being, although immeasurable as
a whole, has millions of parts which are measurable
by feet, yards, and miles, and one part of him is larger
than another ; that every part of space contains the
Divine perfections complete, or only n part of them,
according to its dimensions, a certain measure of his
wisdom, and holiness, and goodness ; and that as a
spirit is not extended, space can neither be God him
self nor a property of his essence, to which it is as
absurd to ascribe extension as it would be to ascribe
thought to a stone. I have deemed it proper to take
notice of these speculations, because they have been
broached by ingenious men. They are more curious
than useful, and perhaps they would be more justly
characterized as presumptuous. We can hardty, in
speaking of them, avoid expressing ourselves in a
manner not very consistent with the reverence due to
that great and awful Being in whose presence we con
stantly are.
The omnipresence of God does not imply that his
essence is mixed with his creatures, as the atmosphere
is in contact with the various substances upon earth,
enters into the bodies of animals and vegetables, and
is incorporated with them. He is indeed most inti
mately present with them, more intimately present than
they are with one another. He is around them, if we
may speak so, and within them ; he resides in the in
most recesses of their souls ; he animates them, up
holds them, and exerts his energy throughout their
whole frame ; but still between him and them there is
a perfect and eternal distinction. His presence neither
deifies them, nor makes him a partaker of their infirmi
ties. He is not a component part of the universe, as
they supposed who believed him to be the soul of the
world ; he holds it in the hollow of his hand, to use
the sublime language of Scripture, but is as complete
ly separated from it, as if he dwelt beyond its bounda
ries : he fills it, but without commixtion. It by no
means follows from the immensity of God, that we
may address our prayers to particular parts of the uni
verse, as some have alleged, pleading in favour of
idolatry, that creature's may be worshipped because the
Creator is present in them. It is indeed a proper con
clusion from this doctrine that our worship should not
be confined to a particular spot, because throughout the
whole world he is equally near to us in his essence
and perfections, ready to hear us, and able to help us.
But the argument, that a creature may be worshipped
on account of his presence with it, is obviously false
for this reason, that although he is with and in that
creature, it does not partake of his essence, and is en
dowed with none of his perfections. God is as distinct
from itas if he were separated by local distance ; and the
argument, by concluding too much, concludes nothing.
It would convert all the parts of nature into objects of

worship, because God is as much present with the
meanest reptile as with the highest spirit, with the
clods of the valley as with the sun in the heavens.
Again, we must not suppose, that in consequence of
his presence with creatures, God is affected by them,
as we are by the objects which are near to us. Soma
objects are disagreeable to our senses, and cause pain
or disgust : and various emotions are excited in our
minds by external things as well as by our own thoughts.
Our happiness is in a great measure dependent upon
the influences to which we are exposed; and we find it
difficult, if not impossible, to abstract ourselves from
the circumstances in which we are placed. But the
Divine, nature is not passive, or liable to impressions;
and hence, in the language of the schools, God is a
pure act, always in energy but never acted upon. With
respect to material objects, it is certain that their gen
eral power to affect us arises from the material organs
of our bodies, and their particular effect is owing to
our peculiar constitution. We cannot conceive, that if
we were pure spirits, matter could operate upon us as
it does at present ; and it is even certain, that if pur
organs had been differently formed, substances and ob
jects which are offensive to us would have been grate
ful. This is evident from the history of animated be
ings, among which we discover a great variety of hab
its and tastes ; so that places which some shun are the
favourite resorts of others, and substances which one
rejects, furnish high gratification to another. No error,
therefore, could be more gross than to think, that it
would in any degree impair the happiness of God to
be present in places which would excite uneasy sensa
tions in us. These sensations are merely relative, and
besides are excited by means of corporeal organs ; and,
consequently, we judge of God by ourselves, when we
imagine that one place would be less agreeable to him
than another. Our minds also are subject to impres
sions from the conversation, the conduct, and the con
dition of our fellow men, all which are calculated to
make us cheerful or melancholy, to incite us to good or
to tempt us to evil. But an infinitely perfect and inde
pendent Being, is an undisturbed spectator of human
things. As a moral Being, he approves or disapproves,
yet without any commotion of mind ; and his peace is
not more affected than ours is by the sportive flight, the
contests and the sufferings of insects. The praises of
mortals add nothing to his blessedness, which is already
perfect; nor do their crimes and blasphemies diminish it.
He is in heaven, on earth, and in hell ; but independent
of time and place, he enjoys the profound repose of all-
sufficiency. We change him into a being like our
selves, when we fear lest his intimate presence with
creatures should degrade his dignity or interrupt his fe
licity. " If thou sinnest, what dost thou against him ?
or if thy transgressions be multiplied, what dost thou
unto him ? If thou be righteous, what givest thou
him ? or what receiveth he of thy hand ? Thy wick
edness may hurt a man as thou art, and thy righteous
ness may profit the son of man."*
The doctrine of the Divine omnipresence is not in
consistent with those passages of Scripture, which rep
resent God as peculiarly present in certain places and
with certain individuals. To superficial thinkers, it
may seem to be an objection that he is said to have re
sided in the temple of Jerusalem ; to be in the souls
of good men, and to dwell in the heaven of heavens.
A very little attention is sufficient to a right understand
ing of such expressions. It is obvious that they were
not intended to suggest the idea that the Divine essence
is confined to any of those places, because, while God
is said to be in one of them, he is said at the same
time to be in the others; to be in heaven, for example,
while he was in the temple ; to be with angels in glo-

* Job xxxv. 6 — 8.

102

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

ry, as well as with men upon earth ; to be with all
good men scattered over the surface of the globe, and
not merely with one or two living together. The de
sign plainly is to state, that in the places referred to,
there are particular manifestations of his glory. He
was present in the temple by a visible symbol, abright-
ness which appeared between the cherubim in the holy
of holies. Go now to the spot on which it stood, and
you shall see no token of him more than in the dark
recess of a heathen temple ; but God is still there in
his invisible and mysterious essence. He is present
in the souls of good men by the operations of his Spirit,
who illuminates, sanctifies, and comforts them ; but he
is present also in the souls of bad men, although he
does not reveal himself by the gracious exertion of his
power. He is present in heaven by a clearer and more
impressive display of his infinite excellencies, and
more ample emanations of his love, than he has given
in any other part of creation ; but he is present also in
hell, where the terrors of his power and justice are
manifested in the punishment of the finally impenitent.
In respect of his essence, there is no place where God
is more present than in another, nor any person to
whom he is nearer than to another. But, in some pla
ces, he discovers himself more distinctly to the exter
nal senses, or the internal feelings of his creatures;
there are openings in the cloud, through which the
rays of light are transmitted, and turning our eyes to
them, we say, God is there, without supposing that he
is not where we do not perceive him. 1 conclude with
the words of the Psalmist: •' Whither shall I go from
thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence ?
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make
my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the
wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts
of the sea ; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy
right hand shall hold me. If I say, surely the dark
ness shall cover me ; even the night shall be light
about me. Yea the darkness hideth not from thee ; but
the night shineth as the day ; the darkness and the light
are both alike to thee."*
The doctrine of the Divine immensity furnishes a
powerful motive to restrain us from sin. We are con
tinually in the presence of God, and every deviation
from his law exposes us to his displeasure. When
men are about to commit iniquity, they retire into their
closets, and shut the door, or seek out some other soli
tary place where there is no spectator. They look this
way and that way, that there may be no witness of
their unlawful deeds ; and having thus secured them
selves, they dismiss all fear. But let them stop, and
look again. Is there not One near who has escaped
their observation, because he appears only to the eye
of the mind, and who is more to be dreaded than ten
thousand human witnesses ? Yes ; there is an eye
which sees them in the darkest recess, and which men
aces with death and eternal misery every soul of man
that doth evil. And where shall they find a refuge
from his vengeance? "Though they dig into hell,
thence shall mine hand take them ; though they climb
up to heaven, thence will I bring them down."f
Again, from the omnipresence of God there arises a
powerful argument for sincerity in religion, because he
is not only around us to take notice of our actions, but
within us to observe our thoughts and volitions. Men
may mistake our motives ; but his judgment is neces
sarily unerring, because the whole case is before him.
He approves, and will reward the upright, whatever
uncharitable constructions an uncandid world may put
upon their conduct : He abhors, and will expose to
public scorn the hypocrite, who gained the applause of
virtue by his studied and successful imitation of it.
How justly does he deserve his doom ! he is guilty ;

* Ps. cxxxix. 7—12.

f Auios. ix. 2.

and how audacious is his impiety ! he is guilty of act
ing a base part, under the immediate inspection of the
Searcher of hearts.
Lastly, to the righteous this doctrine is a source of
abundant consolation. In every place they meet a
friend, a protector, and a father. Does the voice of
thunder, or the raging of the ocean, or the fnry of the
tempest, announce his presence ? They have nothing
to fear, for love to them presides over the commotions
of the elements. Do they perceive Him in the more
tranquil scenes of nature, in the silent progress of vege
tation, in the smiles of the heavens, and in the regular
beneficence which supplies their returning wants, and
diffuses so much happiness among all classes of ani
mated beings? Oh! how delightful the thought that
He, in whom they repose confidence, is so near that
they may always assure themselves of ready and effec
tual aid ! This thought is fitted to enliven every scene,
and to sweeten every condition. It will make the
springs of joy burst out in the parched and thirsty wil
derness, and clothe the naked and cheerless waste with
verdure. It will give a relish lo a dry morsel, and a
cup of cold water. It will lighten the pressure of
poverty, and soothe the pangs of affliction. It will dis
sipate the horrors of a dungeon, and console the exile
from his country and his friends. How transporting
the thought, that we cannot go where God is not! A
good man may be bereaved of his reputation, his
liberty, his earthly all ; but the deadly hatred of his
enemies can never so far succeed as to draw from him
the mournful complaint, " Ye. have taken away my
God, and what have I more ?" With whatever afflic
tions his faith and patience may be tried, and whatever
change of circumstances a wise providence may ap
point him to undergo, although there should be no
human heart to sympathise with him, and no kind hand
to perform the offices of friendship, he can express his
faith and joy in the words of an ancient saint, "Never
theless I am continually with thee; thou holdest me
by my right hand. Thou wilt guide me by thy coun
sel, and afterward receive me to thy glory."*

LECTURE XX.

ON GOD.

Immutability of God — Proofs — Immutability of the Existence,
the Knowledge, the Counsels, the Moral Perfections, aud the
Felicity of God — Immutability not inconsistent with the act
of Creation, the doctrine of the Incarnation, or the language
of the Scriptures— Practical Reflections.
We have found that the universe is not eternal and
independent, but that there is a Being distinct from it,
who was anterior in existence as he is superior in dig
nity. He is absolutely eternal, without beginning of
days or end of life, and is separated from matter by the
spirituality of his essence. We have spoken of him in
tbe singular number, because it is demonstrable that he
is strictly One, existing alone without any associate.
Unlike the gods of the heathen world, he is not at
tached to any place, but exists every where, unlimited
in essence as he is in duration. To a Being, of whom
immensity may be predicated, we are naturally led to
ascribe all conceivable excellence. His infinite nature
is the proper subject, if 1 may speak so, of every great
and good, every venerable and amiable quality in the
highest degree.
I proceed to speak of his immutability, by which we
understand not only that his duration is permanent, but
that his nature is fixed, immoveable, unaffected by ex
ternal causes ; in every respect the same from eternity

Ps. Ixxiii. 23, 24.

ON GOD: HIS IMMUTABILITY.

103

to eternity. That God is immutable, is a doctrine.
clearly taugnt in the Scriptures, and as we shall soon
see, demonstrable by reason. " I am Jehovah, I change
not."* "Of old hast thou laid the foundations of the
earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
They shall perish, but thou shalt endure ; yea, all of
them shall wax old like a garment : as a vesture shalt
thou change them, and they shall be changed : But
thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end."f
«' He is the Father of lights, with whom is no variable
ness, neither shadow of turning ;"f_ a Sun shining with
perpetual splendour, and not like the ruler of the day,
who is sometimes eclipsed and at other times clouded,
now retires from us and then returns, according to the
revolutions of the year.
Mutability is characteristic of all created beings.
The heavenly bodies are too distant for us to make any
qbservations upon their external structure ; and we can
only perceive their real or apparent changes of place.
Upon the surface of the earth nothing is stationary. Its
aspect is varied by the action of the elements, and by
internal convulsions ; even the rocks decay, and are
sometimes violently removed from their places. Trees
grow and fade; animals appear and perish; and than
man himself who stands highest in the scale, what is
more inconstant? His body passes from the feebleness
of infancy to the vigour of manhood, and then sinks
into the infirmity and decrepitude of old age. His
mind undergoes a similar process ; its powers unfold,
flourish, and decline. With respect to superior beings,
it is certain from what has befallen some of them, that
they too were subject to mutation; that the stability
which others enjoy is adventitious, being the gift of
their Creator ; and that, in one respect, even they are
not permanent, but are necessarily advancing to higher
degrees of knowledge and enjoyment.
The immutability of God may be proved from his
necessary existence. That which exists by necessity
of nature, by the same necessity exists as it is, and
cannot be otherwise. Absolute necessity has no rela
tion to time ; as it does not result from, so it is not
affected by circumstances. Whatever therefore exists
by such a necessity, must be always the same ; the
same now as it formerly was ; the game hereafter as it
now is. With respect to a contingent being, we can
conceive it to undergo a change without the destruction
of its essence : there is no contradiction in supposing
some of its qualities to be altered, in supposing it for
instance to become less wise, less active, or less virtu
ous than it was. The reason is, that there is nothing
'in the nature of such a being, which necessarily infers
its continuance in a particular state. But with respect
to a. necessary being, we cannot conceive it to be
changed, without taking away the ground of its exist
ence, if this expression may be permitted, or losing
sight of necessity. To say that it is necessarily exist
ent and yet may be changed, is with the same breath
to say, that it is not necessarily existent. For necessity
extends to the mode of its existence, as well as to its
existence itself. If we could conceive a being to be
changed in one respect, we could conceive it to be
changed in another respect; and it being thus evident,
that there was no necessary ground of its existence, we
could conceive it to cease to exist. Whatever, there
fore, exists by necessity of nature, must be immutable
in essence and in all essential properties.
Some have stated this argument in a manner some
what different, and as they apprehend, more intelligible.
"The existence of God is independent of all will and
power whatsoever ; from which absolute and most per
fect independence follows his perfect immutability and
incorruptibility. For there is no will or power, either
in himself or in any other being, which can alter his

* Mai iii. 6. \ Ps. cii. 25—27. { James i. 17.

existence, seeing it is not subject to any will or power,"
it being certain that, as he was not produced by another,
so he was not himself the cause of his existence. " No
will or power, therefore, can possibly produce ajiy al
teration in his existence either by adding or taking
away, or in any respect making it other than what it is.
When there is no cause, there cannot be an effect : but
of an alteration or change in God there is no possible
cause, and therefore this effect, namely, a change in his
existence, is impossible; and to say that this is possi
ble would be as absurd as to assert that he might be
the cause of himself, or might arise out of nothing.
There is no cause of a change ; and nothing is as inca
pable of producing one effect as another, can no more
annihilate or alter existence than produce it."
The immutability of God may be proved from the
perfect simplicity of his essence. There is no mixture
or composition in it, and consequently there can be no
addition, or subtraction, or transposition of parts, by
which changes are effected in bodies. This, it may
be said, is undeniable, since he is an immaterial being :
but we add, that even in other immaterial beings, there
is something which may be called composition, but
which has no place in the Divine essence. Certain
qualities are indeed inseparable from their essence,
as invisibility, indivisibility, incorruptibleness, and
thought, but others they may or may not possess, as
wisdom and holiness. The history of creatures which
are immaterial, as angels and human spirits, shews that
such qualities may be lost, without destroying their
nature, and consequently thatthey are superadded, and
not essential. The perfections of God cannot be con
sidered as in this sense distinct from his essence. By
necessity of nature he is what he is ; and it would be
as express a contradiction to suppose him to be divested
of any of his attributes, or to possess them in a less or
a greater degree, as it would be to suppose a thing -to be
and not to be at the same time. The essences in fact of all
things are immutable. They may be annihilated by the
power which created them ; but as long as they continue
in existence, they must continue what they are : a
change of any kind would be the destruction of their
essence. Now, God is essentially perfect, and is
therefore incapable of change, fixed and immoveable
from eternity to eternity.
Once more, this doctrine may be illustrated in a
plainer and more popular manner. Every change is
to the worse, or to the better ; it is the loss of some
good already possessed, or the attainment of a greater
degree of excellence. We have already taken notice
of the deterioration of created beings. To say nothing
of the decay and dissolution of vegetable and animal
substances, intelligent creatures of the highest order
have fallen from their primitive innocence and glory;
man has lost the image of God, the noblest ornament
of his nature, and sunk into the degradation of sin ; the
wise and virtuous often relapse into folly and vice ;
genius sometimes expires like a candle burnt down to
the socket; and the old man experiences a second time
the mental and corporeal debility of childhood. But
no cause can be conceived for a similar change in that
great Being, who is not subject to the action of any
external power, and contains in himself no princ'ple
of corruption. Among the wild and impious imagina
tions, which are daily passing through the mind, no
man in his senses ever supposed that the knowledge of
the Deity might be diminished, his arm might be en
feebled, his benevolence might be exhausted, or his
love of truth and justice might be exchanged for a
disregard of moral distinctions. We revolt from the idea
with horror. It is too impious even for the atheist him
self; for if he believed in a God, he would exempt him
from all the infirmities of limited and dependent beings.
Creatures often undergo a change to the better. The
seed ripens into a plant, and the embryo becomes a

'i04

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

perfect animJ. The body of man advances from the
feebleness of infancy to the full stature of manhood ;
and his opening mind admits the increasing light of
knowledge, and gradually develops its powers. A
similar progress takes place in the spiritual life. Ex
istence which had a beginning is continued by a suc
cession of moments ; and endowments which were
originally limited, may receive gradual accessions, and
rise step by step to the summit of the scale. We have
already remarked, that there is reason to believe that
the state of happy beings in the world to come will be
progressive : as we cannot conceive them ever to arrive
at a point in eternity, beyond which there will be no
thing more to be known and enjoyed. But, hetween
finite beings and Him who is infinite, there is no analogy.
Possessed, by the supposition, of all possible perfection,
he cannot become wiser, holier, more powerful, and
more benevolent than he is. In his nature, all great
ness and all goodness are united. He is the standard
of excellence to all orders of creatures, who are more or
less perfect according to their degrees of resemblance
to Him. To Him there is no standard. In the uni
verse he sees nothing equal to himself, and his infinite
understanding can conceive nothing more excellent.
This reasoning which is frequently employed to
prove the Divine immutability, is of ancient date, and
occurs in the second book of Plato's work De Repub
lica. It is in the form of a dialogue, and this is the
substance of what is said by the speakers. " If any
change should take place in God, it is plain that it
would be effected by himself. Whether then would
he change himself into something betferand fairer, or
something worse and baser than himself ? It is neces
sary, that if he is changed, it should be into something
worse ; for we will not say that God is in any respect
deficient in beauty or virtue. This is right; and such
being the case, can it be thought that any being, whe
ther God or man, would voluntarily make himself
worse ? It is impossible ; and it is therefore impossi
ble that God should will to change himself; but as it
seems, being the fairest and the best, he always re
mains simply in bis own form." He expresses him
self in this manner, because he refers to the tales of
the poets, who represented the gods as appearing in a
variety of shapes.
By this general reasoning we prove the immutability
of God. it is from the condition of creatures, who are
subject to perpetual fluctuation, that we acquire the no
tion of change ; but it is equally absurd to transfer it
to God, as to ascribe to him other human infirmities.
The Divine nature is not affected by any of the causes
which alter the state and qualities of dependent beings.
Let us proceed to inquire in what respect God is im
mutable. First, He is immutable in his existence. He never
began to be, and he will never cease to be ; and in this
view his immutability coincides with his eternity,
<vhich has been already demonstrated. At every point
of infinite duration it may be said to him, " Thou art."
There was a time, for so we must speak, when there
were no created beings, but then He was ; there will
be a time when, it may be, this visible creation shall
be annihilated, but then He will be. To the immutable
duration of the Divine nature, our Saviour alluded in
these remarkable words, which the adversaries of his
Deity have used so many dishonest arts to explain
away, but which remain unaffected by their criticisms.
" Before Abraham was, I am."* The sentence is at
variance with the laws of grammar ; the present time
is represented as preceding the past. From this ap
parent confusion, there is no possibility of extrieatino-
the words, but by the sublime and mysterious doctrine
ef the immutable existence of the speaker in his su-

* John viii. 58.

perior nature. " I am" is the name of God ; and it im
ports, that in his existence the distinctions of past,
present, and to come, have no pbce. Hence our Lord
did not say, I was before Abraham, for in this manner
any angel might have spoken of himself; but I am, inti
mating that in reference to his duration, the two thou
sand years which had elapsed since the days of the
patriarch were annihilated. The existence of creatures
is successive, and may be compared to a stream in per
petual motion, of which one part is past, and another
is to come. The present moment only is our own, and
it is gone while we are speaking of it. What we call
the present, is the swift passage of fugitive instants.
But the existence of God, as we endeavoured lately to
shew, is totally different. Far as the subject is above
our comprehension, yet it seems to be an unavoidable
conclusion, that in duration absolutely eternal there is
no succession, and that a duration measured by days
and years, must have had a beginning. The terms
young and old are inapplicable to Him who always is,
and serve merely to express the different stages in a
series, advancing farther and farther from the point at
which it commenced. The title. Ancient of days, is
not intended to signify that he is old, but that he exist
ed from eternity, before all the generations of men.
All the distinctions of time are set aside by the decla
ration of the Apostle, " One day is with the Lord as a
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."*
It is when the sacred writer is describing the transito
ry nature of creatures, their tendency to decay, and
their final dissolution, that he takes occasion to attri
bute immutability to God, in a passage formerly quo
ted, intimating that time, which affects all other beings,
has no influence upon him, and that bis existence is
independent of it. " They shall perish, but thou shalt
endure. As a vesture shalt thou change them, and
they shall be changed. But thou art the same, and
thy years shall have no end."f
Secondly, He is immutable in knowledge. We are
so ignorant of superior beings, that we cannot speak
positively and particularly concerning them ; but while
we conceive them to have been endowed with a large
measure of knowledge from their origin, we are cer
tain that it was not infinite, and that it therefore admit
ted of increase, and has since been progressive. Man
comes into the world altogether destitute of knowledge.
He has no innate ideas, but merely is endowed with
the capacity of acquiring knowledge, which is excited
by his senses, and by the other means employed for
the improvement of his intellectual faculties. Thus
creatures are always undergoing a change in their men
tal state, rising higher and higher in attainments. And
this is not the only change experienced by men, who
lose as well as gain knowledge, and are subject to fre
quent revolutions of sentiment, from right to wrong,
and from wrong to right. They .are misled by hasty
and partial observation, imposed upon by sophistry,
and reclaimed from error by more correct information,
and more exact inquiry. The knowledge of God is in
finite as his essence. He knows himself; he knows
all things which now are, which have been, and which
shall be. He knows all possible things, or all things
which his power could create, and his wisdom could
arrange. The whole system of creation is constantly
before him, because he is intimately present with it;
he can have no discoveries to make, who is already in
every place where there exists any object of knowl
edge. "Thou compassest my path, and my lying
down, and art acquainted with all my ways.":): When
a man travels into a foreign country where the aspect
of nature, the form of the buildings, and the manners
of the inhabitants, differ much from those of his native
land, we say that he acquires a stock of new ideas
* 2 Peter iii. 8. f Ps. cii. 26, 27. { Ps. exxxix %

ON GOD: HIS IMMUTABILITY.

105

but nothing is new to Him who fills heaven and earth.
The language of Scripture is figurative, when it repre
sents him as looking down, or coming down to see
what men are doing upon earth; and nothing is intend
ed but to teach us that he has a perfect knowledge of
their proceedings. It cannot be doubted that the Ma
ker of the universe is thoroughly acquainted with his
own work ; that as he furnished its inhabitants with
their faculties and principles of action, he knows be
forehand what they can, and will do ; and that since
he upholds them by his power, and arranges their cir
cumstances, he distinctly foresees every event in their
history. As his knowledge is universal, so it is infal
lible. The objects of his contemplation are not ap
pearances, but realities. Every thing presents itself to
Him as it is in itself, and in all its connections and
consequences. He perceives the essences of things on
which their qualities are founded. He cannot be mis
taken, because the whole case is before him ; he can
not be disappointed, because no unexpected cause will
disturb the order of events ; analogy, conjecture, and
calculation, must not be attributed to an understanding
which sees the future as distinctly as the present. To
some, indeed, it has seemed impossible to reconcile the
foreknowledge of God with the free agency of man,
and they have chosen rather to deny the Divine presci
ence, than to infringe human liberty. Hence they have
not hesitated to represent Him as ignorant of the fu
ture volitions of men and of the events depending up
on them, as looking forward with anxiety to their de
terminations, and as compelled to change his proce
dure when the result does not accord with the plan
which he had previously formed ; and those passages
of Scripture which ascribe to him fear, desire, expec
tation, disappointment, and repentance, they have un
derstood literally, as indicating the same emotions in
his mind which are caused in ours by our ignorance of
futurity. But such a mode of interpretation is unwor
thy of any person who makes a pretension to common
sense, because it rests upon expressions manifestly fig
urative, to the neglect of the plainest and most explicit
declarations in other places, of the foreknowledge of
God. The predictions of Scripture afford complete
demonstration, that future events are known to him as
certainly as those which are present ; and at the same
time, that the persons by whom they are fulfilled, re
tain their free agency, and are responsible for their ac
tions. I shall refer only to the prophecies concerning
the sufferings and death of the Messiah. The event
was fixed, and this agents were appointed ; but they
were conscious of perfect freedom, and obeyed the in
clinations of their own hearts, while they were doing
what God's " hand and counsel had determined before
to be done." " Known to him were all his works from
the beginning of the world."* The whole train of
events, from the creation to the general judgment, was
present to his. mind from eternity. In the shifting
scenes of human affairs, he sees only the evolution of
his own plan. Experience is daily teaching us ; but
to his eye, all things were open and manifest from the
commencement of time. " Who hath directed the
Spirit of the Lord, or, being his counsellor, hath taught
him ? with whom took he counsel, and who instructed
him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and
taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of
understanding *"f He is immutable in knowledge;
it is independent and underived, and always perfect.
In the tfhird place, He is immutable in his counsels
or decrees. This is a necessary inference from the im
mutability of his knowledge. Men change their de
signs, because by reflection or experience they find
them to be impracticable, there being obstaclesyin the
way which they had not taken into the calculation ; or

* Acts iv. 28. and xr. 18.
O

f Isa. xl. 13, 14.

because they have discovered that they would be pro
ductive of evil instead of good, or at least would not
realize the advantages which they expected from them ;
or because some new plan has been suggested, from
which greater and more numerous benefits will result;
and sometimes because they cannot long fix their at
tention upon a particular object, and are happy only
when they are roving from one pursuit to another. But
none of these causes can have any influence upon him,
whose knowledge is comprehensive and perfect.
Among all possible ends having selected the best, and
fixed upon the most proper means of accomplishing
them, he cannot be induced to deviate from his choice.
No new views can present themselves to his mind, nor
is it possible that any change of circumstances should
take place which might render the adoption of a differ
ent order of procedure expedient. The imperfection
of our knowledge, the limited nature of our prospects,
and the consequent mistakes into which we are betray
ed, account for the fluctuations of our conduct.
The decrees of God have been the subject of contro
versy in every age. It will be acknowledged by every
person who has attentively considered them, that they
are mysterious, and are attended with difficulties, of
some of which a satisfactory solution cannot be given.
There is one difficulty which presses upon every sys
tem, namely, how to reconcile a fixed and prior pur
pose with the free agency and accountableness of man.
There are disputes respecting the relation of the de
crees to the foreknowledge of God ; whether he fore
sees future things as certain because he has decreed
them, or his foreknowledge is the foundation of his de
crees. But in one thing all are agreed, who admit his
omniscience and supreme dominion, that he has settled
a plan in conformity to which the order of the world
proceeds. In this plan no alteration is ever made. The
notion of temporal and mutable decrees is founded on
the supposition which is alike contrary to sound reason
and to Scripture, that the future actions of men are not
certainly foreknown. What an idea does it give us of
Him, who, in the possession of infinite perfection, is
independent upon the whole creation, to represent him
as determining one thing to-day, and another thing to
morrow; as passing from one intention to another ac
cording to the capricious movements of inferior beings,
who are the sport of their own fancies, and are driven
by every gust of passion.
God predetermined the number of which the human
race should consist, the time when each individual
should come into existence, the circumstances of his
lot, the part which he should act upon the theatre of
the world, and his final state throughout an eternal
duration. "He worketh all things according to the
counsel of his own will."* Amidst the diversity in
the dispensations of providence, he is steadily carrying
on his own designs. Kingdoms rise and fall ; war lays
the earth desolate ; the bad passions of the human heart
have full play, and make such inroads upon the ordeT
and happiness of society, that the world may seem to
be dismissed from the care of the almighty Ruler. Yet
we are sure that the Lord reigns, that he directs and
controls the operations of his creatures, and makes the
most depraved and perverse of them subservient to his
purposes. Not one of them can deviate a single step
from the path marked out to him ; the mightiest and
most self-willed of them cannot lift his hand or move
his tongue, so as to interfere with the designs of the
Almighty. There is the appearance of confusion only
to us, who are but a part of the extensive and compli
cated system, and are unable to trace its connection
with the past and the future. All is order to that eye
which looks at once through all space, and all duration.
As there is a perfect harmony beween his counsels and

* Ephes. i. 11.

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

106
his works, he can with no more justice be charged with
mutability, on account of the varieties iii his proceed
ings, than it could be imputed to a man of comprehen
sive views and commanding influence, who, in execut
ing a favourite scheme, should at one time employ the
services of a friend, and at another take advantage of
the actions of an enemy, and who, by his superior wis
dom, was able to convert occurrences hostile in their
tendency, into means of ultimate success. Amidst this
variety of contrivances, his mind is unchanged ; and
the knowledge of his purpose illustrates the consis
tency of his conduct.
Once more, He is immutable in his moral perfections.
He is essentially just and holy; and the rectitude and
purity of his nature are displayed in all his dispensa
tions. The moral laws which he has given for the
government of mankind, are never repealed or sus
pended. The same duties are in every age required
from men in the same circumstances : it has never hap
pened, and it never will happen, that sin shall obtain
his favour, and righteousness shall cease to be the ob
ject of his approbation. The manner of transacting
with men has been different, according to the difference
of their circumstances. The religion of a state of in
nocence, could not be the same with that of a state of
guilt; and the religion of sinners has varied in its ex
ternal form, as we learn by tracing its history in the
patriarchal age, under the law, and since the introduc
tion of Christianity. No two things seem more unlike
than the Gospel, with its few and simple institutions,
and the Mosaic economy, with its numerous and splen
did rites. But, when the systems are examined, we
find that in all essential points they perfectly agree.
Under both the same truths are taugnt, the same duties
are enjoined, and the same end is aimed at, — the recon
ciliation of sinners to God, and the restoration of his
image in their souls. In all ages, man has stood in the
same general relation to God and to his fellow men ;
and love to his Maker and his neighbour has been in
culcated as the principle of universal obedience.
The immutability of the moral perfections of God is
evident from the Mediatorial scheme, which amidst its
manifestations of love, and its wonderful contrivances
for the diffusion of happiness among our lost and
ruined race, discovers the strictest regard to truth, and
justice, and purity, and sheds new lustre upon them.
It has made no change in the law which had pronounced
its curse upon us, in order to facilitate our escape from
its power; it has prescribed the fulfilment of its de
mands as the indispensable condition of our salvation,
and established it in all its rights. The immutability
of God is the principle upon which this scheme rests.
There would have been no occasion for the substitution
and sufferings of the glorious Person who redeemed
us, if it had been possible that God could have lowered
the standard of duty to accommodate it to our weak
ness, or could have abstained from recompensing trans
gression according to its desert. It was not without
reason that he gave this terrible example of avenginc
wrath to the universe. It was not simply to display his
power, nor was it to gratify himself with the spectacle
of agony and blood ; it was to proclaim to all worlds
the unbending rectitude of his nature, and his eternal
abhorrence of sin.
This view of the immutability of God is necessary
to the support of religion. The supposition of incon
stancy would destroy our veneration for him ; there
would be no solid basis to sustain our hopes ; we could
place no confidence in his promises ; there would be no
fixed standard of morality ; and we should be embar
rassed at every step, not knowing how to secure his
approbation, because the conduct which was acceptable
to him at one time, might be offensive at another. But
"his righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and
his law is the truth."

It is unnecessary to extend the argument to his other
perfections. While the immutability of God distin
guishes him from all creatures, it will, perhaps, seem
to us to be hardly consistent with the idea of consum
mate felicity. Variety appears to us to be essential to
happiness; we wish for new scenes, new pleasures,
and new occupations ; and to have always the same
objects before us, to be always drawing from the same
sources of enjoyment, to be fixed in the calm and re
pose of contemplation, or from day to day to go over
the same uniform round of actions, is accounted the
description of a dull and melancholy life. The range
of the Divine understanding, indeed, is not limited like
ours ; it sees all things, in earth and heaven ; it sees
them at-a glance ; they are more familiar to it than the
few objects in our vicinity are to us; and nothing oc
curs which it did not always know. But we err, when
we transfer to God any thing in ourselves which arises
from out imperfection. We are right in ascribing
knowledge to him, but are wrong if we conceive it like
ours to be partial. We are right in ascribing power to
him, but are wrong if we suppose that it is ever accom
panied with labour and effort. It would be an error
equally gross to suppose him to be influenced by the
love of variety, which is the result of the limited capa
city of our nature. We can admit at any given time,
only a part of what may be known and enjoyed ; but
our Maker has formed us capable of interminable pro
gress ; and hence, we are urged forward by a powerful
impulse from the point which we have gained to another
which rises to view, and holds out the hope of greater
advantage. What we already possess is soon ex
hausted, and we seek a new supply ; or it creates sen
sations so delightful, that we wish them to be multi
plied and heightened. The Supreme Being finds eter
nal rest and satisfaction in himself. The well-springs
of his happiness are in his own nature: even his infinite
understanding can conceive nothing greater and more
excellent; and of every thing external he is so inde
pendent as not to be affected by its existence or annihi
lation. In the possession of his own resources, he is
consummately and permanently blessed ; and hence the
Scripture calls him the happy God, the happy* and
only Potentate, the Being who has in himself an inex
haustible store of felicity, and therefore needs no change
as creatures do, who, possessing only a diminutive por
tion of good, feel the craving of desire, and hasten on
from stage to stage in quest of a resting place.
It may be objected to the doctrine of the divine im
mutability, that there are certain facts in the history of
the divine dispensations, which seem to be at variance
with it. We shall therefore briefly consider them, and
endeavour to shew that the inconsistency is only ap
parent. First, It may be alleged, that a change must have
taken place in the Divine nature, when this earth and the
heavens were created, because then God, who, if we may
speak so, had rested from infinite ages, became active
and exerted his power and all the otherperfections which
are displayed in his works. Let us beware of think
ing that this rest which we ascribe to God prior to cre
ation, was like the Test of body, which is opposed to
motion ; or like the rest of the soul, when its powers
are suspended in a swoon or during profound sleep.
A living and intelligent Being must have been always
active, as ftuir minds are when we are awake. God
must have been always active in contemplating and
loving himself; and let us rt member, that although
alone, he was not solitary, as we know from the mys
terious doctrine of a plurality of persons in his es
sence. The only difference which creation could make,
was, that now he became active ad extra.\ But let

* Maxapiof, beatus, happy. 1 Tim. vi. 15.
f Outwardly, or exteriorly.

ON GOD: HIS IMMUTABILITY.

107

us not, in this instance, degrade him by a comparison
with his creatures. We experience a sensible change
when we pass from inaction to activity ; we put our bo
dies in motion and exert our muscular strength ; but it
is not so with the Omnipotent, whose eternal opera
tions imply no effort and are effected by a simple vo
lition.. The first chapter of Genesis represents all
things as having been made by his word. He said,
" Let there be light, and there was light." " Let the
earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, and
the earth brought forth the living creature after his
kind." Omnipotence does not toil and suffer fatigue.
The magnificent fabric of the universe was produced
out of nothing by God, more easily than we can move
our arm. He underwent no change, when he proceed
ed in this manner to execute his plan.
In the second plaee, It may be thought, thatalthough
the act of creation might be consistent with the immu
tability of the Divine nature, yet a change must have
undoubtedly taken place in it, at the incarnation of the
second person of the Trinity, when God became man,
or, in the words of the Evangelist, " the Word was
made flesh." This inference would be legitimate, if
it were true that the two natures of our Saviour were
mixed or blended together ; or that the Divine nature
supplied the place of a human soul, and consequently
became subject to human passions ; or that it acquired
by this union any new property, or suffered a limitation
of its original powers ; if, to use the. scoffing language
of blasphemers, the Deity had been imprisoned in the
body of an infant, had been grieved and tormented, and
had died upon the cross. But these are all erroneous
views of the subject, heresies which have long since
been refuted, wilful misrepresentations which we repel
with the scorn which they most justly deserve. The
incarnation was the union of two natures in one person
or such a union, that the assumed nature as truly be
longs to our Saviour as the original one : but they re
main as distinct as if they were not united. The divine
was not humanized, nor the human deified ; there was
no communication of properties from the one to the
other; both continued in their integrity, and in the
possession of their peculiar qualities. This most inti
mate of all the relations in which the Divine nature
stands to created beings affected it no more than the
relation subsisting between that nature and the other
individuals of the human race.
In the third place, it may be asked, How shall we
reconcile with this doctrine those passages of Scripture
which represent God as having actually changed ? Do
we not read that it " repented the Lord that he had
made man upon the earth ?" and again, that " it repent
ed him that he had set up Saul to be king over Israel ?*
The solution of this difficulty is very simple, and is
generally known. In speaking of himself, God ac
commodates his language to our conceptions, that we
may the more easily apprehend his character and per
fections, and that the truth' signified to us by metaphors
and similitudes may make a deeper impression. He
describes himself as clothed with bodily members, but
no person supposes that he has eyes, and ears, and
hands, and feet. He describes himself as awaking,
but surely no man will think that ever he falls asleep.
Common sense directs us to understand all such pas
sages as figurative. Does it not also require that we
should put the same construction upon other passages
which attribute human feelings and passions to God?
We mio-ht suspect the mind of that man to be derang
ed, who should imagine that he fears, expects, is dis
appointed, grieves and rejoices; and why then should
the idea be admitted, that he literally repents ? When
a person adopts a new line of conduct, we conclude
that he has changed his mind. It is on this ground

* Gen. vi. 6. 1 Sam. xv. 11.

that God is said to repent ; the cause is put for the ef
fect, by a well-known figure of speech ; and the change
of his mind signifies merely a change of dispensation.
When he destroyed the inhabitants of the earth by a
flood, and transferred the right to reign from Saul to
another person, he acted as if he had repented, in the
one case, that he had created a race which had become
exceedingly corrupt, and in the other, that he had be
stowed the crown upon a man who showed himself un
worthy of it. But in both cases, the repentance was
only apparent; for the events upon which his change
of conduct was founded, were foreseen from the begin
ning. God knew that the human race would apostatize
from him, and that Saul would not hearken to his voice.
In the fourth place, It may be suspected that God
really changes, when he hates a person whom he once
loved, of loves a person whom be once hated. Of the
former change, we have a-n example in the apostate
angels and in Adam, who lost the favour and incurred
the displeasure of their Creator ; and of the latter, m
those who, through the faith of the Gospel, pass from
a state of condemnation into a state of acceptance. In
these cases, a change must be acknowledged ; but it
remains to be ascertained in whom it has taken place.
Has God changed ? No more than the sun changes
when the different parts of the earth successively come
into his light, and retire into darkness. That glorious
luminary continues to shine with equal splendour, but
terrestrial objects are in perpetual motion. He stands
still, and they pass away. To ascribe motion to him
is a vulgar error, which philosophy corrects. God
does not love at one time, and at another hate an indi
vidual continuing in all respects the same ; for were
this the case, we should be compelled to say that he is
mutable. Those who are always holy, are always the
objects of his love ; and those who are always impure,
are always the objects of his hatred. The change is
in his creatures, who having lost their righteousness,
have fallen under his displeasure ; or having recovered
it by his grace, have regained his approbation. It
would be an unequivocal proof of mutability, if he en
tertained the same regard to a creature after it had lost
its innocence as before ; because the object of his re
gard, although physically the same, would be morally
different, and could not continue to attract his love,
without a change in him corresponding to the change
which it had undergone. The withdrawment of his
favour from a sinner, and the restoration of it to the
believing penitent, supply irrefragable evidence that
he is governed by an unbending principle of rectitude,
and that justice and judgment are the habitation of hi3
throne. The immutability of God is fraught with conso
lation. It is a rock on which we can fix our feet, while
the mighty torrent is sweeping away every thing
around us. Awful indeed is the idea of a Being dwel
ling from age to age amidst the plenitude of perfection
and felicity, to whom time is as a moment, and the uni
verse as a span ! What is man, that he should regard
him ! What is man, who yesterday opened his eyes to
the light, and to-morrow shall close them in the grave ?
Yet he condescends to be our friend and protector, and
consoles us by the assurance, that although we are
as the flower of the field, which is withered by the
passing blast, yet his mercy is from everlasting to ev
erlasting, and his faithfulness to children's children.
To christians this consolation belongs. The perma
nence of his character secures to them the performance
of his promises, a welcome reception when they come
to him with their requests, succour in the season of
need, and happiness stretching beyond the boundaries
of time, uninterrupted by death itself, and prolonged
through an infinite duration. " The mountains shall
depart, and the hills be removed ; but my kindness
shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant

108

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

of my peace be removed, saith the Lord, that hath
mercy on thee."*
The Divine immutability, like the cloud which inter
posed between the Israelites and the Egyptian army,
has a dark as well as a light side. It insures the ex
ecution of his threatenings, as well as the performance
of his promises ; and destroys the hope which the
guilty fondly cherish, that he will be all lenity to bis
frail and erring creatures, and that they will be much
more lightly dealt with than the declarations of his
own word would lead us to expect. We oppose to
these deceitful and presumptuous speculations the sol
emn truth, that God is unchangeable in veracity and
purity, in faithfulness and justice. There is another
delusion which this doctrine is fitted to dispel. The
thought of hell, as a prison from which there is no re
lease, is alarming ; and men, unable to work themselves
into a complete disbelief of its existence, have sought
to relieve their minds by converting it into a purgatory,
or a place of temporary punishment. The Judge will
jelent, and let the criminals go free. Future sufferings
will prove corrective, and prepare for a universal resto
ration. But here again his immutability meets us. It
is vain to expect from him what is inconsistent with
his nature. What he is at present he will always be.
As fire will always burn, so his holiness will always
abhor, and his justice will always pursue with ven
geance, the workers of iniquity. There can be no just
hope of escape without a change in themselves, and it
must take place before the day of doom. This life is
the season of trial, the world to come is the place of
recompense, and there the allotment is final. The de
cree by which it is fixed, is founded on the eternal
principles of justice, and is as immutable as God him
self.

LECTURE XXI.

ON GOD.

Division of the Divine Attributes into communicable and in
communicable— First communicable Attribute, Knowledge :
proof of this Attribute — Extent of the Divine Knowledge
 Scholastic distinctions respecting it — Illustration of its
Perfection — Practical Reflections.
The attributes of God are the properties or excel
lencies by which his nature is distinguished ; and in
the possession of them, he is absolutely and infinitely
perfect. There are two ways of demonstrating them :
apriori and aposteriori. They are demonstrated a priori
when having ascertained that there is a necessarily ex
isting Being, we prove that such a Being must be eter
nal, immense, immutable, intelligent, and active. They
are demonstrated aposteriori when we prove them from
the evidence afforded by his works. In the preceding
lectures both kinds of reasoning have been employed
The divine perfections are usually divided into two
classes, the incommunicable, and the communicable.
The incommunicable are those of which there is no
vestige or resemblance in creatures, as self-existence,
absolute eternity, immensity and immutability. Of
these a nature created, limited, dependent, and conse
quently subject to change, is incapable. The commu
nicable perfections are those to which there is some
thing corresponding in creatures, as knowledge, wis
dom, o-oodness and justice. As they do not in thire
nature'imply the idea of infinity, although in the Cre
ator they are infinite, they may belong in a low degree
to limited beings. I say in a low degree, as faint sha
dows of the great Original ; and on account of their
comparative insignificance, the Scripture sometimes j
* Isaiah liv. 10.

speaks as if creatures were as destitute of these, u
of the perfections which are acknowledged to be in
communicable, and they were to be found in the Crea
tor alone. He is called " the only wise God ;"* and
our Lord said to the young man who addressed him by
the compellation of Good Master, " Why callest thou
me good ? there is none good but one, that is, God."f
When we are contemplating his underived and un
bounded perfection, the excellencies of man and anorels
disappear, like the lesser lights in the meridian blaze
of the sun.
In speaking of the attributes of God, we must re-
memher that his nature is perfectly simple. This truth
has.been demonstrated from his unity, which excludes
the idea of composition ; from his self-existence, which
imports that nothing preceded him as something does
in the case of all compounds ; from his immutability,
which could not be predicated of his nature if it were
made up of parts; and from other topics, which it is
unnecessary to mention. If it has already appeared
that he is an immaterial Being, it is a necessary conse
quence that he is not compounded, in the grosser ac
ceptation of the term, because a spirit has no parts,
and is indivisible and incorruptible. But the simplici
ty which theologians ascribe to God is a metaphysical
conception, and means that his essence and attributes
are not distinct, or that his attributes must not be con
ceived as superadded to his essence, and hypothetically
separable from it; but that his essence and attributes
are one. And as they are not distinct from his essence,
so they are not distinct from each other; but there is
one indivisible nature, having different manifestations
and relations to external things, which, according to
our inadequate conceptions, appear to us to be different
perfections. In themselves they are one, although to
us they seem to be many.
This manner of representing the subject has been
objected to, and attempts have been made to turn it into
ridicule. " Here," it has been said, " are attributes,
which are no attributes ; which are totally distinct,
and perfectly the same ; which are justly ascribed to
God, being ascribed to him in Scripture, but do not be
long to him; which are something, and nothing;
which are figments of human imagination ; mere chi
meras, which are God himself; which are the actors
of all things, and which, to sum up all, are themselves
a simple act." There is no doubt that a person, who
was disposed to amuse himself on a subject so solemn,
might find some ground in the language employed.
The only sense in which it is intelligible is, as stated
in a former lecture, that we ought not to conceive his
attributes to be separable from his essence ; that he is
what he is, by necessity of nature ; that when we
speak of his wisdom, it is God himself who is wise ;
of his power, it is God himself who is mighty; of his
goodness, it is God himself who is good. We have
said that some of the qualities of creatures are not es
sential to them; but God never is or can be without
his perfections. All this is plain to any understand
ing; but if there is any other sense in which his per
fections are said to be himself, I confess that it surpas
ses my comprehension ; and equally incomprehensible
is the proposition, that his perfections are one in them
selves, if any thing more be meant than that the Divine
essence is at once intelligent, holy, just, and benevo
lent. I know not well what is meant by making them
distinct from his essence ; nor am I certain that any
man ever conceived them to be distinct, however un
guardedly he may have expressed himself. A physi
cal distinction is impossible, and a metaphysical one
is only a mode of thinking, which is unavoidable in
considering any being simply as a being, and then as
endowed with certain characteristic properties or quali-

» 1 Tim. i. 17.

f Matth. xix. 17.

ON GOD: HIS KNOWLEDGE.

109

ties. It is enough to believe that God is by nature
possessed of all possible perfections.
Having made these observations, which are applica
ble to the Divine perfections in general, I proceed to
the consideration of those which are called communi
cable, because there is some resemblance of them
among creatures. Let us begin with the attribute of
knowledge. Every person who believes that there is a God, rea
dily admits that he is possessed of intelligence, with
out which he would be inferior to many of his own
creatures. Intelligence is so manifestly essential to
the First Cause, that none have doubted of it, what
ever erroneous conceptions they have entertained of
the Deity in the want of supernatural instruction.
Some have conceived their gods to be material beings,
have clothed them with human infirmities, and repre- ',
sented them as subject to human passions ; but all
have believed that they were witnesses of the actions
of men, and acquainted with the events which take
place upon the earth. The ancient Egyptians, who
expressed their conceptions by hieroglyphics, made
an eye the symbol of the Deity, to intimate that all
things are open to his inspection. The prayers, and
other religious services of the heathens, proceeded on
the supposition that they were heard and observed by
the objects of their worship ; and their belief in pro
phets who foretold future events, and in oracles to
which they resorted for counsel in matters of difficulty,
implied an opinion, that from the gods nothing was
concealed, and that events were subject to their control.
In proof that knowledge is one of the perfections of
God., the following arguments may be adduced.
In the first place, as it necessarily enters into the idea
of a perfect Being, so it is essentially connected with
other attributes, which all acknowledge to belong to
him, and which will be afterwards considered. We
believe him to be omnipotent, holy, just, and good, and
these perfections imply that he is an intelligent Being.
Power without knowledge would be blind force, which
would remain inactive from want of any motive to ex
ert it, or would be exerted by mere chance, to build up
or to demolish, to create or to annihilate. Such an ef
fect as the present system of things could not have
been produced by it, for it exhibits the clearest proofs
of design, and must therefore be regarded as the result
of a plan previously formed. Without intelligence, he
could not be holy and just ; for moral perfections imply
a perception of the essential differences of things, the
power of distinguishing good and evil, right and wrong,
an acquaintance with the nature and relations of other
intelligent beings, their faculties, their opportunities,
their temptations, their duties, and their crimes. He
could not be good, if by a blind necessity or a fortui
tous act he dispensed life and its enjoyments, any more
than the sun is good, because it pours light and heat
upon the earth. We do not call a man good, who scat
ters his favours at random from instinct rather than from
reason ; for goodness implies a benevolent design, and
a benevolent design supposes the objects of its exer
tions to be known, and their welfare to be intended.
What excellence could we perceive in a Being, eternal,
omnipresent, and immutable, if he were ignorant of
every thing without himself, and even of his own ex
istence and attributes, as he would be if knowledge
were not one of the number ? The meanest creature,
who was conscious of his own thoughts and capable
of observation and reasoning, would be superior to
him; and in fact, we could hardly distinguish such a
Being from the material universe. We could not be
lieve him to be a spiritual Being, because although we
will not be so absurd as to confound a substance with
hs property, and say that thought is the essence of
spirit, yet we must hold, that to a spirit it is essential
to think.

In the second place, the intelligence of the Supreme
Being may be inferred from its existence among crea
tures, since it is an unquestionable principle, that as
every effect has a cause, so there can be no more in the
effect than there is in the cause. It cannot communi
cate what it does not itself possess. We have a sure
proof that there is intelligence among creatures, from
consciousness and observation. We find intelligence
in ourselves, and we see unequivocal evidence of it in
others ; our bodily senses and our mental faculties are
the gifts of our Maker ; if we acknowledge that we
were created by his power, we cannot doubt from what
source those parts of our constitution are derived. We
perceive the external world ; we discover the properties
and relations of objects around us ; we become ac
quainted with a variety of truths in science, morals,
and religion, which do not fall under the cognizance of
our senses. Passing the boundaries of our terrestrial
habitation, we extend our researches to other regions,
and can tell the laws by which the planets are guided
in their course, and the most distant star which twin
kles in the abysses of space is preserved. Limited as
our knowledge is, and insignificant when compared
with the omniscience of God, or even the attainments
of superior beings, it extends so far as to demonstrate
the strength and grandeur of our faculties. It. may be
presumed that the minds of superior beings are endow
ed with more ample powers. The discoveries which
are the boast of human reason, may seem to angels as
insignificant as the thoughts of a child appear to a phil
osopher ; what is difficult to us may be easy to them,
and what is mysterious may be plain. It is an obvious
inference from the intelligence of creatures, that there
is intelligence in the Creator, and that he possesses it
in the most perfect degree. Whence could our knowl
edge have proceeded but from Ihe Father of lights 1
We cannot resist the force of these questions of the
Psalmist, "They say, The Lord shall not see, neither
shall the God of Jacob regard it. Understand, ye bru
tish among the people ; and ye fools, when will ye be
wise ? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear ? he
that formed the eye, shall he not see ? he that teacheth
man knowledge, shall not he know ?"*
In the third place we prove the knowledge of God
from his omnipresence, which has been already demon
strated. When speaking of that perfection, we shew
ed, that unless he were present in all places, he could
not know all things ; and it may seem like reasoning
in a circle now to prove, that he does know all things,
because he is present with them. But the proper con
clusion from this mode of proceeding is, that the two
perfections are necessarily connected, so that the one
cannot be conceived without the other. From his pre
sence with creation, indeed, it does not necessarily
follow that he knows it, unless there be some other
evidence that he is an intelligent Being ; but it corrobo
rates that other evidence by shewing that there is no
obstacle to his knowledge of all things which exist.
The supposition of a local Deity would lead us, not
directly to deny his intelligence, but to question whe
ther his knowledge was infinite. We might think,
that like other limited beings, he has his own sphere
of perception, beyond which every thing was unknown
to bim. And if God were in heaven and not also upon
earth, we could not believe that he was acquainted with
all persons and events so remote from the place of his
residence. We should be tempted to say with those
ungodly men whom Elipbaz reproves, " How doth
God know? Can he judge through the dark cloud?
Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not;
and he walketh , in the circuit of heaven. "f Some
things would be too distant or minute to be seen, and
others so carefully concealed as to be observed only by

* Ps. xciv. 7—10.

f Job xxii. 13, 14.

110

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY^

persons on the spot. But such unworthy notions are
inapplicable to an infinite Being. Nothing is hidden
from him. As there is not a point of space from which
he is excluded, he knows the meanest insect as well as
the lofty archangel ; what is done in a corner as well
as the most public transaction. He is in the closet.
and in the market place ; and it is a saying among
Mahometans, that when two persons meet together,
there is likewise a third. " Yea, the darkness hideth
not from thee ; but the night shineth as the day ; the
darkness and the light are both alike to thee."*
Having proved that God is an intelligent Being, I
proceed to inquire into the objects and extent of his
knowledge. We shall find that it is unlimited, com
prehending every thing which can.be known. "His
understanding. is infinite. "f
In the first place, God knows himself. " What man
knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man.
which is in him ? even so the things of God knoweth
no man, but the Spirit of God. "$ He knows what his
own essence is, of which we can only say that it is
spiritual, without being able to affix any positive idea
to the term; he knows his own perfections, with some
of which we have a partial acquaintance, while there
may be many others, of which we have received no
intimation ; he knows the harmony of his attributes,
which our weak minds are sometimes at a loss to re
concile ; he knows his own counsels and plans, which
are too extensive and complicated to be comprehended
by any created intellect; he knows, in a word, all the
mysteries of his nature at which reason stands amazed
and confounded. While there can be no hesitation in
ascribing this knowledge to God, we may take occasion
to remark, in order to show how much superior is his
understanding to ours, that we have no reason to think
that any creature is possessed of similar knowledge.
With respect to man, we are certain, that after all his
wonderful discoveries, he labours under much ignorance
of himself. He has indeed, minutely examined the
structure of his body, and instituted profound inquiries
into the powers of his mind ; but in the most advanced
state of science, he cannot tell what is the essence of
either. What matter is, and what spirit is, are ques
tions to which the philosopher, and the peasant are
alike unable to return an answer. The. properties are
familiar, but the substance, or substratum, eludes the
keen search of the eye, or the thought. Let it be fur
ther remarked, that it is properly from the knowledge
of himself, that God's understanding appears to be in
finite. We cannot, even in imagination, reach the lim
its of creation ; but we are sure, that it has bounda
ries, and is not immense like its Maker : we cannot
enumerate and classify all its constituent parts ; but
our reason tells us, that they may be numbered. Yet
wonderful as the perfect knowledge of the universe
would be, something still greater maybe conceived.
The creation of new worlds would open a new field
for more extensive discoveries. The Divine nature is
infinite, and is the only adequate object of an infinite
understanding. Nothing, if I may speak so, can fill
it; nothing corresponds to its capacity but infinite ex
cellence. In its view, the universe is as a point and
as nothing ; but in reflecting upon itself, it finds eternal
satisfaction and repose. How shallow are the appre
hensions of mortals, and of creatures much higher than
they ! To us it is permitted only to behold the skirts
of his glory, the few rays from his overpowering splen
dour which have pierced through the surrounding
clouds. " How little a portion have we heard of him ?
but the thunder of his power who can understand ?"
" Canst thou by searching find out God ? canst thou
find out the Almighty unto perfection ?"|| It will be

* Ps. cxxxix. 12. f Fs. cxlvii. 5.
|| Job iii i. 14. a. 7.

X 1 Cor. ii. 11.

the privilege and the joy of the blessed, dwelling in
his immediate presence, to make continual progress in
this study ; but the delightful labour will never come
to a close.
In the second place, God knows all beings besides
himself, all things which have been, now are, or shall
hereafter be. Thus we distinguish them according to
their succession ; but they are all before his comprehen
sive mind.
God knows all things which are past. Although
they have gone by, and no memorial of them may re
main, they are still present to him, as if they continu
ed to exist, and not one of them is forgotten. By the
faculty of memory, which, although familiar to us all,
we cannot explain, we retain the knowledge of things
which once were, but have ceased to be. The sunbeam
leaves no trace of its path, nor the cloud of its place
in the sky ; but sensations and thoughts make an im
pression upon the mind, which lasts for years, and
sometimes for life ; and to this part of our constitution
we are indebted for our mental improvement. We could
make no advance, if our ideas were instantly oblitera
ted. Since creatures possess the power of knowing
the past, we must allow that there is a similar power
in the Divine mind, but exempt from the weakness, and
failures, and confusion to which our memories are sub
ject. When we think of the generations which have
passed away from the creation of the world ; the mil
lions who have been born and have died, with the nu
merous incidents in their lives, the plans which they
contrived, the actions which they performed, the joys
and sorrows, the hopes and fears which chequered their
existence, it seems to us that the recollection of so many
particulars is impossible. But this notion will be cor
rected, as soon as we reflect upon the difference be
tween a finite and infinite understanding. We are ut
terly overwhelmed when we think of it ; we can form
no positive idea of its capacity, and must rest in the
negative conclusion that it has no limits. The relation
to time of a being absolutely eternal, surpasses our
comprehension. If he exists without succession, it
would seem that the whole events of time are always
present to him ; and yet, as time is a succession of
moments, of which some are past, and others are
future, this appears to be impossible. Still we hesi
tate to ascribe memory to him, because it is a faculty
of mutable beings, who have been carried away in
their course to a distance from objects and events
which were once present. As there is no distinction
of past, present, and to come, in his duration, so there
may be no distinction of the same kind in his know
ledge. He knows all things by a glance. But in
these speculations, it may perhaps be justly said, that
we darken counsel by words without knowledge. This
knowledge of past things God claims in proof of his
superiority to the wisest of men and to the gods of the
Gentiles. " Let all the nations be gathered together,
and let the people be assembled : who among them can
declare this, and shew us former things ? Let them
bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified ;
or let them hear, and say, It is truth." " Let them bring
them forth, and shew us what shall happen; let them
shew the former things, what they be, that we may
consider them, and know the latter end of them ; or de
clare us things for to come."* Upon the past as well
as the future, there rests a cloud which the eyes of
mortals cannot penetrate; and the only difference is,
lhat while futurity without the aid of prophecy is all
darkness, from the past there issue a few rays of light,
in the accounts of former transactions which have been
preserved, but which are often mixed with fable and
falsehood, and leave us in utter ignorance of millions
of facts which are irrecoverably lost. Without the
* Is. xliii. 9. xii. 22.

ON GOD: HIS KNOWLEDGE.

Ill

knowledge of the past, God could not execute the
august and awful office of the Judge of the human
race. At the close of time, Adam and all his descen
dants will appear before him, to receive their final
award, and the justice of the sentence will depend
upon his accurate acquaintance with their character
and actions. As he was the witness of their conduct
during its course, so he will recall the minutest parts
of it after an interval of thousands of years : and
it is to assure us that no mistake will be committed,
that the Scripture, in allusion to the proceedings of
men, represents books as produced and opened, that
the dead may be judged out of those things which are
written in them.
God knows all present things, all things that now
are. In this respect his knowledge resembles our own,
but is infinitely superior in degree. He tells the num
ber of the stars, and calls them by their names ; he sees
in one view the various orders of creatures which peo
ple the universe ; he is acquainted with every indivi
dual of mankind, obscure as he may be and unnoticed
by his neighbours ; he observes the minutest and most
insignificant animals, and counts the piles of grass.
"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and yet not
-one of them is forgotten before God.* Nothing can be
more unimportant than a hair of our head, and yet our
Saviour assures us, that our hairs are all numbered,
and that one of them cannot fall to the ground without
the knowledge of our heavenly Father. The humblest
person upon earth has no cause to fear, that amidst the
multiplicity of objects which engage the Divine atten
tion, he shall be overlooked ; nor may he whose interest
it would be to remain unnoticed, hope that be shall be
concealed in the dark recess from the eye of Omnisci
ence. He knows the actions of men ; "for the eyes
of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and
the good."f It is too often their sole object to maintain
external decorum, in order to secure the good opinion
of others; while in their absence, they throw off re
straint, and display their real character. But there is
a witness with them in the most secret place ; there is
an eye observing them, which they should dread more
than the severest human judge. It is about the actions
of men, that the knowledge of God as the moral Gov
ernor of the world is exercised ; for in this character,
he is the guardian of his laws, and observes whether
they are obeyed or transgressed. And we remark, that
he alone is the competent Judge of our actions, because
he alone is acquainted with our circumstances and mo
tives, and can distinguish between the form and the
substance, the specious pretence and the upright inten
tion. There are many considerations to be taken into
account, in a moral estimate of conduct, which he only
can combine, to whom the proceedings of the mind are
as manifest as external actions are to us. And hence
we are led to remark, that God knows the hearts of
men, and claims this knowledge as a prerogative in
which no mortal shares with him. "The heart is de
ceitful above all things, and desperately wicked ; who
can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the
reins, even to give every man according to his ways,
and according to the fruit of his doings. "f: Although
we easily believe such knowledge to be the attribute
of a Being who is as intimately present with our spirits
as with our bodies, yet we can form no adequate con
ception of it, because it is so different from our own
knowledge of each other's hearts, which is founded
upon outward signs, often of doubtful interpretation,
upon analogy or a presumed resemblance between them
and ourselves, and in some cases merely upon conjec
ture; whereas the knowledge of God is immediate and
intuitive. How awful the reflection, that he is a dis-
cerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart, that its
* Luke xii. 6. f PrDT- XT- 3- t Jer- xvii- 9> ln-

inmost recesses are naked and opened to the eyes' of
Him with whom we have to do ! Thoughts which are
only half-formed, which are suppressed as soon as they
arise, which fly across the mind and are forgotten, do
not escape his observation. He traces the windings
and labyrinths of the soul, and discovers latent princi
ples and motives, of which we are ourselves hardly
conscious. " His eyes are upon the ways of man, and
he seeth all his goings. There is no darkness, nor
shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may
hide themselves."*
God knows things to come. In this respect there is
no resemblance of his knowledge in man, nor we pre
sume in any creature. We perceive what is present,
and remember what is past; but the future can be ap
proached only by imagination, unless we deem it an
exception, that we are necessarily led to believe that
the laws of nature will always be as they have hitherto
been, and that succeeding generations will be like the
present in form, and in general habits and pursuits.
But these vague notions leave us in perfect, ignorance
of the actual state of things which will afterwards take
place. We know not a single individual who will be
born, or a single event which will befall him. Some
thing indeed is revealed to us concerning the future
histpry of the world ; but the light of prophecy has
emanated from him, who says, " Behold the former
things are come to pass, and new things do I declare ;
before they spring fortb I tell you of them."f This
subject came under review, when we were speaking of
the immutability of bis knowledge. A proof, that he
sees the future as well as the present, is furnished by
the predictions of Scripture. God announced Cyrus
by name long before his parents were born, and fore
told his war against Babylon, and the means by which
he should obtain possession of the city. He foretold
the rise and fall of the four ancient monarchies, and
portrayed before hand the characters and achievements
of Alexander the Great and his successors, with such
particularity and truth, that Porphyry, the learned ad
versary of Christianity in the third century, affirmed
that the prophecies must have been written after the
events. He foretold the birth of Jesus Christ, the
place of his nativity, and the family from which he
should spring, with the principal events of his life, and
his death, although it was effected not by an immediate
interposition of providence, but by the unexpected com
bination of Jews and Gentiles, it is unnecessary to
multiply instances. We formerly adverted to the diffi
culty which has perplexed the thoughts, and exercised
the ingenuity, of the studious in every age, with regard
to the means of reconciling the foreknowledge of God
with the free agency of man. What is certainly fore
seen, will certainly happen ; but the infallibility of the
event seems to preclude liberty of action, which con
sists in the power of acting or not acting, and of acting
in this way or in that, as at the moment the mind of
the person shall determine. The discussion of this
point would lead us into a digression from the present
subject. It has been often remarked, and justly, that
the simple foreknowledge of actions has no influence
upon their existence; of which we may satisfy our
selves by reflecting, that when we have at any time
ground for confident expectation that a neighbour will
take a particular course, our foresight is not the cause
of his conduct, which would have been the same if it
had not been foreseen : but this observation only re
moves the difficulty a step farther back. As there can
be no certain foreknowledge of things in themselves
uncertain, it still remains to inquire, what is the ground
of certainty in human actions which renders them the
object of infallible foreknowledge? If it be said to be
the Divine decree, the difficulty unquestionably is not

* Job xxxiv. 21 22.

f Is. xiii. 9.

112

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

diminished. Amidst all the perplexity in which we
are involved, one thing is beyond dispute, namely, that
God does foreknow future events, and prophecy is a
proof of it. The truth of both these principles is in
controvertible ; that known to God are all his works
from the beginning of the world, and that man is ac
countable. He is free, while he is acting the part which
his Maker has assigned to him ; and may be justly
punished for doing what constitutes a. necessary link
in the chain of events. The Jews fulfilled the Divine
purpose in crucifying our Saviour, and yet brought
wrath upon themselves to the uttermost. It ought not
to weaken our belief, that we cannot reconcile liberty
and foreknowledge. Such is the condition of man and
of all finite beings, that they must assent to many
things, for which they cannot account. We need not
Wonder, that when our thoughts are directed to God,
we are on all sides encompassed with mysteries.
God knows all possible things. No person can sup
pose, that those alone are possible, which have been,
now are, or shall hereafter be ; that Divine wisdom is
exhausted by the plans which it has already concerted,
and Divine power by the effects which it has already
produced, or has determined to produce. God could
have called into existence many other worlds, and many
other orders of creatures. He could have arranged sys
tems totally different from any of those which have been
established, governed them by different laws, and peo
pled them with inhabitants of different natures and fa
culties. He could have made our own world the scene
of a different train of events, by replenishing it with
a race of holy beings, who should have never been in
duced by temptation to swerve from their duty, and among
whom pain, and sorrow, and mortality, would have been
unknown. His infinite understanding knows not only
what he has done, and has purposed to do, but all that his
wisdom could have devised, and all that his power could
have accomplished. If any man should be so curious
as to ask, why he chose the present system in prefer
ence to so many possible systems ? he should be remind
ed, that the question is presumptuous, and that we
can return no answer to it, because God has not inform
ed us of the reasons; but that if he shall ever be pleas
ed to disclose his counsels to us, they will undoubtedly
be found worthy of eternal admiration and praise.
The knowledge of God may be distinguished into two
kinds, which have been called by Scholastic Divines
scientia simplicis intelligentias, and scientia visionis.*
Scientia visionis has for its object all things past, pre
sent, and to come ; it is said to be founded on will, be
cause the measure of it is the will of God, as ex
pressed in his eternal purpose. He foresees as future
those things alone which he has determined to bring to
pass. They were only possible, till he decreed their
futurition. It is called also scientia libera, free knowl
edge, because it depends upon his will, which is the
only reason of all the events of time. As nothing
could take place independently of him, so he was un
der no necessity to act at all, or to act in any particular
manner ; but all his operations, ad extra, are the result
of free choice. Scientia simplicis intelligentias has for
its object possible things, things which might have
been done, but never will be done. The measure of
it is omnipotence ; that is, while the former knowledge
is limited by his decree, this is extensive as his power.
He knows all that he could do; and because this
knowledge is not founded on his will but on his pow
er, it has been called scientia necessaria.'t His infinite
understanding necessarily knows every thing which his
infinite power can effect. A third kind of knowledge
has been ascribed to God, and called scientia media,%\

* The knowledge of simple intelligence, and the knowledge
of sight. f Necessary knowledge.
X Middle, or mediate knowledge.

as being something between the two kinds already
mentioned. It is the knowledge of what will happen
in certain given circumstances, the knowledge of what
creatures will do, if endowed with certain qualities and
placed in certain situations. But there is no occasion
for this distinction, as all the objects of this new kind
of knowledge are comprehended under the head of sci
entia simplicis intelligentias. If God by his infinite un
derstanding, knows all possible causes and all their
possible effects, he knows what would be the result in
any supposable case. He knew that the men of Keilah
would deliver up David to Saul, because he knew the
state of their hearts, and the influence which the au
thority and solicitations of that monarch would have
upon their conduct. It is objected farther against the
media scientia, that it is unworthy of God, as it makes
him dependent upon creatures for a part of his knowl
edge; for the distinction has been invented with a de
sign to prove, that his knowledge of the future actions
of men is not founded on his own purpose to permit them,
or to bring them to pass, but in a prospective view of
the manner in which they will conduct themselves. It
was introduced in opposition to the doctrine of free and
sovereign grace, and it proposes to account for his pur
pose to give grace to one and not to another, by his
foresight of the use which they would make of means
and opportunities.
Concerning the knowledge of God, we assert, in op
position to this opinion, that it is independent. It is
not obtained through the medium of his creatures, but,
so far as it respects future things, is- founded on his
own will. No effect can be viewed as future, or in
human language, can be the object of certain expecta
tion, but when considered in relation to its efficient
cause; and the cause of all things tilat ever shall exist
is the purpose of God, "who worketh all things after
the counsel of his own will." As the knowledge of
God does not depend upon the actual existence of ob
jects, — for this would limit it to the present and the
past, — so it does not depend upon any conditions attached
to their existence. He does not know that such things
will happen, if such other things shall go before; but
the whole, series of events was planned by his infinite
understanding, the ends as well as the means ; and he
foresees the ends, not through the medium of the means,
but through the medium of his own decree, in which,
they have a certain future existence. They will not
take place without the means ; but the proper cause of
them is not the means, but his almighty will.
It follows in the second place, that the knowledge of
God is eternal. If it be independent upon creatures,
and founded in his own purpose, then it is as ancient
as his purpose. WTere it impossible to foresee the free
actions of men, much of his knowledge would be ac
quired in time. It would be daily receiving accessions
like our own, to which something is added every day
by our observation of the conduct of those with whom
we are surrounded. It has been said, " that as it im
plies not any reflection on the Divine power, to say that
it cannot perform impossibilities, so neither does it
imply any reflection on his knowledge, to say that he
cannot foresee as certain what is really not certain, but
only contingent." This is true ; but it remains to be
proved that the actions of men are contingent in such a
sense as to be uncertain. Reason will ascribe all pos
sible knowledge to God ; and that it is. possible cer
tainly to foresee the free actions of men, cannot be a
matter of doubt to a believer in Divine revelation,
which abounds in predictions of such actions. The
knowledge of God is eternal. The doctrine of tempo
ral decrees, of decrees made in time, as men shew
themselves to be worthy or unworthy, is chargeable with
the impiety of settinglimits to the Divine understanding,
and making the Most High fickle and mutable as man,
who is of one mind to-day, and of another to-morrow

ON GOD: HIS KNOWLEDGE.

113

In the next place, The knowledge of God is simul
taneous, or as it has been differently expressed, not dis
cursive but intuitive. Some parts of human knowl
edge are intuitive ; that is, the things are perceived at
once, and no process of reasoning is necessary to dis
cover them. There are certain axioms or first princi
ples, to which the mind gives its assent as soon as they
are proposed, and the terms are understood. There are
also some truths, which, although not intuitive, are
nearly such, because the mind arrives almost instantly
at the conclusion. But the general character of hu
man knowledge is, that it is successive. The riches
of the mind, like external wealth, are acquired by accu
mulation. New objects and new relations of objects,
- daily present themselves to our senses ; and from truths
which we know, we infer other truths by a longer or a
shorter train of reasoning. Thus our knowledge is
discursive. But the infinite understanding of God re
ceives no accession of ideas. The term infinite, which
we apply to it, proves an accession' to be impossible.
He sees all things, as we see axioms by intuition.
Eyes are ascribed to him to denote his knowledge, and
to signify that it comprehends the whole system of
things, as the human eye surveys at a glance the whole
visible horizon. It follows, that what is called media
scientia, or the knowledge of events through their cau
ses, cannot be properly attributed to him, because it is
a discursive process, or implies the inference of one
thing from another, and consequently a succession of
ideas. There is no progression from ignorance to
knowledge in the Divine mind, which was from all
eternity omniscient.
Hence it is evident, that the knowledge of God is
immutable, as I shewed in a former lecture ; and I
proceed, therefore, to remark, that it is distinct. This
is true also of human knowledge, to a certain extent.
We have a distinct knowledge of mathematical truths,
of facts which we have witnessed, and of the existence
of objects which we perceive by our senses. On the
other hand, we are ignorant of the essences of all things ;
we have no conception of the relation between their
properties and their essences, or how the former inhere
in the latter ; and our ideas of many things are gener
al and obscure. But all things are naked and opened
to the eyes of God, iiTp!tx>i\i<rf*nct as an apostle says,*
as manifest to him as the interior of an animal is to us,
when it has been fairly divided and spread out for in
spection. An infinite understanding is incapable of
oversight, of misapprehension, or of taking a hasty and
inaccurate survey. Every object, every quality of eve
ry object, every relation which' it bears, every thing
which may be predicated of it, whether it be animate
or inanimate, all is before God, and is as thoroughly
known as if his attention were fixed upon it alone.
Among the many millions of the human race, every in
dividual may truly say, " Thou, God, seest me."
In the last place, The knowledge of God is infalli
ble. There is no mistake in his apprehension of things,
and there is nothing like conjecture. Future events
are as certainly known as present, because, although
they may be contingent in respect of the agents, or
may be produced by the free volition of men, they are
future, not contingently but necessarily, to him who
has purposed to bring them to pass. But as this is
manifest from what has been already said, any farther
illustration is unnecessary.
Any passages of Scripture which may seem to be
inconsistent with the Divine omniscience, will perplex
only the ignorant, and are easily disposed of. When
God is said to have come down to see the city and tow
er which were building on the plain of Babylon, f that
person would be justly laughed at who should spppose,
either that he could literally descend, or that it was ne-

* Heb. iv. 13.
P

f Gen. xi. 5,

cessary to change his place, in order to know what was
going on upon earth. When, again, he represents
himself as looking that his vineyard should bring forth
good grapes, whereas it brought forth wild grapes,* it
would be the height of ar "surdity to take the words in
their literal meaning, and imagine that he was really
disappointed. Every body knows that God is speak
ing of himself after the manner of men, who in order
to see an object more distinctly, draw near to it, and
when they have arranged the means, expect the usual
result. The two passages teach us, that God was per
fectly acquainted with the transaction at Babel ; and
that, after the pains which he had bestowed upon his
ancient people, it was solely owing to their own per-
verseness, that they were not made wiser and better.
The consideration of the Divine omniscience is cal
culated to check the lofty thoughts which we are too
apt to entertain of ourselves. We often see men proud
of their talents, and somejmes so much elated as pre
sumptuously to pronounce judgment upon God himself;
to censure his dispensations, as if a different procedure
would have been wiser ; to criticise his word, and re
fuse to give credit to its plain declarations, because rea
son cannot comprehend them. Thus finite measures
that which is infinite. Such is the impious arrogance
of an insignificant creature, who only yesterday began
to know any thing, is puzzled by the most common oc
currences, and finds mysteries in a grain of sand. Let
him reflect upon an infinite understanding, and shrink
within himself, saying, "I neither learned wisdom, nor
have the knowledge of the Holy."f
There are many important lessons which are taught
by this attribute of our Creator. It admonishes us to
beware of sin, since he is the constant witness of our
actions ; and to study sincerity in all things, and par
ticularly in our religious profession, because our mo
tives are distinctly seen by him. It encourages good
men to put their trust in' him, and to commit all their
affairs to his disposal ; for a particular providence,
which is the source of so much consolation, is founded
on his infinite knowledge. The very hairs of our heads
are numbered ; and as nothing can befal us without his
knowledge, so every event is under the direction of his
wisdom and goodness. " The eyes of the Lord run to
and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself
strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect
toward him.":j:
The omniscience of God encourages humble suppli
cation in every season of need. There is no cause of
fear that the prayers of the righteous will not be heard,
or that their sighs and tears will escape his notice,
since he knows the thoughts and desires of the heart.
There is no danger of being overlooked amidst the
multitude of supplicants who daily and hourly present
their various petitions, for an infinite mind is capable
of paying the same attention to millions as if only one
individual were soliciting its notice. The want of ap
propriate language, the impossibility of giving expres
sion to the deep feelings of the soul, will not hinder
their success; because before they attempt to speak,
he knows what they would say. " It shall c.-niie to
pass, that before they call, I will answer ; and while
they are yet speaking, I will hear."||
In a word, what a powerful incitement is it to our
duty, that He is looking on who approves of every
honest endeavour to please him, and will abundantly
recompense it ! "A book of remembrance was writ
ten before him for them that feared the Lord, and that
thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith
the Lord of Hosts, in that day when I make up my
jewels ; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his
own son that serveth him."§

* Isa. v. 2.
|| Isa. lxv. 24.

f Prov. xxx. 3.
j Mai. iii. 16, 17.

} 2 Chron. xvi. 9.

114

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

LECTURE XXII.
ON GOD.
Wisdom of God : distinguished from Knowledge — Idea of
Wisdom — Proofs of Wisdom in Creation : in Providence :
in Redemption.
Having considered the knowledge of God, I proceed
to speak of his wisdom. These are easily distinguish
able. Knowledge is the simple apprehension of things
as they are, as the eye perceives the objects presented
to it ; wisdom is the arrangement of our ideas in pro
per order, and in such a train as to produce some use
ful practical result. The instrument of acquiring
knowledge is the understanding alone; but wisdom
implies volition, or a purpose to effect an end, and the
choice of the means by which it will be accomplished.
In creatures they are often separated. Wisdom cannot
exist without knowledge, but knowledge may exist
without wisdom; and, accordingly, there are men pos
sessing very extensive information, who in their con
duct give many proofs of thoughtlessness and folly.
In an all-perfect Being, they are necessarily conjoined ;
omniscience supplies the materials of infinite wisdom.
As God knows all his creatures, all their powers and
qualities, all the purposes to which they may be ren
dered subservient, all the relations in which they may
be placed, and all the possible consequences of all pos
sible events, he is able infallibly to determine what are
the most proper ends to be pursued, and what are the
fittest means of effecting them; as he is perfectly just
and good, there is no principle in his nature which
might prevent him from choosing what is best ; and as
his power is infinite, no obstacle can occur to the exe
cution of his plans.
All nations have agreed in ascribing wisdom to the
Supreme Being, and have been led to this conclusion
by the obvious and manifold proofs of it, which will
be afterwards considered. " Man is wise," says Cice
ro, " and so therefore is God ;" rightly judging that a
superior nature must possess what is truly excellent in
man ; and that if wisdom had not existed in the Crea
tor, it would not have been found in the creature. Rev
elation pronounces him to be " the only wise God,"*
thus seeming to appropriate this attribute to him, to the
exclusion of every other being from a share in it ; yet
we know that men and angels are possessed of it in a
certain degree, and we must therefore understand the
sacred writer to speak comparatively, and to signify
that their wisdom, which is dependent and derived, and
his wisdom, which is necessary and essential, do not
admit of comparison ; and when brought into competi
tion, that of creatures, so limited in its nature, so soon
exhausted by a few expedients, is altogether unworthy
of notice.
Wisdom consists in the choice of proper ends and
proper means ; design simply implies that the agent
has some object in view, and does not act at random.
But his design may be trifling or degrading ; it may
prove that he is destitute of sound judgment; and
.hence, whatever art he may discover in gaining his ob
ject, we do not give him the praise of wisdom. If a
man should employ an ingenious and complicated ap
paratus to effect a purpose which is not worth half the
expense, or which might have been effected without
any waste of time and labour, instead of thinking him
wise, we should pronounce him to be a fool. The end
must be worthy of the agent, and of the attention be
stowed upon it. It may be said, that we are incompe
tent to judge what is worthy of God, what it would
become a Being so far exalted above us to do, and that
it would be less presumptuous in a fly endowed with
intelligence, to pronounce upon the counsels and oper-
* 1 Tim. i. 17.

ations of man. We acknowledge our incompetence
beforehand, and our inability to enter fully into his de
signs, even after they are revealed ; but since God has
endowed us with some portion of understanding, there
is no arrogance in venturing to say, when we see him
pursuing certain ends, that they appear to us to be suit
able to the dignity of his character. There is no arro
gance in maintaining, that it is worthy of him to glori
fy himself by the manifestation of his attributes, to
communicate happiness to other beings whom his al
mighty power has created, to uphold the moral govern
ment of the universe, to promote the interests of righ
teousness and truth. Now, these are the very ends
which appear to be the objects of the Divine dispensa
tions ; and we are so far from perceiving any thing in
them incongruous to the idea of an all-perfect Being,
that they harmonize with our conceptions of the tran
scendent excellence of his character.
It is not less characteristic of wisdom to choose fit
means, than to aim at worthy ends. We should never
account him a wise man, who formed excellent designs,
but failed to execute them from not knowing what ex
pedients it was necessary to employ, or from want of
skill in arranging and applying them. It is here that a
trial is made of his knowledge of the powers, qualities,
relations, and tendencies of things. There are persons
whose minds are fertile in suggesting what it would be
of advantage to do, but who are incapable of executing
their own plans, and must commit them to others, who
are superior in invention and dexterity ; and the subor
dinate details may require greater strength of intellect
than the original conception. In contemplating the
wisdom of God, we must take into the account the
whole process, the previous steps as well as the final
result. In estimating the wisdom of an agent, we first
attend to the object which he had in view, and second
ly, observe the method by which he effected it.
In this argument, we assume the doctrine of final
causes. A final cause is that for which any thino- is
done, the end which an agent has in view, and to which
his operations are directed. It is called a cause, be
cause it excites him to act; and a final cause, because
when it is effected his object is gained. The proofs
of final causes in the universe are denied only by athe
ists, who wish to obliterate the evidence that an intel
ligent Being is its author. How they have succeeded
in this attempt so revolting to reason, we have former
ly seen. It may be as rationally denied, that there are
marks of design in the construction of a watch, as that
there are any in the system of nature ; that the ulti
mate intention of the watch was to point out the hour,
as that the ultimate intention of the mechanism of an
animal body is the sustenance and motion of the animal.
Let us in the first place, collect the proofs of Divine
wisdom from the visible creation. " How manifold,
O Lord, are thy works ! in wisdom hast thou made
them all, and the earth is full of thy riches."* Instan
ces of curious contrivance present themselves on every
side. WTe observe a wonderful adaptation of one thing
to another, with a view to the production of a particu
lar result, and the same purpose accomplished by such
a diversity of means, as cannot fail to convince us, that
the whole is the work of an intelligent Being, rich in
expedients. As the proofs of wisdom in creation con
stitute only one department of the subject, we cannot
go into a minute detail, but must confine ourselves to a
few particulars, and even of these give only a general
account. I might refer you to the argument formerly
adducedf for the existence of God from the marks of
design in his works, which prove an intelligent cause;
but it would be improper to pass over a topic so rich
in displays of his wisdom, although we shall be led
to repeat in substance the observations formerly made.

* Ps. civ. 24.

t See before, pp 85—7.

ON GOD: HIS WISDOM.

115

Let us 'attend to the arrangement of the system to
which we belong. In the centre is placed the sun, the
great source of light and heat, who dispenses without
intermission his influences to the planets, which per
form their revolutions around him. He is at rest, and
they are in motion; but they are retained in their orbits
by his attractive power; and the mighty machine is
incessantly working without confusion, or the slightest
deviation of any of its parts. How much more admi
rable is the solar system as now understood, than it
appeared to the ancient philosophers, who imagined
that the sun daily wheeled his rapid course around the
earth, which, in comparison of him, is so diminutive!
By the motion of the earth, the purposes which were
supposed to be accomplished by the motion of the sun,
are effected in a more simple manner. By its diurnal
motion around its own axis, the different parts of its
surface are successively presented to the sun, and the
vicissitude of day and night is produced, so necessary
to the existence and well-being of animals and vegeta
bles. In the day, men and animals carry on their vari
ous operations, and vegetables are nourished by his
rays, and adorned with beautiful colours: in the night,
all nature reposes in the shades of darkness ; plants
sleep as well as living creatures ; and the vigour of our
bodies and minds, which were exhausted by labour and
thought, is recreated. Who does not see, in this case,
a wise provision of our Maker ? By the annual circuit
of the earth, we enjoy the change of seasons, which
delights us by a variety of scene, and is subservient to
the purposes of vegetation, on which the life of all ter
restrial animals depends. In winter the earth rests,
and repairs its strength; and during the subsequent
seasons, that wonderful process takes place which
clothes the trees and fields with verdure, and by the
multiplication of the seed deposited in the soil, re
wards the labour of the husbandman. We may re
mark the wisdom of God also in the relative situation
of the earth to the sun. It has been placed where it is,
and not in the orbit of any other planet, with an exact
adaptation to the nature of its inhabitants. Whether it
had been brought nearer, or removed to a greater dis
tance, excessive heat or excessive cold would have
proved equally fatal to animal and vegetable life. All
living beings must have perished, unless their constitu
tion had been changed, and the water in seas, lakes,
and rivers, would have been .either evaporated, or
frozen. Here then we have an instance of adjustment,
Which furnishes a new proof of the Creator's wisdom.
Let us turn our attention to the constitution of the
earth itself, and we shall perceive, that by the same
wisdom, it is fitted for all the purposes which it was
intended to serve. It is composed of various sub
stances, adapted to a variety of uses ; but what I re
quest you at present to observe, is the nature of the
substance lying on the surface. Had the earth been
covered with rock or sand, it would have been an unfit
habitation for man, because it could not have afforded
the means of subsistence ; but the upper stratum is a
soft mould, into which the roots of plants penetrate,
and in which seeds find a matrix, where the vegetable
principle is evolved and nourished; for it should also
be considered, that the soil is endowed with certain
virtues, and supplies the pabulum of plants, in conse
quence of which they rise to maturity, and perfect their
fruit. We observe that a large proportion of the sur
face is covered with water ; but the objection against
the extent of the ocean, as encroaching too much upon
the habitation of men and terrestrial animals, is absurd
while there are such tracts of land as yet unoccupied,
and proceeds, besides, from stupid inattention to the
purposes which are served by the ocean. Not only
does it open an intercourse between distant nations, and
furnish the means of easily and speedily conveying the
productions of one ccuntry to another, but it is the in-!

exhaustible source of those exhalations which descend
upon us in rain and dew. And as the quantity of these
is upon the whole not more than sufficient to supply
rivers and springs, and to nourish the herbs, and plants,
and trees, which clothe the surface of the earth, it is
evident, that if the boundaries of the ocean had been
compressed, all nature would have languished, animals
and vegetables would have perished, and our globe
would have been converted into a dreary wilderness.
We formerly took notice of the wisdom displayed in
the inequalities of the earth; and we then stated, that
without mountains there would have been no springs
and rivers. We may now remark, that a smooth uni
form plain, however much adorned, would have been
far less beautiful than the scenery which now enchants
us by its diversified features, at one time gentle, and
at another majestic ; and that room is provided for a
greater variety of plants and animals, some preferring
cold and elevated regions, while others seek low and
sheltered spots. The whole is planned with an evident
regard to different ends, and each of these is secured
by expedients varied with admirable skill.
Let us, in the next place, take a view of the living
creatures which inhabit the earth, and we shall perceive
many proofs of Divine wisdom in their bodies, and
particularly in our own, which, according to a sacred
writer, is " fearfully and wonderfully made." In con
sidering man as related to the material objects amidst
which he is placed, it cannot fail to strike us as an
instance of wise adaptation, that he is furnished with
organs of sense to perceive them and their qualities,
the knowledge of which is necessary, not only to his
comfort, but to his very existence. When we examine
those organs, the ear for example, or the eye, with
which we are better acquainted, both the design and
the workmanship are calculated to excite the highest
admiration. We cannot tell, indeed, how we see or
hear by means of these organs, but we discover a con
trivance, of which the obvious intention is to convey
the corresponding sensations to our minds. That a
body so small as the eye should perceive not only near
but distant objects, should bring under our view the
earth and the heavens, should make us exactly ac
quainted with the figure, size, colour, and relative posi
tion of so many bodies, should discern the members of
a minute insect, and contemplate the host of stars mar
shalled in the sky ; that this little organ should be capa
ble of taking so wide a range, and performing so many
wonders, is a proof that it is not the work of chance,
but of a Divine artist, who is wonderful in counsel.
Among the boasted productions of human art, where
shall we find any thing to be compared to it? When
we proceed in the examination of our bodies, the evi
dences of wisdom multiply upon us. What a variety
of functions is performed in this microcosm ! what a
provision of means and instruments ! how delicate and
regular the process ! The bones support the body, and
are articulated that it may bend in different directions,
and be moved from one place to another. The flesh is
composed of muscles, which being attached to the
bones, and possessing the power of contraction, give
them the necessary motion. The waste to which the
body is suhject, is repaired by its capacity to receive
and digest food, and to convert it into its Own substance ;
and by a curious apparatus the aliment is distributed
to every part of our frame. The expenditure is con
stant, and so is the supply. We cannot live without
air, and respiration is carried on by the mouth and
lungs. The blood circulates by night and by day, and
the secretions go on with perfect regularity when not
interrupted by disease. There is one proof of the wis
dom of our Maker, which deserves particular attention.
While some of the operations, which are necessary to
our well-being, are dependent upon our will, others of
equal importance are involuntary. We respire, the

116

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

blood flows, and many other processes are continued in
sleep as well as when we are awake, for this obvious
reason, that the suspension of them would prove fatal
to life. They are therefore taken out of our hands, and
reserved in his own by the Great First Cause, who
never slumbers or sleeps, and who lives and acts in
every point of the universe. There is manifest wis
dom in this arrangement. Man is left to do what he
can do for himself; but when his power would be in
adequate, another agency interposes to perfect the de
sign. In many respects, the structure of the inferior
animals resembles our own ; and when a difference is
observable, it affords a new illustration of wisdom, be
cause it is the result of a design to fit them for the dif
ferent functions belonging to their nature, and the mode
of life allotted to them. On this ground, religion may
confidently triumph over atheism. Its demonstrations
can be opposed only by malignity struggling against
conviction; or if there is any man, acquainted but
superficially with the organization of living bodies,
who denies that they are the work of an intelligent
Maker, we may, after the example of the Psalmist,
pronounce him to be a fool.
We might strengthen this argument by a review of
the intellectual and active powers of the human mind,
from which it would appear with how much wisdom
they are adapted to the condition of man as an inhabi
tant of this world, and as in a state of preparation for
a future and higher existence. His mental frame is
not less wonderful than his corporeal. But I shall con
clude with observing, that the wisdom of God is appa
rent in the instincts by which the irrational animals are
governed. By instincts we mean certain inclinations
or propensities to act in a way conducting to a specific
result, without, as we suppose, any knowledge of the
result, any anticipation of the consequence. Nothing
is more admirable than the sagacity with which they
choose the most proper places for their habitations, the
dexterity displayed in constructing them, and the care
which they take of their young, brooding over them,
bringing food to them, training them up for their pecu
liar kind of life, and defending them with courage and
with art. Yet we do not suppose, that they are pos
sessed of reason, that they improve by the experience
of their predecessors, that they deliberate and concert
plans, that they calculate probabilities, and look for
ward to the future. What then is the wisdom which
we admire in them ? It is not their own, but the wis
dom of their Creator, who in a manner inexplicable
to us, directs them to ends of which they are not aware.
It is not by its own understanding, that the bee con
structs its cells with such attention to strength and ca
pacity ; it is not from its own knowledge of the ap
proaching disappearance of the flowers from which it
extracts its food, that it gathers honey in the fine sea
son, and lays it up in store for winter. No; the bee
is under superior guidance, and it is when describing
the operations of this little insect, that a heathen poet
gives it as the opinion of some, that bees have a por
tion of the Divine mind, which pervades all nature, the
earth, the sea, and the heavens :
Esse apibus partem divina; mentis, et haustus
iEthereos dixere.*
That bees, a portion of the Mind divine
And heavenly inspiration, do possess.
Some have alleged.
They rightly judged, that its wonderful contrivances
did not originate from itself. " Doth the hawk fly by
thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south ?
Doth the eagle mount up at thy command, and make
her nest on high ?"f No ; in the economy of the low
er animals, we perceive the wisdom of the Creator,
who purposing to preserve the individual and the spe-

* Virg. Georg. iv. 220.

t Job xxxix. 26, 27.

cies, guides them by his mysterious influence, With a
certainty which the superior but fallible reason of man
seldom attains.
In a lecture, of which the wisdom of God in creation
forms only a part, there is room for nothing more than
genera) observations. Perhaps, a stronger impression
would be made by selecting an instance or two, and giv
ing a minute illustration of them. We should find much
to admire in a pile of grass, in the wing of a fly, or in
the sting of a gnat. God has been said to be maximus
in minimis, to appear greatest in the least things ; not
however, because there is more wisdom in the forma
tion of these, than in the structure of creatures of a
superior size, but because we are more astonished at
the variety displayed within such narrow limits. It is
truly wonderful, that in the most diminutive insect, in
a mere living point, in some cases invisible to the un
assisted eye, there should be combined all the parts
essential to a perfect animal, organs of sight, and smell,
and taste, instruments of motion, and vessels for circu
lating the blood and digesting its food.
Let us proceed, in the second place, to collect the
proofs of Divine wisdom from providence, by which
we mean God's natural and moral government of the
world by his own immediate but invisible agency, and
by the instrumentality of second causes. So far as
providence is employed in upholding the material sys
tem, and the living creatures who are void of reason,
it is the continued exercise of the power by which
they were originally produced ; and any observations
which might be made, have been anticipated in speak
ing of their motions and instincts. I shall, therefore,
confine your attention to his government of men, con
sidered as moral agents, as beings possessed of reason,
will, and active powers.
First, his wisdom appears in the order which he pre
serves among them, notwithstanding the tendency of
their nature to throw all things into confusion. It
ought to be considered, that the subjects of his govern
ment are not innocent and holy creatures, who rever
ence his laws, and are disposed to comply with his
will ; but that they are self-willed and rebellious, driv
en headlong by impetuous passions, proud, jealous of
their rights, envious, revengeful, ambitious, and so en
grossed by a regard to themselves, as to be ready to
sacrifice the interests of others to their views of honour,
wealth, and pleasure. In short, the human mind, as it
is now constituted, contains all the elements of discord ;
and we may judge what mischief these would produce
if full scope were allowed to them, by observing the
misery which they occasionally entail upon families,
nations, and churches. Their operations are prevented
ormoderated, not by simple power, which would be in
consistent with moral government, as it would suspend
free agency and convert men into passive instruments of
the Divine will, but by means suitable to their nature,
and illustrative of the wisdom of the Supreme Ruler;
by his moral laws, some regard to which remains in
minds not utterly abandoned ; by conscience which
retains a degree of authority, and overawes them by its
remonstrances and forebodings ; by the institutions of
civil society, which springing out of the circumstances
of human nature, must be considered as a part of the
Divine administration ; by opposing one passion to
another, and so counteracting or weakening its effect, for
example, withholding the revengeful man from his pur
pose, by the fear of evil to himself, and the sensual man
by the apprehension of the loss of character or health ;
or by opposing the passions of one man to those of
another, so that both are impeded, and neither can accom
plish his design, or accomplish it to the extent which he
had meditated. In this manner, God stills the tumults of
the people without a miracle, and without a visible inter
position. The simplicity and efficacy of the means afford
a demonstration of his wisdom. His government goes on

ON GOD: HIS WISDOM.

117

Bilently and uniformly to effect its design, without any
infringement of the established laws. Men retain their
liberty, and yet are unconsciously subject to restraint;
and although there is much irregularity in human con
duct, and sometimes dreadful disorders take place, yel
the effects are mitigated, and such a degree of order is
maintained as is necessary to the preservation of our
species, and the final development of the Divine coun
sels. He makes the wrath of man praise him, and
the remainder of it he restrains.*
In the second place, while he operates silently and
secretly, his wisdom is seen mixing such events with
his dispensations, as are calculated to keep alive a
sense of his existence and government. Were the af
fairs of the world to proceed in a uniform train, he
might be overlooked and forgotten, especially as the
objects of sense have a powerful influence upon us,
and to sinful creatures the idea of a holy and righteous
Governor is not welcome. Men might easily let go a
principle which they are not desirous to retain. To
counteract this tendency of the human heart to atheism,
is the design of those occasional interpositions of pro
vidence, which proclaim in the ear of reason, that
" verily he is a God who judgeth in the earth." Of
this nature are the circumstances which sometimes ac
company the rise, and particularly the fall of kingdoms
and empires ; to which we may add earthquakes, pesti
lences, and desolating tempests, that for a time at least
make religious impressions upon the minds of most
men ; wonderful escapes from danger, favours unex
pectedly and strangely conferred, and judgments exe
cuted suddenly and visibly upon notorious offenders.
" The Lord is known by the judgment which he exe-
cuteth ; the wicked is snared in the work of his own
hands."f Such events are not miraculous, and a cool-
headed philosopher might often be able to trace the
chain of natural causes by which they are effected ; but
they are so disposed as to carry away the mind to an
invisible Agent, to whose will all the parts of nature
are subordinate. As without some sense of a superin
tending providence, the laws and institutions of society
would be inadequate to preserve the peace of the world,
the advantage of such dispensations, even to the tem
poral interests of mankind, is obvious. They prevent
the belief of a higher Power who is friendly to justice
and humanity, and is the avenger of crimes, from being
utterly extinguished. At the same time, wisdom is
displayed in the rare occurrence of such interpositions.
The design of them is not to establish a perfect moral
administration in the present life, but to give hints and
notions of one. Were they frequent and regular, they
might become familiar, and pass for common events ;
their occasional nature rouses the slumbering attention
of mortals and reminds them that there is justice in
the universe, although its operations are not yet fully
developed. In the third place, the wisdom of God appears in
the mode of conducting his designs. The means em
ployed often seem inadequate ; but the result shews
that the foolishness of God is wiser than men. The
greatest revolution in the world was effected, as we
shall afterwards see, by persons, who, in respect of
character, talents, rank, and influence, were totally dis
qualified for the arduous undertaking. Sometimes his
purposes are accomplished by a train of circumstances,
the tendency of which is to defeat them ; he sows the
seeds of sorrow, that a full harvest of joy may be ga
thered ; and conducts to glory by a previous course of
painful and humiliating discipline. Joseph was sold
as a slave, and afterwards committed to prison un
der a false accusation, that he might rise to the highest
honours in the kingdom of Egypt; and a succession
of calamities befel his father, which terminated in the

preservation of himself and his family from destruction.
" Joseph is not," exclaimed the afflicted patriarch^
"Simeon is not, and ye will take Benjamin away: all
these things are against me."* It is thus that the
physician, by his consummate skill converts substan
ces in themselves deleterious, into valuable medicines.
Sometimes his designs seem to be at the point of failure,
when they are on the very eve of accomplishment, that
the unexpected issue may be seen to be his own work.
The family of David had been long stript of its ancient
splendour, the sceptre had been wrested from it, and the
royal line had sunk into obscurity and was almost for
gotten, when the blessed virgin brought forth her Son,
who was elevated to the throne of the universe, and
shall reign for ever and ever. " In that day will I
raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close
up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins,
and I will build it as in the days of old."f Sometimes
his designs are accomplished by persons who have no
knowledge of them, and aim at very different purposes.
Nebuchadnezzar was the rod of God's anger, with
which he severely chastised his rebellious people. But
the sole object of the king of Babylon was to gratify
his ambition and avarice by conquest and spoil ; and,
in like manner, other monarchs, and millions of their
subjects have been the unconscious instruments of
Providence, which enlists the worst passions and the
worst men in its service, and is continually bringing
good out of evil. " Howbeit he meaneth not so, nei
ther doth his heart think so ; but it is in his heart to
destroy and to cut off nations not a few."f Some
times they are employed as the ministers of his will,
who not only have no intention to serve him, but
exert themselves to oppose and frustrate his designs.
His wisdom is displayed, not only in overruling
their opposition, as he could easily do by his irresis
tible power, but in making it hold the relation of a
mean to the end, so that his design is directly fulfilled
by their attempts to defeat it. It was the object of the
blasphemy and persecution of the Jews, to disprove
the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth, and of their put
ting him to death, to terminate his career ; but in their
whole proceedings tJie predictions which marked him
out were fulfilled, and the world was redeemed by the
effusion of his blood. " Of a truth against thy holy
child Jesus both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the
Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered to
gether, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel
determined before to be done."|| In short, the wisdom
of God is manifold. It attains its ends in every pos
sible way, by likely and unlikely means, by the cheer
ful co-operation of some and the perverse ohstinacy of
others ; and nothing can raise our admiration of it
higher than the consideration that all creatures, with
their passions and projects, are subservient to it ; that
it gives a plan and a harmony to the seemingly dis
jointed and embroiled affairs of the earth ; that it su
perintends at once the concerns of a whole system, of
a world, of a nation, of a family, and of an individual;
and that the result of its varied operations will be hap
py and glorious.
Lastly, the wisdom of God appears in so ordering the
present state of things, as to give notice of another
state, and a judgment to come. We have already seen,
that the occasional exercise of justice in the punish
ment of sin, is an indication of a moral Governor, who
may be expected to reveal himself more clearly in this
character, in some succeedingstage ofourexistence ; and
my present design is to shew, that there are other circum
stances which corroborate this conclusion. Now this
purpose is accomplished by the promiscuous distribution
of good and evil, taken in connexion with the intimations

* Ps. Ixxvi. 10.

f Ps. ix. 16.

* Gen. xiii. 36.
|| Acts. iv. 27.

f Amos ix. 11.

X Isa. a. 7.

118

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

already referred to, that the Supreme Being is just.
Finding that justice is an attribute which belongs to
him, we are unavoidably led to believe, that he would
uniformly act agreeably to it, were there nothing in the
present state of things to prevent him. As he is the
Author of nature, we cannot suppose that the whole
system is so disposed as never to afford opportunity for
a full display of this perfection; but we rather infer,
that there is somewhere in his wide dominions a place
in which men shall receive exactly according to their
deeds. Were the conduct of men evidently the ground
of their present treatment, it might be thought by those
whose views were not enlarged by revelation, that the
plan of Providence respecting them is completed at
death ; but the obvious inequality of their lots suggests
a different conclusion. Hence the heathen themselves,
observing that there was no certain rule according to
which the measures of good and evil were dispensed,
entertained the notion of a state beyond the grave, in
which the righteous would be rewarded, and the wicked
punished : " No man knoweth love or hatred by all
that is before him." The constitution under which we
are placed might be shewn to be on other accounts the
best for the present time ; but we have only now to
observe, that this mixed scene is a premonition of a
new order of things, and thus serves to support the
authority of religion. It is a proof of wisdom, that
while the present administration is adapted to the de
sign of God respecting us in this world, it reminds us
of another where our final interest lies, and is fitted to
excite us to pursue such conduct as becomes accounta
ble beings. If this is manifestly the period of trial, the
judgment will come to rectify all apparent disorders.
Let us, in the third place, observe the displays of divine
wisdom in redemption. As it is the last and greatest
work of God, we may expect it to afford the most glo
rious manifestation of his character. The Scripture
represents the perfection which we are at present con
sidering as receiving a high illustration from it, when
it says, that God "has abounded toward us in all wis
dom and prudence;"* and the displays of it as won
derfully diversified, when it says further, "unto the
principalities and powers in heavenly places, might be
known by the church the manifold wisdom of God."f
In order to perceive the wisdom of a plan, it is neces
sary first to know the end or the ends proposed, and
then to inquire what means have been employed. Now,
the ends which God had in view in our redemption by
Jesus Christ, were, to glorify his own perfections, to
illustrate, the authority of his law, and to humble our
pride ; and it was only in subservience to these ends
that he purposed to raise our fallen race from misery
to happiness. Let us observe how these ends have
been accomplished.
First, God purposed to glorify himself in the re
demption of man. His glory, indeed, is the ultimate
end of all his works; but when we say so, we ought
to be aware of falling into the error of supposing that
he was actuated by a desire of display analogous to
the principle of vanity in man, that the manifestation
of his excellencies was in any sense necessary, or that
it was at all connected with his happiness. What we
mean by his doing all things for his glory is, that he
has acted, and could not but act on all occasions in a
manner worthy of himself. In certain cases, there is
scope for the manifestation only of some of his perfec
tions, as of goodness towards innocent, and of justice
towards guilty creatures ; but the redemption of sinners
embraced the manifestation of both. It may be sup
posed indeed, that the exercise of justice was not so
necessary, but that it might have been dispensed with
to make way for the exercise of benevolence ; but, be
sides that this notion is at variance with the uniform

* Eph. i. 8.

f Eph. iii. 10.

language of revelation, we can see no ground in reason
for thinking that the moral Governor of the universe has
nothing to consult but the happiness of his subjects,
and will yield up his rights when these interfere with
their interests. The wisdom of men is capable only
of conceiving the clumsy expedient of merging the one
in the other; but the wisdom of God has given to both
equal prominence, and harmonized their claims by an
unexpected and admirable contrivance, namely, the
substitution of a righteous person, who should bear
the punishment of the guilty, and render the exercise
of mercy to them perfectly consistent with justice.
The thought is now familiar; but it would not have
occurred to us without suggestion, and it originated in
that understanding which alone comprehends thescheme
of universal government, and the best methods of at
taining its ends. But, where could a person be found,
at once willing and qualified to interpose between hea
ven and earth, and to reconcile their opposite interests?
As men were all involved in the same condemnation,
none of them could assist his brethren; and besides
that angels were too remotely connected with us to in
terfere in such a case, they could not die, nor would
such sufferings as one of them was capable of enduring,
have been admitted as an equivalent for those of the
millions of the redeemed. Divine wisdom was dis
played in providing a man to die for men ; a man de
rived from the same root, yet perfectly holy, although
all the other branches were corrupt; a man, who by
submitting to the infliction of justice, glorified it more
highly than it would have been glorified by the execu
tion of the penalty upon us; a man, who could conquer
death, and recover the forfeited inheritance of immorta
lity. Such a man is Jesus Christ, allied to us by his
participation of our common nature, yet superior to us
by the possession of the divine ; born without spot, of
a virgin, and at the same time the Son of God. The
incarnation is a great mystery ; it is a new thing which
God has created in the earth ; an event of which no finite
mind could have formed an idea beforehand ; but now
when the Eternal Word has been made flesh, it appears
lo be worthy of infinite wisdom, as being the best and
the only expedient for accomplishing the ultimate end
of redemption, the harmony of the Divine attributes in
the restoration of a fallen world.
Secondly, God purposed to establish the authority
of his law, to which men had refused submission, and
in doing so, had called in question the reasonableness
and equity of its precepts. This design was not ac
complished by the method of human legislators, by
annexing a severer penalty to the laws, for a more
awful sanction could not have been conceived ; death
in the full extent of the term, being the greatest evil
which human nature could suffer. It was effected, by
giving an example of obedience to the law, in which
the justice of its demands was solemnly recognized;
by a great practical lesson, calculated to impress the
minds of all intelligent creatures, when they saw the
Son of God come down from heaven to glorify his
Father by the exact fulfilment of his will. It is thus
demonstrated, that the law is not an arbitrary institu
tion, but is founded in the nature of things, the relations
subsisting between God and his creatures ; that it is
of eternal obligation, and can on no account be dis
pensed with ; for obedience was prescribed to a person,
than whom none is greater in the universe, as the only
condition on which his desire for our happiness could
be fulfilled. If God is the moral Governor of men, and
if it was his design, after the entrance of sin, to vindi
cate the righteousness, and to evince the immutability
of his law, no method was so effectual to create pro
found reverence for it in the minds of his subjects. To
men, whose notions of what is right and fit are strange
ly perverted, there seems to be something mean and
degrading in submission to the Divine law ; and hence

ON GOD: HIS POWER.

119

strict conformity to moral rules is stigmatized as pre-
ciseness and monkish austerity. It is a surrender of
their natural liberty ; it narrows the range of their en
joyments; it betrays a servility and tameness of spirit
quite contrary to the unfettered freedom with which
arrogant mortals claim a right to act for themselves.
How are the folly and impiety of such thoughts ex
posed, when the Sovereign of heaven and earth volun
tarily submits to this law ; when he who is the Source
of happiness to men and angels, in his assumed nature
prefers obedience to his ease and to his necessary food !
From his voluntary subjection the law has derived
greater glory, than it had suffered dishonour by the
multiplied crimes of its natural subjects. He has ex
hibited an example to be imitated by all, and by the
influence of which upon the hearts and consciences of
his genuine disciples, the authority of the law is re
stored, and its precepts are willingly, although not per
fectly obeyed. To every enlightened mind, holiness
appears to be the most honourable distinction of human
nature, and the restraints of religion to be perfect liberty ;
and the result of our Saviour's mission is the establish
ment of the moral kingdom of God.
Thirdly, God purposed to humble our pride, which
was the cause of our original revolt, and is incompati
ble with the sentiments of reverence, dependence, gra
titude and submission which all creatures, and particu
larly guilty creatures should feel towards their Maker.
He saves us ; but it is not as some imagine, by a milder
law, which supposes our moral power although im
paired, not to be utterly lost ; for in this case we should
have claimed the recompense as our due ; but by ap
pointing his Son to fulfil the old law in our room, and
bestowing the reward solely in consideration of his
merit. He sanctifies us; but our holiness is not the
result of our own exertions aided by his grace, but ex
clusively of the agency of his Spirit, who forms new
dispositions within us as passive subjects of his power;
so that the greatest saint has nothing in himself to flatter
his vanity more than the most profligate sinner. The
whole plan of our restoration is so contrived as to leave
this impression upon our minds, that we are absolute
debtors to God ; that our sins are our own, but our vir
tues are his gifts ; and that as from him our salvation
originated, so to bim all the glory of it should be ascrib
ed. The lofty looks of men are humbled, and the haugh
tiness of man is made low, and the Lord alone is exalted.*
In all these instances we perceive wisdom in the
device of worthy ends, and of the fittest means. There
is another proof of the wisdom of God in redemption,
to which I shall briefly advert, as it will afterwards oc
cur in another view as a display of his power. Had
he employed in the publication of the scheme of re
demption, men of learning, eloquence, and worldly
influence, the success of Christianity might have been
attributed to natural causes, and it might have been re
garded in future ages as a contrivance of the first preach
ers to impose upon mankind with a view to their personal
interests. By committing it to the ministry of men,
illiterate, obscure, and contemptible in the eyes of the
world, he has demonstrated the Divinity of its origin,
and furnished an argument by which our faith is con
firmed, and the unreasonableness of infidelity is evinc
ed. The cause must have failed in the hands of such
advocates, had they not enjoyed the patronage of hea-
von. Thus it appears that the foolishness of God is
wiser than men, or that by means which human reason
would have rejected as incompetent, the most important
end has been gained ; while by the opposite plan, which
would have approved itself to our wisdom, the design
would have been defeated. While the talents and en
ergies of men were brought forward to view, the agen
ry of God would have been concealed.

We should learn to be modest and cautious in our
judgment of the works and dispensations of the Al
mighty. In examining a work of man, all the parts of
which, so far as we understood them, appeared to be
skilfully contrived, it would be rash to condemn those
which we did not understand. Much greater is the
presumption of those who subject the wisdom of God
to their limited and erring reason. It requires no great
humility to acknowledge that many things may be ac
counted for, although we cannot tell how ; that what
we call irregularity may be consistent with order, and
that apparent blemishes may be real excellencies : that
a scheme comprehending time and eternity is beyond
the reach of our faculties ; and that there is no search
ing of an infinite understanding.
In this wisdom we should confide. Vain are the
thoughts and counsels of man ; and vain are his anxieties
about the morrow. They vex themselves in vain, who
acknowledge no providence but their own foresight,
and burden themselves with the care of their own hap
piness. None can enjoy true peace, none can feel
themselves secure, but they who commit their way to
the Lord. He will guide them by his counsel, and
afterward receive them to his glory. We know that
under his direction all things are working together for
good.

LECTURE XXIII.

ON GOD.

* Isa. ii. 11.

Power of God — Idea of Power — Connexion of Cause and Ef
fect—Some apparent limitations of the Divine Power stated
and explained — Displays of Power in the Works of Creation,
of Providence, and of Redemption.
Some subjects may have no connexion with our duty
and our happiness, and yet may excite no small share
of curiosity. We are strongly impelled to extend the
boundaries of knowledge, and to push our inquiries
into regions where no valuable fruit can be gathered.
Surrounded with mysteries on all sides, we may anx
iously wish that the veil were lifted up, which con
ceals from our eager eyes the wonders of the material
and spiritual world. It would gratify us to be admit
ted behind the scene, and to inspect the machinery by
which the great revolutions in nature are effected ; to
discover how the immense bodies which we see pursu
ing their course in the fields of space, were first set in
motion, and by what cause they have been retained for
ages in their respective orbits, so that there is no irregu
larity or interference. It would be delightful to trace
the process of vegetation, which is renewed from year
to year, and invests the earth with beauty, while it
ministers abundantly to our wants. It would be still
more desirable to become intimately and fully acquainted
with ourselveSj'to understand what the living principle
within us is, and by what tie the constituent parts of
our nature are so closely united, that notwithstanding
the essential difference between matter and spirit, they
feel a mutual sympathy, and co-operate with perfect
harmony. But although success should equal our
highest expectations, we have no reason to think that
the enlargement of our views would in any degree fit
us better for acting our part as accountable beings, and
contribute to prepare us for the future state, in which
our well-being will not depend upon intellectual attain
ments, but upon possession of genuine piety and holi
ness. Our inquiries into the character of the Author of the
universe are more sublime in their nature, and more
important in their tendency. Every discovery is full
of interest, because it is connected with our conduct
and our hopes. It is therefore necessary to proceed in

120

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the investigation with the utmost caution and circum
spection, lest by admitting any thing foreign into our
idea of God, or leaving out any thing essential, we
should weaken or extinguish those sentiments of rev
erence and love, in which genuine piety consists. We
ought to be the more upon our guard, because we are
admonished by the errors of others, who have set lim
its to his perfections, have given undue prominence to
one, to the concealment of the rest, or have placed him
at such a distance from us, as to repress all the
feelings and exercises of devotion. A Being eternal,
immutable, and omnipresent, is an object of awful con
templation ; but something is wanting to create an in
terest in him, to make us feel ourselves personally con
cerned in his character and proceedings. Aware that
there is such a Being, we might occasionally turn our
thoughts to him, but should have no motive to cultivate
an acquaintance with him, if we believed that we had
nothing to fear from his displeasure, or to hope from
his favour. We must consider him as an active Being,
who having given us life, continues to sustain us by
hi« providence, and has us and all nature at bis com
mand. Power must enter into the idea of God, or our
thoughts of him will be as cold and unaffecting as are
those which respect persons to whom we stand in no
relation, and on whom we are completely independent.
Without power, his wisdom would be employed in ar
ranging admirable but unexecuted plans ; his goodness
would expire in benevolent but ineffectual wishes; his
justice would be merely a will to recompense actions
according to their desert. Power is an essential attri
bute of God, and necessarily mixes with our practical
views of his other perfections. Had not power belong
ed to him, his other perfections would not have been
known; not a single world would have filled up a por
tion of the mighty void ; there would have been neither
man nor angel to employ his mind on the height of this
great argument ; nothing would have existed but him
self, and he would have dwelt alone in eternal repose.
The power of God is his ability to do every thing
which may be done, every thing which is consistent
with the other perfections of his nature. We are led
to assign this attribute to him, by what we experience
in ourselves, and observe in the operations which are
going on around us. It has been said, indeed, that
" when we think that we perceive our mind acting up
on matter, or one piece of matter acting upon another,
we do in fact perceive only two objects or events con
tiguous and successive, the second of which is always
found, in experience, to follow the first; but that we
never perceive, either by external sense or by con
sciousness, that power, energy, or efficacy, which con
nects the one event with the other. By observing that the
two events do always accompany each other, the im
agination acquires a habit of going readily from the
first to the second, and from the second to the first; and
hence we are led to conceive a necessary connexion be
tween them. But, in fact, there is neither necessity
nor power in the objects we consider, but only in the
mind that considers them ; and even in the mind, this
power or necessity is nothing but a determination of
the fancy, acquired by habit, to pass from the idea of
an object to that of its usual attendant." In this man-
,_ ner does Hume endeavour to prove that we can form no
idea of power, or of any being endowed with power,
much less, as he- adds, of one endowed with infinite
power. It is acknowledged that we do not perceive
the connexion between cause and effect, and that, so
far as we can distinctly trace it, it consists in constant
sequence; that is, we perceive only that the one always
follows tbe other. At the same time, it is certain that
there is constant sequence where no person ever sup
posed the relation of cause and effect. Night follows
day, or day follows night, according to the original
order which we assign to them ; but who ever imagined

that the one is the cause of the other, that light pro
duces darkness, or darkness produces light ? It is evi
dent, therefore, that there is something more in the
relation of cause and effect than constant sequence, al
though this should be all that we are able to discover.
It is certain, that although between the volition of my
mind and the raising of my arm, I cannot explain the
connexion, they are not independent events, because
the one uniformly follows the other, while my volition
has no effect upon any other piece of matter not belong
ing to my body. It is certain, that when my arm raises
a stone, or when one stone impelling another, moves it
from its place, the idea of power is suggested to my
mind, in the one case, by the exertion of muscular
strength, and in the other, by the visible change which
is effected. To tell us that this is an act of imagina
tion, which has acquired the habit of passing from the
one event to the other, and that we have no idea of
power, although there is not one more distinct in our
minds, is to insult our understandings, and to attempt
to deceive us by a palpable falsehood. It would be as
much to the purpose, to tell us that we have no idea of
sound and colour; but this would not serve the interests
of atheism, by destroying the argument from cause and
effect for the existence of an Author of nature. Power
undoubtedly exists ; all men believe it; it is one of their
earliest and strongest conceptions; and if we do not
find it in the immediate, or what we commonly call
the second cause, we must seek it somewhere else.
Were a man to reason fairly and consequentially from
the doctrine, that the relation of cause and effect, as
far as known to us, is merely constant sequence, he
would conclude, that since the idea of power is forced
upon us by observation and experience, since it is im
possible to get rid of it, since it is absurd to resist the
natural suggestions of our minds, if power is not in
second causes, it must be in the First Cause; that his
energy pervades all nature, and its several parts are in
struments wielded by his arm. Thus, a speculation
which originated in hostility to all religion, when cor
rected and conducted by right reason, terminates in the
establishment c f Theism. " Of him, and through him,
and to him, are all things."*
We are conscious of possessing power over our minds
and our bodies. We can direct our thoughts to a par
ticular subject, and move our bodies backward and for
ward, to the right or to the left. We can produce effects
upon other bodies by the exertion of our natural strength.
We observe also many changes going on in the earth
and in the heavens, which we refer to an adequate cause.
If from the idea of power which we have thus acquired,
we remove every circumstance which indicates imper
fection, as effort, labour and fatigue, and if we farther
conceive it to be unlimited, embarrassed by no obstacle,
and capable of producing every possible effect, we have
the most complete idea of the power of God which we
are able to form. The proofs, that power is one of his
perfections, will afterwards be mentioned. Some have
doubted his goodness and justice, and some have called
in question his wisdom, because in some instances they
could not perceive it; but his power has been acknow
ledged by all who believe his existence. That it is
infinite power, or omnipotence, can as little be doubted.
As there is nothing in the universe which he did not
create, it is impossible that he should meet with any
opposition from any part of it, or at least with success
ful opposition. All created power is necessarily de
pendent upon him, subject to his direction and control,
and can no more hinder his designs, than an atom could
stop the motion of a planet. No man ever was so absurd
as to suppose that the power of the mightiest creature
is superior or equal to that of the Creator, from which
it is derived. Besides, whatever extent may be as-
* Rom. xi. 36.

ON GOD: HIS POWER.

121

signed to power, if there are bounds which it cannot
pass, effects to which it is not adequate, it is not the
highest power which our minds can conceive, and con
sequently the being of whom it is predicated is not
God. There are some things which to superficial thinkers
may seem to be inconsistent with infinite power, and
to prove that although the power of God far transcends
that of the mightiest creatures, it is subject to certain
limitations. Of these I shall briefly take notice, before
I proceed to lay before you the evidences of this perfec
tion which are afforded by his works.
First, God cannot work contradictions, as to make a
thing to be and not to be at the same time ; to make a
part greater than the whole; to make what is past, pre
sent; or what is present, future. It is self-evident that
such things are not the objects of power. As it is no
impeachment of the perfection of the eye, that it can
not see what is invisible, or of the perfection of the ear,
that it cannot hear what is not audible, so it implies no
imperfection in the power of God, that it cannot do what
cannot be done. The reason that God cannot work con
tradictions, is not that he is deficient in power, and con
sequently could work them if his power were greater,
but that the things themselves are in their own nature
impossible. Secondly, God cannot feel pain, or be weary, or die.
But surely it will not be supposed that this impossibil
ity is inconsistent with infinitude or power. Such
things are proofs of weakness in those who are subject
to them. The nature, therefore, of which they cannot
be predicated, is the most powerful in the universe, and
possesses life and activity in the highest perfection.
Passiveness cannot co-exist with absolute perfection.
Exemption from every infirmity is implied in the idea
of omnipotence.
Thirdly, God cannot lie, or deny himself. But this,
you will observe, is not a physical, but a moral impos
sibility, and therefore is no limitation of omnipotence.
It is not owing to the want of power to deceive his
creatures, but to the incompatibility of the act with the
purity and goodness of his nature. Truth is essential
to him as well as power, and the exercise of power is
always in conformity to truth. He is so holy, and so
good, that he will not impose upon men by false repre
sentations, or excite hopes which it is not his intention
to realize. We know that there is no such difficulty
in the simple act of deceiving, as to require an extraor
dinary degree of power. It is usually the refuge of the
weak, and few resort to artifice who can accomplish
their purposes by direct and honourable means. No
greater effort is necessary to utter a falsehood than to
speak truth, and it is often easier not to perform our
promises than to perform them. He who gave us our
senses could render them the vehicles of fallacious per
ceptions, and he could pervert our mental faculties so
as to lead us to the most erroneous conclusions, but he
will not.
Lastly, It would be no objection against the infinite
power of God, if we should discover what appeared to
us imperfections in his works, if in living and inani
mate substances, we should find certain parts which
seemed unfinished, or useless, or not so well adapted
to the end in view as we might conceive them to have
been. To a modest inquirer, a doubt might occur whe
ther he was a competent judge in such cases ; and at
any rate, he who considered that the hand of God made
the eye and the ear, would feel no difficulty in conceiv
ing that it was not from want of power but from design,
that other parts were not executed with the same con
summate skill. We observe decay and death among
the works of God; and we might be led to infer, from
their frail and transitory nature, that however admira
bly they are executed, their Maker must have wanted
power to render them permanent. But, besides that
Q

this inference gratuitously assumes, that he meant to
give them permanence but could not, we also observe,
that although the individuals perish, the species re
mains; that new human beings, new animals, and new
vegetables regularly come into existence ; and we have
a proof in their production, that decay and death are
not owing to weakness, but to design or permission,
because the same power which creates new beings,
could have given perpetual duration to the old. Once
more, moral evil has found its way into the universe,
and disturbed the order which its Author had estab
lished. His laws have been violated; the exercise of
his goodness to his creatures has been interrupted to a
certain extent; the beauty of his works has been im
paired; and disease, death, and misery, abound in the
world. But no believer in revelation, or even in the
doctrines of natural religion, can think that it was in
troduced against his will, or because he could not pre
vent it. There can be no doubt that he foresaw and
permitted it : it would be repugnant to the idea of an
all-perfect Being, to suppose that it arose unexpectedly
to derange his plan, or that he attempted in vain to ex
clude it. Since he was pleased to make man a free
agent, the possibility of the abuse of his freedom was
the necessary consequence : a creature capable of acting
in different ways might do wrong. God could have
excluded moral evil, either by withholding liberty from
man, that is, by giving him a different constitution,
making him a totally different creature ; or by control
ling the exercise of it in such a manner as not to take
it away. But he chose to make him free, and to leave
him to act as his own mind should direct him. The
existence of moral evil, therefore, is no evidence of a
deficiency of power in the Supreme Ruler. It would
be more plausible to consider it as an objection against
his wisdom in forming a plan, of which evil has been
the result; but here also, it would not be difficult to
shew that the objection is unfounded, and originates in
presumption and impiety.
To conclude this part of the subject. When we say
that God is almighty, we mean, agreeably to our former
definition, that be can do every thing possible, every
thing consistent with the other perfections of his nature.
We might say that his power is limited only by his
own nature, were there not an impropriety in the ex
pression, because his nature is infinite. Nothing can
effectually oppose his power; or rather we may ask
with the apostle, "Who hath resisted his will ?"* It
has already done much, and much it is still able to do.
It could create ten thousand new worlds ; it could raise
up innumerable orders of beings,, with an endless variety
of forms and faculties. It is not exhausted or impaired
by the wonders which it has already performed ; for
" the Creator of the ends of the earth fainteth not, nei
ther is weary."f
I now proceed to lay before you the proofs of the
power of God which his works supply. But " who
can utter the mighty acts of the Lord ? who can shew
forth all his praise V'\ " Lo," says Job, after an enu
meration of some of them, " Lo ! these are parts of his
ways, but how little a portion is heard of him ! but the
thunder of his power, who can understand?"!
In the first place, The power of God was displayed
in the creation of all things ; by which we mean, that
he produced them out of nothing, and did not form them
of pre-existent matter. This was an act of Divine
power^beyond our conception, because it is totally differ
ent from the effects which our own power, or that of
other creatures, can accomplish. We must have a
subject upon which to operate. We must be furnished
with materials for our work ; and then, all that we can
do, is to mix or join them together, to separate them, to
change their position, and arrange them in a new order.
* Rom. ix. 19. f Is- *l. 28. f Ps. cvi/2. || Job xxvi. 14.

122

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

We may compress or expand them, but we cannot add
a single particle to the mass. Even in the operations
of nature, we see nothing like a proper creation. Great
transformations are constantly taking place, of the ele
ments into vegetables, and of vegetables into animal
substances ; hut no new matter enters into the composi
tion. Hence it may seem impossible that something
should have ever been produced out of nothing, as the
power necessary for this purpose has nothing analogous
in our experience and observation. The maxim, exnihilo
nihil fit,* was held to be indisputable by all the an
cient philosophers. A few of them were atheists,
maintaining the eternity of matter, and the production
of all things by chance : but even the advocates of the
ism joined with them in the principle now mentioned,
and differed only in believing, that matter was disposed
in its present order by the agency of an intelligent
Being. We have formerly proved that absolute eter
nity implies necessary and immutable existence, which
it would be absurd to attribute to a substance inert,
passive, divisible, subject to perpetual change, here in
motion, and there at rest. But although we have never
seen an act of creation, we have evidence in ourselves
that it is not impossible. We know that we began to
exist; that we now are, but that there was a time when
we were not. Our bodies, it may be said, were made
of pre-existent materials. We acknowledge the truth
of the remark ; and it is not to them that we appeal as
an argument. The same thing cannot be said of our
souls, which are not a compound, the ingredients of
which were prior in time, but a pure simple essence
which was produced at the moment when our bodies
were animated ; for the notion of their pre-existence in
another state, before they were united to our bodies, is
a hypothesis without a shadow of proof. " Since this
thinking conscious self," it has been justly said, " a
substantial being, of whose existence we have the
greatest certainty, began to be not of itself, but pro
duced by a cause, it may be to us a satisfying proof of
creating power ; for what greater difficulty can there be
in conceiving that God made heaven and earth, than in
conceiving that he made the self-conscious soul of man
within him ? Is matter any more real than the princi
ple of thought and volition? and could not the power
which gave existence to the one also produce the other ?"
This argument, indeed, will not be conclusive to those
who deny the immateriality of the soul, and hold thought
and volition to be the effects of organization, as musical
sounds are of the strings of an instrument; but we here
assume it to be a distinct substance upon the ground of
reason as well as of revelation. " Any man who calmly
attends to the beginning of his own personal existence,
that is, of his conscious thinking, must see in it an ex
ertion of power of which he can form no distinct idea,
and which, he cannot but be convinced, is to him as in
explicable as the creation of the material world." Al
though creating power is to us incomprehensible, it
does not follow that it is impossible. It implies no
contradiction. It is no objection against it, that it ex
ceeds the power of creatures : and all our difficulties
would vanish, if we would recollect that the power of
which we are speaking is infinite. No man is able to
prove, that the production of something out of nothing
is impossible : all that he can say is, that it is incon
ceivable to him how it may be done ; but he can as lit
tle conceive the absolute eternity of God, which how
ever he must admit, if he is not an atheist.
Finding, then, that matter exists since we know that
it was not eternal, we must admit that it was created ;
or in other words, that in the beginning God exerted a
power the greatest which we can conceive, a power
strictly infinite; for he who could make something out
of nothing, can do all possible things. The description
* From nothing, nought is produced.

of the work of creation in the book of Genesis is sub
lime, but simple. It was effected without means, with
out labour, by a mere act of volition. In the language
of an inspired writer, God " spake and it was done ; he
commanded, and it stood fast."* To a mind capable
of abstract reflection, it must appear that creation,
whether the thing created was great or small, a universe
or a world, a ball of earth or this large globe, demon
strates the omnipotence of the Maker. The evidence
depends not upon the size of the object, but upon its
production out of nothing ; and to reason, a pile of grass
will suffice as well as the solar system. There can be
no doubt, that the power which could create anything,
however diminutive, could with equal ease replenish
space with suns and their attendant planets. But in
such a case as the present, the eye, and still more the
imagination, lend their aid to strengthen the deductions
of reason, and to make a deeper and livelier impression
upon the mind. Let it then be considered that the Al
mighty fiat called into existence not only this earth, so
spacious that all its regions have not yetbeen explored,
and the sun who is a million times larger, with the plan
ets which revolve around him as their centre, but a
countless multitude of stars at an inconceivable distance
from us, which probably give light to other worlds still
more numerous ; that thought cannot set boundaries to
the universe, in which there may be luminous bodies
so remote, that their light, notwithstanding the astonish
ing velocity with which it moves, has not yet reached
us ; that bodies have been discovered of such magni
tude, that the sun in comparison of them dwindles into
a point ; that there was a time, when space, which this
wonderful array fills and adorns, was a mighty void,
the abode of darkness and silence ; and that in a mo
ment all arose at the voice of God. " Lift up your eyes
on high, &nd behold who hath created these things,
that bringeth out their hosts by number : he calleth
them all by names, by the greatness of his might, for
that he is strong in power ; not one failetb."f,j
Let us proceed to other manifestations of the power
of God. And I remark, that it is displayed in the pre
servation of all things, which has been called a contin
ual creation. The idea intended is, that as their exis
tence is dependent, it is prolonged from moment to mo
ment by the same power which created them at first.
Some seem to speak, as if having been once made,
they had the ground or reason of their being in them
selves, continued without the immediate interference of
their Creator, and could only cease to be by a positive
act of his will. They insinuate that it would imply
imperfection if they needed his constant care, and re
mind us of the works of man, which do not fall to pieces
when the hand of the artist is withdrawn. But between
the two cases there is no analogy. The works of man are
not dependent upon him for their existence, but for their
form ; the materials of which they are composed subsist,
and even the OTder in which they are arranged is maintain
ed, by the laws of nature. If the motions of such of them
as do move, go on after he has left them, it is not by
any power which he has communicated to them, but in
consequence of his previous contrivance to make some
of those laws act upon them. All the honour which
man can claim from his works is tbat of arrangement :
their preservation and movements are traced to the
same power which upholds the earth, and guides it in
its course. It is not contrary to reason, but agreeable
to its dictates, to affirm, that without the unceasing
agency of the Creator, the universe would return to
nothing ; and the Scripture, teaches the same doctrine
when it says, " In him we live, and move, and have
our being. "\ He alone has the reason of his exis
tence in himself; all other beings are dependent up
on him, as the stream is fed by a perpetual supply from

* Ps. xxxiii. 9. f Isa- xl- 26. X Acts xvii.

ON GOD: HIS POWER.

123

the fountain. Providence, therefore, when rightly un
derstood, gives the same display of omnipotence as
creation. " He upholdeth all things by the word of
his power."* The most durable of the works of man
are subject to decay. The hand of time sweeps away
the noblest monuments of his greatness ; and towers,
and palaces, and cities are laid in the dust. But the
sun shines with undiminished splendour, although
thousands of years have passed away since he began to
give light to the world, and still rejoices as a strong
man to run his race ; the earth, which has supplied so
many generations with food, renews its fertility every
year, and displays the unabated vigour of vegetation ;
the various tribes of animals and vegetables are preserv
ed, although the process of decay and destruction is go
ing on without interruption ; and the grand movements
of the universe proceed with undisturbed regularity.
Our world is composed of elements of mighty force,
which by their occasional conflicts cause dreadful con
vulsions. The furious tempest levels the forests, and
throws down the habitations of men ; the lightning
shatters the lofty monument and the magnificent palace ;
the earthquake lays cities in ruins, breaks rocks in
pieces, and removes mountains from their place ; rivers
overflowing their banks spread desolation over the
fields ; and the sea, heaved up from its ancient bed, over
whelms the dry land with its mountainous waves. But
since the beginning of time, the havock has been par
tial : there has been no convulsion which has affected
the globe itself, or made any material change upon its
surface, except the universal deluge, which was an ex
traordinary act of providence for the punishment of sin.
We think perhaps, that we can satisfactorily account
for the constancy of the course of nature, notwithstand
ing these occasional deviations. We can tell, for exam
ple, why the ocean is not driven upon the land by the
hurricanes which agitate its waters, or by the rap
id motion of the globe around its axis. But what is
the law of gravitation which holds it in its place? Who
established that law, and who maintains it ? What
can any man conceive it to be but the power of God
exerted in a regular manner for a specific purpose ?
Who that sees the billows sinking as they approach the
shore and retiring, will not admire the punctuality with
which they obey the will of their Maker ? " Who
shut up the sea with doors when it broke forth, as if it
had issued out of the womb ? who brake up for it my
decreed place, and set bars and doors, and said, Hither
to shalt thou come, but no further ; and here shall thy
proud waves be stayed ?"f When we reflect upon the
movements which are going on among the celestial
bodies, how stupendous is the power by which they are
conducted ! The moon is driving through the heavens
at the rate of more than two thousand miles in an hour :
the earth, although apparently quiescent, is flying at
the rate of fifty or sixty thousand ; and the velocity of
the comets is so great as to terrify and overwhelm the
imagination ; yet no confusion takes place, no mischief
happens. None of these bodies is shivered into pieces
by the velocity of its flight ; none of them is dashed
upon another ; none of them makes the slightest devia
tion from the path marked out to it in the immensity of
space. We can calculate with the utmost confidence
upon their return at a fixed period to a particular spot.
They are sustained and guided by the hand of Omnipo
tence. We say that matter is inert, that if at rest it
will continue at rest, and if in motion it will continue
in motion, unless its state be changed by an external
cause. But do we imagine that we have thus explained
the phenomena of the universe ? Alas ! we have merely
Btated a fact, but we have not accounted for it, by call
ing it a law of nature. Why does a body continue in
motion ? It is not owing to its own activity, but to the

energy of the Creator's will. This gave the first im
pulse, and this holds on its course for ages. His power
at once binds the planets as with a chain to the centre
and propels them in their perpetual career around it!
" O Lord God of Hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto
thee ? Thou hast a mighty arm : strong is thy hand,
and high is thy right hand."*
Let us, in the next place, consider his moral govern
ment of the world. Under this division of the subject,
the evidence may not appear so striking, because it is
not addressed to the senses, but relates to the invisible
influence exerted upon the thoughts and volitions of in
telligent creatures. Yet to a reflecting mind it will be
equally convincing.. Wonderful are the displays of
divine power in the creation and preservation of the
material system ; but we know that there it meets with
no opposition, whereas here, resistance is to be sub
dued, determinate purposes and wayward passions are
to be controlled, and rendered subservient to the coun
sels of the Almighty. We learn from revelation, that
there are spiritual beings in the universe, of strength
superior to ours, of great activity, cunning, and malig
nity, who being in a state of hostility to their Maker,
are also enemies to man, and take delight in disorder,
misery and ruin. What havock they would make, if
full scope were given to their inclinations, we may con
jecture from what they have actually done, under Di
vine permission, by introducing sin into our world, with
the dismal train of natural and moral evils which have
closely followed it. Would they not blast the fair
scenes of nature, and convert the earth into another
hell, the abode of fear, and pain, and despair ? The
human heart is the seat of many violent and malevolent
passions, which finding a favourable opportunity, break
out into murder, treachery,- injustice, oppression, and
all the crimes by which public and private peace is dis
turbed. The occasional eruptions which take place
under the most vigilant government, admonish us that
we are walking above smothered fire ; and we shudder
at the thought of the scenes of horror which would be
exhibited, if all restraints were removed. What would
be our condition, if wicked men and malignant spirits
were let loose upon us? The earth would no longer
be a safe habitation. Could the human race long sub
sist, amidst the furious workings of pride, revenge,
avarice, and cruelty, and the additional calamities which
the malice of their invisible foes would inflict ? We
are preserved then by the power of God, who holds
men and devils in chains ; and the excesses which he
sometimes permits, should remind us how much we
are indebted to his providence, to which alone it is
owing that we are not consumed. Of the influence by
which unholy beings are withheld from their purposes,
or are prevented from adopting measures congenial to
their depraved dispositions, they are often insensible ;
and at other times they are hindered by obstacles which
second causes have placed in their way; but every cir
cumstance is ordered by a higher hand. " Surely the
wrath of man shall praise thee ; the remainder of wrath
shalt thou restrain."f We perceive also proofs of the
power of God in the overthrow of states and nations,
which shews that he rules in the kingdoms of men; in
the extraordinary success and elevation of individuals,
in the face of untoward circumstances, and of opposi
tion which was more than sufficient to have crushed
them; in the feeble means by which great designs aTe
sometimes accomplished, and the inadequate causes by
which schemes well concerted and vigorously supported
are defeated; in the unaccountable courage with which
men are inspired at one time, and the equally unac
countable fear which seizes upon them at another; in
the sudden failure of their wisdom, as if they had been
infatuated by some mysterious influence ; in the sudden

* Heo. i. 3.

f Job xxxviii. 8, 10, 11.

* Psalm lxxxix. 8, 13.

f Ps. lxxvi. 10.

124

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

change of their counsels, for which they are not them
selves able to assign a satisfactory reason ; and in many
other instances which proclaim that there is an invisi
ble power which disposes of human affairs according
to its pleasure, and turns the hearts of men as the rivers
of water. They establish the fact of a supreme domin
ion in nature, from which no creature is exempt, and
to the designs of which living and inanimate beings
are subservient. There is no counsel or might against
the Lord. He who boasts of his independence, cannot
move his tongue without permission ; he who dares to
say, " Who is the Almighty, that I should serve him?"
is compelled to execute his orders ; he who sets him
self to oppose the designs of Heaven, is sometimes the
person whom Heaven has chosen to fulfil them. " His
kingdom ruleth over all."
The power of God has been displayed in the work
of redemption. It is frequently described as a new
creation, to signify that in the recovery of mankind
from guilt there is a glorious display of omnipotence,
as well as in the original production of the heavens and
the earth.
The power of God was manifested in the conception
of our Saviour, whose mother was a virgin, in the
mighty works which he performed, and in his resurrec
tion from the dead. These are all represented as mani
festations of this attribute. It may be remarked, bow-
ever, from a regard to accuracy of ideas, that strictly
there was no greater power exerted in his conception,
than in that of any other man according to the estab
lished law of generation ; and in his miracles, than in
the ordinary operations of nature. The power was not
greater, but the display of it was more sensible and
impressive. It is a false idea of miracles, that they
are more difficult than other works. It is equally easy
to God to act in opposition to the laws of nature or ac
cording to them; just as it is as easy to a man to walk
in a by-path as on the highway, the same muscular
strength being sufficient in both cases. There is no
difference between a miracle and another event, but that
the one is unusual and the other is common ; in the one,
second causes are excluded, in the other, they are ad
mitted. But in a miracle, the power of God is more
distinctly seen, and excites greater attention. When a
child was born without a father, when a body which
had been deposited in a sepulchre was restored to life,
when, at the command of a man, the blind received
sight, the lame walked, and lepers were cleansed, no
thing but the obstinacy of prejudice could have hin
dered any person from recognizing the finger of God.
The power of God was manifested in sustaining our
Saviour in his dreadful sufferings ; I mean not those of
his body only, but also his mental agony, which would
have overwhelmed the firmest mind, having only its
own fortitude to support it. To this cause he ascribes
the patience with which he endured them : " The Lord
God will help me, therefore shall I not be confounded ;
therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that
I shall not be ashamed."* He said to his disciples,
" Behold the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye
shall be scattered every man to his own, and shall leave
me alone ; and yet I am not alone, because the Father
is with me."f
The power of God is displayed in the conversion of
sinners. When we consider the change effected at the
return of a sinner to God after a long apostasy, and the
opposition which is made to it by the most active prin
ciples of his nature; the influence upon his mind, by
which it admits views totally new, and the revolution
which takes place in his feelings and affections ; the
sacrifices which be makes, the connexions which he
abandons, the conditions to which he submits, and the
new course of life upon which he enters; in a word,

* Isaiah i. 7.

•j- John xvi. 32.

the entire alteration in the moral habit of his soul, we
must be convinced that a higher cause was requisite
than reasoning and eloquence, and that nothing less
than Omnipotence could have made "old things pass
away, and all things become new." Hence the conver
sion of a sinner is called in Scripture a creation, and a
resurrection from the dead ; and God is said to fulfil in
them "all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the
work of faith with power."*
What I would chiefly request you to consider, is the
power of God manifested in the propagation of the
Gospel, which will appear truly worthy of admiration,
if we reflect upon the nature of the religion published
to the world, the obstacles which stood in the way of
its progress, and the persons by whose ministry the
opposition was subdued. The religion was the least
likely to succeed by its intrinsic merits of all that have
been proposed to mankind; not because it wanted high
excellence, but because it was not of a kind to be gen
erally perceived and relished. It is pronounced by one of
the apostles to have been a stumbling-block to the Jews,
and foolishness to the Greeks. f It offered to both sal
vation by a man who had been crucified ; salvation, not
from poverty, oppression, and disease, but from sin,
which men loved too well to have any desire to be de
livered from it; it demanded the renunciation of their
present habits and pursuits, the sacrifice of worldly
honours and pleasures, and conditionally of life itself;
it prescribed humility, the mortification of appetite, and
a course of circumspect and patient obedience; aDd the
promised recompense lay in another world, of which
they could have no knowledge but by implicitly de
pending upon the word of its Author. To whom was
this religion addressed ? To the Jews, who had con
ceived a very different idea of the character of the Mes
siah, and expected him not to die but to reign, and to
call them, not to repentance but to victory and glory;
to the Gentiles, whose minds were preoccupied by the
speculations of philosophical wisdom, and were preju
diced against the lowly doctrine of the cross by the
pride of virtue; to men sunk in ignorance and vice, who
were devoted lo the worship of false gods, and felt no
interest in any concerns but those of this transitory
life. When Christianity demanded their.attention, and
claimed to be received as the only true religion, nothing
could exceed their surprise and indignation. The phi
losophers despised it as an absurd and arrogant super
stition ; the priests denounced it as impious and offen
sive to the gods; statesmen regarded it with a jealous
eye, as"dangerous to the public peace; and the rabble
rose against its preachers, loaded them with abuse, and
subjected them to every kind of injurious treatment.
To whose care was the propagation of the Gospel com
mitted? Who were appointed to publish it amidst
hardships, sufferings, and death, and to defend it a-
gainst acute and learned antagonists? They were
taken from the lowest ranks, and from the meanest oc
cupations ; they had not received the advantages of
educatioh, and knew nothing of worldly wisdom; they
had no power, or wealth, or influence; their appear
ance, their language, their manner of address, were all
unfavourable to their cause. Notwithstanding the utter
improbability that such a religion should succeed in
such circumstances, its progress was great and rapid.
During the life of its first preachers, it found its way
into the provinces and cities of the Roman empire, and
made converts of the rich and the poor, the learned and
the illiterate. It afterwards went on extending its con
quests till it gained the ascendant, and was triumphant
ly established in almost every region of the civilized
world. Now, as the human means employed in the
propagation of the Gospel were manifestly inadequate,
we must attribute its success to supernatural agency.

* 2 Thess. i. 11.

t 1 Cor. i. 23

ON GOD: HIS GOODNESS.

125

It is a species of miracle which does not strike the eye,
but the mind. Something has been effected, not indeed
without means, but above them ; and is as truly won
derful as was the flowing of water from a rock, when
Moses smote it with his rod. A power was exerted
upon the minds of men, as plainly omnipotent as the
power exerted in the creation, or in the various modifi
cations of matter. " God hath chosen the foolish things
of the world to confound the wise ; and God hath chosen
the weak things of the world to confound the things
which are mighty; and base things of the world, and
things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and
things which are not, to bring to nought things that are,
that no flesh should glory in his presence."* The same
writer says in another place, " We have this treasure,"
namely, the Gospel, "in earthen vessels, that the ex
cellency of the power may be of God, and not of us ;"+
that is, the dispensation of it is committed to us, who
are manifestly incapable of giving it efficacy, that the
world may be compelled to acknowledge its success to
be the work of God.
An almighty Being demands the profound reverence
of his creatures. Shall they not fear him "whore-
moveth the mountains, and they know not; who over-
turneth them in his anger ; who sbaketh the earth out
of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble ; who com-
mandeth the sun, and it riseth not, and sealeth up the
stars ; who alone spreadeth out the heavens, and tread-
eth upon the waves of the sea ; who doth great things
past finding out, yea, and wonders without number?"!;
His friendship should be diligently cultivated, for if
God be for us, who can be against us? Upon him we
should confidently rely, who is able to do exceedingly
abundantly above all that we can ask or think. " Happy
is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose
hope is in the Lord his God, who made heaven and
earth, the sea and all that therein is, who keepeth truth
for ever."|| " The Lord is thy keeper, the Lord is thy
shade upon thy right hand. The sun shall not smite
thee by day, nor the moon by night. "§

LECTURE XXIV.

ON GOD.

Goodness of God — Idea of this Perfection: display of Good
ness in the Creation of the Universe: and in his dispensa
tions to Mankind — Existence of Physical Evil consistent with
the Divine Goodness — Origin of Moral Evil — Display of Di
vine Goodness in Redemption.
Bv the goodness of God, we do not understand the
general excellence of his nature, but that particular pro
perty or principle, which disposes him to communicate
happiness to his creatures. It is in this sense that we
pronounce it to be one of his essential attributes. It is
necessary in conjunction with other attributes, to com
plete the idea of an all-perfect Being, and is the foun
dation of the trust, and love, and hope, with which he
is regarded by men. We could think of him only with
distant reverence, if we conceived that he took no in
terest in the well-being of his creatures ; and the sup
position that he was actuated by a principle of malevo
lence, would create dread of one infinitely superior to
us, from whose pursuit it was impossible to escape.
We should tremble at his power, which could torment
and destroy us; at his wisdom, the contrivances of
which for our injury we possessed no means of evad
ing; at his immensity, which forced upon us the alarm
ing thought, that to whatever place we might flee for
refuge, we should always be in the presence of an
* 1 Cor. i. 27—29. f 2 Cor. iv. 7. } Job ix. 5—10.
|| Ps. cxlvi. 5, 6. } Ps. cxxi. 5, 6.

enemy. Goodness throws a mild and tranquillizing
lustre over the majestic attributes of his nature. It
presents them to us under a friendly aspect ; associated
with it, they appear as so many powers, by which its
benignant designs will be carried into full effect. We
look up to him not only as a Sovereign, but as a Father;
we feel emotions of gratitude rising in harmony with
sentiments of veneration ; we are emboldened to sup
plicate his favour, and to resign ourselves to his dispo
sal. Goodness has been considered as one of his attri
butes by men of every nation, conducted no doubt to
this conclusion by the proofs of his beneficence in the
natural course of events. The ancient heathens called
him the Best, as well as the Greatest of Beings. If
some believed in the existence of a malevolent Being,
because they observed much evil in the world, and
knew not how otherwise to account for it, they also
acknowledged another Being of an opposite character,
the author of order and beauty, by whose bounty the
wants of living creatures were supplied.
Goodness being a disposition to communicate happi
ness, regulated, however, in an intelligent Agent by
wisdom, and in a moral Agent by a regard to purity
and justice, we learn that it belongs to God from a
survey of his works and dispensations.
The goodness of God is clearly deducible from the
act of creation. We can conceive no other reason, in
Subordination to his glory, for the exertion of his power
in giving life to so many orders of creatures, and fitting
up the earth to be a convenient habitation for them.
This argument consists of two parts : the formation of
sensitive beings capable of happiness, and the adapta
tion of the circumstances in which they are placed to
promote it. The production of the earth, with its divi
sion into sea and dry land, its vegetable covering, and
its springs and rivers, would have afforded a proof of
power, but not of goodness, if it had not been replen
ished with inhabitants who could be benefited by this
arrangement; so that in reasoning concerning the good
ness of God, we constantly refer to the provision made
for the well-being of animals, rational and irrational,
according to their respective natures and capacities.
He did not create by a necessity of nature, as the sun
gives light, or a fountain pours out its waters ; but,
being a free Agent, he exerted his power in consequence
of counsel and design, and exerted it to such an extent,
and in sueh a variety of ways, as were agreeable to
himself. He did not create with the same view which
leads a man to collect a retinue of friends and depen
dants, that he may be cheered by their company, and
aided by their services : for he was sufficient to him
self, infinitely and immutably blessed in the enjoyment
of his own excellence. As we are confessedly not
competent judges of the Divine counsels, it might be
presumptuous to affirm that benevolence was the only
motive of the creation, and it has been thought more
proper to say, that the end was the glory of the Creator.
But this is a general reason for all his works, and con
sequently throws no light upon a particular one. When
we say that God does any thing for his glory, if we
affix any distinct sense to our words, we must mean
that he does it for the manifestation of his perfections.
There is no inconsistency, therefore, in maintaining that
goodness was the motive of creation, for this is only to
say, that God purposed to display the benevolence of
his nature in giving existence to other beings besides
himself. It is true, that^ creation has eventually served
to glorify all his perfections in the great scheme of pro
vidence, of which fallen men are the objects; but con
sidering it by itself, and in its first intention, we are
authorized to assert, that its primary design was the
diffusion of happiness. What other idea is suggested
by the contemplation of a system so regular and beau
tiful in all its parts, and teeming with life and enjoy
ment? Had not the Divine nature been communica-

126

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

hlhi! h?" ^ave remained for ever alone; but now
ne beholds from his throne a scale of beings, ascending
Irom the insect and the worm to the seraph and th!
arcnangel, all rejoicing in conscious existence, and par
taking of the riches of his liberality. The eternal
tountain has overflowed, and the universe is refreshed
and gladdened by its stream. It is the saying of a
heathen philosopher, that when God was about to
make the world, he transformed himself into love.
_ The goodness of God may be inferred from the state
in which living creatures are made. They are rela
tively perfect: that is, they are fitted for their place in
creation, their peculiar mode of life, and the purposes
which they were designed to serve. Nothing is want
ing which is necessary for the preservation of life,
for defence, the procuring of food, and motion from
place to place. As this adaptation is a proof of wis
dom, when considered in the relation of means to an
end, so it is also a proof of goodness, as the obvious
intention .of it is the well-being of the animal. Had
we found living creatures destitute of any of those
members and organs of sense upon which their safety
and comfort depend, birds without wings, fishes with
out fins, beasts without legs, we might have supposed
that they were the productions of a Being who meant
that they should languish in misery and perish. The
contrary conclusion must be drawn from the intention
which has been evidently paid to their comfortable sub
sistence. He who has bestowed life, has rendered it a
gift worthy of himself, by associating with it a variety
of conveniences and pleasures. " If he had wished
our misery," says a celebrated writer, " he might have
made sure of his purpose, by forming our senses to be
so many sores and pains to us, as they are now instru
ments of gratification and enjoyment, or by placing us
amidst objects so ill suited to our perceptions, as to have
continually offended us, instead of ministering to our
refreshment and delight. He might have made, for
example, every thing we tasted bitter, every thing we
saw loathsome, every thing we touched a sting, every
smell a stench, and every sound a discord. If he had
been indifferent about our happiness or misery, we must
impute to our good fortune (as all design by this sup
position is excluded) both the capacity of our senses to
receive pleasure, and the supply of external objects
fitted to produce it. But either of these (and still more
both of them) being too much to be attributed to acci
dent, nothing remains but the supposition that God,
when he created the human species, wished their hap
piness, and made for them the provision which he has
made, with that view, and for that purpose."* These
observations are applicable to the inferior animals as well
as to men ; and the adj ustment of theirconstitution to their
circumstances, so that they are capable of enjoyment
from the objects around them, proves in the most satis
factory manner, that their Maker is abenevolent Being.
The goodness of God is displayed in the abundant
provision which he has made for the wants of his crea
tures. " The eyes of all wait upon thee ; and thou
givest them their meat in due season. Thou openest
thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living
thing."f With the care and bounty of a parent, he
provides for the members of his family. The various
species of animals differ from each other, as much in
their taste as in their form, insomuch, that the food
which sustains one will not nourish another, and what
one eagerly seeks another rejgcts with disgust. Sub
stances which to us seem useless, and offensive to our
lenses, and if taken into our stomachs would be nox
ious furnish wholesome and delicious nutriment to crea
tures differently constituted. The goodness of God is
seen in the production of such a variety of substances,
that none of the tribes of animals which it has seemed

» Paley 's Moral Philosophy, B. ii. c. 5. f Fs. cxlv. 15, 16.

meet to his wisdom to create, might want its appropri
ate aliment. The guests at the table of providence have
no community of interests and feelings, but they all
find entertainment; not one of them goes away disap
pointed. Many parts of the earth are not inhabited by
men, yet in them the process of vegetation goes on
from year to year; the sun shines, the rain falls, and the
earth brings forth herbs and plants. It is not, however,
to be thought that this is a mere waste, like the profu
sion of the spendthrift, who scatters his bounty where
no good will be done. In the deserts there are myriads
of insects, and birds, and quadrupeds, which He who
made them does not deem unworthy of his care; and
as our Lord says, " our heavenly Father feedeth them."
If on digging into the earth, or penetrating into the fis
sures of the rock, you find living creatures to which
such places afford a convenient abode, you also find,
that he who assigned them these stations has not left
them without the means of subsistence and enjoyment.
What a delightful view of the Divine goodness is given
by the regular succession of the seasons, the opening
buds and blossoms of spring, the luxuriant growth of
summer, the matured fruits and rich harvests of autumn !
It is by this succession, that God prepares the ample
and various feasts to which all his living offspring are
invited. For them the sun pours out a flood of light
and genial heat; for them the earth is endowed with
unceasing powers of fertility ; for them the winds bear
life and health on their wings. " 0 Lord, how mani
fold are thy works ! in wisdom hast thou made them
all ; the earth is full of thy riches." His riches are
not exhausted upon the earth ; the ocean which sur
rounds it is also replenished with inhabitants, to whom
his bounty extends. "So also is this great and wide
sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both
small and great beasts. There go the ships ; there is
that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.
That thou givest them they gather : thou openest thine
hand, they are filled with good."*
Once more : The goodness of God is manifest in the
variety of natural pleasures, which he has provided for
his creatures. By associating these with existence, he
has made it truly a blessing, and acted in the character
of benevolence, which happy itself, delights to see
others happy. There seems, indeed, to be a high de
gree of pleasure attached to simple existence, as we
may judge from the lively motions of young animals —
the frisking of a lamb, for example — which appear to
have no specific object, and to proceed from a certain
indescribable satisfaction which they experience in the
possession of life and activity. When in summer the
air is filled with myriads of insects, which are almost
constantly on the wing, wheeling in sportive circles, we
have an evidence of the delight with which they pass
their transitory duration, and a proof, not perhaps much
attended to, but calculated to affect a reflecting mind,
of the beneficence of the Deity. Their enjoyment is
merely sensitive, but it is the only kind of which they
are capable ; and it is goodness, rich in its treasures,
and minute in its attentions, which thus adapts itself to
every living nature. His goodness is farther displayed
in the pleasure which animals derive from their food.
This is a distinct consideration from the nourishment
which it yields. It might have nourished without pro
ducing any agreeable sensation. We experience that
food not only satisfies the appetite of hunger, but also
gratifies our taste ; and we have reason to think, that
this gratification is enjoyed by the inferior animals, in
an equal or a superior degree. Now this pleasure is
not at all necessary to the great design of food, the
sustenance of the body ; the substances which we use
might have been as tasteless as water, without any
diminution of their nutritive quality ; the taste is super-

* Ps. civ. 24—28

ON GOD: HIS GOODNESS.

127

added by our Maker to render our food pleasant as well
as useful, and clearly shews attention to our animal
comfort. We may draw the same conclusion from the
means which he has provided for gratifying our other
senses of sight, smell, and hearing. The earth might
have been as fertile as it is, although its surface had
not been so delightfully variegated, and its productions
had not been moulded into such elegant forms. We
might have lived, although there had been no blossoms
and flowers painted with the most beautiful colours,
and exhaling sweet perfumes. We might have walked
in the fields and woods, imbibing health and spirits
from the pure atmosphere, although our ears had not
been saluted with the music of birds, and other plea
sing sounds. Whence this loveliness, this charm dif
fused over the face of nature ? Whence those graces
so profusely scattered around us, those agreeable ac
companiments of natural objects, which do not render
them more useful, but more attractive : which do not
sustain life, but impart a higher relish to it? Surely
we may say, that " the tender mercies of the Lord are
over all his works ;" that there are every where indica
tions of a studious attention to the happiness of his
creatures ; that having designed this world for our hab
itation, he has furnished it with all conveniences and
ornaments, to remind us how good he is, and how well
entitled to our grateful homage.
What has been said chiefly relates to the lower ani
mals, but has been mixed up with some observations
illustrative of the Divine goodness to man. There are
some things, however, which may seem to lead to the
opposite conclusion, as the prevalence of disease and
death among them, and particularly the fact, that some
of them prey upon others. No man, I presume, will
plead for the gift of immortality to the inferior creatures,
and maintain that God cannot be good in bestowing a
happy life, unless he prolong it for ever. Were not
their numbers thinned by death, the earth would be
overstocked, and leave no room for human inhabitants ;
and they themselves would perish for want of subsis
tence, or in the furious conflicts to which the scarcity
of food would give rise. If for wise reasons they are
doomed to die, disease naturally results from this ap
pointment, as the means of effecting dissolution, and
cannot be objected to but on such grounds as might be
alleged against their mortality itself. It is part of the
system, the unavoidable attendant of a body liable to
decay and destruction. It is observable, that health is
the rule, and disease is the exception, and that in the
whole life of the animal, such is the overbalance of
good as to make the evil almost disappear. Some an
imals prey upon others. But, not to mention that this
could have been prevented only by not creating carni
vorous animals, and that we are too imperfectly ac
quainted with the reasons of things, to pronounce that
they might have been wanted without any injury to the
system ; I remark, that if animals were to die, this
mode of terminating their life is not more inconsistent
with goodness, than death by disease or by old age.
The pain is not greater, and in many cases is less ; and
we mistake if we think that the fear of it disquiets
their lives. Even men in countries abounding with fe
rocious animals, do not pass their time in continual ap
prehension, but grow familiar with danger ; and still
feebler is the impression upon irrational creatures, who
have no forethought, and seem not to feel fear till dan
ger is apparent. I do not say that these observations
are a full solution of the difficulty; but if the facts on
which the objection is founded, be considered as form
ing a small deduction from the sum total of goodness
in this part of creation, attention to the other facts
which have been mentioned, will leave no doubt in our
minds, that this world is the work of a benevolent
Bring. I now proceed to bring proofs of the goodness of

God, exclusively from his dispensations to man. And
here it will be necessary to turn our eyes from the pre
sent scene, although it exhibits many tokens of Divine
benignity as we have partly seen, and to contemplate,
by the light of revelation, the state in which man was
originally placed. Although he was last created, yet
he was not least. A high rank was assigned to him
in the scale of being : " God gave him more under
standing than the beasts of the field, and the fowls of
the air." He not only endowed him with reason, which
is so much superior to instinct, but he communicated
to him the most excellent wisdom, consisting in the
knowledge of himself and his Maker, the relations sub
sisting between them, the whole extent of his duty,
the true nature of happiness, and the hopes which he
was authorized to entertain as a being made for immor
tality. His goodness was manifested in the moral or
spiritual powers with which man was furnished, in the
innate rectitude of his dispositions, his love of holiness,
his desire for the chief good, and his supreme delight
in it ; in consequence of which he was capable of en
joying felicity, incomparably superior in kind and de
gree to that of the inferior creatures, and did actually
enjoy it under the smile of his Maker. It appeared in
the dominion with which he was invested ; a dominion
which imparted not only pre-eminence, but authority
and power, so that the other creatures were subject to
him, and might be used for his good according to the
will of the Universal Parent. " God said, Let us make
man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and
over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
Thus he was constituted lord of this lower world, and
of all its riches ; and it might be said, that as man
was made for God, so the earth was made for man ;
every thing in it being placed at his disposal, and being
intended to minister to him. Again, the goodness of
God appeared in the covenant which he made with man,
promising to reward his obedience with everlasting fe
licity. To such a recompense his obedience could not
have entitled him independently of this stipulation.
Obedience was a debt which he owed to his Creator,
to whose service he was bound to devote the faculties
which he had received from his bounty : so that, al
though he had fulfilled the whole law, he should have
done only what it was his duty to do, and should have
had no claim to a remuneration. This transaction,
therefore, displayed great condescension, and also great
benevolence, a regard to the happiness of man, which
it would have probably augmented, and certainly could
have rendered immutably secure ; for when the term of
trial was past, the Divine faithfulness and justice would
have been pledged for its perpetual duration. It was
the love of a father holding out to his son the highest
reward which he could confer, for doing what he was
previously under the most sacred obligations to per
form. Throughhis folly, man lost the noble prize set
before him ; but the event does not in any degree ob
scure the evidence of the benignity from which the of
fer of it proceeded ; and at this distance, we ought to
look back with grateful emotions upon the hope which
animated our great progenitor in the commencement of
his career, and the blessedness which might have de
scended as an inheritance to his children. The origi
nal state of man was a state of happiness. Peace and
joy then reigned in his bosom, and a bright intermina
ble prospect rose to his view. Eternal nature was in
harmony with his feelings, and shone with the glory
of his Maker. In paradise, which the hand of God
had prepared for him, all was beauty, and melody, and
delight. This was tbe golden age of which poets have
sung, when there was perpetual spring, the gentle
breezes fanned the spontaneous flowers, the unplough-
ed earth yielded its delicious fruits, the rivers flowed

128

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

with milk and nectar, and honey distilled from the oak.
ilut, as poets also tell, a new order of things succeed
ed, with a change of seasons, frost and burning heat,
and stubborn soil, from which man gained his subsis
tence by painful exertion.* Yet even in this new state,
which we know from Scripture to have been superin
duced by sin, there are not wanting many proofs of the
goodness of God.
When man transgressed the law of his Creator, a
dispensation of unmixed wrath might have commenced.
He had forfeited any claim to the blessings of life.
Having been expelled from paradise, the abode of in
nocence and peace, he had no right to expect elsewhere
a comfortable habitation, and might have found every
region blasted by the curse which had been pronounced
upon the earth for his sake. God, who for wise reasons
had suspended the infliction of the threatened penalty
and permitted him to live, might have doomed him and
his posterity to a life of misery. When he condemn
ed him to earn his bread with the sweat of his brow,
he might have appointed his labour to be still more op
pressive. He might have impressed upon every object
the signatures of his displeasure, to call up at every
step the remembrance of our guilt, and to keep us con
stantly in fearful apprehension of the day of vengeance
and recompense. The earth might have continued to
yield its various productions, but these might have
been so changed as to afford no pleasure to our senses.
Pur situation might have resembled that of a criminal
shut up in a gloomy dungeon till the day of execution,
counting with sorrow the hours as they pass, and un-
visited by a single ray of consolation. There might
have been no intervals of ease, no sensations of joy ;
horror might have surrounded us in terrific forms, and
the presence of our fellow-men might have added to
our torment. How different is the earth, smiling un
der the influences of heaven, teeming with abundance,
and furnishing from its surface and its bowels the ma
terials of varied enjoyments! The proofs of the Di
vine goodness formerly adduced, become more striking
and impressive, when it is considered, that the place
in which they are displayed isa rebellious world : that
the objects of this beneficence are sinful creatures, who
never suffer a single day to pass without offending their
Benefactor, and many of whom seem to have forgotten
that he exists, except when they introduce his name to
blaspheme it, and make no other use of his bounty but
to outrage his laws, and plunge themselves deeper and
deeper in depravity. " He maketh his sun to rise on
the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just
and on the~unjust."f
From this view of the present state of men, it is
easy to account for some facts which appear to be in
consistent with the goodness of God, and have much
perplexed those who are ignorant of revelation, or did
not choose to be assisted by its light in their inquiries.
From the existence of evil in creation, some have infer
red the existence of a malignant being, who is contin
ually employed in counteracting the designs of the
principle of good : but this exploded doctrine has been
already considered, and need not retard us in our pro
gress. Men are subject to pain, disease and death.
Care and toil are necessary to procure a subsistence,
and they not unfrequently prove abortive, from causes
over which human power has no control. We experi
ence inclement seasons, and dreadful havock is made
by tempests, earthquakes, and inundations. Such is
the diversity of climate, that in one region intense cold
prevails, and in another excessive heat, so that both
are rendered unfit for the habitation of man. Some
countries are barren, others are possessed by ferocious
beasts and venomous reptiles. Here swarms of insects
devour the fruits of the field ; and there they so sting

« Ovid. Metamorph. lib. i. fab. 2, 3. f Matth. ,. 45.

and torment the inhabitants, that they are compelled to
abandon them, or spend their life in a state of contin
ual discomfort.
The proper mode of answering this objection, is not
to attempt to shew, that some of these are not evils,
that others admit of alleviation, and that upon the
whole they are conducive to good. It would not be
difficult to prove, that there are evils to which none of
these suppositions is applicable. To tell us that veno
mous creatures are useful, because they extract poison
from the earth in which it is lodged, is to trifle with us,
by substituting a childish fancy for fact. To say that
pain is useful, because it admonishes us of danger and
excites us to take precautions against it, is to state
what in many cases is true, but is not a satisfactory
answer, because it may be replied, that benevolence
might have adopted a different method, and we can
have no idea that pain would have been necessary for
this purpose in a state of innocence. The amount is,
that pain is an evil, but is overbalanced by the good of
which it is productive. But we are at present inquir
ing, why there is any evil at all? To insinuate that it
is the effect of general laws, is to throw out a reflec
tion upon the wisdom and the power of the Creator, as
if he could not have established a system of laws
which would not have thwarted and crossed one anoth
er. It is something like the solution of the ancient
philosophers, who ascribed the existence of evil to the
malignity or the stubbornness of matter. If evil was
unavoidable, God is not omnipotent; if it might have
been avoided, it is not enough to say that it is subser
vient to good, because we feel as much difficulty as
ever to reconcile the admission of it with the idea of
perfect benevolence. Those who attend to the true state
of the case, will reason in a different manner. Ac
knowledging that there are real evils, they will contend
that their existence is not inconsistent with the benev
olence of the Author of nature, because the world in
which they are found is inhabited by sinful beings.
Had man continued in his original state, these evils
would have been unaccountable; but no person who
believes that God is just, can wonder that suffering
should be the attendant of guilt. The character of
God is moral, that is, he is holy as well as benevolent;
and his goodness ought to be considered, not as a dis
position to confer happiness indiscriminately, but to
confer it upon the proper objects. It is a mixed dis
pensation under which we are placed, a dispensation
of mercy and of judgment. While God exercises much
patience and long-suffering towards men, he gives
also tokens of his displeasure ; and the true ground of
surprise is, not that there is a portion of evil in their
lot, but that there is so much good, because they de
serve the one, but are altogether unworthy of the other.
With all the evils which belong to our condition,
there can be no doubt that the balance of physical good
greatly preponderates. The amount will be estimated
in different ways, according to the temperament of dif
ferent individuals. The cheerful man gives the colour
of his own feelings to the surrounding scene, and all
nature smiles to his eye ; but to the melancholy man,
it appears enveloped as in a dark shade. Judging so
berly, and admitting all necessary deductions, we can
not but acknowledge that there is more happiness than
misery. In general, the days of health are many, and
those of pain and sickness are few. Our sorrows adu.it of
much alleviation, and although keenly felt at the time,
grow weaker and weaker, and at last cease to disquiet us.
Enjoyment of one kind or other is within the reach of
all ; and even in conditions which seem the most unfa
vorable to it, there are sources of satisfaction of which
others are not aware, as we see from the contentment,
the cheerful looks, and the lively conversation of those
who are placed in them. There is a pliability in the
human mind, which adapts itself to circumstances, and

ON GOD: HIS GOODNESS.

129

makes the most of them, so that the poor have their pleas
ure as well as the rich, the labouring classes as well as
those who are living at ease. All esteem existence a bles
sing, and suicide is committed only when the mind is dis
eased, or the instinctive love of life is' overcome by the
extremity of pain, or the dread of approaching intoler
able evil. The state even of fallen man bears ample
testimony to the goodness of his Maker. It is, upon
the whole, a happy world in which we live, although
it is a world of sinners. God displays before our eyes
the riches of his goodness, forbearance, and long suf
fering. Physical evil is the consequence of moral evil. On
this ground, God is justified in inflicting it, and its ex
istence is not inconsistent with his goodness. But
here a more formidable difficulty presents itself.
Whence comes moral evil ? How has it found a place
among the works of God ? and is the admission of it
reconeileable to his goodness ? Moral evil is the con
sequence of the abuse of moral liberty : if there had
been no creatures endowed with free agency, its name
would have been unknown. The question then is,
whether it was consistent with his goodness to create
free agents ? and. since it must be answered in the affir
mative, because he has actually created them, it follows
that they alone are responsible for the consequences.
If they have used the power which he gave them for
evil and not for good, which was the original design of
it : if instead of employing this power to secure their
own happiness as he commanded them, they have per
verted it so as to subject themselves to suffering, no
blame is imputable to him. He has done nothing
which can impeach the benevolence of his nature. It
is not the fault of a man, that the objects of his benefi
cence do injury to themselves by his gifts, which would
have been of advantage to them, if they had applied
them to the purpose which he intended. But if moral
evil would be productive of disorder and misery, would
it not have been suitable to the character of a benevo
lent Being to have prevented it, as it was undoubtedly
foreseen ? In answer to this question, I will not say
with some, that God could not have prevented it with
out destroying liberty and changing the nature of man ;
for the contrary is manifest from the state of the righ
teous in the world to come, who will be free, but no
longer liable to sin. It has been asked, " whether,
upon the narrow view which we have of the works of
God, and the whole system of the universe, we can pre
tend to judge that the present constitution, in this branch
of it which relates to free agents, is inconsistent with
the wisdom and moral perfections of the Supreme Be
ing ? Shall we take upon us to say that the order of
the creation, and the ends for which it was made, did
not require that there should be such a rank of beings
in it, constituted as we are, with understanding, liberty,
and moral affections, but capable of sin, tempted to it,
and thereby in danger of becoming unhappy through
their own fault?" This may be called an appeal to our
ignorance ; but there is no occasion on which it may
be made with greater propriety, than when we are in
quiring into a fact in the Divine administration, the
effects and consequences of which will last through an
eternal duration, and may extend directly or indirectly to
other worlds besides our own. In such a case, we may
well acknowledge that the reasons of it are unknown to
us, and it is better to avoid attempting to explain the per
mission of moral evil, than to give such an account-of
it as would represent the Maker of all in the light of
an arbitrary Sovereign, who has sacrificed the happi
ness of a portion of his creatures to his own glory, or
to give such an account as would impeach his justice
and his goodness. Ignorant then, as we are, of the
reason why moral evil was permitted, we cannot rea
sonably oppose the fact of its entrance into the world
to the manifold proofs of the benevolence of the Deity.
A 9

Let us rest upon what we know and ft el, instead of per
plexing ourselves with what we do not understand. It
will, in the mean time, afford some relief to reflect that
his wisdom has over-ruled it for the best and noblest
ends, although we must beware of attributing to him
what is so severely reprobated in man, the principle of
doing evil that good may come. But good has come
out of evil, the highest glory to God, and the highest
happiness to man ; and the brightest display of the
Divine benevolence, is given in the plan from which
such consequences have resulted.
The remaining part of this lecture will be devoted
to some remarks upon the goodness of God in redemp
tion. As manifested in this work, it is expressed by
the terms, love, grace, and mercy, which exhibit it un
der different aspects. Love is the same with benevo
lence or good will, a desire for the happiness of others
giving rise to the use of due means for accomplishing
it. Mercy presupposes sufferings, and is goodness ex
ercised in relieving the miserable. Grace denotes its
freeness, and represents its objects as guilty beings,
who were utterly unworthy of it. It is also called the
philanthropy of God, because he has passed by an
gels, and extended his favour to man.
Redemption originated in the goodness of God, as
well as creation. If we cannot conceive any reason
why he formed man at first, but a disposition to com
municate life and happiness, we are led, a fortiori, to
attribute to the same cause his interposition to save
him from a state of misery. Man was not necessary
to bis Maker, who had existed alone from eternity. He
could derive no benefit from his services, and the loss
of our whole race could have been immediately sup
plied by the production of another. His purpose res
pecting hiin was antecedent to his fall and to his crea
tion, for it was foreseen from eternity what use he
would make of his liberty ; and that the purpose was
perfectly free, a spontaneous act of benevolence, is
evident, because it was founded on the knowledge that
he would so act as to subject himself to the curse.
The permission of moral evil does not imply an appro
bation of it. The evils which it brings upon man in
the present life are a testimony of the Supreme Ruler
against it ; and when we turn to his word, we find him
speaking of it in terms of the utmost abhorrence. We
must take into the account its contrariety not only to
his will but to his nature, his infinite hatred of it, the
just resentment which he must have felt at the insult
of his authority implied in it, and the disorder which
it had caused among his works, before we can form a
due estimate of the goodness which prompted him to re
solve upon the deliverance of the perpetrators of an evil
of such magnitude, and upon their deliverance by such
wonderful means. Misery, we are authorized to be
lieve, excites his compassion ; and this fact is a deci
sive proof of the inconceivable benevolence of his na
ture, since it is certain, that he sees no misery in out
world, which men do not most justly suffer, no misery
which they have not incurred by their own voluntary
forfeiture of his favour. Perhaps, our admiration of his
goodness is lessened by the thought, that being his
own creatures they had some sort of claim upon his
compassion, or that it^was beneath his majesty to pur
sue with relentless vengeance such insignificant offen
ders. This is undoubtedly the meaning of the language
which we often hear, that he is too merciful to mark
every thing amiss, in the conduct of frail and erring
mortals. But, if men were condemned by a just sen
tence, the notion of any obligation to relieve them must
be given up ; and whatever art may be used to allevi
ate their guilt, and to reduce it to a venial infirmity,
their crimes, as estimated by his law, assume a differ
ent character, are acts of treason against his govern
ment, attempts to establish an independent dominion
by which creatures shall rule, and their will shall be

130

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the law. The redemption of the human race redounds
to the glory of God, which is the ultimate end of it as
of all his works ; but this view does not obscure the
evidence of the disinterestedness of his love. It is ne
cessary that if God act, he should act in such a man
ner as is worthy of his infinite perfections ; but he does
not act from necessity, but in consequence of the so
vereign determination of his will. He chooses this
manner of manifesting his glory, and in the present
case, might have displayed the severity of his justice,
instead of the riches of his grace. The former method
was preferred in his treatment of apostate angels. Men
might have been involved in the same condemnation ;
or if it be supposed, that it became him to manifest his
pardoning goodness in some region of the universe,
salvation might have visited their dark abode, and the
earth might have been left under the curse. The rea
sons of this distinction are unknown ; but in his con
duct towards us, he has shewn that he has no pleasure
in the death of the wicked. It is a grateful spectacle
to him, to see his creatures rejoicing in his love; and
it is to love alone, to unsolicited and generous love,
that we must attribute the last and best of his works,
the redemption of a perishing world.
The means by which it was accomplished serve to
demonstrate, how agreeable to him is the happiness of
his creatures, and how earnestly he desires it. Could
a word have saved us from perdition, it would have been
highly benevolent to pronounce it, as it was a proof of
benevolence to call us and other living creatures into
existence by a word, or a simple act of his will. But
although nothing is difficult to his power, there are
cases in which it cannot be immediately exercised ; be
cause other perfections of his nature are concerned in
the effect, and a harmony among them must be previ
ously established. Redemption is not an act of omni
potence alone, nor of love alone. It is not an act of
creation, but a moral administration ; and hence it ex
hibits a provision and combination of means, illustra
tive of the riches of his wisdom. " God so loved the
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoso
ever believeth in him should not perish, but have ever
lasting life. For God sent not his Son to condemn the
world, but that the world through him might be sav
ed."* The person employed in accomplishing this de
sign, the circumstances in which he appeared, and the
work assigned to him, are so many distinct proofs of
the incomprehensible goodness in which it originated.
The title, Son of God, represents him not only as the
object of strong and tender love, but as a divine person,
and infinitely superior to the highest spirit in the scale
of created being. Such was the Minister of mercy to
our world ; but his condition in it by no means accord
ed with his essential dignity. It was a condition of
poverty and suffering, and it terminated by a death ac
companied with every circumstance of cruelty and ig
nominy. By these surprising means was the benevo
lent purpose of Heaven carried into effect. The price
of our redemption was blood, human blood indeed, but
enhanced in value above all calculation, by the person
al greatness of the victim. It is only when we look
beyond the external appearance, and contemplate the
intrinsic excellence of the sufferer, that we can make
an approach to a just conception of the transcendent
love which provided such a sacrifice for the worthless
race of man. And reflecting upon the character of our
Saviour, and the relation in which he stood to our of
fended Creator, we must be sensible, that by appoint
ing him to die for us, he has given a higher demonstra
tion of love than if the whole system to which we be
long had been offered up as an atonement for our sins.
The argument will be strengthened by a view of the
* John iii. 16, 17.

design which such means were employed to accom
plish. If we could tell what is implied in salvation,
how many and how great are the evils from which we
are delivered, how many and how great are the bless
ings with which we are enriched, we should be able to
estimate the love from which it has emanated. Think
of the miseries under which human nature now groans,
and of the greater miseries which the guilty mind fore
bodes in the state of retribution ; and remember, that it
was to rescue us from these, to abolish the curse, and
chase away the shades of sorrow and despair, that the
Son of the living God expired upon the cross. Think
again of the good which man desires, and is capable of
enjoying; of the peace and hope which tranquillize the
heart, and cheer it with the opening prospect of glory ;
of the perfection which we shall hereafter attain, the
transports of the righteous in the immediate presence
and fruition of God, and of an eternity of pleasures al
ways fresh and perpetually increasing ; and remember,
that it was to procure this inconceivable felicity for
worthless men, to gladden the souls of thousands and
millions, that the Son of the Blessed endured the ago
nies of death. , Contemplating in thought what time
will accomplish, we see the last and dreaded foe van
quished, and stript of his spoils; the grave giving up
its dead, who leaving all their infirmities behind them,
shall appear fair as in paradise, and fairer still than in
that happy place ; the earth purified and renovated to be
once more the abode of innocence and joy; the choice
of all generations united in one glorious assembly ; an
gels associated with man, and God himself come down
to dwell with them. "And I heard a great voice out
of Heaven, saying, Behold the tabernacle of God is
with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall
be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and
be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from
their eyes ; and there shall be no more death, neither
sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more
pain ; for the former things are passed away."* Such
is the delightful scene, to which our eye is directed
by the light of prophecy. It is the reign of order and
happiness, succeeding ages of turmoil and sorrow ; it is
an eternal spring after a long and dreary winter; it is
the triumph of almighty love. Thus will terminate the
revolutions of time, and the dispensations of heaven.
Goodness infinite will fill all holy creatures with never-
ending joy. It will be the jubilee of the universe.
Every where will be heard the sound of praise, the
songs of the redeemed, re-echoed by the happy spirits
before the throne of God : " Blessing and honor, and
glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth on the throne,
and unto the Lamb for ever and ever."f
" O that men would praise the Lord for his goodness,
and for his wonderful works to the children of men !"
Gratitude is the return justly expected from the objects
of beneficence ; but it is often withheld from our great
Benefactor, for the strangest of all reasons, because his
goodness is constant and abundant! .It is lightly
esteemed, because it is exercised towards us in the
common course of events ; it is. not felt, because we
daily experience it ! The character of benevolence is
impressed upon all his works. His goodness is a rea
son why men should love and cheerfully obey him ; and
it renders those inexcusable who live without any ac
knowledgment of him, or dare to accuse his dispensa
tions of unkindness. Sufferings they undergo, but not
in such a degree as they deserve ; mercies are bestow
ed upon them, of the least of which they are unworthy.
Ours is a sinful world, but much happiness is enjoyed
in it, and we have the hope of more, through the gene
rosity of a Friend indeed, who has abolished death,
and brought life and immortality to light by the Gospel.

* Rev. xxi. 34.

t Rev. v. 13.

ON GOD: HIS JUSTICE.

131

LECTURE XXV.

ON GOD.

Justice of God: distinguished into Absolute and Relative — Re
marks on the notion of Absolute Justice — Relative Justice re
spects Creatures: implies the giving of a Righteous Law, its
enforcement with adequate Sanctions, and its Impartial Ex
ecution — Testimonies to this Attribute by Conscience, by
Events in Providence, and by Redemption — Manifestation
of it at the Last Judgment.
In treating of the Divine perfections, it is an obvi
ous remark, that they are all essential and necessary to
complete the idea of God ; that is, of a Being possess
ed of every possible excellence. Not one of them
could be wanting, without changing his character ; so
that if any of them is unintentionally or designedly
omitted, the object of contemplation is not the true
God, but a being who owes his existence to human
misconception. While reason requires us to acknow
ledge them all, and to adore the fulness of the God
head, they are calculated to make different impressions
upon our minds, all leading, however, to sentiments of
admiration, reverence, and love. Some are objects of
pleasing, and others of awful contemplation. Wisdom
delights us by the excellence of its ends, and the fit
ness of its means. Goodness charms us by the rich
ness and variety of its gifts. It sheds a loveliness and
an interest over the works of God ; and emotions of joy
and gratitude are felt while we look at nature smiling
under his influence, and displaying the care and benefi
cence of a parent'. But when we turn our thoughts
to the unspotted purity of his nature, and the justice
which presides in his moral government, a new order
of sentiments arises. In the apprehension of guilty
creatures, he seems no longer to smile, but to frown
upon his works. The easy, placable disposition, so
soothing to our minds, so consoling when conscience
obtrudes its fears upon us, in which we portrayed him
from the consideration of his goodness alone, gives
place to sterner features, and we tremble before him as
an offended Ruler and a Judge. We have no wish to
cultivate close intercourse with him ; we are repelled
by the severity of his countenance, and would willing
ly withdraw to any distant place where we should be
sheltered from his presence. Innocent creatures are
affected in a different manner. In their eyes, justice
gives a firmness and consistency to his character, and,
if I may speak so, invests all his other perfections
with an air of grandeur, and majesty. But the criminal
dreads justice ; and Divine justice is more formidable
than that of man, because it is associated with know
ledge from which offenders cannot conceal themselves
and with power which they are unable to resist. From
this cause have originated the attempts which have
been made to deprive God of his attribute, or to soften
it, down into a form which will create less alarm ; to
prove that it is not so. inflexible as some persons of
harsh and gloomy minds believe ; that it does not mark
our sins with extreme strictness, that it will not rigidly
insist upon its demands, and that when moved to dis.
pleasure it is easily pacified. But the speculations of
men, which are suggested less by their reason than by
their wishes, are an unsafe ground on which to rest our
religious system. In all subjects, and particularly in
one of so much importance as the character of Him
with whom we have to do, truth should be our aim,
and the interests which might interfere with it should
be dismissed from our thoughts. If we follow the gui
dance of unsophisticated reason, it will lead us to the
same conclusion with the Scriptures, that God is just,
as well as wise and good ; that he is not only the Ma
ker and Preserver, but also the Ruler of the world ;
and that as power and wisdom are required to guide
and sustain inanimate matter, and creatures without

reason, so justice is indispensable to the government of
intelligent and moral agents, who are the proper sub
jects of law, and may deserve to be rewarded or pun
ished. To deny his justice, is to wrest the sceptre from
his hand, and to expose his government to contempt and
insult by proclaiming impunity to his subjects. The
many distinctions and relations, the knowledge of
which justice supposes, must all be present to his in
finite understanding, and we cannot conceive him to be,
like his blind, Weak, and miscalculating creatures, un
der any motive to disregard them. Now, when we
take away ignorance, passion, and self-interest, real or
imaginary, we remove, all the causes of injustice.
The justice of God has been distinguished into abso
lute and relative, universal and particular. By the for
mer is understood the rectitude of his nature, which
leads him on all occasions to do what is right and
equal ; and the latter respects him in the character of a
moral Governor, who will render to his subjects accor
ding to their desert. I do not see very clearly the na
ture of this distinction, which is not satisfactorily ex
plained by those who adopt it, unless it be this, that
absolute justice is expressive of what he is in himself,
but relative justice considers him as standing in cer
tain relations to his creatures, and acting according to
the law which he has given to them.
It is certain, that God has an absolute dominion over
bis creatures. He might have created them or not, ac
cording to his pleasure ; he might have given them a
different nature, and have placed them in different cir
cumstances. With respect to these things, there was
no necessity that he should act or not act, that he
should act in one way rather than in another. It is also
certain, that he who created, had a right to annihilate
his works; and might have done so, not only to inani
mate matter, and living beings destitute of reason, but
also to man, prior to any promise or engagement to
prolong their existence. We surely will not deny to
him who is Supreme, the liberty which we ourselves
claim, to bestow our gifts for a limited time, and to re
sume them at pleasure. The gift of existence convey
ed no right to the continuance of it. Creation was a
free act of power, which did not lay the Creator under
an obligation to exert it for ever, or for any definite pe
riod, in upholding what he had made. He gave
man an immortal spirit ; but we can conceive no
reason, why he might not have given him a spirit
which, like that of the lower animals would be ex
tinguished at the death of the body. The spirit of man
is endowed with nobler powers, and is capable, as we
apprehend, of endless improvement; but although its
high rank is associated in our minds with the notion of
its immortality, we are not able to prove that there is
any necessary connexion between them. In conse
quence of those powers, man was qualified to perform
rational service, to yield moral obedience ; but might
he therefore claim a right to live forever? This idea
cannot be entertained, without forgetting that he is a
creature, who owed all because he had received all,
and after the best employment of his faculties was an
unprofitable servant. If we reflect upon the absolute
dependence of a created being upon the author of his
existence, we shall be convinced thathe never could
acquire a claim to any thing more than what he actual
ly enjoyed, and that at every moment, the right of the
Creator to withdraw his support, and leave him to re
turn to nothing, remained unaltered.
Thus far, I think, we may safely proceed; but when
we venture farther, and inquire, whether God had a
right to subject his creatures to suffering, considered
merely as his creatures, we are involved in a conflict
between opposite opinions. Some deny, and others
affirm, and have not hesitated even to maintain, that by
his absolute justice and dominion, God could inflict the
greatest torments, even those of hell, upon the most in

132

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

nocent creature. We do indeed find that innocent crea
tures suffer, namely, the lower animals who are inca
pable of sin, and yet are subject to disease, and tor
ture, and death. I acknowledge that there is difficulty
here; but although the Scripture does not fully ex
plain it, yet it gives a general notice that they suffer in
consequence of their connexion with men. This is
perhaps the meaning of these words: " The creature
(or the creation) was made subject to vanity."* We
are not competent to say, how far, consistently with
justice, those evils may have come upon them, as con
sequent parts of a system, on which a curse was pro
nounced for the sin of man, to whom that system was
subservient, and who was placed at the head of it;
Leaving out this case, as for the reason now stated, not
distinctly an example of absolute dominion, we may
say, that it seems harsh and revolting to affirm, that
God might without injustice inflict everlasting misery
upon an innocent creature. The addition of the epithet
absolute to justice, does not alter the nature of the thing;
it is still justice although absolute; and I would ask
them, what idea they entertain of justice, which could
treat the innocent in the same manner as the guilty 1
If this is justice, T would say, what then is injustice ?
How does the one differ from the other ? Surely men
impose upon themselves, when they make use of a term
in a sense directly the reverse of what in all other cases
it conveys. There never was such an abuse of lan
guage, as to say, " This absolute justice or dominion"
—observe how strangely dominion is substituted for
justice, as if these were equivalent terms—" this abso
lute justice or dominion regards not any qualities or
conditions of its object ; but God can by virtue hereof
inflict the highest torments on his innocent creature,
and exempt from punishment the most nocent."f
Absolute justice is defined to be the rectitude of
his nature, by which all his proceedings are regulated.
All his acts are conformable to his infinite purity and
perfection. Those who maintain, that he may subject
an innocent creature to the greatest sufferings, are
chargeable, in the first place, with transmuting recti
tude into mere power, which is not a moral attribute ;
and in the second place, with forgetting that power is
not his only perfection. In respect of power, God
might do any thing, because he is omnipotent ; but
there are other properties of his nature, by which the
exercise of power is limited. I do not mean to insinu
ate, that creatures have any claim upon their Creator,
and hold it to be high presumption to make use of any
expression, which imports that he is bound to bestow
any favor upon them, prior to his own voluntary en
gagement. But God, if I may speak so, is a debtor to
himself; that is, he will never do any thing which does
not become him, which is not agreeable to his infinite
perfection. Now, in the case which we are consider
ing, his power is limited by his wisdom and goodness.
As a wise Being, he would not inflict everlasting suf
ferings upon an innocent creature, because this would
lead to the conclusion that righteousness was not more
pleasing to him than unrighteousness, and that the pun
ishment of the guilty was rather an effect of arbitrary
will than of justice. As a good Being, he would not
render his own offspring miserable without a cause ;
and to suppose that he might subject them to misery,
and still be good, is to confound the ideas of malevo
lence and benevolence, as the hypothesis which we are
combating confounds those of justice and power. It is
strange that some men should take an unnatural plea
sure in giving awful and forbidding representations of
God, and should imagine, that they do honor to him by
exalting one attribute at the expense of another, and
exhibiting him in the character of an Almighty Despot.

* Rom. viii. 20. . ..
f Gale's Court of the Gentiles; part iv. B. n. c. 5. j 4.

Relative justice respects the relation in which God
stands to his creatures as their moral Governor, and com
prehends all the acts of his moral administration. Jus
tice is distinguished into commutative and distributive.
Commutative justice takes place in the exchange of
one thing for another, and observes a strict proportion,
giving and receiving an equivalent. It enters into hu
man transactions, and ought to regulate all contracts
and bargains between man and man. It cannot be
ascribed to God, who can receive no equivalent from
his creatures for any thing which he bestows upon them,
all that they possess being already his own. " Who
hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed
unto him again !"* Distributive justice consists in be
stowing rewards and inflicting punishments according
to an established rule. This justice belongs to God as
the Governor of men, who will treat them according to
the law under which they are placed. Avenging
justice comes under this division. It is justice exer
cised in taking vengeance upon sinners, or punishing
them for their transgression of the law. Whether it is
essential to God, is an important question, which we
shall find another opportunity to discuss.
The justice of God implies the three following par
ticulars : That the laws which he has given to us are
right, or suitable to our nature and relations ; that they
are enforced with proper sanctions ; and that they are
impartially executed.. If these particulars concurred in
the administration of an earthly ruler, if his laws were
founded in equity, the recompense annexed to them pro
portionable, and rewards and punishments bestowed
without respect of persons, we should pronounce his
government to be -just. We must conceive justice in
God to be, upon the whole, of the same nature with
justice in men, in the same manner as we conceive an
analogy between his wisdom, goodness, and power,
and those qualities in ourselves.
In the first place, the justice of God consists in giv
ing righteous laws to men, laws suited to their nature,
powers, and relations. Some affirm, that every thing
which be commands is just, merely because he com
mands it, and make this the origin of moral distinc
tions ; but from this opinion it would follow, that if-he
had given laws totally different, and even contrary to
those which he has given, they would have been equal
ly just. But here again justice and power are mani
festly confounded ; good and evil, right and wrong,
have no existence in the nature of things, but are arbi
trary differences. If we trace this notion to its conse
quences, it may be said, that falsehood might have been
a virtue, and truth a vice ; that it might have been law
ful to steal, murder, and commit adultery ; that men
might have worshipped idols and not sinned; have
lived without prayer, and have loved the creature more
than the Creator. It would follow that there is no such
thing as eternal and immutable morality. We maintain
that, in general, things are not just because God has
commanded them, but that he has commanded them
because they are just. Our meaning is, that there was
a reason for them in the nature of things, and that
therefore, he has enforced them by his authority.
There may be some precepts or parts of precepts in the
decalogue to which we cannot apply this remark, but
this is its general character. His law is summed up
in these two injunctions, love to God and love to our
neighbour; and how reasonable these are, no person
can be at a loss to perceive. Our supreme regard is
justly due to our Creator, Preserver, and Benefactor, in
whom every excellence is found which can excite es
teem or affection. The obligation to love him evident
ly arises from his nature and the relations which he
bears to us. As men are his offspring, and resemble
him in their moral and intellectual powers, and as we
* Rom. xi. 35.

ON GOD: HIS JUSTICE.

133

are all sprung from the same stock, and have common
feelings and interests, it is plain, that we ought to be
well affected to those around us for his sake, and as
constituting with us a family of brothers. That saying
of our Lord which he delivered as a compend of mor
ality has obtained universal admiration, by its obvious
accordance with the dictates of reason and humanity.
" Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so unto them ; for this is the law and the pro
phets."* Our present limits will not admit an inquiry
into the justice of particular precepts. Objections may
be made to them, by those who feel that they are op
posed to their corrupt inclinations, as thieves and mur
derers object to the laws of the land of which every
honest man approves ; but an unprejudiced and upright
mind will cordially assent to them as admirably adapt
ed to our circumstances, and enjoining nothing which
it is not fit that we should do, nothing which is not
conducive to our individual interest upon the whole,
and to the general good. It was no extravagant praise,
when the Psalmist pronounced the statutes of God to
be righteous, and declared, that he esteemed them con
cerning all things to be right.f If the righteousness
of the law should be called in question on this ground,
that its demands are too high for the present infirm
state of our nature, it should be considered, that this
disproportion did not exist from the beginning, foT in
that case there might have been ground for complain
ing of injustice ; but that it has been superinduced by
a cause, for which the Author of the law is not respon
sible. It fully vindicates the Lawgiver, that his law
was adapted to our nature at its original formation.
Had man wanted power to fulfil the law, there would
have been no justice in subjecting him to it, and to
have punished him for not fulfilling it would have been
cruelty ; but the loss of that power, since it was not
forcibly taken from him, but voluntarily parted with,
does not invalidate the claims of the Lawgiver. No
act of ours can divest him of his supreme dominion ;
nor can it be supposed, with any appearance of reason,
that our allegiance ceases as soon as we have disqual
ified ourselves for performing the duty which we owe
to our Sovereign.
I have said that moral duties are enjoined because
they are just, or because they are founded in the nature
of things. But there are also duties which become
just, solely because they are commanded. These are
positive duties which have been prescribed to men, in
a greater or less number, under every dispensation.
Such was the prohibition of the tree of knowledge in
paradise ; such were the ritual observances of the an
cient law ; and such are baptism and the Lord's Supper
under the gospel ; to which may be added the appoint
ment of one day in seven to be a holy rest, and the
fixing of the day to the seventh, or to the first. The
difference between these classes of duties is thus ex
plained by Bishop Butler. " Moral precepts are pre
cepts, the reasons' of which we see ; positive precepts
are precepts, the reasons of which we do not see.
Moral duties arise out of the case itself, prior to exter
nal command. Positive duties do not arise out of the
nature of the case, but from external command ; nor
would they be duties at all, were it not for such com
mand received from Him, whose creatures and subjects
we are." He adds the following observation, to which
6ome thoughtless declaimers on this subject would do
well to attend. " As it is one of the peculiar weak
nesses of human nature, when, upon a comparison of
two things, one is found to be of greater importance
than the other, to consider this other as of scarce any
importance at all ; it is highly necessary that we re
mind ourselves, how great presumption it is to make
light of any institution of Divine appointment ; that

* Mat. vii. 12.

f Ps. cxix. 128.

nur obligations to obey all God's commands whatever
are absolute and indispensable; and that commands
merely positive, admitted to be from Him, lay us under
a moral obligation to obey them, an obligation moral in
the strictest and most proper sense."* According to
this reasoning, positive duties are as really binding as
moral, and the performance of the latter will he no
compensation for the neglect of the former. Let it be
observed that the obligation to both arises from the au
thority of God ; for even moral duties, which are found
ed in the nature and relations of things, become strictly
and formally duties in consequence of a law. That
only is obedience which is done from respect to the
will of a superior. When we perform certain actions
solely because they are consonant to reason, or because
we perceive them to be fit and proper in our circum
stances, we merely adapt our conduct to the order of
nature. As it is certain that our Maker has a right to
propose any test of our obedience, the reasonableness
of positive duties cannot be denied ; and their goodness
is evinced by their connexion with our interests, as
they contribute to promote the great ends of religion.
In the second place, the justice of God consists in
enforcing his laws with proper sanctions. By the
sanction of a law, we mean something distinct from its
precepts, which is added the more effectually to secure
the obedience of the subjects. A simple command
would be obligatory, if the person issuing it were pos
sessed of legal authority; but it would not materially
differ from a counsel or advice, if the lawgiver content
ed himself with enjoining obedience, and made no in
quiry whether his will was respected or despised. The
law of God is enforced by rewards and punishments,
and justice is concerned in fixing the proportion of
these. In cases where reward is due, it may be greater
than the service deserves, without any violation of
justice, but it cannot be less. No wrong is done when
a person receives more than he is entitled to, but he
sustains an injury if the recompense does not corres
pond to the value of the work. With respect to pun
ishment, justice requires that it should be exactly ad
justed to the crime. To punish with too great severi
ty is cruel ; to punish with too little, is contrary to mor
al rectitude, if the end of punishment is recompense,
and defeats in some measure the purpose, if the end be
to deter others from transgression. It is, however, ne
cessary to observe, that justice does not strictly require
that God should reward the obedience of his creatures,
because their powers, natural and moral, being derived
from his bounty, the exercise of them can give them
no claim upon him ; and they are bound to employ
them in his service, although there were no prospect
of a recompense. Men are led into a gross error by
transferring ideas arising from their relations to one
another, to the relation which subsists between them
and their Maker. We are, in a certain sense, indepen
dent of one another, masters of our time, our skill, and
our strength ; and if, at the request of our neighbour,
we devote these to his benefit, it is right that he should
give an equivalent. But, in the present case, the obli
gations are all on our part ; the creature is the proper
ty, and at the disposal of the Creator ; we have already
received more favours from him than we are able to re
pay : our services are previously due, and after'we have
performed them, we are still in debt. Merit is a word
without meaning when connected with the obedience
of men ; it is impossible in the nature of things. Jus
tice exercised in remunerating our services is founded
on a gracious convention. The claim results not from
the intrinsic worth of our obedience, but from an act
of God himself, by which he has engaged to recom
pense it. If he has promised to reward our works ; if
he has entered into an agreement, binding himself to

Analogy of Religion, Part ii. m. 1.

134.

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

bestow certain favours in consideration of them, justice
requires, that the terms on his part should be fulfilled,
when the condition on our part has been performed.
It. is on this ground that the apostle says, "God is not
unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love,
which ye have shewed toward his name."* Punish
ment admits of a different statement. It is the recom
pense strictly due to transgression, and God is righte
ous in inflicting it, independently of any previous stip
ulation. " Is God unrighteous, who taketh vengeance ?
God forbid ; for how then shall God judge the world. "f
If the law of God is just, as being founded on the na
ture of things, and on his will, which is holy and wise,
there must be an intrinsic demerit in sin, which ought
not to escape with impunity. However partial we are
to ourselves, we cannot but see, that actions which im
ply contempt of the supreme authority, and directly
aim at disturbing the moral order and government of
the universe, deserve to be animadverted upon with the
greatest severity. We cannot consider punishment in
this case as an arbitrary exercise of power ; we per
ceive a fitness in it, a relation of one thing to another,
which appears to a reasonable mind to be natural and
necessary. Theologians have been much divided in sentiment
with respect to the question, whether avenging justice
is essential to God ; that is, whether the punishment
of sin flows from the purity and rectitude of his na
ture, or is an effect of'his will. Hence some have
maintained, that he might have pardoned sin without
an atonement ; and others maintain, that he could not.
The language of Scripture on this subject is strono- ;
"Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst
not look upon iniquity." " Thou art not a God that
hast pleasure in wickedness ; neither shall evil dwell
with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight ;
thou hatest all the workers of iniquity." "He that jus-
tifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just,
even they both are abomination to the Lord." "Our
God is a consuming fire."^: To suppose that nothing
is intended, but that God has formed a resolution to
punish sin, while he might have pardoned it, is to give a
strange turn to expressions which certainly suggest at
first view a very different sense. The obvious infer
ence from them is, that sin is contrary to his nature ;
that there is an eternal repugnance between them ; that
he can never be reconciled to sinners considered in
themselves ; that he is led to punish them, not by the
same necessity by which fire consumes combustible
materials, but by a moral necessity as natural and ir
resistible. It is allowed that there is intrinsic demerit
in sin. This postulate all will grant, who are not
atheists, or who, not much better than they, imagine a
Deity to whom human actions are indifferent, and sub
vert all religion by denying moral distinctions. If
there is intrinsic demerit in sin, it is just to punish it;
and to suppose that it might not be punished, that God,
if it had seemed good to him, might have suffered it
to pass with impunity, is to suppose that he might have
done what is not consistent with justice. Men impose
upon themselves when they talk of justice, which may
punish or not according to its pleasure. The admission
of this alternative destroys the idea of justice. What
is called justice is not justice, but will, sometimes ex
erting itself in acts of kindness, and at other times in
acts of severity. It is expedience, consulting not what
the case abstractly demands, but what will be the best
mode of managing it, with a view to a particular end.
The world according to this hypothesis, might have
been redeemed without the blood of Christ ; but the
wisdom of God judged, that it would be better to make
his sacrifice the means, that the designs of his moral gov-

* Heb. vi. 10. t Rom. iii. 5, 6.
J Hab. i. 13. Ps- v. 4, 5. Prov. xvu. 15. Heb. xn. 29.

ernment would, in this way, be more fully answered,
a more impressive lesson, a more effectual warning
would be given to check the perverseness of mankind,
and to inspire them with reverence for his law. But
how does this theory agree with the statement, that it
was the design of God in setting forth Christ to be a
propitiation for sin, to declare his righteousness in the
remission of it?* There is no display of righteous
ness in his death, if we might have been saved with
out his substitution. The plan is illustrative rather of
prudence than of justice.
It is to no purpose to object, that as men may forgive
one another's offences without satisfaction, so may God
pardon sins committed against himself. What is a law
to creatures, is not necessarily a law to the Creator,
We may forgive offences without wrong to ourselves,
or to the public ; without wrong to ihe public, whose
interests may happen to be in no way connected with
the offence ; without wrong to ourselves, because if
we are content to forego the demand of reparation, no
other person is injured. To avenge ourselves is not
our province : " Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith
the Lord."f He has taken it out of our hands into his
own ; but this reservation implies that punishment is
agreeable to his nature ; is an exercise of power which
becomes him as the moral Governor of the. world.
This is the light, in which he ought to be considered,
and it is a gross mistake to compare his procedure with
that of a private individual. We should compare him
with a magistrate, who is the guardian of the laws,
and ask, whether it would be just in a civil ruler to
permit crimes to pass unpunished. If all agree that
such conduct would be unworthy of his station, that
such misjudging clemency would endanger the interests
of society, shall we ascribe to God what would be
condemnable in man ? We believe that the Judge
of all the earth will do right, and must therefore be
lieve, that avenging justice is essential to him in this
character. In the third place, the justice of God consists in the
impartial execution of his laws ; I mean, that he dis
tributes rewards and punishments, not under the influ
ence of favour and displeasure originating in no moral
cause, but with an exact regard to the characters and
actions of men. Their actions are considered solely
in the relation of conformity or disconformity to the
law, and are recompensed according to a rule previous
ly laid down, and rigidly adhered to. Under his ad
ministration, viewed in its whole extent as comprehend
ing the present and the future state, no such disorder
takes place as we sometimes observe under human gov
ernments, where law is made to bend to private inter
ests, and while one man is punished for a crime, anoth
er, who has committed the same offence, escapes with
impunity. Read the Scriptures from beginning to end,
and you shall find this to be the immutable principle
of his dispensations, that he who obeys shall live,
and the man who transgresses shall die. The causes
which obstruct the course of justice among men, can
not influence the proceedings of the Supreme Judge;
No person is so great as to set his justice at defi
ance, and none is so artful as to elude it. A guilty
king has no advantage at his tribunal above the
meanest of his subjects ; and the most obscure indi
vidual, who performs his duty in silence, is as much
under his eye as ihe man of rank and talents, who
excites the admiration of the world by the splendour
of his deeds. A law founded in justice knows no
person, and is concerned with actions alone; so that if
the innocent suffer, and the guilty are acquitted, the
evil must be traced to the corruption of those by whom
it is administered. The moral law having emanated
from the nature of the Lawgiver, is under his own

* Rom. iii. 25.

f Rom. xii. 19.

ON GOD : HIS JUSTICE.

135

guardianship, and the love which he bears to it as an
expression of his essential holiness, ensures its appli
cation without distinction of persons. " Hearken unto
me, ye men of understanding : Far be it from God,
that he should do wickedness ; and from the Almighty,
that he should commit iniquity. For the work of a
man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to
find according to his ways. Yea, surely God will not
do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judg
ment."* It may seem to be an objection against the
justice of the Divine government, that good and evil
are in many cases distributed according to no fixed
rule, and that often the good falls to the lot of the wick
ed, and the evil, to the lot of the righteous. I shall
afterwards consider this objection, and at present only
observe, that it is founded on the false supposition, that
the ends of the Divine government are accomplished
in this world. It may also be accounted an objection,
that by the dispensation of grace certain persons are
selected as the objects of the love of God, and enjoy
the advantages of this choice, although they have no
better claim than o*thers who are excluded ; and that
they are saved without performing the obedience which
the law originally required as the indispensable condi
tion of happiness. With respect to the first article in
this objection, it is obvious that there is no injustice in
the disposal of favours according to the will of the
donor, whose right over his own property is indisputa
ble, and who may be regulated by his own views in
selecting the objects of his beneficence, when no per
son has a claim to be preferred to another. This is not
a case in which justice has any concern. With res
pect to the second part of the objection, let it be ob
served, that although believers are not saved by the
law, it is presupposed in their salvation that its de
mands have been respected and satisfied. A substi
tute has been admitted, who, having placed himself
under its authority, has fulfUled all its requisitions.
As he sustained the character of a representative, his
obedience is imputed or transferred to them by the Law
giver, who admitted this exchange of persons ; that is,
they are legally and justly treated as if the obedience
had been performed by themselves.. Justice is display
ed even in this transaction. The law is not repealed,
but established. Its terms are not altered, but rigidly
maintained. Those who are saved, are considered as
righteous ; and although in respect of them the reward
is of grace, it is a reward of justice in respect of the
Savior; " Him hath God set forth to be a propitiation
for our sins through faith in his blood, to declare his
righteousness (or justice) for the remission of sins that
are past, through the forbearance of 00(1 > t0 declare,
I say, at this time his justice, that he might be just,
and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."f
Justicer.then, presides over all the Divine dispensations.
The law is the eternal rule of right, and men are re
warded and punished according to its sanctions.
The consciences of men bear testimony to the jus
tice of God. Conscience is that faculty which distin
guishes right and wrong in actions, approves and dis
approves, and anticipates the consequences whether
good or evil. We do not call it the moral sense, be
cause this account detaches it too much from the ra
tional part of our nature, and makes it a passive and
instinctive perception of the differences of things. It
is not a mere feeling of impropriety, like that of which
a person is conscious, when he has violated the rules
of decorum ; or a mere taste analogous to the sensa
tions of sweet and bitter, or to the mental power which
gives us the notions of order, fitness, and beauty. It
is an act of the mind, comparing our conduct with the
law of God, or what we apprehend to be his law, and
pronouncing sentence according to its conformity or

* Job xxxiv. 10—12.

+ Rom. iii. 25, 26.

disconformity to the standard. It has been called the
deputy or vicegerent of God. It performs the office
not only of a monitor, by reminding us of our duty,
and exciting us to attend to it, but also of a subordinate
judge, summoning us before its tribunal, and pronoun
cing us to be innocent or guilty. Its sentences proeeed
on the assumption, that there is a law, holy, just, and
good, with the demands of which men are bound to
comply. It often exposes the vanity of our most spe
cious pretences ; and convicts us of sin, at the mo
ment when we are employing our eloquence and so
phistry to justify our conduct. In this manner, the
right of God as the Supreme Governor to give law to
men is maintained amidst their attempts to invalidate
his authority, and to free themselves from his yoke.
This advocate for his claims accompanies sinners in all
their changes of place ; is near to them in solitude and
in company ; disturbs them in their pleasures, and
checks them when they are meditating wicked designs ;
hesitates not to upbraid those whom men would not
dare to reprove, and utters a voice, which makes kings
tremble on their thrones. Hence a belief of the Di
vine justice has prevailed in every age and country;
and without revelation the Gentiles have been a law to
themselves, " their conscience bearing witness, and
their thoughts accusing or else excusing one another."*
Under the influence of this principle, they understood
certain events to be instances of retributive justice, and
remarked the punishment of individuals in the calami
ties which befel them. Their histories abound in facts
which were construed to be divine judgments, interpo
sitions of the gods to avenge themselves upon those
who were guilty of fraud, murder, and impiety. They
erred in attributing these acts of justice to beings who
existed only in their own vain imaginations : but they
were right in interpreting them as proofs, that there is
a moral government which will not permit crimes to
escape with impunity. The institution of sacrifices,
whatever was its origin, was expressive of a convic
tion that crimes were offensive to the gods, and that
justice demanded satisfaction. It was an acknowledg
ment, that the guilty deserved to suffer; and the sub
stitution of the devoted animal was founded on the
hope that justice would accept of this compensation.
The notions which they entertained of a future state,
and of judges before whom departed spirits appeared
to have a place assigned to them according to their
deeds,inElysium or in Tartarus, derived their authority
from conscience, which told them that justice presided
over the affairs of men, and that, if it suspended its de
cisions in this world, it would exert its power in the
next. Conscience lends its effectual aid to preserve
right ideas of religion. It corrects the loose notions
which men are so ready to adopt on no better ground
than their wishes, or from conclusions founded on par
tial observations. The benignity which is so manifest
in the course of providence is assumed as a proof that
God is all goodness, and will be very gentle in the
treatment of his erring creatures ; but conscience dis
turbs these speculations, and alarms the secure trans
gressor by the unexpected and unwelcome admonition,
that " the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him ac
tions are weighed. "f
Let us inquire, whether there is any thing in the dis
pensations of providence, which tends to confirm the
dictates of conscience. Providence implies the preser
vation of creatures, and the government of them ac
cording to their respective natures. Are there any in
dications of a moral government over men? Experi
ence informs us, that pleasure and pain are dispensed ;
and the question at present is, whether these appear to
be allotted to men in any degree according to their con
duct, considered as morally good or evil ? It is, indeed,

* Rom. ii. 15.

f 1 Sam. ii. 3.

136

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

said, that " no man knoweth love or hatred by all that
is before him;"* and we seem to be precluded by these
words from any attempt to collect proofs of Divine jus
tice from the present state of things. But besides that
Solomon in the Book of Ecclesiastes sometimes per
sonates an objector against religion, and adopts the lan
guage of the profane, the words now quoted, if consid
ered as expressive of his own sentiments, must be un
derstood merely as stating the general character of the
Divine dispensation, not as absolutely denying that
there are any instances of retributive justice. That
this is the light in which they ought to be viewed, will
be evident upon reflecting, that the Scriptures do record
many examples of the justice of God in the punish
ment of transgressors. Of these I may mention the
destruction of the inhabitants of the old world by the
flood ; the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrha ; the
calamities which befel the Jews, and particularly their
transportation to Babylon, and their subsequent disper
sion by the Romans ; and we may add the judgments
executed upon individuals, as Pharaoh, Sennacherib,
and Herod. Similar instances of Divine interference
may be still observed, and will not be overlooked by
those who are attentive to what is passing around them,
and piously believe, that not a sparrow can fall to the
ground, nor a hair of our head perish, without the
knowledge of God. Without being guilty of the pre
sumption and uncharitableness which our Savior repro
bated, when speaking of the Galileans, whose blood
Pilate mingled with theiT sacrifices, and of the persons
on whom the tower of Siloam fell, they will sometimes
be constrained to acknowledge, that " verily there is a
God that judgeth in the earth." They will see the
sins of men called to remembrance by the nature of
their punishment ; they will see the sinner smitten with
the rod of anger in the moment of guilt, in the very
act of transgression. It may be objected, that the dis
tribution of rewards and punishments is not regular,
and that upon the whole, the treatment which men ex
perience from providence is little connected with their
character and conduct. The prosperity of the wicked
and the afflictions of the righteous, have, in all ages,
been a topic of declamation. But the occasional in
stances of retribution which we witness, are hints and
notices, that justice is concerned in the actions of men,
and are calculated to excite an expectation, that at
some period, it will be more openly revealed. As we
cannot doubt from what we see, that justice is one of
the attributes of the Supreme Governor, the conclusion
to which we are naturally led is, that there are reasons
why he does not now more fully display it, and that
when these reasons have ceased, or in another state
where a new order of things will exist, an exact dis
tribution will take place, and every man will be recom
pensed -according to his works. There are many cir
cumstances in the present order of things, which fa
vour the idea of the moral government of God. The
inward sentiments of approbation and disapprobation,
which accompany the performance or the neglect of
our duty, arising from the constitution which our Ma
ker has given to us, ought to be considered as a decla
ration by himself, that the one is acceptable, and the
other is displeasing to him. The same inference may
be drawn from the health, and peace, and success,
which are the consequences of virtuous conduct, and
the troubles and diseases which are the consequences
of vice ; for if providence directs the course of things,
these consequences are not owing to chance but to ap
pointment, and are, therefore, a proof that God has a
respect to the moral nature of actions in his dealings
with men, or in other words, is just. As civil govern
ment is in this sense a Divine institution, that it arises
from the nature and circumstances of men as social be-
* Eccl.ix. 1.

ings, and was _ therefore intended by Him who gave
them that nature, and placed them in those circumstan
ces, the protection which it affords to the obedient, and
the punishment which it inflicts on the disobedient, are
virtually acts of his administration, and admonitions
of-a judgment to come. The prosperity which some
times falls to the lot of wicked men, will not be deem
ed a proof of the approbation of heaven by those who
observe how little it contributes to real happiness, how
much misery they often feel amidst the fulness of ex
ternal enjoyments, and the usual effect of it in leading
them to multiply crimes, and thus to aggravate their
final doom. On the other hand, the Divine disappro
bation cannot be inferred from the afflictions of the
righteous, since they are accompanied with the conso
lations of religion, which make them joyful in tribula
tion, and are productive of salutary effects both in this
life and the next. Upon the whole, providence bears
witness to the justice of God : but as several causes
obscure the evidence, we look forward to another state,
in which there will be a clear revelation of his right
eous judgments.
In the next place, let us inquire what evidence of
justice is afforded by redemption. It is a maxim of
reason and of Scripture, that guilt precedes suffering,
and is the cause of it. We cannot conceive a benev
olent Being to subject innocent and obedient creatures
to pain, or to inflict it arbitrarily, in the mere exercise
of sovereignty. Yet we find that a person who is ac
knowledged to have been free from the slightest stain
of impurity, and of whose moral conduct Heaven it
self testified an unqualified approbation, spent his days
in such affliction, and closed his career so unhappily,
that he is emphatically called " a man of sorrows."
This case seems to present an objection against the
justice of God, which it is impossible to solve on the
common principles of reason; but the light of revela
tion clears up the difficulty. It is natural to suppose,
that since he was personally innocent, he must have
been somehow connected with the guiity, so as to suf
fer on their account ; and such we are informed was
the fact, for he sustained the character of the legal rep
resentative of sinners. It may be thought, however,
that this explanation is by no means satisfactory: and,
accordingly, some reject the idea of substitution as at
variance with this first principle of justice, that every
man should stand or fall for himself. This objection,
however, is not supported by the general sense of man
kind, among whom suretiship is held to be justifiable
in certain cases, and upon certain conditions, and is fre
quently admitted. The first intention of the law of
God and the laws of man, is that the subjects shall be
personally responsible for their conduct; but it has
been judged expedient occasionally to relax this rigour,
and to allow the obligation to be transferred to another
with his consent. It should be remembered, that he,
who presented -himself as the surety of sinners, pos
sessed a power which belonged to no other man. He
was complete master of his own life ; and as the pos
session of it was the consequence of his own voluntary
act in assuming our nature, so he held it for the pur
pose of surrendering it as a ransom for others. It be
ing evident that he might dispose of it according to his
pleasure, there can be no doubt, that the Lawgiver
might accept it instead of the forfeited lives of trans
gressors. If, by the sacrifice of an innocent person, to
whom no injury was done because he suffered from
choice, God's hatred of sin would be manifested, a
demonstration given of its demerit to all intelligent
creatures, and the authority of his government main-
tainedi all the ends of justice would be gained.
If it be admitted, that the substitution of Christ was
consistent with justice, it is evident, that this expedi
ent has served to give a full and awful display of that
perfection. It can hardly now be a question, whether

ON GOD: HIS TRUTH AND FAITHFULNESS.

137

avenging justice is essential to God, when we see it
taking its course on an occasion which would have
prevented the exercise of it, if such a thing had been
possible. If God could have permitted sin to escape
with impunity ; if the determination to punish it had
not proceeded from his nature, but merely from his
will, he would not have subjected his own Son to a
cruel and ignominious death. He would not have de
livered him up after his earnest and repeated prayer,
that, if it were possible, the cup might pass from him.
Has he any pleasure in suffering for its own sake ?
Would it have been agreeable to him, to see a person
so dear to him bleeding and dying without a sufficient
cause ? No ; the unavoidable conclusion is, that the
death of Christ was the indispensable condition of the
redemption of the world; that the designs of mercy,
abstractly considered, were at variance with the de
mands of justice; and that, to establish harmony be
tween them, it was necessary that justice should be sat
isfied. This was the most solemn display of justice ;
the highest proof that it is as truly an attribute of the
Divine nature, as power and wisdom. It no longer ad
mits of a doubt, that there is a necessary connexion be
tween guilt and punishment. Who can hope for im
punity if the Son of God did not escape ?
In the last place, the justice of God will be openly
manifested at the end of time, when the present adminis
tration will terminate. The ends of justice, so far as
it consists in retribution, would be answered by the
sentence pronounced upon every individual immediate
ly after death ; for it is enough that the state of men in
the future world, correspond to their characters and
conduct in the present. But the general judgment is
designed for the manifestation of justice, to bring it out
of the obscurity and uncertainty in which it is involved
during this life, that all may see it, and be convinced
that there is no respect of persons with God. It is for
this purpose, that the whole human race will be con
vened before the tribunal of Christ, the sentence upon
the righteous and the wicked will be publicly pro
nounced, and their works will be produced as evidence,
that they are treated as they ought to be. " When the
Son of Man shall come in his glory, before him shall be
gathered all nations, and he shall separate one from
another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the
goats."* Of the proceedings at the grand assize, the
description is figurative, and borrowed from the pro
ceedings before a human tribunal. There will be no
examination of witnesses to establish the facts ; but it
is said, that the books will be opened, and the dead will
be judged out of those things which are written in
them.f This is not to be literally understood ; there is
no written record of human actions ; nor is it necessary,
as the Judge is omniscient, and what is past, is as dis
tinctly before him as what is present. It is to assure
us of the strictness and impartiality of the judgment
that books are mentioned; to signify,' that the final
estimate of every man's conduct, will be as correct, as
if a register had been kept of his actions during the
whole course of his life. No crime will be imputed to
any man, which he did not commit ; nor will any be
omitted, of which he was guilty. His advantages and
disadvantages, his talents and opportunities, his diffi
culties and temptations, all the circumstances which in
fluenced his conduct, will be taken into the account ;
and judgment will proceed upon this equitable princi
ple, that much or little should be required of men ac
cording to what they received. "As many as have
sinned without law, shall also perish without law ;
and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged
by the law ; in the day when God shall judge the se
crets of men by Jesus Christ. ":£ The result will be a
universal conviction that all is right ; a conviction in

* Matth. Xx. 31,32.
S

f Rev. xx. 12. X Rom. ii, 12, 16.

the mind of every man with regard to himself and to
others. Not even the guilty will dare to accuse the
justice, by which they are condemned: however re
luctant, they will be compelled to acknowledge the
righteousness of their doom : and their sufferings will
be heightened by the sad reflection, that they are the
fruits of their own doings : " Just and true are thy
ways, 0 thou King of saints."*

LECTURE XXVI.
ON GOD. ~
His Truth and Faithfulness — Truth of his communications to
Man through the Senses, Reason, and by Revelation — Faith
fulness of his Promises — Remarks respecting the Promises —
Examples of performance — Faithfulness of his Threatenings —
Sincerity of his Invitations to Sinners — The Nature of God
incapable of Error or Deceit.
I proceed now to consider the truth and faithfulness
of Gpd. When we call him the true God, we dis
tinguish him from those to whom this designation has
been improperly given, and affirm, that he has not only
the name, but the nature and perfections of God. " The
idols of the nations are silver and gold, but our God is
in the heavens." When we call him the God of truth,
our design is not to assert his Divinity, but to illus
trate his character ; and we declare that an undeviat-
ing regard to truth marks all his communications to
mankind ; that he never deceives them, but treats them
with the same openness and sincerity which they are
required to observe in their intercourse with one ano
ther. Did we not believe that truth is an attribute of
God, we should be involved in the utmost uncertainty,
and driven to absolute scepticism. For ought that we
could tell, human life might be a dream. Truth would
be known, if known at all, only as a thing unattainable ;
and wandering in endless doubt and perplexity, we
should close our comfortless existence, without being
able to tell whence we had come, and whither we were
going. A Divine revelation would afford no satisfaction,
because amidst the subversion of all evidence, it would
be impossible to ascertain that it had proceeded from
the Author of our being ; and even although this point
were settled, we could not determine whether its state
ments were worthy of credit. The truth of God gives
validity to the deductions of reason, and is the founda
tion of faith. " Let God be true, but every man a
liar."f In this emphatic manner does an apostle affirm
that truth is essential to God. Whatever may become
of the veracity of men, who may be induced by temp
tation to deceive, the Divine veracity shall never be just
ly impeached.
When we speak of truth as one of his perfections,
we assume, that the communications which have been
made by him to men accord with the nature of things,
and are genuine expressions of his views and inten
tions. Falsehood consists in designed misrepresen
tation of the subject of discourse, and . in creating "ex
pectations which we do not mean to realize, in affirm
ing that that is which is not, and that we will do what
we have resolved not to do. There are different ways
in which God has made declarations to us ; by our sen
ses, by reason, and by revelation. On each of these
we shall bestow some observations ; and with respect
to the last, in which we are so deeply concerned, I shall
consider the doctrines which it proposes to our faith,
the promises which awaken our hopes, the threatenings
which are addressed to our fears, and shew that these,
as well as the invitations, entreaties, and expostula
tions with which the Scriptures abound, are character
ised by veracity and sincerity.

* Rev.^xv. 3.

f Rom. iii. 4.

138

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

In the first place, God is true in all his declarations.
These are made to us, first, through the medium of our
senses, by which we acquire the knowledge of external
objects. We are impelled by the law of our nature,
to give implicit credit to their testimony, to believe
that objects exist without us, that they are invested
with certain forms, and endowed with certain quali
ties, and arranged in a certain order. The evidence of
sense has indeed been controverted, and what is there
that vanity and ill intention have not endeavored to per
plex ? and some philosophers have maintained that
matter does not exist; that the sun, the earth, trees,
men, and animals, are merely ideas in our minds.
Their arguments may have puzzled those who could
not readily detect their fallacy, but have not, I pre
sume, produced conviction in a single instance. Their
reasoning had no effect upon themselves ; and while
they pretended that the universe, was a phantom, they
were as careful as other men not to throw themselves
into fire or water, or to leap over a precipice. It is ac
knowledged, that our senses do not make us acquainted
with the interna] nature of objects ; but this can only
be called an imperfection, and does not invalidate the
certainty of the information which they do give us. As
far as they go, they are faithful instructors, who con
vey to us the knowledge of the qualities or properties
of things, but leave us in ignorance of their essences,
because the knowledge of these, if we were capable of
it, would be of no real utility. We may be content not
to know what matter is, since we know its primary and
secondary qualities, for this knowledge is sufficient for
all the purposes of life. Our senses do indeed some
times deceive us ; but it is only when they are in a
diseased state, or when they are disadvantageously sit
uated for making observations, or when we are too has
ty in drawing conclusions. When all the requisite
conditions are provided ; when the eye, for example, is
perfect, the object is at a due distance, and the degree
of light is sufficient to exhibit it clearly, and when we
take a deliberate view of it, it appears to us exactly as
it ought to appear according to the laws of vision. We
find ourselves safe and comfortable in acting according
to the notices of our senses, and under their guidance,
in subservience to reason, the human race has been pre
served for thousands of years.
God also communicates knowledge to us by the me
dium of reason. It must be acknowledged that reason
often errs, but it is not therefore a fallacious faculty.
It discovers many truths, physical and moral, in which
the mind rests with full confidence. There were phi
losophers in ancient times who avowed universal scep
ticism, maintaining that certainty was unattainable up
on any subject, and that the utmost at which we can
arrive is probability ; but their system has been rejected
by all rational men. Truth may often lie at the bottom
of a well, but in most cases we are furnished with the
means of drawing it up. The fallibility of reason is,
however, indisputable, and the many mistakes into
which men have been betrayed are proofs of it. Yet
if we give due attention, we shall perceive that these
are not so much owing to the faculty itself, as to the
abuse of it. If we employ it upon subjects which lie
beyond its sphere, we shall be led into the region of
hypothesis and conjecture. If we proceed hastily,
without going through the process of regular investi
gation ; if we draw general inferences from partial
premises ; if we begin with prejudice, and are guided
by passion, we have no right to complain that we have
gone wrong, for we have voluntarily turned into a de
vious path. Reason, properly used, is a guide, to man
in all matters which belong to its jurisdiction ; but as
it was not intended to suffice for all purposes, nor be
stowed that he might be independent of his Maker, he
ought to look up to the Source of wisdom, and receive
with gratitude the extraordinary or supernatural dis

coveries, with which he has been pleased to favoi
him. With respect to these communications, we affirm
that they are true in all their parts ; that whether they
relate to doctrines or to facts, they are free from the
slightest mixture of falsehood. That the Scriptures
are the word of God, is not a point to be believed upon
their own naked testimony, any more than a man is
to be believed in any matter relating to himself simply
upon his own affirmation. A book, indeed, may con
tain internal marks of divinity, in the- sublimity of its
doctrines, the holiness of its precepts, the harmony of
its parts, and its power to affect the conscience and
heart ; or it may betray its human origin by the mean
ness of its sentiments, its licentious tenets, its manifest
errors and contradictions. But although we may he
convinced by internal evidence, that the Scriptures are
a revelation from God, and every man, who is enlight
ened and renewed by the Holy Ghost, has the witness
in himself that they are true ; yet our belief of their
heavenly origin rests, in the first place, upon external
evidence, upon ancient and catholic tradition, referring
them to the times when, and the persons by whom,
they are said to have been written, upon the miracles
by which the commission of the prophets and apostles
was attested, and upon the prophecies which have been
fulfilled, or are at present fulfilling. Having ascertain
ed in this manner, that God has made a declaration to
mankind upon subjects of importance, and in what doc
uments it is contained, we are bound to receive it with
profound respect. And here it is proper to remark, that
the office of reason in reference to a revelation, is not
to discuss its contents, to try them by its own standard,
and to approve or disapprove, as they agree or disagree
with it ; for this would be to treat it as if it were not a
revelation, at the moment when we acknowledge it to
be such, or to insinuate that the word of God, although
known to be his word, is not entitled to credit, unless
it be supported by independent proof. The sole pro
vince of reason is to examine the evidence exhibited, to
shew that it is his word, and to investigate its meaning
by the rules which are used in determining the sense
of any other book. These preliminaries being settled,
the state of mind which a revelation demands is faith,
implicit faith, to the exclusion of doubts and objections ;
the subjection of our understandings to the authority
of God, entire submission to the dictates of infinite
wisdom. The reason is, that this testimony supplies
the place of all other evidence. Our senses are here
of no service, because the subjects revealed are past
and future, invisible and spiritual. Our reason fur
nishes no data from which they can be deduced, be
cause they belong to a supernatural order of things,
which mere reason was not intended to contemplate.
But if human testimony convinces us of the truth of
many things, which we have not seen, and have no
means of proving, the testimony of God is the ground
of the highest assurance. There may be doctrines in
revelation which are new and strange, which we in
vain attempt to comprehend, which are at variance with
our previous conceptions, and the common notions of
mankind. But the difficulty which we feel in assent
ing to such doctrines, should yield to the reflection,
that they are attested by Him whose understanding is
infinite, while ours is bounded by very narrow limits;
and that they relate to subjects, of which a small por
tion of humility might make us sensible that we are
not competent judges; his nature, and counsels, and
dispensations. On attentively perusing the Scriptures,
we find, that although they consist of many books,
which were composed in different ages, and by persons
of different habits and tempers, they harmonise in their
views and statements, and no real contradiction has
been discovered. We find also that the historical parts
of them are confirmed by other authentic records, and

ON GOD: HIS TRUTH AND FAITHFULNESS.

139

that the doctrines and precepts, as far as we are able to
judge, are agreeable to the purest dictates of reason.
Having these evidences of their truth, we are bound in
reason to believe, that those articles which are mys
terious and incomprehensible, are equally true, and ap
pear such to beings of superior understanding. Can
dour would require, that if a book were distinguished
'by the justness of its sentiments and the accuracy of
its details so far as we could read it, we should believe
that it maintained the same character throughout, al
though the remaining portions of its contents were
written in a language which we did not understand, or
were so obliterated that we could not fully make out
the sense of the Author. Nothing is more equitable in
such a case, than to judge of what is unknown from
what we do know. The ascertained truth of some parts
of Scripture, is a voucher for the truth of other parts,
which we have been prevented from subjecting to the
same test. At the same time, this is only a subsidiary
argument; and we should remember that we have the
highest evidence for the truth of every part, in the tes
timony of God himself. The whole proceeds from the
same source ; and the most exact and learned inquiries
have terminated in establishing their entire credibility,
and demonstrating that the Bible is the only book on
which we can depend for information respecting the
nature and government of God, the conduct we should
pursue, and the hopes which we may entertain. " All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profita
ble for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruc
tion in righteousness ; that the man of God may be
perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work."
"The words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried
in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."*
Besides those declarations by which knowledge is
communicated, there are engagements with men into
which God has entered by pledging his word for good
or evil, according to their conduct. His truth in rela
tion to these is properly called faithfulness, and comes
to be considered in the second place. The obvious di
vision of them is into promises and threatenings.
God is faithful in his promises. They are expres
sive of an intention to bestow the blessings exhibited,
and will be performed to those who have a claim to
them; "Faithful is he who hath promised, who also
will do it." To prevent misapprehension and to obvi
ate objections, it is necessary to remark that the prom
ises are distinguishable into two classes, absolute and
conditional. An absolute promise is one, the perform
ance of which is suspended upon no condition, and is
to be expected solely from the faithfulness of the prom-
iser. It is significant of God's determinate purpose to
bestow some blessing, or to bring to pass some event
pregnant with good. The failure of such a promise
would imply a direct violation of truth : " But God is
not a man that he should lie ; neither the Son of man
that he should repent ; hath he said, and shall he not
do it ? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it
good ?"f Of this nature was the promise of a Saviour,
which flowed from his sovereign love, and did not de
pend upon the conduct of men. It was therefore per
formed at the appointed season, although the nations of
the world had for ages provoked him by their idolatry
and their other crimes, and among the Jews faith could
hardly be found when the Messiah appeared. Of this
nature too, was the promise to him of a spiritual seed,
in consequence of which those who are dead in tres
passes and sins are quickened by the Divine Spirit, who
begins to operate upon them when they are unworthy
of his care, and instead of soliciting his agency, are
disposed to resist it. Other promises are conditional ;
I mean that they suppose some action or course of ac
tion as necessarily preceding the performance, some

* 2 Tim. iii. 16. Ps. xii. 6.

f Numb, xxiii. 19.

previous state of mind in the person upon whom the
blessing is to be bestowed. The promise of salvation
is not made to all who hear the gospel, but to those
alone who believe it. There is a difference between
the publication and the making of a promise. The
publication simply and generally announces the fact
that there is such a promise ; the making of it respects
individuals, and declares that upon them the promised
good will be bestowed. The promise of salvation is
published to all, but the persons to whom it is made
are specified in the following words, " He that believ-
eth shall be saved."* From zeal for the doctrine of
free grace, some have been betrayed into the mistake
of representing the promises in general as absolute, and
have not attended to the difficulty in which they involve
themselves. If their view of the promises were cor
rect, every man to whom they are addressed, would
have a claim to salvation, as a promise of pardon to all
the criminals in a kingdom would entitle them all to
life and liberty. It is idle to say, that they will all be
saved if they believe ; for this is to retract what has
been affirmed, or rather is to maintain a self-contradic
tory proposition, that the promise is at once absolute
and conditional. If God had promised to save all men,
without specifying any condition, or term, or qualifica
tion, or previous state of mind, his faithfulness would
require that they should be all saved without a single
exception. But a conditional promise may not be per
formed without any impeachment of his truth, since
the cause of its non-performance is not a failure on his
part, but on the part of men. The Israelites who came
out of Egypt, were not admitted into the land of Ca
naan, into which God had promised to conduct them.
Had he changed his intention ? Had he recalled his
word ? No ; but they had proved a disobedient and
ungrateful race, and so had forfeited all claim to the in
heritance. " After the number of the days in which ye
searched the land, even forty days,' each day for a year,
shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years ; and ye
shall know my breach of promise."f An apostle re
ferring to this case says, " We see that they could not
enter in because of unbelief. Let us therefore fear, lest
a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of
you should seem to come short of it.":j:
Examples of the faithfulness of God in performing
his promises, are frequent in the history of the saints.
They are recorded in Scripture for his honour, and as an
encouragement to faith. We see him fulfilling his word
at the appointed time. The promise of the Messiah
was made immediately after the fall, and was renewed
on different occasions ; but there was an interval of four
thousand years before the seed of the woman appeared
to bruise the head of the serpent. " When the fulness
of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of
a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were
under the law, that we might receive the adoption of
sons."|| The descendants of Abraham were long
strangers in Canaan and slaves in Egypt; but the
promise by which they had been sustained did not fail,
and the prefixed time of their deliverance was punctu
ally observed. "And it came to pass at the end of the
four hundred and thirty years, even the self same day
it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out
of the land of Egypt."§ These instances enforce the
exhortation, "The vision is yet for an appointed time,
but at the end it shall speak and not lie; though it
tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will
not tarry. "If We see, besides, in the history of the
saints, the Almighty fulfilling his word when obstacles
insurmountable by human power and wisdom stood in
the way, and realizing the hopes of his people when
all circumstances seemed to justify despair. The case

* Mark xvi. 16. f Numb. xiv. 34. f Heb. iii. 19. iv. 1.
|| Gal. iv. 4, 5. $ Exod. xii. 41. IT Hab. ii. 3.

140

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

of Abraham furnishes a striking illustration. A son
was promised to him by Sarah, who was barren ; but the
time passed on till both had arrived at such an age, that
according to the laws of nature there could be no hope
of posterity ; and when Isaac was born, Sarah was
ninety, and Abraham was a hundred years old. The
steadfast faith of the patriarch while there was not a
single thing to encourage him, and what was improba
ble at first had become physically impossible, was
truly wonderful, and is mentioned in the Scriptures in
the highest terms of commendation : " He was strong
in faith, giving glory to God."* Heaven and earth
may pass away, but his word shall not pass away. If
ordinary means will notsuffice, miracles will be wrought
that his declared purpose may be accomplished. We
may therefore confidently expect, that his other promi
ses respecting the church, and the interests of the indi
vidual members of it in this world and the next, will
be performed with the same punctuality, and that
" there shall not fail one good word of all that the
Lord our God hath spoken."
Again, God is faithful in his threatenings, or bis de
nunciations of evil against the transgressors of his law.
His faithfulness in respect of these implies these two
things; his intention to inflict the evil denounced, and
the actual infliction of it if no just cause occur to pre
vent it. The same distinction, however, is necessary,
which we made when speaking of the promises. These
threatenings must be considered as absolute or condi
tional ; as absolute, when they express the unalterable
purpose of God to punish the guilty ; as conditional,
when they express his purpose to punish hypothetical-
ly, or on the supposition of continued disobedience and
final impenitence. Of the former, we have examples
in the case of the rebellious Israelites, who were doom
ed to perish in the wilderness ; in the case of the Amal-
ekites, concerning whom the Most High declared with
an oath, that he would -utterly put out their remem
brance from under heaven ; and in the case of the anti-
christian Church, which is irremediably devoted to de
struction. In none of these cases was room left for re
pentance on the part of God, or of the objects of his
wrath. An example of conditional threatening is found
in the history of Nineveh. When Jonah proclaimed in
its streets, " Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be
overthrown," no condition was expressed ; but it ap
pears from the event to have been implied, that the
doom of the city would be suspended by the repen
tance of the inhabitants. God himself has taught us to
account upon the same principle for other threatenings
which are not executed. "At what instant I shall
speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom,
to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy; if that
nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from
their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do
unto them."f To the same class of threatenings be-
lono- those which are directed against sinners living
under the dispensation of the gospel. It is evident that
they are only conditional declarations of God's inten
tion to punish them; for the guilty are provided with
the means of escape, and many through faith in Christ
obtain the pardon of their sins. Hence, although it is
certain that every sin deserves eternal condemnation,
the final perdition of the hearers of the gospel is ascrib
ed to unbelief, because it is a rejection of the offer of
mercy. " He that believeth not the Son shall not see
life, but the wrath of God abideth upon him."f. But
although the faithfulness of God does not require the
execution of his threatenings when a change has taken
place in the character and conduct of men, it does re
quire that they should be executed when circumstances
continue the same. His denunciations are not vain ter
rors, intended to keep us in awe, but which a man of
Tltom. iv. 20. f Jer. xviii. 7, 8. f John iii, 26.

courage may disregard with impunity. The day of re
tribution will demonstrate how presumptuous are the
hopes of the guilty; and their state in the world to
come will be a solemn and impressive testimony to all
intelligent creatures, that the judgments of the Lord
are righteous and true. " When he that heareth the
words of this curse, shall bless himself in his heart,
saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagi-i
nation of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst; the
Lord will not spare him ; but then the anger of the
Lord, and his jealousy, shall smoke against that man,
and all the curses that are written in his book shall lie
upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from
under heaven."*
Some maintain that God ought to perform his promis
es, because they have created an expectation, and con
ferred a right to the blessings promised ; but that there
is no obligation to execute his threatenings, because no
injury will ensue, but on the contrary an unspeakable
advantage. There is, however, a fallacy in this argu
ment. It supposes that there is no moral good in truth
itself, nothing in its nature to make it sacred and invio
lable, and that the obligation to respect it is resolved
into utility. It confounds two things closely allied, yet
perfectly distinct, truth and justice ; and represents a
person as bound to fulfil his word, not because he has
pledged it, but because others have acquired a right
fr6m his engagement, like that of a creditor to the
payment of a debt. But as men ought to speak truth
for its own sake, and without any respect to the conse
quences, which can be considered only as motives to
what was previously a duty, so God is led by his na
ture to speak truth, and to redeem every pledge which
he has given, not so much for the sake of his creatures,
as from a regard to himself. It is not because men
have obtained a conventional right to certain blessings
that he will bestow them, but because he will not
deny himself; and for the same reason, he will not
fail to give effect to his denunciations of evil. The
design of this reasoning is to make it probable, that
notwithstanding the explicit declaration of his purpose
to punish transgressors, he may relent, and suffer them
to escape with some temporary correction ; but besides
that the reasoning is founded on a false principle, it
forgets that the threatenings originated in the justice of
God, and consequently, that not to execute these would
be inconsistent with his essential rectitude as well as
with his veracity. If truth were a matter of expedi
ence, it might yield to occasion and circumstances, but
its character is immutability, and it will maintain its
honour in the treatment of both sinners and saints.
Lastly, God is sincere in the admonitions which he
addresses to men, in his expostulations, his intreaties,
and his invitations. We find him remonstrating with
them for their folly and wickedness, warning them of
the consequences of sin, and beseeching them to em
brace the offers of salvation. Have we any reason to
suspect that he is not in earnest? Why should we
not give the same credit to him, which we should give
to a person of known integrity and benevolence, who
spoke to us in affectionate terms, and expressed great
solicitude for our welfare ? It is objected to his since*
rity in this case, that he addresses himself to persons
who, he knows beforehand, will pay no regard to his
words, who are in fact incapable of attending to them, be
cause they are in a state of moral insensibility and death,
and to whom he will not give his effectual grace, to
awaken them to serious consideration. Why does he
dissuade them, it is asked, from that which will cer
tainly take place, and express a desire for the Salvation
of those whom it is not his intention to save? It can
not be denied, that this is a difficulty of which we
should endeavour, if possible, to obtain a solution, for

* Deut. xxix. 19,20.

ON GOD: HIS TRUTH AND FAITHFULNESS.

141

the glory of God as well as for our own satisfaction.
Let it be observed, that the calls, invitations, and in
treaties of Scripture may be considered as so many no
tices of our duty, as intimations to sinners'that it is in
cumbent upon them to return to God by repentance, to
believe the revelation of his grace, and to engage in
the work of their: salvation. As it will not be denied
that this is our duty, so it cannot be doubted that God
may enforce it in whatever manner his wisdom judges
to be best, although he knows that we will not comply,
because his right to command does not depend upon
our disposition or our actual ability to obey, but upon
the relation in which we stand to him as his creatures
and subjects. Again, the counsels and expostulations
of Scripture may be considered as declarations of what
is agreeable to him, and in this view cannot be suspect
ed of insincerity, with whatever earnestness they are
expressed. The obedience of all men would be pleasing
to God, who necessarily loves holiness and hates sin.
Their happiness would be as pleasing to him as their
holiness, because he is a benevolent Being, and cannot
will their misery abstractly considered, or under the
notion of an ultimate end. He has sworn by his life,
that he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but
rather that they should turn to bim and live.* If he
¦does subject many of them to death, he is compelled to
this severity for the honor of his government, as a good
ruler among men, who desires the welfare of all under
his authority, is compelled to punish the breakers of
the law. In a word, the design of those parts of Scrip
ture may be to render sinners inexcusable, to shew that
their perdition is imputable to themselves alone. They
cannot plead that they were destitute of the means of
knowing their duty, that their attention was not called
to it, and that motives of sufficient efficacy were not
employed to excite them. It will appear that the fault
was in themselves. Their own perverseness frustrated
the methods which were used for their good. They
were so eagerly bent upon sin, that no obstacles could
stop them. God had done much to restrain them, and
more than he was under any obligation to do.
It may be said that these observations do not meet
the difficulty directly, and are applicable only to a par
tial view of it. It is not denied, that in any way which
he chooses God may remind men of their duty, that
their obedience would be pleasing to him, and that ad
monitions and reproofs render the impenitent inexcusa
ble ; but the perplexing question remains unanswered,
How is the use of means for saving men consistent with
a previous decree to exclude them from salvation? I
am not aware that the question admits of an answer
perfectly satisfactory. And what is the reason? Is it
any real opposition between the decree of God, and the
call of the gospel ? or, in other woTds, is it a fact that
God is insincere ? No ; the cause is our ignorance of
the true nature and relation of the things which are to
be reconciled. We know little about the decrees of
God, much less than we are apt to imagine ; and when
they are the subject of discussion, we reason in the
dark. But we understand what the Scriptures say re
specting our duty, and the offer of salvation. Let us
be content with this. knowledge, which is all that is
necessary for practice, and permit no speculation upon
a subject beyond our comprehension to interfere with
our belief of the Divine veracity, which is the only
foundation of our faith and hope. We have full proof
of it in all other cases ; and it is surely reasonable to
believe, that nothing hinders us from distinctly perceiv
ing it in this case, but our own limited views. Let it
be remembered, that whether we hold absolute or con
ditional decrees, the difficulty is the same, it being as
impossible foT the Arminian to reconcile the external
call of the word with certain foreknowledge, as it is

* Ezek. xxxiii. 11.

for the Calvinist to demonstrate its haTmony with an
independent and immutable purpose.
None of those reasons which lead men to deviate
from truth, can have any influence upon God.
Men sometimes speak what is not agreeable to truth
from ignorance, and misconception of the subject of
discourse. It is unnecessary to state that a Being, whose
knowledge is infinite, is liable to no misapprehension.
Men often tell lies for convenience, supplying by this
expedient their want of power, or of other means to ac
complish their purposes. Omnipotence stands in no
need of stratagems, but goes straight forward to its
end ; it has the command of all means which wisdom
may deem it fit to employ, and it can always effect its
designs without them. It sometimes happens that men
do not perform their promises from pure inability ; they
want the power which they possessed when they made
them, or had a reasonable prospect of possessing. But
there are no real obstacles to the performance of his
promises ; they are obstacles only in our apprehension.
" He quickeneth the dead, and calleth the things which
be not as though they were." " Hast thou not known,
hast thou not heard, that the Creator of the ends of the
earth fainteth not, neither is weary ?" *
Men sometimes deceive others from malignity, that
they may be amused with their errors, and derive an
infernal pleasure from the disappointment of their hopes.
God has his creatures at absolute command, and could
entangle them in a snare from which their own sagaci
ty could not extricate them. He could confound their
faculties, make them mistake imaginations for realities,
and pronounce good to be evil, and evil to be good ; but
he will not employ his power for such purposes, al
though he may, for the just punishment of those who
receive not the truth in the love of it, deliver them up
to strong delusion to believe a lie. He is not, however,
the author of such delusions, which originate in their
own minds, or in the artful representations of other
wicked beings. Men would not be deceived if they
would commit themselves to his direction, and attend
to the instructions he has given in his word.
Men sometimes deceive others from fickleness of
disposition. Sincere when they make promises, they
change their intentions ; and the expectations which
were founded on the presumption of their steadiness are
not realized. Immutability is an attribute of God, im
mutability of counsel as well as of nature. No new
object or circumstance can occur to him ; but every
thing which will exist at the time when the promise is
to be performed, was foreseen at the time when it was
made. " Known unto God are all his works from the
beginning of the world." f He will be of the same
mind to-morrow as he is to day ; for " he is in one
mind, and who can turn him?":}: The promises which
were recorded in the Scriptures hundreds and thousands
of years ago, are as sure a foundation of faith and hope
as they were at the moment when they were first pub
lished to the world.
No man, I presume, who believes that there is a God,
will suppose him to be capable of falsehood and insin
cerity ; and if objections are made, they can arise solely
from certain statements of his proceedings in the Scrip
tures. Some of these have been anticipated and an
swered. If the supposed contradictions in the Scrip
tures should be objected, it would require more time
than can be at present afforded, to shew how they are
reconciled ; and it is sufficient to observe, that if the
contradictions were real, they would prove, not that
God is without veracity, but that the writings in which
they are found falsely pretend to be a Divine revelation.
But on the supposition that the Scriptures were dictated
by his Spirit, it may be asked, what is to be made of
particular passages ? We hear the prophet Jeremiah

*Rom.iv.l7. Isa.xl. 28. f Acts xv. 18. t Job xxiii. 13.

142

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

saying, « 0 Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was
deceived : thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed."*
Admitting the. translation to be right, we may consider
the words as the exclamation of a good man in a mo
ment of weakness, who has met with unexpected trials,
and had hastily presumed that God would preserve him
from them. He complains of being deceived, because
his groundless expectations were disappointed. But
the words may be rendered, " thou hast persuaded me,
and I was persuaded ;" for this is, in other places, the
sense of the original term nn3 ; and then the meaning
is, that God had irresistibly impelled him to perform
the duties of his office, by which he had brought upon
himself reproach and violence — had impelled him con
trary to his own resolution to desist. Accordingly be
adds, "Then I said, I will not make mention of him,
nor speak any more in his name: but his word was in
my heart as a burning fire in my hones, and I was
weary with forbearing, and I would not stay." f By
another prophet, God is represented as sending a lying
spirit to be in the mouth of the prophets of Ahab, and
as saying, "Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also:
go forth and do so." ^ But Micaiah is relating a vis
ion, in the interpretation of which every part of the
description is not literally understood, and the general
design is alone to be considered. God is often said to
do what he only permits to be done. It is evident that
nothing more was intended than to admonish Ahab that
his prophets, who encouraged him to go to Ramoth-
Gilead to battle, were deceiving him with the promise
of victory ; and this admonition so plainly expressed,
this notice beforehand, is a proof that God had no im
mediate concern in deceiving him. As God is said to
have directed the Israelites to borrow jewels from the
Egyptians, which were not to be returned, and borrow
ing implies a promise to restore, it may seem that he
authorised deceit in this instance. But the difficulty
arises from a mistranslation, for the word LiXi£, render
ed to borrow, signifies simply to ask. He merely di
rected the Israelites to ask these things from the Egyp
tians, and disposed the latter to comply with their re
quest by his secret influence upon their minds, as Mo
ses informs us in these words ; " And the Lord gave
the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that
they lent unto them such things as they required, and
they spoiled the Egyptians."! The only question
which arises out of this case, relates to the justice of
the transaction ; and of this there will be no doubt, if
we reflect that all human property being the gift of God,
he may transfer it from one to another according to his
pleasure, in the ordinary course of affairs, or by a mir
aculous interference ; and that, when the Israelites
were enriched at the expense of the Egyptians, they
only recovered the wages of the long and laborious
services which they had performed for the benefit of
that people, and of which the due recompense had
been hitherto withheld. It was right that, they should
be put in possession of a part of the wealth which their
industry had so eminently contributed to produce; and
if more fell to their share than was strictly due, the
Egyptians were compelled to atone in this manner for
their injustice. — ? —
LECTURE XXVII.
ON GOD.
His Holiness— Meaning of this term in Scripture—Definition
of Holiness— Instances of its display in God's Works and
Dispensations-General Reflections from the preceding Re
view of his Attributes, on the Incomprehensibility, All-sui-
ficiency, and Sovereignty of God.
In Scripture, holiness is often attributed to God ; and
there are some peculiarities attending it, of which it

*Jer.xx.7 + Ibid. 9. + 1 Kings xxii. 22. || Exod. xii. 36.

will be proper to take notice in the introductory part of
this lecture. He is said to be glorious in holiness, as
if it constituted the distinguished excellence of his na
ture, and diffused a lustre over his other perfections.
He swears by his holiness, and thus holds it out as the
inviolable pledge for the truth of his promises, the
most complete security that they shall be punctually
performed. It is brought forward to enforce his com
mands, to guard his institutions against profanation and
pollution, and to excite us to a watchful care of our
thoughts, and words, and actions. It is represented
as impressed upon all his works and dispensations,
which are thus rendered both amiable and venerable.
It was singled out as the subject of praise by the sera
phim who surrounded the throne of Jehovah, when he
appeared in the temple to the prophet Isaiah ; and its
solemn effect upon them and upon him, is too memora
ble to be passed over in silence. " In the year that
king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne,
high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
Above it stood the seraphim ; each one had six wings ;
with twain he covered his face, and with twain he
covered his. feet, and with twain he did fly. And one
cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy is the
Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.
And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him
that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.* Then
said I, Woe is me, for I am undone ; because I am a
man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a peo
ple of unclean lips : for mine eyes have seen the King,
the Lord of hosts."*
The terms holy and holiness bear a variety of senses
in Scripture, which it is not necessary at present to enu
merate. There is one sense which is worthy of atten
tion, because it frequently occurs. When applied to
God, holy seems to signify august and venerable ; and
this is the meaning in more cases than we are apt to
suppose, perhaps not much seldomer than it denotes
purity, which is the idea commonly attached to it. I
know not whether the passage quoted above may be
considered as an example, but Jehovah appears to be
pronounced thrice holy, because he was seated upon a
lofty throne, was attended by the noblest creatures in
the universe as his ministers, and his glory was dis
played in every region of the earth. When the Psalm
ist pronounces his name to be " holy and reverend, "f
the second epithet may be understood to be explanato
ry of the first ; and when he says, that " his holy arm
hath gotten him the victory,":): there is no direct refer
ence to moral excellence, but to majestic force, to irre
sistible power. The command to " sanctify the Lord,"
is a command to treat him with all the reverence which
is due to his transcendent greatness, and is thus ex
plained by Isaiah : " Sanctify the Lord God of hosts
himself, and let him be your fear, and let him be your
dread."| He is a being separated or distinguished
from all other beings by his infinite excellence, as sa
cred things are separated from such as were common ;
possessed of every perfection intellectual and moral,
in the highest possible degree, and therefore entitled to
the most profound veneration of angels and men. His
name should never be mentioned but with awe ; and
our whole conduct should testify that we are deeply
sensible of his presence, and that there is nothing
which we are so anxious to obtain as his favour, noth
ing which we so much dread as his displeasure.
While the holiness of God does certainly suggest,
in many instances, the idea of greatness or majesty,
which is an object of fear rather than love, it is not
less certain that it is expressive, in other instances, of
the purity of his nature. This is obviously the mean
ing of the concrete term in the following passage;

* Isa. vi. 1 — 5.
X Ps. xcviii. 1.

f Ps. cxi. 9.
II Isa. viii. 13.

ON GOD: HIS HOLINESS.

143

• " As he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy
in all manner of conversation ; because it is written,
Be ye holy, for I am holy."* There would be no force
in the exhortation, if the holiness ascribed to God were
not of the same nature with that required from us, for
the one is referred to as the reason and the pattern of
the other. Hence, when we call God holy^ we mean
that there are in his nature certain moral qualities or
principles, analogous to those on account of which men
are pronounced to be virtuous or holy ; that he is per
fectly pure, free from the slightest taint of pollution ;
that his will is always conformable to the rectitude of
his nature, so that sin is the invariable object of his
hatred, and righteousness the invariable object of his
approbation. His holiness has been defined to be " that
virtue or perfection, by which he wills and approves
whatever is conformable to his essence and perfections,
and disapproves and rejects whatever is contrary ; or
that perfection which determines him to do nothing
which is not worthy of himself, and to suffer nothing
in his creatures which has not the same character, that
is, to prevent it by his grace, or to punish it by his
justice." The holiness of God is commonly represented as a
perfection as distinct from the other properties of his
nature as wisdom, power, and immutability are from
each other. But this I apprehend is a mistake, and
has led to the use of words without any precise idea
annexed to them. Holiness is a complex term, which
does not express a particular attribute, but the geneial
character of God as resulting from his moral attributes.
The holiness of a man is not a distinct quality from his
virtuous dispositions, but signifies the state of his mind
and heart as influenced by these. When we proceed
to analyse his holiness, or to shew in what it consists,
we say that be is a devout man, a man of integrity, a
man of humanity, a man faithful to his engagements,
and conscientious in all his relative duties : a man who
abhors sin, and abstains from the very appearance of
it. The holiness of God is not, and cannot be, some
thing different from the moral excellencies of his na
ture which were formerly illustrated, but is the gener
al term under which these particulars are comprehend
ed. To call God holy, is to affirm, that he renders to
his creatures their due, and governs them by laws ad
apted to their nature and relations ; that he is full of
benevolence, and takes pleasure in communicating hap
piness to the proper objects of his goodness ; that he
deals sincerely with them, and never amuses them with
fallacious hopes, nor terrifies them with imaginary fears.
As a just Being, he abhors fraud, robbery, oppression,
every infraction of the rights of one man by another,
and every attempt to deprive him of his due ; as a good
Being, he abhors selfishness, hard-heartedness, malig
nity, cruelty, and all the thoughts, and words, and
deeds, which are contrary to charity ; as a God of truth,
he abhors falsehood, perjury, treachery, calumny, and
in short, every species of deceit. As a holy Being, he
loves every thing which is conformable to his law, and
hates every thing which is contrary to it. " God is
light, and in him is no darkness at all."f His nature
is pure as that fluid when it issues from its source.
Sin is as offensive to him as a disgusting taste is to
our palate, or a loathsome object is to our eye. " He
is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and he cannot
look upon iniquity.:):
Reflection will convince us, that this view of the
holiness of God is correct. It may be objected, that
it is sometimes distinguished from the moral perfec
tions of which it has been said to be the sum. In par
ticular it is distinguished from justice in the following
words: "The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and
holy in all his works. "|| But those who have attend-
* 1 Pet. i. 15, 16. f 1 •,°bn '- 5- t H<*- '• 13- II 1J«- «lv. 17.

ed to the nature of Hebrew poetry, know that it con
sists of parallelisms, or corresponding lines, of which
the second m many cases, conveys the same idea with
the first, but in terms somewhat varied. Hence the
righteousness or justice of God in the first part of this
sentence, is bis holiness in the second; and the only
difference is, that in the latter a more general term is
employed. We cannot go over all the passages in
which these terms occur ; but it would not be difficult
to shew, that the distinction between them is that be
tween a part and the whole. Holiness, then, is the
general name for the moral excellence of the Divine na
ture ; and for this reason, I have deferred the consid
eration of it till I had illustrated its constituent parts,
justice, goodness, and truth. Whatever may be resolv
ed into these principles God loves and requires ; what
ever is contrary to them he hates and forbids. Holi
ness in men and angels is agreeable to him ; between
his nature and sin there is an eternal repugnance.
The holiness of God is manifested in his works and
dispensations. It was displayed in the formation of man. He was
not only made a living soul, and endowed with in
tellectual powers, but there was impressed upon him
the image of his Maker, consisting in the perfect recti
tude of his mind, in the order and harmony of his fac
ulties, in pure and heavenly affections. The ray is
bright as the sun from which it emanates ; and man,
when he came from the hands of his Creator, was re-
splendentwith the glory of his moral excellence. There
was not any weakness in his constitution, any irregu
larity of desire, any proneness to sin, as some blasphe
mers of the works of God have affirmed. His appe
tites were not at war with reason, and struggling to get
free from the restraints which it imposed : there was a
law in his mind, to which all his internal and external
movements were conformable. " God made man up
right."* The state in which he found himself at his
creation, he might have retained. His moral ability
was sufficient for all his purposes. He might be tempt
ed, but there was no principle within him which could
co-operate with temptation, and facilitate its success ;
and when he was actually exposed to a trial, his Maker
did not abandon him, but upheld in their integrity those
powers which fitted him for resistance, and by the due
exercise of which he would have triumphed. To sup
pose that his power was not adequate to his circum
stances, or that it was withdrawn or impaired, would
be to make God the author of sin. The fall of man was
not owing to the want of any thing which God ought to
have done for him. He yielded to solicitation, not be
cause his understanding was not sufficiently acute to
detect the sophistry of his adversary, or because the sen
sitive part of his nature was too strong for the rational.
His compliance in either of these cases would have been
necessary, and therefore not culpable. . He yielded be
cause he attended to the temptation alone, and disre
garded the considerations which would have counter
acted its influence. Man was less than nothing in com
parison of God ; but he was a point which reflected a
beam of the sun, a diamond resplendent with light.
Hence he was the crown and glory of this lower world,
as angels were of the superior regions. When God had
finished his works, they were all perfect, all worthy of
their author, and he pronounced them to be good. Sin
was known only as a possible evil, which might enter
and mar their beauty.
Let us take a view of the law which was given to
man at his creation, and we shall be furnished with an
additional manifestation of the holiness of God. Its
design was to retain him in a state of purity and in
nocence, by the proposal of such considerations as were
calculated to operate upon his rational nature. While

* Eccl. vii. 29.

144

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

it impressed him with a sense of duty, it stimulated
him to obedience by the prospect of reward, and op
posed to the temptations which might assail him the
fear of punishment. In the placing of man under a law,
thus strengthened by promises and threatenings, we see
a proof both of God's care of him, and of his regard to
holiness, the interests of which he took measures at
this early period to promote ; for the law, in the lan
guage of Theology, was concreated with man ; that is,
¦ the knowledge of it was communicated to his mind, and
a sense of its authority was impressed upon his heart,
in the first moment of his existence. He was not suf
fered to live for a day or an hour without a moral rule ;
and the first exercise of his faculties was an act of obe
dience. The holiness of God appears not only in the
general design of the law, but also in the nature of its
precepts. It is not a code of arbitrary prescriptions,
which require minute and cautious attention, but do not
improve the heart ; it is not a system accommodated to
the wishes and inclinations of man, and compensating
slight restraints by general indulgence ; it is a strict,
unvarying rule, enjoining the observance of every
thing true, and just, and lovely, and of good report.
Its tendency is to produce in us, according to our mea
sure, the same moral excellence which is the glory of
our Maker. It is a representation of the holiness of his
nature : and when impressed upon the soul, stamps it
with his image. He who loves and obeys this law, is
an imitator of God.
The purity of the law appears from its forbidding
sin in all its modifications, in its most refined as well
as in its grossest forms ; the taint of the mind, as well
as the pollution of the body ; the secret approbation of
sin,, as well as the external act; the transient look of
desire, the almost unperceived irregular emotion.
While it commands us to place a guard upon the ave
nues by which temptation might enter, it enjoins the
strictest care of the heart ; and calls upon us to destroy
the seed before it has grown. " The law is holy, and
the commandment holy."* Such it has been shewn to
be by our Saviour, who came not to promulgate a new
law milder and more adapted to the infirmity of human
nature, hut to free the old and unalterable law from the
loose interpretations of corrupt men, who were the pro
fessed teachers of religion. He has taught us that
nothing less will satisfy its demands than perfect puri
ty ; and that in vain do we wash the outside of the cup,
if within it be full of uncleanness. This is the law
which God has given to mankind. It informs us what
he is, and what we ought to be that we may please him.
" The statutes of the Lord are right ; the command
ment of the Lord is pure ; the fear of the Lord is clean ;
the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous alto
gether. Moreover by them is thy servant warned, and
in keeping them there is a great reward. "f
If we direct our attention to the dispensations of
providence, we shall see farther proofs of the holiness
of God, in the moral government which he exercises
over mankind, and the means which he employs to
maintain the authority of his law. It may be remarked,
in the first place, that amidst the ruin of our moral na
ture by the fall, there remain some fragments of his
imao-e ; or at least, that conscience continues to lift its
voice in favour of the righteousness and goodness of
his law, calls men to the performance of their duty, and
punishes their sins by remorse and fear. The opera
tions of this faculty, both when it excites him to the
cultivation of holiness, and when it renders him uneasy
for not obeying its admonitions, are an evidence that
man was created a holy being, as the faculty of reason
proves that his nature was originally intelligent. _ I
may mention, in the second place, the means which
have been employed to give more extensive and com-

* Rom. vii. 12.

f Ps. xix. 8— 11.

manding authority to conscience. Such were the pre
cepts of morality which were transmitted from age to
age by tradition, or which thoughtful and contempla
tive men in the heathen world discovered, and which
with all their imperfections, served in some degree to
set bounds to the prevalence of vice. We add, that
from time to time God raised up among his favourite
people, holy men and prophets who republished his
neglected and almost forgotten law, in a manner fitted
to arrest the attention of the most inconsiderate, de
nounced his judgments upon the profane and wicked,
and enforced obedience by strong and urgent motives.
It is of some importance to take notice, in the next
place, of the natural checks which he has placed upon
sin, and the natural encouragements which he has held
out to the practice of our duty ; for in these we clearly
perceive his regard to the interests of holiness. As he
is the Author of Nature, of the human constitution, and
of the state of the world, in which chance has no place,
but all events are ordered by his wisdom, we believe
that the system of things is subservient to his designs.
Now we find, that men cannot commit sin without ex
periencing internal uneasiness, exposing themselves to
reproach and danger, injuring their health, and in some
cases involving themselves in temporal ruin. Conse
quences of an opposite nature result from the perform
ance of duty : they enjoy peace of mind, are loved and
honoured, and receive the reward of industry and tem
perance in health and competence, and in a tranquil old
age. In what light can we view this natural order of
things, but as a declaration by the Author of nature,
that virtue is pleasing, and vice is displeasing to him ;
that he is the friend of righteousness and the enemy
of sin ? We may collect his intentions from his works
as well as from revelation, and ought confidently to
conclude that holiness is the object of his approbation,
when we find good connected with the practice, and
evil with the neglect of it, in the course of his provi
dence. In a word, the dispensations in which his jus
tice has been revealed, are also manifestations of his
holiness, of his infinite abhorrence of sin. Why has
he acted, as if his own works were so offensive, that
he could not bear to look upon them, and be delighted
in destroying what it once gave him pleasure to create?
Why did he overwhelm the former earth with tho wa
ters of the deluge ? Why did he consume cities with
a shower of fire and brimstone from the clouds 1 Why
has he called for famine and pestilence to sweep away
the human race by thousands ? WThy does he command
the sword to come out of its scabbard, and bathe itself
in the blood of the slain ? What meaneth the heat of
this great anger? The cause is sin ; and the design
is to remind us, that notwithstanding his usual patience,
his detestation of it is undiminished, and will not per
mit him always to be silent; that the notions which
men entertain of him as an easy and indulgent Being
are false, and that he is a consuming fire to the workers
of iniquity.
The holiness of God shines with peculiar lustre in
redemption. It has dispelled the cloud which sin had
spread over the character of God, and revealed him in
all his glory, as the moral Governor of the world. Let
me remind you, that one design of this dispensation,
was to shew us what human nature originally was, and'
what it must become, that it may be acceptable to God,
and be admitted into his communion. With this view
he sent his own Son into the world, in the likeness of
sinful flesh, but without the slightest stain of depravity.
Upon this man the image of God, with which Adam
was adorned, was fully and distinctly impressed, so
that all the virtues were exhibited in their highest per
fection, and he is the great example to which other
men are destined to be conformed. That which was
conceived in the womb of the virgin was " a holy
thing." The holiness of God was displayed in the

ON GOD: HIS HOLINESS.

14S

public approbation of our Saviour by a voice from heav
en proclaiming.that the Father was well pleased with
him ; for this testimony was borne to him because he
was holy. But let us consider more particularly his
death. The immediate design of it was to make atone
ment for sin ; but the ultimate design was the sanctifi
cation of men, their restoration to that state of purity
from which they had fallen. The means were of the
most wonderful and unexpected kind, the substitution,
obedience, and sufferings of a divine person, the cruci
fixion of the Lord of glory; and from them we judge
of the importance of the end. We infer that holiness
is infinitely acceptable to God, since he resorted to this
extraordinary method of manifesting it to the universe,
and re-establishing it in our world. "He gave him
self for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity,
and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of
good works."* By satisfying justice, he removed the
obstacle to the gracious exercise of almighty power,
for rectifying the disorder of our nature and restoring
its primitive beauty: Let us trace the consequences
of his death. A new scheme begins to be executed;
a new intercourse is opened between heaven and earth ;
new means are employed ; a new agent commences his
operations upon the soul. The Holy Ghost, who moved
upon the dark abyss and impregnated it with the seeds
of life, performs the nobler work of the second crea
tion. Old things pass away, and all things become
new. What is the aim of those convictions of sin
which he awakens in the conscience, of the spiritual
light which he causes to shine into the mind, of his
mysterious influence upon the thoughts, and volitions,
and feelings ; of the comforts with which he refreshes
the soul ; of his admonitions, and counsels, and re
proofs ; of his excitements to prayer, and vigilance,
and activity ; what is the aim of these varied opera
tions, but to produce a gradual assimilation to our Ma
ker ; to refine us from moral pollution, that we may fi
nally appear before him, without spot or blemish ? He
is the regenerating Spirit, and is conducting his plans
with a view to the blessed consummation announced in
these words of an apostle : " Nevertheless, we, accor
ding to his promise, look for new heavens, and a new
earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. "f All the ho
liness which is found in our degenerate world, proceeds
from his inspiration. He will not cease to exert his
power till his work is finished ; and then man will be
fair as in paradise, bright as the angels, and glorious
even in the eyes of God himself. Redemption will
terminate in the everlasting triumph of holiness. "The
Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall
gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and
them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into a fur
nace of fire ; there shall bewailing and gnashing of
teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun
in the kingdom of their Father.":):
Lastly, It is a proof of the holiness of God, that he
has made purity of heart an indispensable qualification
for eternal happiness. His grace frees the believer
from the guilt of sin ; but its pollution continues the
object of his abhorrence, and must be removed that
men may be admitted into fellowship with him. Hence
they are partially sanctified in this world, and at death
are made perfect in holiness. Nothing is more injuri
ous to the character of God, than to suppose that the
design of the mission of Christ was to repeal the mor
al law, or to relax the severity of its demands. He
endured the curse, and abolished it in respect of belie
vers, but he made no change in the precepts. Their
obedience, although imperfect, is indeed acceptable to
their heavenly Father; but it is not because a higher
degree is not required, but in consideration of the per
fect righteousness of the Redeemer, upon which only

* Tit. ii. 14. t 2 Peter "'¦ 13-
T

t Matt. xiii. 41—43, 10

their title to the divine favour is founded. But infinite
as is his merit, and powerful as is his intercession, they
avail not to any who continue in sin. He acknowl
edges none to be his disciples but those who do honour
to him as their Lord : " Ye are my friends, if ye do
whatsoever I command you."* The faith with which
salvation is connected, is not a mere assent to the doc
trines of the gospel, but associates the heart with the
understanding, and diffusing a living influence over the
powers of the soul, enlists them all in the service of
God. Such also is the influence of hope, for he who
is possessed of it, " purifies himself even as Christ is
pure." It has no place in an unregenerated man ; it is
a counterfeit, a base imitation of it, with which those
are amused who are attached to the pleasures of the
world. The beatific vision is promised only to the
saints : "The pure in heart shall see. God."f In this
world there is a mixture of moral good and evil ; but
heaven, the region of light, is separated by an impas
sable gulf from the kingdom of darkness : the felicity
of its inhabitants will result from their perfection, the
order of their faculties, and their exercise upon the no
blest objects ; in the love of God, and the love of one
another : " There shall in no wise enter into it any
thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abom
ination, or maketh a lie ; but they which are written
in the Lamb's book of life." " Blessed are they that
do his commandments, that they may have a right to
the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates
into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and
whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and who
soever loveth and maketh a lie.":): There is no promis
cuous admission into heaven ;' the society is select ;
the members are fitted for their place and their employ
ment. ; and when the throne of God is surrounded by
millions of angels who have kept their first estate, and
of human beings who have been redeemed from corrup
tion by the blood of his Son and the operation of his
Spirit, he will once more rejoice in his works, and pro
nounce them to be good.
I have endeavoured to shew in what sense God is
said to be holy, and have produced proofs that this ex
cellence is justly attributed to him.
From this review of his perfections, it appears, that
he is an incomprehensible Being; and lost in admira
tion of his infinite greatness, we are constrained to ad
opt the words of Zophar the Naamathite : " Canst thou
by searching find out God ? canst ihou find out the Al
mighty unto perfection ? It is as high as heaven ; what
canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou
know ? The measure thereof is longer than the earth,
and broader than the sea."|| His existence we are
able to demonstrate by arguments which carry full con
viction to our minds ; but the manner of it surpasses
conception. All creatures had a beginning ; but as he
always will be,' so he always has been. What do we
know of a past eternal duration? When we turn our
thoughts to this subject, we are confounded. An eter
nal succession whioh is past, seems to us to be impos-'
sible ; and when we speak of an unsuccessive duration,
we use words to which we can affix no distinct mean
ing. We bplieve that he is present in all places; but
we do not believe that his essence is extended, because
it is immaterial. Here also our minds are overwhelm
ed. Presence without extension is inconceivable to us,
and in our apprehension, imports the occupation of a
certain portion of space. He is omniscient ; but while
we readily assent to this proposition, we are beset with
difficulties, and are utterly incapable of understanding
hdw he can certainly foreknow events which are cal
led contingent, or depend upon the free agency of men.
He is almighty ; but we can form no idea of creating.

* John xv. 14.
f Rev. xxi. 27. xxxii. 14,15.

f Matt. v. 8.
|| Job xi. 7—9.

146

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

power,— power which produces something out of noth
ing. _ Mysteries present themselves when we are con
sidering all his perfections, even those of which we
find a resemblance in ourselves, because there is no
proportion between finite and infinite.
The incomprehensibility of the divine nature is not
a reason why- we should desist from inquiry, and de-
Vote our whole attention to other subjects. It would
surely be folly to say, 'We cannot acquire perfect
knowledge, and we will therefore make no effort to at
tain it in any degree.' Partial knowledge is beyond
all doubt better than ignorance, and in the present case,
is of infinite importance. There is no subject which
we thoroughly understand. Our senses give us clear
notions of external things, and we are conscious that
there is a thinking active principle within us ; but we
have no acquaintance with the essence of either mat
ter or spirit. Yet, although we cannot tell what they
are, the knowledge of their properties convinces us of
-their existence, and suffices for all practical purposes.
Shall we say that God is not almighty and omniscient,
because we cannot find out his power to perfection, and
this knowledge is too wonderful for us ? Or shali we
disbelieve the moral character of God, merely because
difficulties occur to us respecting the existence of mor
al evil, and his concern in sinful actions ? Would it
be justifiable to neglect and undervalue principles, of
the truth of which we have the clearest and most sat
isfying evidence, and which are capable of being im
proved to the most important practical purposes, solely
because we do not comprehend them in their full ex
tent, and in all their bearngs ?
But the incomprehensibility of the divine nature
should teach us humility, caution, and reverence.
When in the course of our investigations, we arrive at
a conclusion which astonishes and confounds us, we
ought not for this reason to reject it as illegitimate and
false ; and when revelation informs us of some fact
which reason could not have discovered, and by which
it is perplexed, it would ill become us to pronounce it
to be impossible. It is confessed by all, that we have
no knowledge of the essence of the Deity : on what
ground then are some men so bold as to affirm, that
there can be no distinction in it to which there is noth
ing analogous in created beings ; that its unity is in
consistent with a plurality of persons ? The same re
flection should silence our objections against any of
his perfections or dispensations. Let us not presume
to apply our short line to immensity. " Surely," said
Agur, " I am more brutish than any man, and have not
the understanding of a man. I neither learned wisdom,
nor have the knowledge of the holy. Who hath as
cended up into heaven, or descended ? who hath gath
ered the wind in his fists ? who hath bound the waters
in a garment ? who hath established all the ends of the
earth ? what is his name, and what is his Son's name,
if thou canst tell?"*
Between the knowledge of God in this life, and that
which will be enjoyed in the state of vision, the differ
ence is great ; but as the former should not be underval
ued because it is imperfect, the latter should not be
magnified beyond the reality. Some Scholastic Doc
tors have maintained, that although our present knowl
edge is only apprehensive, as they call it, or partial ;
yet in the world to come, it will be comprehensive or
perfect. It is indeed said, that then " we shall see face
to face, and know even as we are known ;" but to infer
that we shall know God as fully as he knows us, is to
be misled by the sound of words, and to disregard the
restriction of the sense which the subject necessarily
requires. The saints in heaven will see God with the
eye of the mind, for he will be always invisible to the
bodily eye; will see him more clearly than they could

* Prov. xxx. 2 — 4.

see him by reason and faith, and more extensively than
all his works and dispensations had hitherto revealed
him ; but their minds will not be so enlarged as to be
capable of contemplating at once, or in detail, the whole
excellence of his nature. To comprehend infinite per
fection, they must become infinite themselves. Even
in heaven, their knowledge will be partial, and at the
same time, their happiness will be complete, because
their knowledge will be perfect in this sense, that it will
be adequate to the capacity of the subject, although it
will not exhaust the fulness of the object. We believe
that it will be progressive, and that as their views ex
pand, their blessedness will increase ; but it will nevei
reach a limit, beyond which there is nothing to be dis
covered ; and when ages after ages have passed away,
he will still be the incomprehensible God.
From the review of the perfections of God, itfarthei
appears, that he is an all-sufficient Being ; and this im
plies, that he is all-sufficient to himself, and all-suffi
cient to his creatures. ,
He is all-sufficient to himself. As the first of Beings,
he could receive nothing from another, nor be limited
by the power of another. Being infinite, he is possess
ed of all possible perfection. When he existed alone,
he was all to himself. His understanding, his love,
his energies, found an adequate object in himself. Had
he stood in need of any thing external, he could not have
been independent, and therefore would not have been
God. He created all things, and is said to have created
them for himself; but it was not that any defect
might be supplied by them, but that he might com
municate life and happiness to angels and men, and
admit them to the contemplation of his glory. He de
mands the services of his intelligent creatures, whom
he has endowed with powers which qualify them for the
duties enjoined ; but he derives no benefit from their
good offices, and all the advantage redounds to them
selves. " I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor
he-goats of thy folds." "If I were hungry, I would
not tell thee ; for the world is mine, and. the fulness
thereof."* With respect to moral duties, which have
a greater intrinsic value than sacrifices and gifts, hear
how the Scripture speaks : " Can a man be profitable
unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto him
self? Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that thou art
righteous ? or is it gain to him that thou makest thy
ways perfect ?"f He expects glory from his creatures;
but is he like a poor mortal, who lives upon the ad mi
ration and praise of his fellows ? The glory which he
requires, is merely the devout acknowledgment of the
infinite excellencies which he possessed before there
was an eye to behold them, or a tongue to speak of
them; and what are the thanksgivings and adoration of
ten thousand worlds to him, who pronounces them all
to be vanity, and less than nothing ? He makes use of
instruments and means to accomplish his ends ; not,
however, from a deficiency of power, but in some cases,
to display it more strikingly through the inadequacy of
the means, and in all, to maintain the order of the cre
ated system, and the dependence which he has es
tablished of one thing upon another. He loves his
creatures, but there is no mixture of selfishness in his
love: He desires their happiness, but it is from benev
olence, and not from any respect to his own. An infi
nitely perfect Being has all his resources in himself.
Creatures can give him nothing, because all that they
possess is already his ; and they can take nothing from
him whose existence is necessary and immutable.
God is all-sufficient to his creatures. They live in
him, and move in him. His arm sustains, his goodness
supplies, and his wisdom guides them. It is owing to
his care that the universal system is upheld, and its laws
continue to operate for the general good. All the hap-
* Ps. i. 9—12. f Job xxii. 2, 3.

ON GOD: REFLECTIONS.

147

piness which is enjoyed by creatures of different kinds,
emanates from his bounty. Happiness of the most
common kind, the happiness which is experienced
through the medium of the senses, is the fruit of his
beneficence. He has created objects to delight the eye,
the ear, the smell, and the taste ; he gives a relish to
life, and crowns it with abundant blessings. The all-
sufficiency of God appears in the ample, and I may say,
profuse distribution of grod. All are furnished with
the means of enjoyment ; not even the meanest creature
is neglected. And this bounty is never exhausted ; it
is continued from day to day, and from year to year :
when a new generation come forward, the store-house
of Providence is as well replenished for them, as it was
for their predecessors.
The all-sufficiency of God may be considered in re
lation to man, and to the better part of his nature, the
soul. Its true happiness consists in the enjoyment of
God. His favor is life, and his loving-kindness is bet
ter than life. He is called the " portion of the soul,"
to intimate that the impressions of his love, the mani
festations of his glory, are the chief objects of its de
sire, and the source of its highest satisfaction. Hence
his favor is preferred by the saints to the choicest and
most abundant earthly delights. " There be many that
say, Who will shew us any good ? Lord, lift thou up
the light of thy countenance upon us. Thou hast put
gladness in my heart, more than in the time that their
corn and their wine increased."* He who is possessed
of this portion, has better reason than the philosopher
who had made an important discovery in science, to ex
claim in a transport of joy, 'I have found it, I have
found it.' He has found that good, of which the wise
men of ancient times talked and dreamed, but the na
ture of which they did not understand ; that good which
the soul of man was created to enjoy, and for which
it feels a thirst that all the waters of creation could
not quench ; that good which is comprehensive of all
good, with which no other is worthy to be compared,
after which no other will be desired, and which will
continue in every stage of our existence to impart joy
ever full and ever new. So satisfied is he who has ob
tained it, that he envies no man, however prosperous,
because he knows no man who has such reason to be
happy as himself, but he who has been equally prudent
in his choice. He never says to the worldly man, " Oh
that my condition were like thine, that I were rich, and
crowned with honors as thou art!" but wishing him to
share in his blessedness, which admits of being commu
nicated without suffering diminution, he earnestly in
vites him to become a partaker: " O taste and see that
the Lord is good." In the absence of external com
forts, in poverty, affliction, and destitution, when no
ray of earthly hope breaks the gloom, and all is lost
that the heart once loved, and the world still prizes, he
is inspired with triumphant joy by the thought of his
interest in God : " Although the fig-tree shall not blos
som, neither shall fruit be in the vines ; the labor of
the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat ;
the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall
be no herd in the stalls : Yet I will rejoice in the Lord,
I will joy in the God of my salvation. "f Although
heaven and earth were annihilated, and nature present
ed a universal blank, the christian would not be forlorn.
He could say, while surrounded by the dreadful vacuity,
"My inheritance is entire. They have perished, but
thou, O Lord, shalt endure ; they have vanished away,
but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
Whom have I in heaven but thee ? and there is none
upon earth whom I desire besides thee."
The all-sufficiency of God secures the undecaying
and never-ending felicity of the saints. An earthly
portion is wasted by use ; and many a man who spent

» fs. iv.6, 7. f Hab- "'¦ 17- 18-

the former part of his days in abundance, suffers want
in old age. Infinite perfection cannot be exhausted.
Giving doth not impoverish it, and withholding doth not
enrich it. If it be true that the saints will not be sta
tionary in the world to come, their progress will be
from good to better and better ; an expansion of their
noblest faculties, and a perpetual accession of bliss.
There is a fountain of living water in heaven, because
God is there in the fulness of his love ; a fountain which
sends forth its pure and refreshing stream unimpaired
and uninterrupted in its course. "The sun shall be no
more thy light by day ; neither for brightness shall the
moon give light unto thee; but the Lord shall be unto
thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. Thy
sun shall no more go down ; neither shall thy moon
withdraw itself: for the Lord shall be thine everlasting
light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended."*
Lastly, From this review of his perfections, it ap
pears that God is the Sovereign Lord of the universe.
No dominion is so absolute as that which is founded
on creation. He who might not have made any thing,
had a right to make all things according to his own
pleasure. In the exercise of his uncontrolled power,
he has made some parts of the creation mere inanimate
matter, of grosser or more refined texture and dis
tinguished by different qualities, but all inert and un
conscious. He has given organization to other parts,
and made them susceptible of growth and expansion, but
still without life in the proper sense of the term. To
others he has given not only organization, but consci
ous existence, organs of sense and self-motive power.
To these he has added in man the gift of reason, and
an immortal Spirit, by which he is allied to a higher
order of beings who are placed in the superior regions.
He might have created a world composed of different
materials, and peopled it with beings different in form
and in qualities. He might have bestowed upon man
a less or a greater portion of intellect, and adapted his
situation to the change. Over the world which he
has created, he sways the sceptre of omnipotence. "I
praised and honoured him that liveth forever, whose do
minion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom
is from generation to generation : and all the inhab
itants of the earth are reputed- as nothing: and he
doeth according to his will in the army of heaven,
and among the inhabitants of the earth ; and none can
stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou ?"f
A creature, considered simply as such, has no rights.
He can demand nothing from his Maker; and in what
ever manner he may be treated, has no title to com
plain. But in speaking of the dominion of God, we
ought not to lose sight of his moral perfections. He is
just and good, and will not subject his creatures to suf
ferings without a cause, and punish the innocent as if
they were guilty. His own nature sets limits to the
exercise of his power. We are under a moral Gover
nor, who will do what is right. But within these lim
its, there is ample room for the exercise of sovereignty
towards men in their present state of depravity. God
may assign any condition to any individual. He may
bestow good upon one, and inflict evil upon another.
He may distribute good and evil in all different pro
portions. He may place one man in advantageous cir
cumstances, and expose another to difficulties, tempta
tions, and disappointment. He may make one a free
man and another a slave, one noble and another base,
one rich and another poor, one healthy and another
diseased. He may take away one in infancy, and
permit another'to live to old age. When we turn to
the actual state of things, which is not the effect of
chance, but of his over-ruling providence, we ob
serve all these instances of sovereign disposal ; and
our objections are answered by the question, " Who

* Isa. Ix. 19, 20.

f Dan. iv. 3 1, 35

148

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

art thou, O man ! that repliest against God ? Shall
the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast
thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power
over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel un
to honour, and another unto dishonour?"*
I have endeavoured in the preceding lectures, to de
monstrate the existence, and to illustrate the perfec
tions of God. Comparatively little has been said up
on a subject so ample, and nothing suitable to its trans
cendent dignity. Who is worthy to declare the glory
of God but himself? yet from the humble thoughts and
grovelling language of a mortal, faintly attempting to
portray infinitude, you may perceive, that of all beings
God is the greatest, and the most wonderful ; one of
whom we should never think without the deepest awe,
and whose approbation it should be the object of our
most anxious solicitude to obtain. Wherever we are,
this Being is present with us, whether we dwell in the
city or in the wilderness ; present at the midnight hour
when we are shrouded in darkness, and in the secret
place to which we have retired from human observa
tion. As he is now a Witness, he will hereafter ex
ercise the office of a Judge, and his sentence will be fi
nal and irresistible. He is an enemy more to be dread
ed than hosts of men, and legions of devils : he is a
friend in whose wisdom and power we shall have a
sure resource amidst distresses and perplexities, and in
all conditions an immoveable foundation of hope. He
is the God of those who believe in his Son; their
shield and their exceeding great reward. His infinite
perfections are engaged on their side, and are working
out their present and future good; Let us look up to
him as reconciled through the atonement, and beseech
him to regard us with a gracious eye. Let us commit
ourselves to his merciful disposal during our transitory
existence upon earth ; and when the hour of death
comes, let us throw ourselves into the arms of his love.
Now unto the King Eternal, Immortal, and Invisible,
the only Wise God, be honour and giory for ever and
ever. Amen.

LECTURE XXVIII.
ON THE TRINITY.
Meanin"- and Origin of the term, Trinity — Traces of the Doc
trine among the Heathens — Evidences of it in the Old and
New Testament.
God is the most wonderful of all beings ; and we
have proceeded but a short way in our inquiries, when
we are compelled, by the mysterious nature of the sub
ject, to exclaim, " Who can by searching find him out?
who can find out the Almighty to perfection ?" There
is some proportion between our conceptions of the most
excellent creatures and the objects of thought, because,
although exalted above us, they are still finite like our
selves ; but of Him who is uncreated, self-existent,
and all-perfect, we can obtain only faint and partial
glimpses. Of the imperfection of our knowledge, we
must have been frequently convinced during the pre
ceding review of the nature and character of our Ma
ker ; and it may be, that in not a few instances, when
our ideas appear to ourselves to be sublime, they are
mean and grovelling in the estimation of such of our
fellow-creatures as are possessed of superior under
standing ; and that our reasonings are erroneous when
we are most confident that they amount to demonstra
tion. But we are now to enter upon a subject which,
if we may speak of degrees where all is beyond the
range of our faculties, is still more incomprehensible
than any which has yet engaged our attention. The
self-existence of God, his underived, independent, ne
cessary existence, undoubtedly baffles our utmost ef-

* Rom. ix. 20, 21.

forts to conceive it, because there is nothing analogous
to it among creatures ; but we understand that he does
exist, and the fact is established by arguments clear
and satisfactory. Of some of his natural, and all his
moral perfections, there is a faint resemblance in our
selves; so that we do not use words without meaning
when we speak of his power, his knowledge, his good
ness, and his justice. We also understand our own
words when we speak of his unity, and affirm that there
is one Being possessed of all possible perfection, and
that there are not, and cannot be more than one. But
the next step which we take under the conduct of reve
lation presents a mystery which astonishes reason, and
upon which no exertion of intellect can throw a single
ray of light. You remember the story of the philoso
pher, who being asked, what God is? requested time
to consider, and after repeated delays confessed, that
the more he meditated the more he was perplexed. We
are not surprised that he found it impossible to answer
the question, when we reflect that he had no better
guide than the light of nature, and besides was embar
rassed by the vain and false speculations which abound
ed among his countrymen. Even revelation, although
it has corrected many errors, has not solved all our
doubts ; nor could it have been possible for any revela
tion to enable a finite to comprehend an infinite Being.
It may even be said to have augmented the difficulty,
by at least one discovery so new and strange, that rea
soning is useless and presumptuous, and the doctrine
can be received only by a humble faith. We are satis
fied by the arguments for the unity of God, that there
is only one Being who created the heavens and the
earth, and is entitled to the religious homage of their
inhabitants. But as soon as we open the Bible, a doc
trine meets our eye which seems opposed to this pri
mary truth ; for while our arguments for the unity are
confirmed by its most express declarations, and polythe
ism is every where condemned, the true God himself
is represented as, in some respect, more than one. This
at least is the view which we take of many passages ;
although great efforts have been made to put a differ
ent sense upon them. As these efforts shew that this
is the apparent sense, the sense which naturally occurs
to the reader, for they would havevbeen uncalled for if
there had been nothing in the mode of expression which
could be construed to imply plurality ; so it is remarka
ble that in this light they have been regarded by the
great majority of Christians, and the doctrine of the
Trinity has been an article of faith in every age of the
church. This single circumstance is a reason for in
quiring into the subject. It is surely of some impor
tance to ascertain whether so many wise, and learned,
and holy men, who have maintained this doctrine, with
the countless thousands of less distinguished individu
als who have professed the same faith, were right or
wrong in their conclusions. It is a higher considera
tion, that our conceptions of God should in all things
be conformable to the notices which he has given of
himself; that if the Scriptures associate in their ac
count of him the ideas of unity and plurality, we are
bound to admit the fact, however incapable we may be
of understanding it ; and that on the hypothesis of such
an association, the notion of absolute unity, unity of
person as well as of essence, is false, and the Being
of whom it is predicated exists only in the imagination.
If the Scriptures teach that there are three persons in
the Divine Essence, and we believe that there is only
one, our God and the God of revelation are not the same.
The doctrine which I am about to illustrate, is thus
expressed in our Confession of Faith. " In the unity
of the Godhead, there be three persons, of one sub
stance, power and eternity : God the Father, God the
Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none,
neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally
begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally pro-

ON GOD: THE TRINITY.

149

ceeding from the Father and the Son."* The sum of
this definition is, that while there is only one Divine
nature, there are three subsistences or persons, called
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who possess
not a similar, but the same numerical essence ; and
the distinction between them is not merely nominal but
real. The term which has been chosen to express this
doctrine is Trinity, a compound Latin word, signifying
three in unity. The Greeks use the word Tf/isf which
serves the purpose ; although it does not so explicitly
convey the idea of a three-fold distinction in unity, its
proper meaning being numerus le.rnarius or ternio, the
number three. Some think that the word Trinity was
first used in a synod which met at Alexandria in the
year 317 ; but others assign to it an earlier date, and
give as the author Theophilus of Antioch, who flour
ished about the year 162. "He was the first," says
the translator of Mosheim, " who made use of the word
Trinity,ito express the distinction of what divines call
persons in the Godhead. The Christian church is very
little obliged to him for his invention. The use of this
and other unscriptural terms, to which men attach either
no ideas or false ones, has wounded charity and peace,
without promoting truth and knowledge. It has pro
duced heresies of the very worst kind." Reflections
of this nature you will meet with in many books: they
are apt to gain upon the unexperienced, by an apparent
desire to guard the word of God against human cor
ruptions, and to regulate our conceptions and expres
sions in religion solely by the unerring standard. But
beware of being imposed upon. A little attention will
convince you, that the principle, admitted in its full ex
tent, would set aside all human explanations of Scrip
ture ; and that the real objection is, not to the terms
which have been invented to express certain doctrines
clearly and concisely, but to the doctrines themselves.
This is the true cause of the outcry againstTpw, !j[Ataimnt,\
and other words and phrases which have been em
ployed in stating the articles of faith in opposition to
heresies. Had Theophilus invented the doctrine in
question, the indignation of this author would have
been justifiable, and much stronger language might
have been properly used in condemning him; but
the contrivance of a convenient term to express what
we know to be a scriptural truth, was surely quite
harmless, provided that the term was appropriate, and
could excite displeasure only in the minds of men who
were disaffected to the Trinity itself.
As the Trinity is confessedly a doctrine of revela-
• tion, all our arguments for it must be derived from the
Scriptures. It is remarkab-Ie, however, that some tra
ces of it are to be found among the heathens. These
will not prove the doctrine to be true ; but they are cu
rious, and if properly authenticated, will lead to the
conclusion, that they had been conveyed to them by
tradition, for we can account for them in no other way;
and consequently, that the Trinity was a doctrine of
the primeval religion. Zoroaster, the reformer of the
Persian religion, is said to have taught that the first di
vine Agent created all things by his wisdom and love ;
" which names," it has been observed, "are so corres
pondent to the characters of the second and third per
sons of the Trinity exhibited in the Bible, that we can
not doubt but they must have been derived from some
remains of divine revelation, afforded to the patriarchs
from the beginning." The Magi maintained that the
Deity existed in a first, a second, and a third mind.
" The first was super-essential in itself, and the prin
ciple of all essence ; the second was the filial mind,
generated by the first, the Creator of the material world ;
and the third was the efficient wisdom and power of
the other two." The person called Thoth, Theuth, or

* Westminster Confession, chap. ii. \ 3.
f Trias, the number three, a triad.
{ Ilomoousios, of the same essence, or substance.

Hermes Trismegistus, who was celebrated among the
Egyptians as the author of their learning and arts, is
said to have obtained his title of ' thrice greatest '
chiefly on account of his doctrine concerning the Deity.
He held, we are informed, " that there were three prin
cipal powers, virtues, or forms in God, and that the
name of the ineffable Creator implied one Deity."
This was his name, " I am all that will be, is, and
was .;" and it is the same with Jehovah, which is ex
plained in the New Testament by this periphrasis,
" He that was, and is, and is to come."* Among the
Romans, I know not whether we should suppose their
three principal gods who ruled over all nature, Jupiter,
Neptune, and Pluto, and their triform images, to be
vestiges of the primitive doctrine. They are so faint,
and so remote from the truth, that it is hardly proper
to mention them. There is one passage in the writings
of Seneca, which is too remarkable to be passed over.
" Believe me," he says, " this is done by him, whoever
he was, that formed the universe, whether the Almigh
ty God himself, or the incorporeal Reason," for so the
Latins translated *.t}oc,f " which was the artificer of
those vast operations," the foftuvpyos f: of the Greeks,
and the all-creating Word of the Christians, " or the
Divine Spirit, diffused through the least as well as the
greatest of all things. "||
It is unnecessary to enumerate all the semblances of
this doctrine which have been pointed out in the creeds
of different nations. The Cabiri or Mighty Ones of
Sanchoniathon might be mentioned. They were three
in number, and the name Cabiri is evidently of Hebrew
origin. In the book of Job, God is called THD'^X, El-
cabbir, " the mighty God,"§ and Cabiri or Cabirim is
the plural. I shall only add, what has chiefly engaged
the attention of critics on this subject, the Platonic
Trinity as taught by Plato himself, and more fully by
his followers. These philosophers held that there were
three principles in the Divine nature, the first to ttyaBw,^
the second i kbc** or o Mycs, and the third » 4"X"f t
corresponding to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
These were all included in the to Bmy, or the Divine
nature. Dr. Priestley maintained, in his controversy
with Dr. Horsley, " that it was never imagined that
the three component members of the Platonic Trinity,
are either equal to each other, or strictly speaking,
one." To this his antagonist replied, " They are more
strictly speaking, one, than any thing in nature of
which unity may be predicated. No one of them can
be supposed without the other two. The second and
third being, the first is necessarily supposed ; and the
first (Aj*6oir) being, the second and third, (N»! and 4-uX")
must come forth. Concerning their equality, 1 will
not say that the Platonists have spoken w;'.h'the same
accuracy which the Christian Fathers use : but they
include the three principles in the Divine nature, in
the to euov ; and this notion imp'ies the same equality
which we. maintain; at the pame time I confess, that
the circumstance of their equality was not always
strictly adhered to by the younger Platonists.":)::):

* Rev. i. 8. f Logos, word, or reason.
X Demiourgos, artificer, maker.
|| Seneca Consolatio ad Htlviam, 8. The whole passage is
as follows : — " Id actum est, mihi crede, ab illo, quisquis for-
mator universi fuit, sive ille Deus est potens omnium, sive in-
corporalis Ratio ingentium operum artifex, sive Divinus Spiri-
tus per omnia maxima ac minima, xquali intentione diffusus,
sive latum et mutabilis causarum inter se cohasrentium conge
ries ; id inquam, actum est," &c. " This was clone, believe me,
by him, whoever he was that formed the universe, whether the
omnipotent God, or the incorporeal Reason, the artificer of
those vast works, or the Divine Spirit diffused with equal ener
gy through all things, the least as well as the greatest, or feto and
the mutable assemblage of co-related causes : I aay, it was
done," &c. § Job xxxvi. o.
IT The good, essential goodness.
** Intelligence, wisdom. ff Soul.
XX Tracts in controversy with Priestley, p. 247. edit. 1812

150

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

We can hardly doubt, that a notion prevailed in the
heathen world, not only of a plurality of gods, for this
was openly avowed, but of some distinction in the na
ture of him who was called the Supreme God, and of
whom contemplative men entertained more sublime
ideas than the vulgar. It is surprising that they should
have in any degree approximated to the truth, that they
should have obtained a glimpse of the subject ; and we
cannot wonder at their mistakes and inaccuracies, when
we reflect upon their general ignorance relative to re
ligion, and remember that all their knowledge was de
rived from tradition. The Trinity is, as we have said,
a doctrine of pure revelation ; it is a secret of the Di
vine nature of which not a suspicion would have been
entertained, if God had not been pleased to disclose it;
it is not made manifest, like his existence, and wisdom,
and goodness, by the works of creation and provi
dence. Our first step is to search the Scriptures, with a view
to ascertain whether this doctrine is found in them.
Let us begin with the Old Testament, in which we
may expect to meet with some traces of it at least, if
it should not be so clearly revealed as in the New. —
Many have considered the plural names of God as an
intimation of a plurality of persons in the Godhead.
One of these names occurs in the first verse of the
Bible. " In the beginning OTlSx, Elohim," literally
the Gods, " created the heavens and the earth ;"* and
it is construed with a singular verb jo2, bara.\ It
would be endless to enumerate parallel passages ; for
in fact this name is rarely used in the singular phii,
Eloah. It is plural throughout the whole first chapter
of Genesis, where it is so often introduced, and in a
thousand other places. The singular is not preferred,
even when the design is to assert in the most solemn
manner the unity of God : " Hear, O Israel, Jehovah,
our Elohim, lj'nhs, is one Jehovah.":): This is not
the only name which assumes the plural form when it
is applied to the Supreme Being. " Let Israel rejoice
in Him that made him," vtW3, in his Makers.]] " For
thy Maker is thy husband," y^p ySjn, thy Makers is
thy husbands. "§ " Remember thy Creator," ysouviK,
thy Creators, " in the days of thy youth.'^f In places
which it would be tedious to cite, God is called rz3'J"N,
Jidonim or Lords. Many learned men, however, as
Calvin, the two Buxtorfs, and others, have maintained
that these names afford no satisfactory proof of a plu
rality in the Divine essence ; and that they are to be
accounted for by a peculiarity in the Hebrew language,
which expresses in this manner dignity and majesty,
a variety of powers, and a multitude of operations.
They object, that when OTha Elohim in the plural
number is applied to God, it cannot always be under
stood to denote a plurality of persons, because it is
used exclusively of one person. " ¦pn'w DTI^X Elo
him, Eloheiha, God, thy God hath anointed thee."**
This is evidently the Father. " Thy throne, DTiSs,
Elohim, 0 God, is for ever and ever."f f This is spo
ken of the Son. Now if DTl'w, Elohim, signified the
Trinity, it could not be properly used of one Divine
person, as distinguished from the other two. Il could
not be said, the Father is the Trinity, the Son is the
Trinity, the Holy Ghost is the Trinity. They object
again, that this name, in the plural number, is given to
other individuals in whom there is no Trinity or plu
rality, as to the Golden Calf, and to the heathen gods,
Dagon of the Philistines, Ashteroth of the Sidonians,
Chemos of the Moabites, Milcom of the Ammonites.
What Trinity or plurality can it denote in these cases ?
If this holy mystery is implied in it, is it probable that
it would have been employed to designate vile and con-
* Gen i 1. + Created. { Deut.vi.4. || Psalm cxlix.2.
'Isa.liv. 5. H Eccl. xii. 1. *'* Psalm xiv. 7. ++ Psalm xiv. 6.

temptible idols? Farther, if this name is significant
of a Trinity of persons, as Jehovah is of unity, pro
priety would have required, not only that it should be
appropriated to God, but that it should have been al
ways expressed in the plural number ; whereas in sev
eral places it occurs in the singular, when the three
persons must be understood. Lastly, it is objected,
that while the name is sometimes joined with plural
adjectives and verbs where an individual is evidently
spoken of, it is also construed with verbs and adjectives
singular when the true God is spoken of; and that from
all this it appears, that nothing can be inferred but a
peculiar idiom of the Hebrew, which admitted the plu
ral and singular indifferently.
To these objections answers have been returned. It
has been shown that there is ground to call in question
the grammatical rule of the Rabbies, " that substantives
of dignity, honor, and dominion, are put in the plural
form, although denoting only a singular object, and are
joined in agreement with verbs or adjectives in the sin
gular." The plural noun Q'^yr, baghalim, Lords or
Masters, is used to signify the proprietor of an ass ora
well, in which case the idea of dignity and majesty is
ridiculous. " It is not a little remarkable," it has been
said, " that such a circumstance" (the use of the plural
noun Elohim, to denote the true God) " should exist in
the sacred books of a people who were separated from
all other nations for this express object, that they should
bear a public and continual protest against polytheism;
a people whose whole system of religious, political,
and domestic usages was calculated, with consummate
prudence and wisdom, to be a perpetual preservative
from polytheistic notions ; a people who are charged
by the Eternal God to destroy every statue, structure,
and grove that might recall the memory of idolatrous
riles, and to extirpate every thing that could be extir
pated, which had been associated with idolatry, or might
be converted into an instrument of its revival or of its
slightest palliation ; who were enjoined to abolish every
name of city, village, or place, which was compounded
with the name of a heathen deity, and to substitute new
appellations ; who were not even to pronounce those
names unless necessity compelled ; — is it not, we may
well say, a little remarkable that, in the sacred books
of such a people, books whose very words, in many
cases at least, were selected and dictated by the inspira
tion of Jehovah, the ordinary name and style of the
Only Living and True God should be in aplural form?
Did some strange and insuperable necessity lie in the
way ? Was the language so poor, that it could furnish
no other term ? Or if so, could not the wisdom of in
spiration have suggested a new appellative, and have
for ever abolished the hazardous word ? None of these
reasons existed. The language was rich and copious.
The names of the Deity in general and constant use
were more numerous than in either of ihe beautiful lan
guages of classical antiquity, or in the most cultivated
tongues of modern Europe. Besides "that glorious
and fearful name Jehovah," the appropriated and
unique style of the true God, and besides other unex
ceptionable terms, there was the singular form, Eloah,
of the very word in question. There was no shadow
of necessity, difficulty, or even inducement, for the
adoption of a phraseology, which on Unitarian princi
ples every candid mind must confess, can with difficulty,
if at all, be defended from the charge of pernicious ex
ample, and very dangerous tendency."* It cannot be
denied, that there is considerable force in these obser
vations ; but as the arguments are strong on both sides,
it is best to pass over this proof of a plurality in the
Godhead, and to proceed to others which are less liable
to objection.
* Dr. Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, b. ii,
ch. iv. } 34.

ON GOD: THE TRINITY.

151

There are several passages of the Old Testament in
which God speaks of himself as more than one : " Let
us make man in our image, after our likeness." " Be
hold the man is become as one of us." " Whom shall
I send, and who will go for us?" "Let us go down,
and there confound their tongue."* They are certain
ly remarkable, when taken in connexion with the uni
form doctrine of Scripture, that there is no God but
one. The reasoning which we have lately heard con
cerning the plural name of God, is applicable here in
all its force. If the use of a plural name to denote an
individual was a peculiarity of the Hebrew language,
it would be understood, and no danger would arise from
it ; but it is quite a different thing to introduce a person
speaking of himself as more than one, using plural
pronouns to designate himself. We have no example
in Scripture of such phraseology in reference to any
being but God, although plural names are used of other
individuals ; and we are necessarily led to suppose that
there is a reason for this usage which does not exist in
any other case. God might have accommodated him
self to the idiom of the people whom he addressed, and
have allowed himself to be called by a plural name ;
but we cannot conceive him to have spoken of himself
in a manner which would suggest the idea of plurality,
although it was his express purpose to teach them his
unity. Why should he have said, without any cause,
"Let us make?" Would it not have been as easy,
more correct, and better adapted to his design, to say,
" Let me make ?" It is vain to tell us, that on these
occasions the Almighty adopted the style of monarchs,
who say " We" and " Us." We have no reason to think
that this style was known in the days of Moses ; there
are no examples of it among the nations of antiquity;
it seems to be a modern invention. It is vain to pre
tend that he addressed angels, or included inferior be
ings. This is a figment of the Jews, so absurd, and
even impious, that Christians should have been ashamed
to make it their own ; and we venture to affirm that not
one of them would have done so, had he not been dis
posed to grasp at any thing which would help him to
evade this argument for a plurality of persons in the
Godhead. Another proof has been drawn from the blessing
which Aaron was commanded to pronounce upon the
children of Israel. "The Lord bless thee, and keep
thee ; the Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be
gracious unto thee ; the Lord lift up his countenance
upon thee, and give thee peace."f The proof is found
ed on the three-fold repetition of the name Jehovah,
and the correspondence of the whole with the Christian
benediction, " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and
the love of God, and the communion of the Holy
Ghost be with you all.":):
We may put the same construction on the three-fold
ascription of holiness to God by the seraphim whom
Isaiah saw in the temple: — "Holy, holy, holy is Jeho
vah God of Hosts ; the whole earth is full of his glo-
ry."|| We may the more readily refer it to a plurality
of persons in the Godhead, when we consider that on
this occasion the Lord said, "Who shall go for us?"
and observe that in the New Testament, the Son and
the Spirit are represented as having been concerned in
this vision. The Evangelist John says, that Isaiah
saw the glory of Christ at this time ;§ and Paul, that
it was the Holy Ghost who spake these words: — " Go
and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand
not ; and see ye indeed, but perceive not."^f
The following passages have been considered as giv
ing indications of a plurality of persons: "Then Je
hovah rained fire and brimstone from Jehovah out of
heaven." " I will have mercy upon the house of Ju-

* Gen. i. 26. iii. 22. Isaiah vi. 8. Gen. xi. 7.
t Numb. vi. 24—26. 1 2 Cor. xiii, 14.
1] Isaiah vi. 3. } John xii. 41. IT Acts xxviii. 25, 26.

dah, and will save them by Jehovah their God."
" Now, therefore, 0 our God, hear the prayer of thy
servant and his supplications, and cause thy face to
shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's
sake." * In all these passages there seems to be a dis
tinct reference to two persons: in the first, to one who
from another, or in concurrence with him, destroyed
the cities of the plain ; in the second, to one who would
save the Israelites by the agency of another ; in the
third, to one who is inlreated by Daniel to hear his
prayers for the sake of another ; and in all these cases,
both are spoken of as Divine.
In the forty-fifth Psalm, we find these words ad
dressed by one divine person to another : " Thy throne,
0 God, is forever and ever."f We have the authority
of an inspired commentator for saying that the speaker
is the Father, and the person spoken to is the Son ; %
and it is worthy of attention, that the Father gives him
the appellation of God in a sense in which it never was
given to creatures of the highest order. Must we not
infer, that, although the Divine nature is one, there is
some mysterious distinction in it, by which only such
language can be satisfactorily explained ?
" Come ye near unto me, hear ye this ; I have not
spoken in secret from the beginning ; from the time
that it was, there am I : and now the Lord God, and
his Spirit, hath sent me;"|| or more correctly, " the
Lord God hath sent me and bis Spirit." There is men
tion made in this passage of three persons, one who
sends, and two who are sent. The speaker is God ;
for he assumes the name, and titles, and works of God,
calling himself the First and the Last, the Creator of
heaven and earth ; but at the same time he says that he
was sent by God ; not surely sent by himself, for such
language would have no meaning, but by a distinct
person. That person is represented as having sent also
another, who is called his Spirit; which is not a name
for an influence, energy, or operation, but for a living
intelligent agent, as will afterwards appear when we
come to speak of him particularly, and is plain to every
candid reader of the Scriptures. It was he who in the
beginning moved upon the face of the waters ; it was
he who garnished the heavens ; it was he who spoke
by the prophets, and gave them the knoweldge of fu
ture events ; and to him the Psalmist ascribes the at
tribute of omnipresence : " Whither shall I go from
thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy pres
ence?'^ In a word, the Messiah is represented as a distinct
person from Him who promised to send him, and
the Jews never entertained any doubt of his per
sonality. Yet the manner in which he is spoken of,
renders it absolutely certain that he was superior to
all the prophets, higher than the kings of the earth, and
possessed of proper divinity. He is called the Son of
God,f atl(l if we believe an apostle,** in a sense which
excludes all creatures from a claim to the same relation.
He is called "the Mighty God,"ff and dignified with
the incommunicable name, the name expressive of self-
existence, independence, and eternal duration : " In
those days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell
safely ; and this is the name whereby he shall be called,
Jehovah our Righteousness.":)::): It is remarkable, that
in a passage which evidently refers to him, and is ap
plied in the New Testament to the treachery of Judas,
it is Jehovah who speaks : " And Jehovah said unto
me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was
prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of sil
ver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the
Lord."|||| These are some of the notices of the plurality in the
• Gen. xix. 24. Hos. i. 7. Dan. ix. 17. t Ps- xiv. 6.
t Heb. i. 8. || Isa. xlviii. 16. { Ps. cxxxix. 7
IT Ps. ii. 7. ** Heb. i. 5. ft Isaiah ix. 6.
X\ Jer. xxiii. 6. |||| Zech. xi. 13. Matt, xxvii. 9.

152

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

Godhead, which we find in the Jewish Scriptures ; but
we may expect clearer manifestations of the doctrine in
the New Testament, which is the completion of the
v i"»The darkness is Past> and the true light now
shineth. In this manner the Evangelist expresses
the superiority of the present to the former dispensa
tion. r
I proceed to lay before you the evidence for the doc
trine of the Trinity, which is furnished by the Chris
tian Scriptures. I begin with the celebrated passage
in the fifth chapter of the first Epistle of John, verse 7.
" There are Three that bear record in heaven, the Fa
ther, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three
are one."* Three persons are mentioned as distinct wit
nesses, and at the same time are affirmed to be one ; al
though some think that, the apostle refers not to a unity
of essence, but of testimony, or that nothing more is
meant than that, like the three earthly witnesses, they
agree in one. I need not tell you that the genuineness
of this passage has been disputed ; the controversy is
so important, and has engaged so much attention, that
none of you can be ignorant of it. It is now generally
acknowledged by critics to be spurious ; and in doing
so, they proceed upon the following grounds. In the
first place, it is affirmed by Griesbach, that in no li
brary of Europe does there, exist any Greek manuscript
in which this verse is found. He qualifies this asser
tion, however, by referring to one or two manuscripts
in which it does appear; and it ought to be observed,
that he can be understood to speak only of manuscripts
which have been collated, for there are many hundreds
which have not been examined. There are three in
which it occurs, the Codex Guelpherbytanus, the Co
dex Ravianus, or Berolinensis, and the Codex Britan-
nicus, or Montfortianus, or Dublinensis, for it is known
by all these names. But they are of no authority. The
first is a manuscript of the seventeenth century, for it
contains the Latin translation of Beza ; the second is a
transcript of the Complutensian edition of the New
Testament, with some various readings from Stephen's
third edition, and cannot therefore be older than the
sixteenth century ; and the last was written, according
to some, in the twelfth or thirteenth century, or accord
ing to others, in the fifteenth or sixteenth. It is there
fore of very little value, and its testimony is as nothing
when opposed to the silence of all other manuscripts.
In the second place, it was not admitted into the ear
liest printed editions of Erasmus, nor into the version
of Luther. It first appeared in the edition of Complu-
tum, and is said to have been translated from Latin into
Greek ; from that edition it was afterwards adopted by
Erasmus, and thence found its way into the editions of
Stephens and Beza, and last of all into the Elzevir
edition of a. d. 1624, after which all our common edi
tions are printed. In the third place, the verse is omit
ted by all the Greek Fathers, although they quote the
Words which precede and follow it, collect proofs of
the Trinity from all quarters, and even apply to this
subject tfie next verse concerning the earthly witness
es, endeavouring to deduce from it and the context the
divinity of the Spirit. Two or three passages have
been produced which seem to refer to this text; but
they are supposed to be taken from ecclesiastical for
mularies, or the technical language of the church ; and
although it were certain that they are quotations, noth
ing more could be justly inferred, than that in the days
of the authors the text was not altogether unknown, but
was generally considered as spurious, and hence, with
an exception or two, no person appealed to it. In the
fourth place, it was wanting in the ancient versions, the
Syriac, the Arabic, the Coptic, the Ethiopic, the Arme
nian, the Sahidic, and the Slavonic. It was wanting
originally in all these, although it now appears in some
* 1 John ii. 8.

of them, having been inserted by modern pditors; but
this interpolation does not weaken the argument in the
slightest degree. It was not in the copies from which
those translations were made ; and some of them are
of very high antiquity. We must except the Latin
version, in most manuscripts of which thetext is found,
but not in them all. It is wanting in all the manu
scripts written before the ninth century, and in most of
those which are ancient though posterior to that date.
Where it has found a place, it stands on the maro-in, or
is interlined by a different hand ; or if originally be
longing to the text, it differs in words and position in
different manuscripts. In a word, it is omitted by seve
ral of the Latin Fathers on occasions when it would
have been pertinent to their design, and they might
have been expected to quote it. But on the other hand,
it is cited by many of them, who seem to have enter
tained no doubt of its genuineness. This, however,
only proves, that it was in their copies ; but we should
remember, that they used a translation, which might be
interpolated ; and they cannot be admitted as witnesses
of equal authority with the Greek Fathers, who knew
and quoted from the original.
For the reasons now stated, the verse is considered by
most learned men to be an interpolation, and accordinor-
ly is excluded from the text in the edition of Griesbach.
There are some however, who are disposed to think it
genuine on the ground, not only of its being quoted,
perhaps by one or two of the Greek, and by so many
of the Latin Fathers, but because it appears to them
that there is internal evidence in its favour. It seems
necessary to complete the sense, by giving the wit
nesses in heaven as well as the witnesses on earth.
Two arguments are founded on the grammatical con
struction. If we leave out the disputed passage, and
read only — " There are three that bear witness on earth,
the Spirit, the water, and the blood," we have tpu; it
fjutpTvpcmTt;* in the masculine gender, agreeing with
three neuter nouns, to flp-vay**, to ufcep, taj to ai/at,-\ con
trary to one of the common rules of syntax ; while con
cord is preserved, if we admit after them, o maTxp, 6
xcyos, x.u to ayicv *mev/*u,if. because the first and second
are masculine, and the adjectives or participles agree
ing with them must he of the same gender. It may
be objected, that the same difficulty occurs, if we re
tain the disputed passage; for the. apostle repeats rrpu; it
pLaprvpivvTK, before to Tnai/xoi, to itSup, huj to atp*. It is
replied, that if t^m and >c*^to/>otto were first used with
o' »-«T)i/> and i xayc;, they might be used again in the next
verse although the nouns in concord were neuter, with
out any violation of syntax, according to the figure call-
pd attraction, which made them agree with the nouns
which preceded, instead of those which followed ;
whereas, when the passage is corrected by the omis
sion of the seventh verse, tpa; and fjatprvpcwri; are un-
grammatical, there being no masculine nouns with
which they may be construed. To take away the force
of this argument, it has been said, that -the nouns
main*., itw, and iifm are personified, being represented
as witnesses, and consequently, that -rpat and uaprvpcunis
are properly used, as they refer not to their gender but
to their import. Another argument, or rather doubt,
arises from the use of the article in the end of the verse
which speaks of the earthly witnesses, **/ o'j rpm sic to »
uriv.\\ The article, according to the laws of the Greek
language, refers to a former mention of the subject,
and could be easily accounted for, if the seventh verse
were genuine ; but if it be rejected, there is a reference
in the article, but no antecedent. If a in the seventh
verse be excluded, we cannot understand how it ap
pears for the first time, accompanied with the article to.

* The three that bear witness.
f The spirit, the water, and the blood.
j The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.
]| And these three agree in one.

ON GOD: THE TRINITY.

153

The doubt has been, proposed by Dr. Middleton, who
concludes by saying: — " I am not ignorant, that in the
rejection of the controverted passage, learned and g-ood
men are now, for the most part, agreed ; and I contem
plate with admiration and delight the gigantic exer
tions of intellect, which have established this acqui
escence ; the objection, however, which has given rise
to this discussion, I could not consistently with my
plan suppress. On the whole, lam led to suspect, that
though so much labour and critical acuteness have been
bestowed on these celebrated verses, more is yet to be
done, before the mystery in which they are involved
can be wholly developed."* It is evident, that in the
present state of the controversy respecting this text,
we can make no use of it, to prove the doctrine of the
Trinity. The transaction at our Savior's baptism has been ap
pealed to as a proof of the Trinity, because the three
persons were then manifested ; the Son who came to
be baptized, the Holy Ghost who descended like a
dove and lighted upon him, and the Father who spoke
with an audible voice. But before this proof could be
admitted, we must know who Christ was, and what
was the import of the title, Son, by which he was de
signated, and likewise who the Spirit was, and wheth
er the emblem signified a person or an influence. This
information is gathered from other passages ; and there
fore the transaction itself is not a proper proof of a
Trinity in the Godhead, although it may bean illustra
tion of it.
A more satisfactory argument is founded upon the in
stitution of baptism, and the form of administration : —
" Go and teach all nations, haptizing them in the name
of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."f
Baptism is a religious ordinance, which it would be
contrary to all our ideas of religion derived from reason
and Scripture, to suppose administered in any name
but that of the object of worship. It is a dedication to
the service of God ; and according to the Unitarian hy
pothesis, we are dedicated at the same time to the Cre
ator and to two of his creatures, or to a man like our
selves, and a Divine influence or operation ! The initia
tory rite of Christianity is evidently intended to teach
us, that while there is one God, there are three persons
of equal dignity and authority, who are severally con
cerned in the work of our salvation, and to whose glory
we are bound to consecrate our bodies and our souls.
Another proof of a Trinity is furnished by the apostol
ical benediction. " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost,
be with you all. "X This is evidently a prayer, which
it would be impiety and idolatry to address to any other
but God. Yet three persons are distinctly addressed,
and consequently are recognized as possessed of Divine
perfections ; as knowing our wants and hearing our re
quests, and able to do what we ask ; as the foundation
of all the blessedness implied in the terms, grace, love,
and communion.
The Book of Revelation commences with these
words : — " Grace be unto you, and peace, from Him
which is, and which was, and which is to come; and
from the seven Spirits which are before the throne ; and
from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness."!
This also is a prayer to the Father and the Son. But
who is meant by the seven Spirits ? I presume that no
Protestant will say that they are created spirits. There
is reason to believe, that agreeably to a Hebrew idiom
which uses the number seven to express what is per
fect, the seven Spirits before the throne signify the Ho
ly Spirit in the fulness and variety of his gifts and in
fluences ; and if so, all the three persons are acknow
ledged to be Divine, separately and conjunctly the ob-

* Middleton on the Greek article, p. 652. edit. 1808.
t Matt, xxviii. 19. {2 Cor. xiii. 14. |] Rev. i. 4, 5.

ject of worship, the source of grace and peace, of spirit
ual and heavenly blessings.
I shall quote only one passage more. " Now there
are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there
are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
And there are diversities of operations, but it. is the same
God which worketh all in all."* The subject of dis
course is the dispensation of grace, in which there are
three distinct agents, obviously exercising equal author
ity, the Spirit, the Lord, and God or the Father.
There is a general argument, upon which I cannot
enter fully at present, lest I should anticipate what will
be more properly introduced in ano-ther place. It is
this, that in the New Testament, two persons besides
the Father are mentioned in innumerable places, and
mentioned in such terms as elevate them above the
condition of creatures, and import their proper Di
vinity. Not only is the one called the Son, and the
other the Spirit of the Father, to denote their intimate
relation to him, but both receive the names of God and
Lord without qualification, are invested with Divine at
tributes, have works ascribed to them which finite pow
er could not have performed, and as we have seen, are
conjoined with the Father as objects of religious wor
ship and obedience. Shall we say that the sacred
writers have indulged in a figurative and ornamented
style; that instead of words of truth and soberness,
they have given us highly coloured descriptions, and
that too in treating a subject of the greatest importance,
which demanded the utmost precision of sentiment and
expression ? They may say so who deny their inspi
ration, and looking upon them as common men, do not
hesitate to accuse them of prejudices, mistakes, and il
logical reasoning. But if we believe that they were
moved by the Holy Ghost, we will also believe that
they were in no danger of being misled by imagina
tion, but rigidly adhered to the simple truth ; and that
if they had felt any inclination to wander into the re
gions of fancy, it would have been controlled. They
have represented two persons besides the Father as Di
vine ; and as, at the same time, they maintain the unity
of God, the necessary inference is, that in their judg
ment this unity is consistent with personal distinctions.
In other words, they have taught the doctrine of the
Trinity.

LECTURE XXIX.
ON THE TRINITY.
Particular Statement of the Doctrine of the Trinity — The Uni
ty of the Divine Essence — Distinctions between the Persons
— Opinions respecting a Subordination of Persons consider
ed — Nature of the Sonship — Heresies opposed to this Doc-
. trine : Sabellianism ; Arianism ; Tritheism — Notice of some
Objections. I have already stated the doctrine in the words of our
Confession of Faith, which it is unnecessary to repeat.
I shall add in this place the words of the Athanasian
Creed, after observing, that it was composed long after
the age of Athanasius, but goes under his name because
it is understood to teach the doctrine, which he held
and strenuously maintained against the heretics of his
time, and particularly the Arians, who were then the
predominant party. It has been ascribed to Vigilius,
an African Bishop in the sixth century, or to Hilary of
Aries in France in a. d. 450. " The Catholic faith is
this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity
in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor divid
ing the substance : for there is one person of the Fath
er, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the
* Cor. xii 4—6.

154

cllLna1]0"'' tTf Ti the S]m? e1ual- the ™i<*ty
oe led hv li % - L0rdl- F°r' Hke as we are com"
pe led by the Christian verity to acknowledge every
person by himself to be God and Lord, so w! are fo>
twrb/ th\Cath°lic «%i°n to say that there be
three Gods, or three Lords."
In the first place, we assert that there is only one
essence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;
that they have the same numerical, and not merely the
same specific essence. It may be proper to explain the
difference between these two words as they are used in
speaking of this subject. Numerical signifies one in
number, and specific, of the same species. When we
say that the essence is numerically one, we mean that
the same essence belongs to all the persons in common ;
but were we to attribute to them the same specific es
sence, we should mean nothing more than what we
affirm of three men, when we say that they have all a na
ture of the same species, or are all partakers of human
nature. In the former case, we maintain that there is on
ly one God, although there are more Divine persons
than one ; in the latter, we should maintain that there
are three Gods. To express the unity of the essence,
the word 'o,uooi/™e* was employed by the Council of
Nice, a. d. 325, and the Son was declared to be
'o^ooi/o-hc or consubstantial with the Father. It had
been used in the same sense by some writers before
the meeting of the Council. It is remarkable, however,
that it had been rejected by the Council of Antioch, a.
d. 263, on account of the inference which Paul of Sa-
mosata pretended to draw from it, namely, that if
Christ and the Spirit were consubstantial with the Fa
ther, it followed that there were three substances, one
prior and two posterior derived from it. To guard
against this inference, the Council declared that the
Son was not 'opoma-u; tcc Ilalpi.-f Paul seems to have ex
plained the term as signifying specific, or of the same
species ; and it is certain that this sense had sometimes
been given to it. Thus Aristotle calls the stars 'o^oowo-/*,
meaning that they were all of the same nature. But in
the Creed of Nice it is expressive of unity of essence,
and was adopted after considerable discussion, as prop
er to be opposed to the Arians, who affirmed that the
essence of the Son was different and separate from that
of the Father. Thus the unity of substance was estab
lished as an article of faith in the Catholic church ; and
the doctrine was confirmed by subsequent councils.
The Council of Constantinople, A. d. 381, says in an
epistle addressed to the bishops assembled in Rome :
— " The faith of the Nicene fathers ought to be approv
ed by us, and by you, and by all who do not pervert the
word of truth, which is the most ancient, and is agree
able to our baptism in the name of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, namely, that there is one divinity,
power, and essence of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, that they have equal dignity and co-eternal do
minion, and that they co-exist in three perfect hypos
tases or persons."
In the second place, we assert that in this one es
sence there is a three-fold distinction, which we express
by saying, that there are three persons. This word
is derived from the Latin term persona, but the Greeks
used Omo-Tdtrt! and irfunwnvj The first occurs in the be
ginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Son
is called x*-f'J*n? umwimttA of the Father.§ In our
version it is rendered person, but some think that it
should be translated substance. We might ask them
* Of the same substance.
+ Consubstantial with the Father.
i Personality and Person. .
[j " The express image of the Person. } Heb. i. J.

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY

in what sense Christ could be the image of the Father's
substance, unless his own substance were different? and
then we must concur with the Arians, who objected to
the term 'ouocvo-u;, but were willing to admit 'tfatwruc, „f
a similar substance, and might plead the authority of
the apostle. He who is the image of another's sub
stance, does not certainly possess that substance, and
is therefore a separate being. Necessity seems to re
quire, that whatever may have been the original mean
ing of ima-Turu, it should here be translated person.
At the same time, it must be acknowledged, that it was
understood by many of the ancients to signify substance.
It was frequently used in the sense of oiwya or essence''
and the application of it to designate a distinction in
the Godhead was objected to, as leading to the unscrip-
tural conclusion of three substances, and consequently
three Gods. The objection was made by some of the
Greeks, and by the Latins, who translated vma-Tsuns,
substantia. Still, however, the word was -retained to
express a distinction in the one Divine nature, and the
use afterwards became general. The Synod of Alex
andria, a. D. 362 ; decreed, " that any person was at
liberty to maintain, that there was only one hypostasis
in the Godhead, provided that a three-fold distinction
in it was preserved, or to maintain that there were three
hypostases, provided that only one substance was
meant." _ The Greeks employed another term to denote
this distinction, npoo-aarcv properly signifies the face,
and occurs in this sense in several passages, as tot* A
¦nrpoo-mroi irpo; irpoa-am-oi, " but then face to face."* But it
is used also both in the New Testament, and by pro
fane writers, to signify a person, and hence was pre
ferred by some to wroo-T*o-« as less ambiguous. " When
we speak of God," says Gregory Nazianzen, "we are
surrounded with a light which is one and three-fold ;
three-fold in respect of the properties, or the Cmo-Taovs,^
if any one chooses to use this term, or the irpmwra.,X for
we do not contend about the names if they agree in
meaning; but one in respect of the essence or divinity."
In the common acceptation of person, it denotes a sep
arate and independent being, whose existence and ac
tions have no necessary connexion with the existence
and actions of any other being. It has been defined to
be a thinking substance which can act by itself, or an
intelligent agent who is neither a part of, nor sustained
by another. We must be cautious in transferring to the
Deity, definitions which originate in the state and cir
cumstances of created beings. The cases are totally
dissimilar. Three human persons have the same spe
cific nature, but three Divine persons have the same nu
merical nature. Antitrinitarians affirm, that by hold
ing three Divine persons we necessarily make three
Gods, because they most unfairly maintain, in the face
of our solemn protestations, that we affix the same idea
to the word person, which it bears when used in refer
ence to men. But we deny that it has this meaning.
We do not teach, that there are three distinct essences
mysteriously conjoined ; That the Father, the Son, and
the Spirit possess, each of them separately from th9
others, a Divine nature, and Divine perfections. Whf I
we believe is this, that there is a distinction in the
Godhead, to which there is nothing similar in creatures,
who are one in every sense of the term ; and we em
ploy the word person, to express that distinction. It
may be objectionable, because being applied to olhei
beings, it is apt to suggest an idea which is inconsist
ent with the unity of God ; but this is the unavoidable
consequence of the imperfection of human language;
and we endeavour to guard against the abuse by declar
ing that, in this application, it must be qualified so as
to exclude a separate existence. We must cease to
speak of God, if we wait till we find terms and phrases

* 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
f Personalities, or personal subsistences.

\ Persons.

ON GOD: THE TRINITY.

155

adequate to the subject. We are obliged to take com
mon words, and if they are not exactly suitable to the
subject, we are surely at liberty to define them, to fix
the sense in which we intend to make use of them, to
enlarge or restrict it as the case shall require. Now
when we say that there are three persons in the God
head, the word person, signifies a distinction which we
do not pretend to explain, but which does not intrench
upon the unity of essence. I shall quote a few sen
tences from a recent work on the Trinity and the Di
vinity of Christ, -by Professor Stuart of Andover in
America. " What, you will doubtless ask, is that dis
tinction in the Godhead, which the word person is
meant 'to designate ? I answer without hesitation, that
I do not know. The fact that a distinction exists, is
what we aver : the definition of that distinction is what
I shall by no means attempt. By what shall I, or can
I, define it? What simile drawn from created objects,
which are necessarily derived and dependent, can illus
trate the mode of existence in that Being, who is unde
rived, independent, unchangeable, infinite, eternal ? I
confess myself unable to advance a single step here in
explaining what the distinction is. I receive the fact
that it exists, simply because I believe that the Scriptures
reveal the fact. And if the Scriptures do reveal the fact,
that there are three persons in the Godhead ; that there
is a distinction which affords ground for the appella
tions of Father, Son and Holy Ghost; which lays the
foundation for the application of the personal pronouns
J, thou, he ; which renders it proper to speak of sending
and being sent ,- of Christ being with God, being in his
bosom, and other things of the like nature ; and yet,
that the Divine nature belongs to Father, Son, and Ho
ly Ghost; then it is, like every other fact revealed, to
be received simply on the credit of Divine revelation."*
Some have attempted to give us an idea of this dis
tinction, but the success of the experiment is extremely
questionable. Dr. Chauncey, a celebrated divine of the
last century, proposes this question, " How may this
great mystery be a little illustrated to our understand
ings, so as to have a glimpse of a little part of it?" and
gives the following answer : — " The first Being living
a most perfect life of fruition in communion, and being
but one infinitely pure act, doth most transcendently
comprehend and conceive bimself, beholding his own
most glorious image by his infinite understanding, re
flecting on himself as the chiefest good, which he en
joys in the highest mutual love and delight." This, I
confess, is not very intelligible ; but he goes on : —
" God reflecting upon and conceiving himself, is God
in the person of the Father ; God conceived as his own
most glorious image, is God in the person of the Son ;
God enjoying himself as his own chiefest good in re
lation of Father and Son, with ineffable love and de
light, is the third person, the Holy Ghost." It is
surprising that this worthy man did not perceive that
this is a metaphysical Trinity, for the Son is an idea,
and the Spirit is joy or love. There is no other dis
tinction here than what exists between the mind and
its thoughts and emotions. There is nothing which
corresponds to personality. I presume that no man
will be made wiser by this pretended explanation,
which tends rather to confound, and to make us think,
that if this is really the Trinity of the Scriptures, it
amounts to nothing, and God is still one in every sense
of in term. Such is the fate of attempts to go beyond
our ,imit, to intrude into things which we have not
seen. We are either utterly lost, and amused with
words in the room of ideas, or we are involved in ob
scurity and heresy. Dr. Chauncey is not the only per
son who has been led away by this strange specula
tion. It is as ancient as the days of the Fathers, and
* Stuart on the Trinity and Divinity of Christ, in answer to
Churning, letter iii.

has been adopted by persons of high name in modern
times. Dr. Horsley, who in learning and talent had
few equals, has pursued it, as we see from the manner
in which he states the sentiments of Athenagoras.: 
"The Logos hath existed from eternity in union with the
Father; 'because God, being eternally rational, ever
had the Logos in himself.' The sense is, that the per
sonal subsistence of a Divine Logos is implied in the
very idea of a God. And the argument rests on a prin
ciple which was common to all the Platonic fathers,
and seems to be founded in Scripture, that the existence
of the Son flows necessarily from the Divine Intellect
exerted on itself, from the Father's contemplation of his
own perfections. But as the Father ever was, his per
fections have ever been, and his intellect hath been ever
active. But perfections which have ever been, the ever
active Intellect must ever have contemplated ; and the
contemplation which hath ever been, must ever have
been accompanied with its just effect, the personal ex
istence of the Son."* This fanciful theory, for it de
serves no better name, has found patrons and advocates
among Protestants and Papists, and among the latter
has received the sanction of the Church. f
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are per
sons, and are distinguished from each other by their
personal properties. Divine perfections are common
to them all, eternity, immutability, power, wisdom and
goodness ; but a personal property is something pecu
liar to each, something which may be affirmed of one,
but cannot be affirmed of the other two. The appella
tion's Father and Son, imply a relation between the per
sons. That a relation is also implied in the designa
tion of the third person is not so certain, unless we
suppose, that the word mia/fxtt signifies also air in mo
tion or breath, it refers to his- procession, from the
Father according to the Greeks, or from the Father and
the Son according to the Latins. This, however, is a
faint and doubtful analogy. By those relations the sub
sistences in the Godhead are distinguished from each
other: but in all other respects there is the most per
fect similarity. Paternity is the personal property of
the first person, filiation of the second, and procession,
or as the Schoolmen speak, spiration, of the third.
The first person begat the second, the second was be
gotten of the first, and the third proceeded from both.
"The Father," says the Athanasian Creed, " is made
of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of
the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, nei
ther made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."
These properties distinguish the persons of the Trinity,
they characterize them individually, so that we can
speak of one without speaking, at the same time, of
another; but the properties themselves we do not un
derstand, if it should be said, that, in this case, we
use words without meaning, the same objection may be
made to us when we speak of the self-existence and
the immensity of God. We can affix no positive ideas
to these terms, but they deny that God had a begin
ning, and that he is confined to a particular place. The
same purpose is served by those personal properties ;
they enable us to affirm that the Father is not the Son,
and that the Holy Spirit is a different person from both.
The persons of the Trinity are farther distinguished
by their operations. The Divine nature, indeed, is the
common principle of operation in the external works
of creation and providence ; but revelation gives us
some notices of the distinct agency of the persons.
Thus, in the beginning the Spirit moved, or exerted hia
influence, upon the dark and undigested mass which
had been produced out of nothing; and from other pas
sages we learn that it was the Son whose omnipotent

* Horsley's Tracts in controversy with Dr. Priestley p. 61,
Edit. 1812. f Ibid. Disquisition fourth.

156

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

fiat a I things obeyed, for by him the Father made the
worlds. The Father is not immediately concerned in
any external operation, but exerts his energies by the
San and the Spirit. To this subject, we may refer the
words of our Lord concerning the cure which he had
wrought on the Sabbath. He justified himself against
the charge of having profaned that day, by the plea
that all his works were performed in concurrence with
his Father : " My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing
cf himself, but what he seeth the Father do : for what
things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son like
wise."* In redemption, the persons are clearly dis
tinguished by offices and works, which are respectively
assigned to them. It is said, that the Father sent the
Son, but never that the Son sent the Father; that the
Son sent the Spirit, but not that the Spirit sent the
Son. We find, indeed, the Messiah saying in one of
the prophets, "The Lord God and his Spirit have sent
me ;"f but the proper translation is, " The Lord God
hath sent me and his Spirit." It was the Word who
was made flesh, the Son who assumed our nature ; this
act of ineffable condescension is never attributed to the
Father or to the Spirit. On the other hand, it was the
Father whose voice, was heard at his baptism, and on
the Mount of Transfiguration, proclaiming him to be
his beloved Son; and it was the Spirit who descended
in a visible form, and rested upon him. We do not un
derstand how, the nature being one, acts are performed
by one person which cannot be ascribed to another ; but
the fact is stated in the Scriptures, and it is the office
of faith to receive its testimony without disputing.
The Father is called the first person, the Son the se
cond, and the Holy Ghost the third. This is the order
of their subsistence, and it is pointed out by their inter
nal relations ; but beware of thinking that it implies
the priority of one to another, in time or in dignity.
"In this Trinity," I again quote the words of the
Athanasian Creed, " in this Trinity, none is afore or af
ter other, none is greater or less than another; but the
whole three persons are co-eternal together, and co
equal. So that in all things the Unity in Trinity, and
the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped."
Some Trinitarians are of opinion, that three co-or
dinate persons would be three Gods, and therefore
maintain the subordination of the Son and the Spirit.
This subject is discussed at considerable length by
Bishop Bull, in his learned work, entitled Defensio
Fidei Nicense, where he lays down, and supports by the
authority of the Fathers, the three following proposi
tions: "First, the Catholic doctors, who lived before and
after, have approved the doctrine of the Council of Nice,
that the Son is fl«c a hoo, God of God ; for they have
all taught with one mouth that the Divine nature and
perfections belong to the Father and the Son, not col
laterally or co-ordinately, but subordinate^ ; that is,
that the Son has the same Divine nature with the Fath
er, but communicated by the Father; so that the Fath
er alone has the Divine nature from himself, or from no
other; but the Son from the Father, and that therefore
the Father is the fountain, origin, and principle of the
Divinity which is in the Son.":): He goes on to shew
that the ancient doctors called the Father *px«, theprin-
ciple of the Son ; meaning by apx», that from which any
thing takes its origin, whether in time or in eternity ;
that they called him <utik or cutis., the cause of the Son;
vmm, or fountain, and auctor, author, a word used by
the Latins. " Secondly, the Catholic doctors deter
mined with unanimous consent, that the" Father was
greater than the Son in respect of his Divinity, not in
nature or in any essential perfection which is in the
Father and not in the Son; but solely by authority;

# John v. 17,19

* jonn v. 11, 13.
} Defensio Fidei Nicenai, sect. iv. cap,

¦f Isaiah xlviii. 16.

that is, by origin, since the Son is from the Father, not
the Father from the Son."* "Thirdly, the ancient
doctors judged, that the doctrine concerning the subor
dination of the Son to the Father as his origin and prin
ciple, was very useful, and evidently necessary to be
known, for this reason, that chiefly in this way the di
vinity of the Son is so asserted, that the unity of God
and the divine monarchy are preserved entire; for, al
though the name and nature of God are common to two
the Father and the Son, yet, since the one is Ihe princi
ple of the other, from whom he is propagated, and that
by an interior not an external production, it may be
justly said that there is only one God. The ancients
believed that the same reason was applicable to the di
vinity of the Holy Spirit."f But although these views
are recommended by the authority of the Fathers, and
have been very generally adopted by modern divines, I
cannot bring myself to agree .with them. It is danger
ous to speak of a subordination among the persons of
the Trinity, and it is almost impossible to avoid the idea
of inferiority in the subordinate persons : It seems also
absurd, while we admit at the same time, that the per
sons equally possess the divine nature and perfections.
What puzzles me most of all, is to perceive how sub
ordination is necessary to preserve the unity of God;
because it should seem to me that nothing was so calcu
lated to make us doubt the unity as subordination of
any kind, and that it is more easily conceived, if all the
persons are equal in every respect. The unity is main
tained, by excluding the idea of division or separation,
and assigning the same numerical essence to all the
persons. It occurs to me, that after all this learned
talk about communication, origin, principle, fountain
and cause, nothing more is meant than what we all ac
knowledge, that the nature of the Son is the very same
with the nature of the Father, which certainly is neces
sary to preserve the unity; but such terms are unhap
pily employed to express it. Bishop Horsley, who was
of the same opinion with Bishop Bull and the Fathers,
might well call the subordination of the Son, mysteri
ous ; for a subordination among equal persons, a subor
dination of one who is truly God, is indeed a mystery,
a thing perfectly unintelligible.
What has led so many to maintain the subordination
of the Son, is the notion, that the relation, which this
name implies, is founded on the communication of the
divine essence to him. Hence they object to the ap
plication of the term «vto(Iio;X to the Son, if it mean
any thing more than that he is truly God ; and they af
firm that it is contrary to truth, as well as to the usage
of the church, to say that he is hvtcHik, if the word im
port that he is God of himself, because he derived his
divinity from the Father. This is the doctrine of the
Nicene Creed : Tlio-TwcfAtv us tva. nvpw Jtio-cvv Xpic-Tcv tov Cm
tov Qtov ywn&tvTtx. at tou TrctTpoe. juoyoyei/n, tovtzo-tw at t»? owl*;
TOV TT&Tpoe. ©fiCV St fifiou, <J)0of W <pa>T0S, BiOV O-hxQlVOV &¦ Wfitf
*A«8/V0U.|{ This will be the proper place to introduce some ob
servations on the Sonship of Christ. In modern times,
different reasons have been assigned for this appella
tion, partly by the opponents of his Divinity — with
whom we have at present no immediate concern — and
partly by some Trinitarians, who think that it is not
founded on a natural, but an official, relation to the first
person in the Godhead. The motive, I apprehend, by
which they have been led to deny his eternal genera
tion, is the difficulty of conceiving any thing, in the
Divine nature, analogous to the process which the term
denotes in its application to creatures. But the diffi-
* Defensio Fidei Nicenae, sect. iv. cap. 2. t Ibid. cap. 4.
t God, of himself.
II We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Sen of God.
only begotten, begotten of tbe Father, that is of the substance
of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true
.God.

ON GOD: THE TRINITY.

157

eulty is created by themselves, when they take it for
granted, from the use of the term, begotten, that it was
designed to suggest a resemblance between Divine and
human generation. Ought not men to have paused be
fore they drew this inference? Might it not have oc
curred to them that, as the subjects were so different,
the term must have a different meaning? Would it
not have been wise, instead of proceeding to explain
the one by the other, to have acknowledged that the
relation between the Father and the Son was altogether
above our comprehension; that the words, Son and be
gotten, were intended solely to express a distinction of
persons and a mutual relation ; and that the only con
clusion which we could safely draw from them is, that
the second person of the Trinity has the same nature
with the first, is his perfect image, and the object of
his infinite love ? Were human ideas discarded ; were
we content to believe, without pushing our inquiries
into the region of mystery, the eternal generation of
the Son would be admitted, provided that sufficient evi
dence of it were found in the Scriptures.
W7hen God calls our Saviour his own Son, <o lauTo;
ius, 'o itus woe, one should think, that sound criticism
would require us to believe, that he is his Son as truly
as one man is the son of another, although we know
not the manner of the relation ; his Son literally and
not metaphorically, unless it can be shewn that such
filiation is impossible, or that the Scriptures have ex
plained it in a different sense. His Sonship, indeed,
seems to be founded on his miraculous conception in
these words of the angel to the virgin : — " The Holy
Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore also that holy
thing, which shall be born of thee, shall be called the
Son of God."* But the common answer, that the
" holy thing" or his human nature became the Son of
God by its union to his Divine Person, is quite satis
factory, especially if other passages place his Sonship
upon a different foundation. I do not think, that his
miraculous conception would justify the epithet, only-
begotten ; because the creation of Adam, although in
some respect different, was equally miraculous, if this
term may be used in reference to an event which took
place before the laws of nature began their course ; and,
on account of it, he also is called the Son of God.
Were a man, who had never heard of the controversy
relative to the origin of his Sonship, to read such pas
sages as these ; " God so loved the world, that he gave
his only-begotten Son," " When the fulness of the
time was come, God sent forth his Son," he would be
surprised, I presume, that it had ever been the subject
of dispute. He would say — it is plain that the person
who was sent, possessed this character prior to his mis
sion ; and would be astonished to be informed by some
modern divine, that this was a mistake, for that he was
made the Son of God by being sent. It would never
enter into any man's mind, when he was told that a
king had sent his son to negociate with his enemies,
that his son meant only a favourite, or an extraordinary
ambassador. If it should be said, that, in this case,
the meaning of the word Son is determinate, being as
certained by common usage, I would ask, what makes
it less so, when it is applied to our Saviour? Not any
thing in the phraseology of Scripture, but the impos
sibility under which some men labour of conceiving,
how God can have a Son by an essential relation. But
do not Unitarians, on the same ground, explain away
the passages which teach the divinity and atonement
of Christ ? And how can those Trinitarians condemn
them, who make the incomprehensibility of a doctrine
an objection against it? I cannot conceive what object
they have in view, who admit the Divinity, but deny
the natural Sonship of our Saviour, unless it be to get

* Luke i. 35.

rid of the strange notions about communication of es
sence and subordination which have prevailed so much-
and in this case, like too many disputants, in avoiding
one extreme they run into another. Their opinion ap
pears to me to be contrary to the plain and natural mean
ing of Scripture ; and I am disposed to maintain, with
the Catholic church in all ages, that the Son was be
gotten by the Father before all worlds, or is the Son by
necessary and eternal generation.
But, while on this point I hold the faith of the church,
cannot assent to the common opinion, that the genera
tion of the Son consisted in the communication of the
Divine essence and perfections to him ; because, al
though the terms Father and Son indicate a relation
analogous to that among men, yet as, in the latter case,
it is a relation between two material and separate be
ings, and in the former, is a relation in the same spir
itual essence, the one can throw no light upon the other ;
and to attempt to illustrate the one by the other, is
equally illogical and presumptuous. We can conceive
the communication of a material essence, by one mate
rial being to another, because it takes place in the
generation of animals ; but the communication of a
spiritual, indivisible, immutable essence is altogether
inconceivable, especially when we add, that the sup
posed communication does not constitute a different
being, but takes place in the essence communicating.
I have often doubted whether those, who use this lan
guage, affix any idea to it. I suspect, that it is retained,
partly in deference to the Fathers, who were not always
the most accurate in their conceptions, and partly as a
convenient mode of seeming to say something upon a
subject which we do not understand. I must confess
that, to me, it has always been unintelligible. Let us
be content with the knowledge of the fact, and with the
language of Scripture, which simply tells us, that the
Son was begotten by the Father, but does not tell us
how he was begotten. If we cannot explain how a
plant grows, and an animal is formed, we can much less
comprehend this mystery ; and were we as modest and
diffident as reflection upon our own ignorance should
make us, we would regard every attempt to render the
subject clearer than the Scriptures have made it, as a
new proof that vain man would be wise, though he is
born like the wild ass's colt.
To avoid the incomprehensible notion of the com
munication of essence, and its consequence in making
the Son dependent upon the Father, as a stream is de
pendent upon the fountain which supplies it, some
maintain, that the first person of the Trinity did not
beget the second as God, but as Son ; or did not beget
the essence, but the person. This is another attempt
to be wise above what is written. I can form no con
ception of their meaning ; I know not what it is to be
get a person, as distinct from his essence. It seems to
me, that now we have passed from obscurity into the
deepest shades of midnight.
The relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father, ac
cording to the Greek church, or to the Father and the
Son, according to the Latin church, is called procession.
Although the term is different from generation, we can-.
not give the reason of the difference, because we do
not understand what is meant by either the one or the
other. It is called by the Greeks av?rtpiuo-K and am/t^tt.*
Those who think that generation implies the commu
nication of essence, must attach a similar idea to pro
cession. We are content to use the word without pre
tending to explain it. I shall have occasion to say
something more on this subject, when I come to con
sider the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.
We cannot be surprised that the doctrine of the Trin
ity, which appears to be inconsistent with the unity of

* Ecporeusis, emanation, or procession : ecpempsis a send
ing forth.

158

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

sWon3^? ZVT^00^ Sh°U'd haVe met wi* °PP°"
hrn^l ¦?' Vanous °Plnions should have been
thichi tiTtVr1? rem°Ve the difficulties wtih
which it is attended, and to reconcile it to the dictates
canb?nanVearn',KWhichcaJnn°t Understand h™*\
tTat ,w he ?T -d century' Praxeas ta«ght.
that there was no real distinction between the Father
the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and that the Father
sole Creator of all thmgs, united to himself the human
nature of Christ. His followers were called Mon-
archians, because they denied that there were more
persons than one in the Godhead, and Patripassians,
because, according to them, it was the Father who suf
fered on the cross. The same doctrine was taught,
about the beginning of the third century, by Noetus ;
and with some variations, several years after, by Sabel
lius, an African bishop or presbyter, from whom this
heresy has derived the name of Sabellianism. He
maintained that God was one person only, and that the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were different aspects or
manifestations of the same Being. There was no real
Trinity, but God was Tpimvpo;,* or had three names.
He appeared as the Father at one time, as the Son at
another, and as the Holy Ghost at another, as different
occasions required. He was the Father as Creator,
the Son as Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost as Sancti-
fier. Praxeas and Noetus affirmed that the Father uni
ted himself to the man Jesus Christ; but Sabellius
held that an energy or a portion of the Divine nature
was communicated to him, and that the Holy Ghost
also was a portion of the Father.
The next heresy opposed to the doctrine of the Trin
ity, is that of Arius and his followers, who acknowl
edged three distinct persons, but not three equal persons
subsisting in one undivided essence. They rejected
the word ifioouo-ios, consubstantial, and would go no far
ther than to admit that the Son was oftoiovriot, of a like
nature to the Father. While they were not sparing in
giving him high sounding titles to avoid public odium,
and to impose upon the simple, they maintained that
he was a creature, who owed his existence to the will
and power of the Father ; and they held the same sen
timents respecting the Holy Spirit. Arius himself as
serted, as Alexander his Bishop informs us, " that the
\Father was not always Father, but there was a time
when he did not sustain this character ; that the Logos
did not always exist, but was made out of nothing ;
and that therefore there was a time when he was not,"
<fio k*( m mn, vn ouk m. This system has undergone
several modifications, but the most celebrated is that
of Dr. Clarke in his book on the Trinity. According
to him, the Father alone is self-existent and indepen
dent, and to him the Scriptures refer when they speak
of the one God, or God by way of eminence. The
Son has existed with him from the beginning, but is
not self-existent, because he derived his being and per
fections from the Father. He derived them, too, not
necessarily, but by an act of the will and power of the
Father. The same account is given of the existence
of the Holy Spirit. It is evident, that although he
carefully avoids saying that the Son was made out of
nothing, it follows from his system that he might not
have existed ; for, if he was begotten by r the wdl of
the Father, and yet not necessarily, he Father might
no" have willed his existence, and might have remain
ed for ever alone. The difference between Dr. Clarke,
^d those Trinitarians who. explain generat.or ,^
communication of essence, is this that theyMwve
communication to have oeen neces

thlS ge^eCs%°uemi;:;Hho"ugh agreeable to the will
vet not dependent upon it. Although
not explicitly stated, whether or i
considered the essence of the Son and the Spirit

nf'TheTaher 7et noVdependent upon it. Although
Dr Clarke h's'not explicitly stated, whether or not he
j;r. i/iarB«! no  r , . g u t0 be

numerically the same with that of the Father, the train
of his reasonings leads us to conclude, that he believed
it to be different.
The last heresy opposed to this doctrine is Tritheism
or the doctrine of three Gods. Mention is made of it
in the sixth century. It is ascribed to a person called
John Ascu«nage, a Syrian philosopher; and it was
supported by John Philoponus, a philosopher and gram
marian of Alexandria. They imagined in the Deity,
three natures or substances, equal in all respects, and
therefore held in reality that there were three Gods. I
find this doctrine revived, or at least proposed as a the
ory well worthy of attention, in a Calm and Sober In-
quiry concerning the possibility of a Trinity in the
Godhead, published anonymously in the end of the
seventeenth century.* The substance of itis, that the
three persons in the Godhead are three distinct uncrea
ted Spirits mysteriously conjoined so as to be one.
" There is a spiritual created Being," says the author,
" an human soul confessed to be in hypostatical union
with the uncreated Spiritual Being of God — in the per
son of the Son. Why shall it be thought less possi
ble, that three uncreated Spiritual Beings may be in so
near an union with each other as to be one God, as that
a created spirit (and body too) should be in so near
union with one of the persons in the Godhead only, as
therewith to be one person ? Will it not hereby be
much more easily apprehensible, how one of the per
sons (as the common way of speaking is) should be
incarnate, and not the other two? Will not the notion
of person itself be much more unexceptionable, when
it shall be supposed to have its own individual nature ?
And why is a natural, eternal union of uncreated na
tures (with continuing distinction, or without confu
sion) sufficient unto the unity of the Godhead, less sup
posable than a temporal contracted union with a created
nature (without confusion too) that shall be sufficient
to the unity of a person ? Will it be any thing more
contrary to such simplicity of the Divine nature as is
necessarily to be ascribed thereto ? or will it be Trithe
ism, and inconsistent with the acknowledged inviola
ble unity of the Godhead ?" It is unnecessary to ex
amine this passage ; but it must be obvious to you all,
that the charge of Tritheism, to which it is liable, is
not repelled by asserting that the union is so close a9
to constitute the three natures, one ; for three Divine
natures, however intimately conjoined in counsel and
operation, retain their individuality, and consequently
are three Gods.
It would be tedious to enter into a minute detail of
the objections to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to
give answers to them. I shall conient myself with
adverting to two or three of a general nature.
First, the great argument of the opponents of this
doctrine is, that it is inconsistent with the unity of
God, which is so clearly taught in the Scriptures.
But, while passages are collected which declare that
God is one, it should not be forgotten that there are
other passages which point out a plurality of persons,
and in particular, give the name of God to the Son, and
the Holy Spirit, without qualifying its meaning, and
ascribe to them Divine perfections, and Divine works.
Hence we are reduced to this alternative, either that
the Scriptures contradict themselves, and therefore are
not inspired, or that there is some mode of reconciling
their different statements, that God is one, and yet is
more than one. The only mode of reconciling them is
the doctrine which has been illustrated ; the doctrine
of one Divine essence with personal distinctions. De
ny it, and the Bible is one of the strangest books in
the world, at perpetual variance with itself, establish
ing one thing in one page, and another thing in anotb.-

Trionymos, three-named.

* The Author was the celebrated non-conformist, John Howe.
See the edition of his whok Works by Hunt, 1822, vol. iv.

ON GOD: THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

er, affirming and retracting with the same breath. Ad
mit the doctrine in question, and the appearance of dis
cordance vanishes ; the Bible is a consistent, but mys
terious, revelation of the incomprehensible Jehovah.
If you ask what is the nexus, the connecting link of
the two doctrines in question ? I confess my utter ina
bility to point it out, any farther than by saying that
the essence is one ; but I add, that my ignorance, or
the ignorance of any other man, is not a proof that to
harmonize them is impossible, till it is proved that his
understanding, or mine, is the measure of truth, or that
a thing cannot be unless wa perceive how it is.
This leads me to a second objection against the doc
trine of the Trinity, that it is contrary to reason ; for
what can be more repugnant to its clearest dictates,
than to affirm that the same Being is one and three ?
This objection proceeds, in some cases, from a designed,
and in others, from an unintentional, misrepresentation
of the doctrine. If we should assert that God is one
and three in the same respect ; that he has one nature
and three natures, or one person and three persons, it
would be impossible to utter a more palpable contra
diction. But when we say that God is one in respect
of his essence, but three in respect of some unknown
distinction in his essence, I do not see that we can be
justly charged with maintaining a contradictory propo
sition. There is but one God,T>ecause there is but one
Divine essence ; but there may be three distinctions in
his essence of which we can form no conception, and
to which there is nothing analogous in our nature, or in
that of any other creature. Some men do not hesitate
to pronounce that this is impossible ; but I appeal to
you — Who have reason on their side, those who deter
mine what is, or is not, in God by their own idras, or
those who humbly think that the perfect knowlerfge of
an infinite Being is too high for them ? As the eye has
its prescribed range, and although adequate to the pur
poses of life, cannot discern objects in the moon and
stars ; so reason is able to discover the existence of
God, but was not intended to scrutinize the mysteries
of his nature. To maintain that a doctrine is contrary
to reason, because it is above it, is to forget its limited
capacity ; it is to constitute it the standard of all truths,
while it ought to judge of those alone to which its
power is commensurate. It is to place God and man
upon a level. What man can comprehend, God may
possess, but nothing more ; no property, no act, no
counsel, must be ascribed to him, which man had not
previously conceived, or cannot now understand. We
comprehend nothing, not the generation of an animal,
the growth of a plant, the cohesion of a pebble ; and
yet there are disputers who cavil at the Trinity, and
other dogmas of revelation, because they are not shaped
according to the rule and square of reason.
In the last place, it is objected that the doctrine of
the Trinity is a speculative point, which has no influ
ence upon practical religion, and is, therefore, unworthy
of attention. This senseless cant we often bear in ref
erence to several of the peculiar doctrines of the gos
pel, which the ill-affected endeavour to bring into dis
credit, by representing them as useless. But from those
who so freely indulge in this style, we have a right to
demand proof instead of confident assertions. Can
they shew that the doctrine of the Trinity is a mere
speculation ? It serves one good purpose by reminding
us of the weakness of our faculties, and thus promot
ing a spirit of humility. Here is a fact remote from
human apprehension, at which reason is confounded,
and yet it is true. It increases our reverence for God,
as a Being infinitely exalted above our conceptions, to
whom none can be compared in heaven or in earth, and
the mode of whosp pxistenre is pnveloped in impene
trable darkness. To these considerations it must be
aided, that, without the knowledge of this doctrine, it
is impossible to understand the grandest of the works

159
of God, Redemption, in which the three persons act
distinct and conspicuous parts. We are called to con
template the love of the Father, the condescension of
the Son, and the gracious operations of the Spirit. Re
demption is not the work of a solitary agent, but of
three, all concurring in the salvation of our perishing
race. Hence we owe gratitude to each of the persons
of the Godhead distinctly, and are bound to give, to
each, the glory to which he is entitled. We are bap
tized in their name, and consecrated to their service;
and our prayers are addressed, not to God absolutely
considered, but to the Father, through the Son, and
by the assistance of the Holy Ghost. It appears,
therefore, that the Christian system of duty is founded
upon this doctrine, and that without the belief of it
there can be no acceptable religion. So far is it from
being useless, that it is the very foundation of practical
piety. In a word, this doctrine furnishes an argument
for union among the disciples of Christ. Reflecting
that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are one in essence,
one in love, one in counsel, one in working, how strongly
they are incited to cultivate peace, and friendship, and
brotherly communion ! And then the prayer of their
great Master will be answered, " that they all may be
one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they
also may be one in us ; that the world may believe that
thou hast sent me."*

LECTURE XXX.
ON THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.
Introductory Remarks— Observations on the general Language
of Scripture respecting Christ — Evidence of his Pre-exis
tence — His Divinity inferred from the ascription to him of
the title, God ; Instances.
The result of our observations on the doctrine of the
Trinity, is that there are three persons in the Divine
essence, or that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are
the same in substance, and equal in power and glory.
The inference is so obvious as not to require to be
pointed out to any person of common capacity, that
each of them is truly and properly God ; for it is evi
dent from the oneness of their nature, that, in this re
spect, there can be no difference. If we have succeeded
in the proof that a Trinity is revealed in the Scriptures,
we might proceed without delay to other subjects;
fully assured that he who redeemed us with his blood,
and he who is the Author of our holiness and consola
tion, are not to be ranked among creatures, but are en
titled to the same religious honour which, by the con
sent of all, is due to the Father. But there are vari
ous considerations which point out the propriety of sus
pending our progress, and engaging in a more minute
inquiry into the divinity of the Son and the Spirit.
The deity of our Saviour will be the subject of this and
some other lectures ; and I request your attention to
the following preliminary remarks.
First, The divinity of Christ is a fundamental arti
cle of our religion. No question which may come un
der our notice is of greater importance and interest than
this, whether the founder of Christianity is God or man,
the Creator or a creature ? It does not relate to a sub
ordinate circumstance, but to the very essence of the
religion, and the whole system is affected in whatso
ever way it is decided. Those who believe Jesus
Christ to be God, and those who maintain that he is
only a human being, profess two religions totally dif
ferent, as it were easy to show by a detail of particu
lars ; they disagree in every thing, even in those arti
cles which both verbally acknowledge, because they
* John xvii. 21.

160

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

do not entertain the same views of them, and they hold
them upon different grounds. The adversaries of his
divinity are more allied to Jews and Mahometans, than
to those who are usually denominated Christians; and
to give them this name, is a misapplication of it equal
ly gross as it would be to call him a Newtonian, who
denied gravitation, or him a Cartesian, who laughed at
the doctrine of vortices. Dr. Priestley was highly of
fended at David Levi, the Jew, for telling him, that
when he looked into the New Testament,°he clearly
saw that Jesus of Nazareth was represented there as
God, and that, for this reason, he could not consider
the Doctor as a Christian. But Levi was right, and
the reply of Priestley, that every man is a Christian
who acknowledges Jesus to be the Messiah, was fee
ble and ineffectual ; for the Evangelists and Apostles
teach, that he was not only the Messiah, but the Son of
the Living God.
Secondly, The divinity of Christ is a doctrine of
great practical influence. Nothing is more common
with some men, than to represent certain doctrines as
speculative points, as subjects merely of curious and
unprofitable inquiry, with a view to lesson our respect
for them, and to prepare the way for the easy reception
of the opposite errors. We might say to them, If
they are only speculations, why are you so eager to re
fute them? Why do you not allow us quietly to hold
our harmless belief? Their zeal betrays them, and
shews that they regard these points as much more im
portant than they find it expedient to confess. But,
besides the irreverence and impiety of such language,
when used in reference to any thing which is contained
in revelation, it is obviously false, although it may pro
duce the intended effect upon such persons as suffer
themselves to be imposed upon by confident assertion
and vague declamation. No man can call the divinity
of Christ a speculative point, who does not use words
at random, without attending to their meaning, or whose
understanding is raised but a few degrees above that
of a child. If Jesus Christ was only a man, it may
be our duty to remember his works with admiration,
and his benevolent labours for the good of mankind
with gratitude ; but how feeble are these emotions, in
comparison of the high and holy affections which will
be excited by the belief of his Godhead ! On the sup
position that he is God, he is entitled to our supreme
regard, to love not inferior in strength to that of which
the Father is the object : we ought to repose unreserv
ed and unshaken confidence upon him, committing to
his care, for time and eternity, our bodies and our souls ;
we owe a respect to him which no prophet could claim,
and are bound to receive his doctrines upon_ his own
testimony, and to obey his commands solely in consid
eration of his authority. In a word, upon the question
of his divinity it depends, whether we shall honour
him with religious worship, or merely with civil re
spect; for nothing higher is due to the person of a cre
ated being, with whatever office he is invested, and
with whatever qualifications he is furnished. To a
Saviour who is God, we may offer up prayers, interces
sions, and thanksgivings ; but if he is only a man, the
worship which he has received from his followers in
every age since the days of the apostles is idolatry,
and thousands of the best and holiest men whom the
world ever saw, have gone down into the grave under
the ffuilt of this damnable sin. _
Lastly, the divinity of our Saviour is a controverted
point; although admitted by the great body of Chris
tians, it has been impugned by various individuals and
sects It would be tedious to enumerate the opinions
respecting the person of Christ, which were propaga
ted fn the%arly ages of the Church. Truth is one, but
error is infinite ; for, having no fixed standard to regu-
?ate its conclusions, it runs into as many wild and fan-
Sic forms as the imaginations and wayward reason-

ings of men of corrupt minds may devise. The her
etics of former times, disputed among themselves con
cerning the rank and dignity which ought to be assign
ed to Jesus Christ; but in one thing they all agreed,
that he was inferior to the Father, and could be called
God only in a subordinate sense. His divinity is still
denied by the Jews, who have renounced the faith of
their ancestors, and maintain, that as there is one God,
so there is but one person in the Godhead. It is de
nied by Mahometans, who acknowledge him to be a
prophet,. but nothing more, inferring from the doctrine
of the Unity, which they lay down as the fundamental
article of their religion, that there is no distinction in
the Divine Essence, and that God reigns without an
equal or a Son. It is denied by those among ourselves
who were formerly called Socinians, from Socinus ihe
founder of their sect, one of the boldest blasphemers
that ever appeared, but who now assume the name of
Unitarians, to express the nature of their doctrine. It
signifies believers in one God, and in this sense they
mean it to be understood ; but it is unjust and arrogant
to. appropriate this name to themselves, since ihey well
know that, on this head, our creed is equally precise.
Their design is to exhibit Trinitarians as holding a plu
rality of Gods, although the latter disavow the charge;
and to persuade the world, that, of all Christians, they
alone adhere to the first principle of natural and reveal
ed religion. But we are all Unitarians, and assent to
the truth solemnly inculcated upon the peculiar people,
" Hear, O Israel, Jehovah thy God is one Jehovah."
The only condition on which we will agree to Gall the
followers of Socinus exclusively Unitarians is, that the
name shall be understood by all parties, to denote be-
lievejs in only one person in the Godhead. The doc
trine W those who lay claim to it is, that Jesus Christ
was a mere man, the Son of Joseph and -Mary, who
was commissioned by God to teach morality, and to
reveal clearly a future state, and that, having sealed his
testimony with his blood, he rose from the grave to
give us the hope of immortality. This is the sum of
their Christianity ; and as it differs little from what is
called Natural Religion, it seems to be a matter of no
importance whether a man be a Unitarian or an infidel.
There is reason to suspect that this pernicious doctrine
has spread beyond the boundaries of the sect by which
it is openly avowed : that it has found its way into
churches professedly orthodox, and is taught by unprin
cipled men, who have solemnly pledged themselves to
preach a different faith. To these adversaries of our
Saviour's Divinity I might add Arians, who allow that
he is more than a man, but maintain, that he is a crea
ture, notwithstanding the magnificent titles with which
they honour him, and the high functions which they
represent him as performing. This sect was once pre
dominant, but it gradually declined, and is now almost
extinct. It has still adherents, but they are few in
number; the greater part of those who had rejected the
proper Deity of Christ, having sunk into the lowest
depths of Socinianism.
In opposition to these heresies, we affirm that our
Saviour is a Divine Person in the strict sense of the
term ; that he is God by nature, and not merely by title
or office ; that in the words of Paul, he is " God over
all, blessed for ever."- This proposition I shall en
deavour to establish. As the Divinity of Christ is a
doctrine of pure revelation, unassisted reason can give
us no aid, and we must have recourse to the Scriptures
for the only evidence by which it can be proved.
Before entering upon the direct proof of this most
important truth, I would call your attention to the gen
eral language of the Scriptures concerning our Saviour,
to which I formerly alluded in speaking of the Trinity.
We have heard a Jew affirming, that the impressio i
made upon himself and his brethren by reading tin
New Testament was, that Jesus is there represent-

ON GOD: THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

161

ed, as not only greater than a man, but as a Divine
Person; and there is no doubt that every individual,
who was not pre-occupied with the contrary idea, and
thus prepared to explain away the strongest expres
sions, would rise from the perusal of it with the same
conviction. This is virtually confessed by Unitarians,
when they are at so much pains to soften terms and
phrases, and to put a meaning upon them the most re
mote imaginable from the obvious import of the words ;
for their elaborate criticism would be altogether un
necessary, if the sacred writings had not the appear
ance of teaching the doctrine, which they are so
anxious to disprove. It is admitted that the Scrip
tures often describe our Redeemer as a man ; and if this
were all, there would be no controversy among chris
tians respecting his person ; but it is certain that they
give names and titles, and ascribe attributes and opera
tions to him, which are applied to the Supreme Being
both in the Old and in the New Testament. Now we de
mand from our opponents a satisfactory account of this
strange phenomenon. If the Evangelists and Apos
tles knew that he was a man like themselves, why
have they indulged in descriptions of his character,
calculated to create a very different idea ? It is vain
to tell us of oriental idioms, and rhetorical figures ; be
cause the question recurs, Why did they make use of
such figures and idioms in composing books, which
were designed to instruct the nations of the west as
well as of the east? They could not but be sensible,
that such language was fitted to mislead ; why did
they not avoid it? . Did they use words at random? or
were they careless of the < ffect ? Not to say that such
a supposition sets aside their inspiration, it would far
ther prove them to have been totally incompetent for
the task, which they undertook, of giving to the world
the true history of Christ and his religion. One pro
fessed object of their writings and their preaching was
to reclaim mankind from idolatry; and was it the
proper method of gaining this end, to talk of their
Master in such a hyperbolical style, as was calculated
to make men believe that he is a God, and has actual
ly led thousands and millions into this error ; so that,
if they have succeeded in abolishing one species of
idolatry, by their unguarded manner of expressing
themselves they have established another, and the Son
of Mary has been, ever since, associated with the Crea
tor of the Universe as the object of religions worship?
Unitarians have asserted, that the doctrine of the Di
vinity of Christ was borrowed from the Platonic philo
sophy by some of the early Fathers, and introduced un
der their authority into the church. But instead ofre-
sortino- to this foreign source, we can account for its
adoption in a more simple and natural way. The Fa
thers themselves tell us that they derived it from the
Scriptures, and appeal to them for the proof of it. No
person can be at a loss to know where this doctrine,
whether true or false, was found. If the immediate
followers of our Saviour did not mean to teach it, they
have been most unfortunate ; for the great body of
Christians for eighteen centuries have, been fully per
suaded that, they have taught it ; and we ask, what oth
er method they could have taken, what other terms
they could have chosen, if it had been really their de
sign to persuade us of his Deity ?
According to Unitarians, Jesus Christ was only a
prophet. It is admitted that he was superior to Moses ;
but Moses, it is acknowledged, was next to him, no
individual in the long succession of prophets being
worthy to be compared with the man by whose ministry
the law was given to the Israelites : and by that peo
ple he was held in the highest veneration. Yet, in re
ference to him no such language is used as is frequent
ly applied to our Lord. He is never called the " Son
of God," and " God over all ;" he is never said to have
"created the world," and to "uphold all things by the
V 11

word of his power." Greatly as the Jews reverenced
him, and zealous as they were for his honour, they
would have accounted it blasphemy to speak of him
in this manner. They never thought of deifyino- and
worshipping him : they regarded him as the greatest
of men, but still as merely a man. The reason is obvi
ous. There is not a single sentence in his own writ
ings, or in the other books of the Old Testament, which
would lead them to entertain a more exalted idea of
him. Why does the New Testament speak so differ
ently ? Why does it elevate Jesus, not only above the
prophets, to whom it is granted lhathe was superior, but
above angels and all created beings ? Why does the style
change, when he is the subject ? Is it possible to ac
count for the new train of expressions, if he was only
a man like Moses, although possessed of higher quali
fications? Will this difference, which does not af
fect his person or nature, justify the inspired writers in
portraying him with the prerogatives and attributes of
Godhead? It is impossible that any person of judg
ment and candour can think so. We are unavoidably
led to suspect that there is some more substantial rea
son. In short, we are compelled to this conclusion,
either that the Evangelists and Apostles were fools
who knew not what they were saying, or that they
were verily persuaded 'that their Master, although a
partaker of the same flesh and blood with themselves,
possessed a superior nature, to which all perfection
belonged. They described him as God, because they
believed him to be God ; and in this belief they could
not be mistaken, because it was founded upon a long
and intimate acquaintance with him, and upon informa
tion which they had received from himself.
These general observations upon the language of the
New Testament, furnish at least, a strong presumption
in favour of the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ.
The argument, indeed, is conclusive, if the authority
of the Sacred writers be admitted in matters of this
kind, and it appear that they give such an account of
our Saviour, as can be true only on the hypothesis that
he is God as well as man. Let us proceed to con
sider, more particularly, what is their testimony con
cerning him.
Unitarians maintain, that our Saviour began to be
when he was born or was conceived in the womb of
his mother, like another man, who prior to that period
existed only in the elements of his being. But on
looking into the Scriptures, we meet with many pas
sages which obviously imply his pre-existence. I ap
peal to those texts which represent him as " having
come down from heaven," "having come from above,"
" having come forth from the Father, and come into
the world."* "To come into the world," simply de
notes being born, and the phrase is used in reference to
men in general ; but " to come forth from the Father,
and come into the world," is different, and implies ex
istence with the Father prior to his birth. Having
been first with the Father, he afterwards entered into
the habitation or the society of men, not by a change
of place, but by the assumption of their nature. We
would not tolerate such language from any other per
son, and should think the man insane who should say,
I came forth from God, and am come into the world.
It would be natural to ask, How were you with God
before you were born? The phrases coming from above,
and coming down from heaven, are determinate; they
obviously import, that our Lord had his residence
above, or in heaven, before he manifested himself in
the flesh. It is acknowledged, that when blessings
are said to come from above, nothing more is meant
than that God is their Author; and the reason of such
phraseology is, that as the Scriptures always speak of
a local heaven, it is natural to represent the gifts of his
* John iii. 13, 31; vi. 38; xvi. 28.

162

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

bounty as descending from it. But to say that a per
son came down from heaven, merely because he was a
messenger from God, would be apt to mislead us by
giving a false idea of his origin, and would not be
conformable to the language of Scripture on similar
occasions ; for we no where find the expression ap
plied to the mission of any other person. It is not
said that Moses, or Elijah, or the Baptist, came down
from heaven. Since, then, Christ alone is spoken of
in this manner, there must be a peculiar reason for it ;
and what can it be but his prior existence? He has
himself settled the meaning by his words to the Jews,
who were offended at his calling himself, the living
bread that came down from heaven. " What if ye
shall see the Son of man ascend up where, he was be
fore ?"* As we know that he really ascended to heaven
there can be no doubt that he really descended from it.
The pre-existence of our Saviour is evidently implied
in the phrase " to come in the flesh," which we find in
the first epistle of John.f It is not simply expressive
of his participation of human nature, but of his assump
tion of it. It signifies an act by which he became
man, and necessarily supposes the possession of an
other nature by which that act was performed ; as, when
it is said of a man that he came in state, or came in
disguise, it is intimated that he was previously a living
agent capable of choice. Let the same expression be
used concerning any other person, and see what would
follow. Were we told that some one had come in the
flesh, preaching a new religion, we should immediately
ask, what does this mean ? He has come in the flesh ;
couid he have come in any other way ? Was it in his
power to come without flesh ? Might he have appeared
as an angel ? Does it depend upon men themselves
whether they shall be men, or beings of a different or
der ? These questions, which would be perfectly natu
ral in any other case, are proper in the present; and
the only satisfactory answer to them is, that Jesus
Christ did exist before bis incarnation, and had power
to take, or not to take, the nature of man. It could not
have been said, that he came in the flesh, if, like all
other human beings, he had been made man without
his consent and without his knowledge.
. The next passage to which I shall direct your atten
tion, is in the Gospel of John. " In the beginning was
the Word, o xoyo;, and the Word was with God, and the
Word Was God. The same was in the beginning with
God."i; The word a.px»> here translated the beginning,
signifies the commencement of any period or series of
actions; but here, I apprehend, it denotes elernily,'be-
cause it appears from the context to have preceded the
creation. In the same sense it is used in the eighth
chapter of the Proverbs, where wisdom says, " I was
set up from everlasting, from the beginning, ere ever
the earth was ;"|| according to the Septuagint, » a.px»
a-fo tou thv ym 7romo-m.% It is enough, however, for our
present purpose, that the beginning is anterior to the
appearance of our Saviour upon earth. That he is the
hoyot, there can be no doubt with any person who reads
the following verses, in which the xoyoc is described as
the true light to which John was sent to bear witness,
and John was the forerunner of Christ. Unitarians,
indeed, give us a view of the passage which would de
prive us of an argument from it for the pre-existence
of our Lord. According to them, " the beginning" is
the commencement of his ministry. In this berinnino-,
he was with God, that is, as the older Socinians said,
he was taken up into heaven to be instructed in the will
of God ; or, as the moderns say, he withdrew from the
world to converse with God in retirement. It ought to
be observed that the Evangelist affirms, in a solemn
* John vi. 62. f Chap. iv. 2, 3. J Chap. i. 1, 2.
|| Prov. viii. 23.
( In the beginning, before the formation of the earth.

manner, and repeats the affirmation, not only that the
Word was with God, but that he was or existed ; or, in
other words, he affirms that Jesus Christ, the Author
of the new dispensation, existed at the commencement
of that dispensation. An important piece of intelli
gence truly ! which we should not have known, if his
beloved disciple and familiar friend had not been pleased
to inform us, that Jesus Christ was in being when he
began to preach. Can any man believe that an inspired
Apostle was guilty of such trifling? Do Unitarian
commentators believe it themselves? No; but this
perversion of the sense serves the purpose, of support
ing their favourite doctrine, that our Saviour did not
exist till he was born.
Another passage in the Gospel of John is worthy of
particular attention. Our Saviour had said to the Jews,
" Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day ; and he
saw it, and was glad." They said unto him, "Thou
art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abra
ham ?" He had not asserted that he had seen Abraham,
or that Abraham had seen him, but only his day; but
his hearers understood him to speak of co-existence
with the patriarch ; and as this interpretation of his
words was just, he confirmed it: " Verily, verily, I
say unto you, before Abraham was, I am."* There is
a striking peculiarity in these words, and an apparent
violation of grammar, the present time being put before
the past. The reason may be, that the Speaker, in his
Divine nature, exists in a mysterious manner ; that time
is nothing to him, in whose sight a thousand years are
as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the
night; that in this permanent, unsuccessive duration,
there is no distinction of past and future.. Be this as
it may, the words clearly import, that although our
Lord was not fifty years old, and about two thousand
years had elapsed since the death of Abraham, he
might have seen, and had actually seen him, for he was
in existence before the patriarch was, was made, or was
born ; for in all these ways the verb >s«o-8«; has been
translated, and any ot them expresses its meaning.
Strange methods have been employed to evade the evi
dence of this text. The elder Socinians gave this in
terpretation : " I am or exist before Abraham is made. ;"
that is, before he.who was originally called Abram a high
father, shall become truly Abraham the father of many
nations, or before the calling of the Gentiles. Was
this an answer to the objection of the Jews ? Could it
serve any purpose for Christ to affirm with emphasis
of himself, what was equally true of every person who
heard him ? for they all existed before the gospel was
preached to the nations of the world. Contemptible
as this evasion is, Socinus tells us that his uncle Lse-
lius obtained this view of the text from Christ himself
by many prayers. Justly might one of his contempo
raries say to him, that never in the course of his life
had he met with a more perverted interpretation of
Scripture. The modern Socinians give a different com
ment. ' Before Abraham was, I may be said to have
existed as the Messiah, because I was appointed to this
office by the Divine decree ;' and they have the coun
tenance of Grotius. It seems, then, that things may
be said fo exist thousands of years before they exist,
because God has determined to bring them to pass. I
may say that I existed before the flood, and we may
all say that we existed from eternity ; but it will be
wise to refrain from such language, if we wish to es
cape the charge of folly or insanity. Again I ask, how
was this answer to the purpose? What light did it
throw upon the subject of discourse ? How did it
meet the inquiry of the Jews ? What did our Lord
affirm of himself, which was not true of every other
prophet ? But taking the words in their plain, natural
meaning, they are an answer to the question, Hast

* John viii. 56 — 58.

ON GOD : THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

163

.hou seen Abraham ? Yes, I have seen him, for I was
before him.
I shall mention only one other passage ; " And now,
O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the
glory which I had with thee before the world was."*
In this passage, our Lord speaks of glory in reference
to the future and the past. He refers to the future,
when he prays that his Father would now glorify him,
that is, after his sufferings ; he refers to the past, when
he says that hehad glory with the Father before the world
began. The import of the prayer is, that his original
glory might be manifested in a particular manner, or
after a temporary obscuration. We have here an an
swer to an objection, that Christ cannot be conceived
to pray for the same state of glory which, on the sup
position of his pre-existence, he enjoyed before his hu
miliation, because it had never been lost. But it had
been concealed from the eyes of men by his voluntary
abasement, and it would be displayed in a new light,
by his exaltation in our nature to the throne of the uni-
verse,,and by the result of his administration in the
perfection and eternal happiness of his people. Uni
tarians, and some others, have held that this, as well
as the former passage, refers to the Divine decrees,
and understand "the glory which he had with the Fa
ther before the world was," to be the glory which the
Father had purposed to confer upon him. But the
same reasoning may be opposed to both interpretations.
Things future are sometimes represented as present,
larticularly in the prophetical style ; but it is contrary
to the laws of language, especially in a narrative of
facts, to describe things present, or on the eve of ac
complishment, as having taken place many ages be
fore. How would it sound if a good man, who had
the hope of immortality, should say, I was glorified in
the presence of God, before I or any created being ex
isted ? Let us not put words into the mouth of our
Saviour which would be extravagant and absurd if ut
tered by any other person.
The pre-existence of Christ is sufficiently established
by the passages quoted ; and the Unitarian doctrine of
his simple humanity is proved to be unscriptural. But
more is necessary to demonstrate his divinity. Arians
allow that he existedbeforehis manifestation in human
nature, but they do not admit that he is God in the prop
er sense' of the term. The doctrine of the founder of
the sect was, that there was a time when Christ was
not, and that he was created before all worlds. They
have this advantage, that they are not under the neces
sity of explaining away, by dishonest criticism, many
passages which press upon the Unitarian system.
They can understand literally those texts which we
have considered, and say without equivocation or men
tal reservation, that Christ was with God in the begin
ning, and had glory with him before the foundation of
the world ; that he existed before Abraham ; that he
came down from heaven, and came in the flesh. Those
things, which are affirmed of him, are strictly true ac
cording to their system, which is more plausible than
that of Socinians, and thus far agrees with the plain
meaning of Scripture. It is therefore surprising that
so many of its friends should have abandoned it, and
adopted the doctrine of the simple humanity of Christ,
which is embarrassed with so many additional difficul
ties. An Arian can not only go along with the Scrip
tures, when they assert that our Lord existed before
his incarnation, but can give him the high titles which
he receives, and ascribe to him the mighty works which
are there represented as having been performed by him.
He does not hesitate to say that the Son created the
world, and appeared to the patriarchs, and governed the
Church under the old dispensation ; nor to call him the
image of the invisible God, and the first-born of every

* John xvii. 5.

creature, the brightness of the Father's glory, and the
express image of his person. He can use such lan
guage with a nearer approximation to the truth than a
Socinian, who is compelled to fritter it away into mere
inanity; to reduce the pompous display of metaphors
and similes into humble and creeping sense. Yet the
distance between us and Arians is immense. This
Being, whom they portray in such magnificent terms,
is a creature superior to angels, but alike indebted for
his existence to the will and power of the Almighty,
a God not by nature, but by office. In the following
discussion, therefore, we shall have to contend with
them as well as with Unitarians, while we endeavour
to prove, in opposition to both, that Jesus Christ is tru
ly and properly a Divine Person, a partaker of the
same nature with the Father, and possessed of all his
perfections. In prosecuting this design, I might go over the Scrip
tures in regular order, selecting such information as
they supply with respect to his personal dignity. It
would not be necessary to confine your attention to the
New Testament, because the Old is a part of the same
revelation, and amidst its notices and predictions may
be expected to give us some knowledge of his charac
ter, as well as of the work which he had undertaken
to accomplish. But this method would be tedious, and
would require more time than can be allotted to this
department of our course. There is a classification of
the proofs which we may commodiously adopt, because
it is a comprehensive one, and, arranging them under
distinct heads, leads the mind, by a clear and succes
sive induction, to the conclusion. Jesus Christ is
proved to be God equal to the Father, by the ascription
of the same names, and perfections, and works and
worship to him.
In the first place, Let us attend to the Divine names
which are given to him in the Scriptures. That he is
called, God, is so well known, that it is almost super
fluous to produce particular passages. Now, it is ac
knowledged, that the name is sometimes given to crea
tures, to magistrates and angels ; and Moses is said to
have been a god to Pharaoh.* In the latter case, the
meaning evidently is that Moses was in the rdbm of
God to Pharaoh, delivered God's commands to him,
and denounced his judgments. The name, as we shall
see, is used concerning Christ in a quite different man
ner. It may be observed, that when creatures are call
ed gods, we are led to a figurative sense, not only by
the plural number — which shews that their real divini
ty cannot be meant, because it is a fundamental doc
trine of religion that there is only one — but by some
adjunct or circumstance which qualifies the term ;
whereas in its application to our Saviour, the laws of
just reasoning require it to be literally understood. If
it is said to earthly princes, " Ye are gods," it is ad
ded in the same breath, " but ye shall die like men ;"-f-
and when angels are addressed as gods, they are at the
same time commanded to acknowledge their inferiority
by worshipping the first-begotten of the Father :X but
the Godhead of our Saviour is expressed in such terms,
and associated with such attributes and operations, as
demonstrate it to be absolute.
" The Word was God."|| He was made a God, say
the Socinians ; but the deification of a creature is a no
tion which receives no countenance from Scripture, and
it may be pronounced- to be impossible. How was it
done? Was a divine nature given to him? or were
divine perfections communicated to him ? Not a
word of these things is to be found in the Bible, and
either supposition is grossly absurd. How could a
man be changed into a God ? or how could a limited
nature be endowed with omniscience and omnipotence ?

* Exod. vii, 1. f Ps. Ixxxii. G, 7.
} Compare Ps. xcvii. 7. with Heb. i. 6. || John i. I.

164

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

Modern Socinians translate the passage thus, The word
was a God; but how strange is it to the ears of chris
tians to sipeak of more Gods than one, as if, like the
heathens, we had subordinate deities ! No ; they say,
our meaning is that he is a figurative god, like magis
trates and Moses. Besides that, in the following
verses, the Evangelist ascribes to him a work which is
peculiar to the true God, namely, the creation of all
things,* the original does not admit of this translation.
©so,-, they reply, is without the article, and ought there
fore to be rendered a God. But the idiom of the
Greek language is violated, and scholars know, that
while the subject of a proposition admits, the predicate
rejects, the article, and that the proposition, "The
Word was God," could have been expressed only as it
is, 6kj »v 'o \oyo;. It is evident, that although Bios stands
first in order, it is the predicate of the sentence, and de
notes what 'o xoyo;, the subject, is. This criticism, then,
proves only the ignorance of those who have made it.
" Unto the Son" he saith, Thy throne, 0 God, is for
ever and ever."f To evade the evidence of this text,
Unitarians tell us that it may be translated, " God is
thy throne ;" because the words rendered 0 God, are
not a Gk, in the vocative, but 'o©»t, in the nominative.
They ought to have remembered, that this is a Greek
idiom, and that in the Attic dialect, the nominative is
frequently put for the vocative. God is said to be a
shield, a rock, and a fortress to his people, and as in
these cases it is signified that he protects and defends
them, there is nothing inconsistent with his dignity and
supremacy. " But it is the reverse in the case before
us. A throne," it has been justly remarked, "derives
its dignity from the character and dominion of the so
vereign who sits upon it. To call the Eternal Majes
ty the throne of a creature," as the Messiah is suppos
ed to be, " seems little suitable to the reverence which
is ever to be maintained towards the Creator, and which
is one of the most distinguishing characters of the
Scripture style.":): The design of the Apostle, in quot
ing these words of the Psalmist, is to prove the superi
ority of Christ to the heavenly messengers. He be
gins well, by shewing that God makes the winds his
messengers, and flames of fire his ministers, thus re
ducing angels to the condition of servants ; but he does
not end well, if he say only that God is the throne of
Christ, or the support of his authority. Where is the
contrast ? If he has given power to our Saviour, and
upholds him in the exercise of it, he has done the
same thing to angels and other ministers of his will ;
and how does his pre-eminence appear ? If we read,
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," the point
is decided, for he is God, and they are creatures; but
the new translation destroys the force of the argument,
and must therefore be false. The ancient versions
agree with ours ; and as far as I know, the new transla-
lation was not thought of till modern times, when argu
ments against the divinity of Christ were eagerly sought
and collected from every quarter. We may rest satis
fied that this is another passage in which our Saviour
is called, God, in the proper sense of the term.
The Apostle Paul, when enumerating the privileges
and honours of the Jews, thus expresses the last and
greatest of them : — "And of whom, as concerning the
flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for
ever. Amen."|| This single passage furnishes a de
cisive answer to the question respecting the divinity of
our Saviour. The adversaries of this doctrine, fully
aware that it is fatal to their system, have tried every
possible method of destroying its force. " Of whom
Christ came, ' 'o w urn nunm eeoc.§ 'O uv connects 0»c
with Xf/o-Tot, and is used for cc ktti. To evade this
evidence that he is God, they have proposed a differ-

i * John i. 3. t Heb. i. 8.
X Dr. Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, Book
i. c. 4. } 14, || Rom. ix. 5. j Who being (i. e. is) God overall.

ent reading, 'ut 'o — of whom, namely, the Jews, is God
over all ; that is, he is their God. But besides that, if
this were the genuine reading, the article must, by the
laws of the language, have been prefixed to tuxoymo;,
('« 'o em a-avTOT ©so; o axoyxTos* ) which it is not ; the al
teration is made without the authority of a single manu
script, in order to silence the testimony of Scripture in
favor of a particular doctrine. It is a mere conjecture,
which Griesbach has mentioned among bis various
readings, while it would have been more worthy of
him to have passed it over with contempt. We have
said more than enough of it, and proceed to another at
tempt to annihilate the evidence, by converting the
words into a doxology ; as if the Apostle, while review
ing the instances of divine goodness to his nation, had
felt the spirit of devotion arise, and burst forth into an
expression of praise, " God over all be blessed for
ever!" It is an overwhelming objection, that the
words cannot be so translated without a violation of the
idiom of the language. In all the doxologies where
tvxcyy.Tc; occurs in the New Testament and in the Sep-
tuagint, (and more than forty instances have been ob
served,) it is placed at the beginning of the sentence.
If, then, Paul had intended a doxology, he would have
said, wxeyyiTcc. *o m tm nutTm ©eoc e/c tcu; a/a>va?.j- Ashe
has placed the words in a different order, they are
plainly and necessarily an affirmation concerning the
person last spoken of, namely Christ, who is pronounc
ed to be God. And yon will observe, that there is no
room for the pretext which is employed in other places,
that he may be called God in a figurative and subordi
nate sense ; because he is denominated 'o eeos erj jravTan,
the Supreme God, or the Most High God over all the
earth. That he may and ought to be so designated,
will be readily admitted by those who believe, and en
tertain just notions of, the Trinity ; for if the nature is
the same, the persons must be equal, and one of them
cannot be greater than another.
When Jesus shewed the wounds in his hands and
his feet, Thomas said unto him, " My Lord, and my
God.":): We are told that this was merely a sudden
expression of surprise and admiration. But to use the
name of God on such occasions is profane ; it is the prac
tice of irreligious men, and would not have been imi
tated by a follower of Christ in the presence of his Mas
ter; or if he had inadvertently fallen into it, he would
not have passed without reprehension. We have no
evidence from the Scriptures that the Jews indulged in
such exclamations, although they are too common
among Christians. It has been said again, that they
are an ejaculation addressed to the Father, " My Lord,
and my God, how great is thy power !" or, " My Lord
and my God has done this." WTe need only reply,
that according to the Evangelist the words were not
addressed to the Father, but to Christ, " Thomas said
unto him," &c. It follows that Christ was acknow
ledged by Thomas as his Lord and his God; and sure
ly if he had been in an error, his Master would have
set him right.
Besides the passages which have been quoted, there
are several others in which the name of God is given to
our Saviour, but the evidence does not appear to com
mon readers, in consequence of the manner in which
they have been translated. It is a rule laid down by
some late critics, that when two or more personal or at
tributive nouns, joined by a copulative or copulatives,
are assumed of the same person or thing, before the first
attributive the article is inserted, before the remaining
ones it is omitted. It follows, that when two or more
attributives occur with the article prefixed only to the
first, they ought to be understood as referring to the
same individual. For example, if we find X/>;o-tos and
* Of whom (is) the blessed God over all.
f Blessed be he who is God over all for ever.
\ John xx. 28.

ON GOD: THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

165

But coupled by the conjunction k«* and 'o before
X/>(o-Tot, but not repeated before Bioc, we must not ex
plain them as referring to two persons but to one, and
as asserting that he who is Christ, is also God. This
canon has been established by examples from the clas
sics, frorh the New Testament, and from the Fathers ;
so that we are fully authorized to apply it for the cor
rection of some passages, in which, in consequence of
not attending to it, our translators have misrepresented
the sense. Dr. Wordsworth, who has examined the
subject with great care, says, "I have observed more, I
am persuaded, than a thousand instances of the form
*o Xfio-Toc kxi ©sot, some hundreds of instances of 'o pey*;
e«j xii iwnifyp and not fewer than several thousands of
the form 'o eeos x.su ™nf,t while in no single case have
I seen, where the sense could be determined, any one
of them used but only of one person. "|| The Fathers
are good authority, as they certainly were acquainted
with the idiom of their own language. When the same
phrases, therefore, occur in the New Testament, we
are bound to understand them as they were understood
by the Greeks. On this ground we beg leave to differ
from the received version in some texts, and to give a
translation more conformable to the original : — " Look
ing for the glorious appearing of the Great God and
our Saviour Jesus Christ,"§ ought to be, the appearing
of our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ ; tow y.eys.xov
Btov x.±i truTttpos 'apm Tho-ov Xp i&tov. " That the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye
in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord
Jesus Christ,"ir should be rendered, according to the
grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ ; tov ©sou 'h/aw
kxi Kvpiov Ijic-oi/ Xpio-Tcv. " No whoremonger — hath any in
heritance in the kingdom of Christ and of GoA,"** in the
kingdom of the Christ and God ; tv th fixa-ixesa. tov Xpio-Tou
icii 0iov. " I charge thee before God and the Lord Je
sus Christ,"]")' before the God and Lord Jesus Christ;
hamoy tcv @iov «.cli YLvpiov Imrou Xpitrnv. " Through the
righteousness of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ,"^:!:
through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus
Christ ; tov Btov 'np(.m xm o-atnipoc. ly.a-ov Xpta-Tcv. " Ungod
ly men, denyingthe only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus
Christ,"|||| denying Jesus Christ the^mly Lord and our
Lord ; tov /oooycv SttrTroTnv temt Kuploy ^p.m latrovt Xpte-Toy.
Enough has been said to prove that, according to
the New Testament, Christ is God in the true and prop
er sense of the word. But this is not the only name
expressive of his divinity, and in the next Lecture I
shall shew that he is also called Jehovah.

LECTURE XXXI.
ON THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.
Divinity of Christ inferred from the ascription to him of the
title Jehovah ; Instances — Inferred from the ascription to
him ofDivine Perfections; as Eternity, Omnipresence, Omni
science, Immutability, and Omnipotence— Inferred from the
ascription to him of Divine Works ; Instances.
I proceed to another name which is given to our Sa
viour. God revealed himself to his ancient people by
the name Jehovah, derived from the verb rpn, to be or
to subsist, and therefore signifying Ens, Existens ab
seterno et in sctemum, or the self-existent and eternal
Being. Its import shews that it cannot be given to a
creature, but is appropriated to God ; and accordingly

* Christos — Theos—kai, Christ — God— and.
T The great God and Saviour J The God and Saviour.
II Six letters to Mr. Granville Sharp, p. 36, Sec.
I Titus ii. 13. X 2 Thess. i. 12. ** Eph. ». 5.
ft 1 Tim. v. 21. }(. 2Pet.i. 1.
|||| Jude 4. The word .«¦•-, God, in our translation of this
last verse, is omitted by late critics.

he makes an exclusive claim to it in Scripture. As the
name of a man distinguishes him from all other men
so the name, Jehovah, distinguishes the Most Hio-h
from all other beings. " Seek ye him that maketh the
seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death
into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night ;
thatcalleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them
out upon the face of the earth ; Jehovah is his name."*
The Psalmist says, "That men may know that thou,
whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most High over
all the earth."t/ These passages are instances of the
exclusive ascription of tbis name to the Creator and
Governor of the universe, and prove that it is peculiar
to him. I shall, however, add one quotation more, in
which he takes it to himself, with a solemn declaration
that he will not give it, and consequently that it ought
not to' be given, to any other: "lam Jehovah; that is
my name : and my glory will I not give to another,
neither my praise to graven images.":}: It implies
something in which no other can share : the glory of
underived and independent existence belongs to no man
or angel.
Now, the argument which we found upon these pass
ages is this, that if this name is given to Jesus Christ,
he is not a created or a nominal God, but a divine per
son, distinct, it is acknowledged, from the Father, but
united with him in the same self-existent essence. It
is objected, that there are several instances in which.
this name is given to a creature. To mention one, he
who appeared to Moses in the burning bush is called
Jehovah, and yet is said to have been an angel. But
before this passage can be fairly alleged against us, it
must be proved that he was a created angel, contrary to
the belief of the Church in all ages, that this was the
same person who was afterwards manifested in human
nature as the Messenger of God, and was then the Guide
and Guardian of the peculiar people. It is objected,
that Moses called an altar which he had erected Je-
HOVAH-nissi, my banner ;]] and that when the ark was
taken up to be removed to another place, he addressed
it in these words, " Rise up, Jehovah, and let thine
enemies be scattered :" when it rested again, he said,
" Return, O Jehovah, unto the many thousands of
Israel."§ But these passages are cited to no purpope,
because it will immediately appear, that they are not
parallel to those in which our Saviour is described as
Jehovah. It is evident that inanimate objects could
be so called only in a figurative sense, and could be
considered in no other light than as memorials of him
after whom they are denominated. The altar was not
Jehovah, but was dedicated to his honour ; the ark was
merely a symbol of his presence ; and Moses addressed
his words not to it, but to Him who appeared above it,
between the cherubim. We give the same account
of the passage in Ezekiel, which says, "The name of
the city from that day shall be Jehovah is there :"f of
which the meaning obviously is, that the city shall
be the residence, of Jehovah, who will manifest his pres
ence in it by the operations of his power and grace.
The application of the name to our Saviour, suggests
totally different ideas. He is a living person, and is
throughout the Scriptures represented as possessing the
attributes, and performing the works, of God ; and
hence we are authorised to consider it as applied to him
in the true and literal sense of the term. If it is prov
ed that he is God, because he is called God, it will be
proved that he is Jehovah, if it is found that he is call
ed Jehovah without a figure.
In the sixth chapter of the prophecies of Isaiah, we
have an account of a vision in which he saw the Lord
high and lifted up, and heard the seraphim adoring
him : — " Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of Hosts ; the
* Amos v. 8. f Ps. Ixxx'ii. 18. t Isaiah xiii. 8.
|| Exod. xvii. 15. $ Numb. x. 35 36. If Ezek. xlviii. 35.

16G

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

Whole earth is full of his glory."* If we turn to the
twelfth chapter of John, wo sha]l find him quoting the
words which Jehovah addressed to the prophet on the
occasion, and then adding, " These things said Esaias,
when he saw his glory, and spake ofhim."f Whose
glory did he see ? Christ is the subject of the Evange
list's discourse, and to him only can the pronoun refer.
Isaiah therefore saw the glory of Christ, when he saw
Jehovah in the temple : he saw it, not with the eye of
his mind, contemplating future scenes, but with his
bodily eyes. Is it not then certain, that Christ is Je
hovah ?
Isaiah xl. 3 — " The voice of him that crieth in the
wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make
straight in the desert a highway for our God." Hear
what an Evangelist says; "In those days came John
the Baptist,'preaching in the wilderness of Judea." —
" For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet
Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilder
ness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths
straight."!; To these verses we may join the words
of the angel to Zacharias concerning his promised son :
" He shall go before him," the Lord God of the chil
dren of Israel, " in the spirit and power of Elias, to —
make ready a people prepared for the Lord."|| We
see the prophecy, and we see its fulfilment. "The
voice crying in the wilderness" was the voice of the
Baptist; " the way of Jehovah" was prepared by his
ministrations, while he excited, in the minds of the
people, an expectation of the appearance of the Messiah ;
and consequently the Messiah is Jehovah. The in
ference is so obvious, that all evasion is vain.
Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. "Behold the days come, saith the
Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch,
and, a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute
judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah
shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely ; and this
is his name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah our
Righteousness." It is admitted by Jews and Chris
tians that this is a prediction of the Messiah. Some
read, this is the name which Jehovah shall call him, our
Righteousness; but the most distinguished interpreters
contend for our translation; and so it seems to have
been understood by the author of the Greek version,
who, however, has not given the sense of the two He
brew words UpTIf nirr,§ but has joined them together
as belonging to the same person, x*< touto to ovo/ju. 'o
K*xio-a avToy xvpio; luriSix..] The corresponding passage
in chap, xxxiii. 16, is wanting in the Vatican and Alex
andrian manuscripts of the Septuagint, but is found in
some others, thus : Touto io-ti to ovofxz o xm3wst:u Kupioc
$is.-uo<rvn »'««.** It is objected that, in this latter pass
age, the name is given to Jerusalem. " This is the
name wherewith she shall be called, Jehovah our
righteousness." But the words have been rendered,
this is he who shall call to her, Jehovah our righteousness.
The word name is not in the original Hebrew. It is
supposed by some critics, that the passage has sustain
ed an alteration, and that it was originally the same as
in the twenty-third chapter, and as it is found in sever
al manuscripts. There is little reason to doubt that the
Messiah is here announced as Jehovah, and as our
Righteousness, in allusion to the inestimable benefit
resulting to us from his mediation. " He brought in an
everlasting righteousness," and " of God is made to us
righteousness "
Isaiah viii. 13, 14. "Sanctify Jehovah of hosts him-
* Isaiah ci.3. f John xii. 41. J Matt. iii. 1, 3. || Luke i. 17.
$ The Lord our Righteousness.
T Dr. Dick appears to think that the clause should be ren
dered, " And this is the name which he shall call him, the Lord
Josedek " instead of, '* And this is the name which the Lord
shall call him, Josedek."
** This is the name which he shall be called, Lord our Right
eousness.

self; and let him be your fear, and let him be yout
dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a
stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence, to both
the houses of Israel ; for a gin and for a snare to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem." But these words are ap
plied to Christ in the 8th verse of the second chapter of
the first Epistle of Peter. — Isaiah xiv. 21 — 23. "Who
hath declared this from ancient lime? who hath told it
from that time ? have not I Jehovah ? — I have sworn
by myself, the word has gone out of my mouth in
righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every
knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." When we
find an apostle representing it as the design of the ex
altation of Christ, that every knee should bow at his
name, and every tongue confess that he is Lord ;* and
quoting this passage as a proof that we shall all ap
pear before his judgment seat,f can we doubt that he
was considered by Paul as the Jehovah who speaks
in the writings of the prophets? — Zechariah xii. 10.
In the preceding context, the speaker is Jehovah, and
he says, " I will pour upon the house of David, and up
on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and
of supplications ; and they shall look upon me whom
they have pierced." The last words are quoted bythe
Evangelist John on the occasion of our Saviour's side
being pierced with a spear.:): But Jehovah declares
that it was he who was treated in this manner. How
could this be, since the Divine nature is impassible?
The words are intelligible upon our hypothesis, and up
on no other, that he, who suffered on the cross, was
greater than he seemed to be, was the Son of God as
well as the Son of Mary, the eternal and living One,
and a man of flesh and blood.
These passages are sufficient to shew that our Sa
viour receives the name of Jehovah ; and as God ap
propriates it to himself, and declares that he will not
give it to another, it follows, that although he was
born in Bethlehem, and died on Calvary, he is fitly de
scribed by the name which is expressive of eternal and.
independent existence.
In the second place, We prove the Divinity of Christ
from the ascription of divine perfections to him. We
know nothing of any being but by its properties. What
matter and spirit are, we cannot tell ; but there are cer
tain qualities by which they are distinguished, and
when we discover those of the one class or the other,,
we pronounce that the subject, in which they inhere, is
matter or spirit. Properties are inseparable from es
sences. A stone does not think, nor is a mind tangible
and divisible. Sensation, motion, and instincts dis
tinguish the inferior animals ; reason is characteristic of
man ; and ascending to the highest Being in the uni
verse, we conceive him to possess perfections, of which
there are either no traces in his creatures, or only faint
lineaments which preclude all comparison, and place
them at an immeasurable distance from him. Infinite
as they are, they could not exist in a finite nature ; for
it would be an express contradiction to suppose a be
ing to be limited and unlimited ; to be bounded in es
sence, but unbounded in energies ; to be confined to a
portion of space, and yet to operate throughout all
space. If, then, we find that divine properties are
ascribed to any person, by authority which proves that
they do actually belong to him, we must believe that
his nature is divine. Absolute eternity, immensity
omniscience, and omnipotence, are incompatible with
the idea of a creature.
First, Eternity is ascribed to Christ, by which I mean,
not merely an existence which will have no end, for
in this sense angels and human spirits are eternal, but
an existence which had no beginning. He is said to
have been " in the beginning with God," that is, as the
Evangelist explains himself, "before any thing was

* Phil. ii. 9—11. + Rom. xiv. 11, 12. ( *<&a *•*• 3*-

ON GOD: THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

167

made;" "to have been before all things," and " to
have had glory with the Father before the world was."*
It may be objected, that these expressions'prove only
his pre-existence, and that he might have been created
before all worlds, as Arians believe. But, to affirm of
any person that he existed before any thing was made,
is to exempt him from the number of creatures ; and, if
there had been no prejudice in the way, would have
been universally so understood. If, however, our an
tagonists demand something more explicit, I would re
mind them that, in his first Epistle, John calls him
" that eternal life which was with the Father, and was
manifested" to the world ;f pretty plainly signifying,
that before his incarnation he possessed an eternal ex
istence. In the Book of Revelation, he says of him
self, "lam the First, and the Last, and the Living
one." " I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Begin-
ing and the End, the First and the Last.":b. The same
idea is here thrice repeated in different terms, and this,
added to the solemnity of the language, unavoidably
leads us to regard it as an important one. I cannot con
ceive how any man could persuade himself, that such
language might be used of a creature. It does not ad
mit of being explained as signifying any thing less than
an eternal duration ; and God applies it to himself in
the Old Testament: "Who hath wrought and done it,
calling the generations from the beginning? I Jehovah,
the First, and with the Last ; I am he." " I am the
First, and I am the Last, and besides me there is no
God." " I am he ; I am the First, I also am the
Last."|| There is another passage in the Revelation,
the application of which has been disputed, but in
which there is reason to think that Christ is the speak
er. " I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
ending, saith the Lord," or, according to Griesbach's
corrected text, " The Lord God, which is, and which
was, and which is to come, the Almighty."§ In the
preceding verse, Christ is expressly mentioned ; and
after the two next verses,, he announces himself in the
same words : "lam Alpha and Omega, the First and
the Last." If he is a different being from the Lord
God, why does he immediately assume his style?
Would it have been dutiful and reverent to proclaim
himself by the titles under which the Creator had re
vealed himself a moment before? At any rate, if the
speakers, are different, they are both possessed of the
absolute eternity which the titles denote. — The last
passage which I shall produce is in Micah : " But thou,
Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the
thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth
unto me, that is to be Ruler in Israel ; whose goings
forth have been of old, from everlasting."^ An exis
tence which should commence in time, and an existence
which had no beginning, are both ascribed to the Mes
siah. To assert that his goings forth were from ever
lasting, because God had made an eternal decree con
cerning him, (in respect of which there was no differ
ence between him and every other Bethlehemite), is so
gross a perversion, that it is unworthy of farther at
tention. "Though the two principal terms," (onpand
oSlj/'), says Dr. Smith, "taken separately, are occa
sionally used to denote a limited (yet to present and
human apprehensions, a very long and hidden) period;
the proper and usual meaning of each is a real eter-
nitv; each occurs in passages evidently intended to be
the most solemn assertions of Infinite Duration, and
the combination of the two furnishes the strongest ex
pressions for that purpose, of which the Hebrew lan
guage is capable."**
In the second place, Another divine perfection which

* John i. 2, and xvii, 5. +1 John i. 2.
1 Rev. i. 17, 18, and xxii. 13. || Isaiah xii. 4. xliv. 6. xlviii. 12.
J Rev. i. 8. If Micah v. 2.
** Scripture Testimony, B. ii. chap. 4. sect. 27.

is ascribed to Jesus Christ, is omnipresence I need
not say that this is a perfection peculiar to God, and of
which there is not even a shadow in any creature be
cause it implies immensity of nature. "Am I a God
at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Do
not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord."* We
cannot remove from his presence ; but whether we
ascend to heaven, or descend into hell, or fly on the
wings of the morning to the ends of the earth, he is
there to meet us. Now let us observe whether any
thing is said in Scripture concerning our Lord, which
implies the possession of this perfection ; and as there
can be no doubt among Christians that he knows his
own nature, and is the faithful and true Witness, I shall
lay before you his own words. " No man hath ascended
up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even
the Son of Man which is in heaven. "j- The meaning
of the first part of this verse has been differently ex
plained, not being quite obvious, because it refers to an
ascension to heaven as a past event. He had said to
Nicodemus, who was astonished at the doctrine of the
new birth, " Verily, verily, I say unto thee, we speak
that we do know, and testify that we have seen ; and
ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly
things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell
you of heavenly things 1"X He adds, that he only was
qualified to give information concerning these things,
for no man, but himself, had been in heaven to acquire
the knowledge of them, by immediate intercourse with
God. It is not affirmed that he had ascended to heaven,
but that no other man had. Unitarians give a figurative
meaning to the whole verse, and express it thus : " No
one has ever been admitted to a participation of the Di
vine counsels, except the Son of man, Jesus of Nazareth,
who has been commissioned to reveal the will of God
to man, and is perfectly instructed and qualified for this
purpose." But what strange language do they put into
the mouth of our Lord ; language calculated to mislead,
while it would have been equally easy to express the
matter plainly, and much better, as all danger of mis
take would have been prevented. He who has no end
to serve by perverting the words, will acknowledge
that they teach a literal descent from heaven, and, what
is more directly to our purpose, his presence in heaven
at the time when he was addressing Nicodemus : " The
Son of man who is" not who was " in heaven." He
had descended from it, economically, by assuming our
nature ; but he had not left it in respect of his essence.
He had another nature besides that which was visible,
a nature which was not confined to one place. By de
claring that he was on earth and in heaven at the same
time, he assumed that Divine perfection which is ex
pressed in the words formerly quoted : " Do not I fill
heaven and earth, saith the Lord ?" The evidence of
this passage presses hard upon the opponents of his
Divinity ; and Dr. Priestley was driven to his last shift,
when he ventured to express a suspicion that either
John's amanuensis mistook what he dictated, or tha
John himself, being old when he wrote his Gospel, had
forgotten what his master said. Surely the man must
have spoken against the conviction of his own mind.
Our Lord promised, that " where two or three were
gathered together in his name, he would be in the
midst of them."|| It is an arbitrary assumption, that
this promise was confined to the Apostolic age, as
there is the same reason for the presence of Christ with
his people, in all ages of the world. To say, that he
would be present with them in spirit, as Paul was with
the Corinthians, or would be present with them by his
authority delegated to them, is to put a sense upon the
words which they would never suggest to an honest
man, who had no object but to ascertain their real

* Jer. xxiii. 23, 24.
t lb. v. 11, 12.

¦f John iii. 13.
|| Malt, xviii. 20.

163

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

meaning. Unitarians speak of a corporeal presence of
Christ with his followers, and appeal to the case of
Stephen, who saw him at his death, and of Paul, to
whom he appeared in the way to Damascus. Granting
that there was a bodily presence of our Saviour on those
occasions, we ask for proof that the first christians, to
whom they would restrict this privilege, were always
favoured with it in their religious assemblies. We say
that this was impossible. How could he be present at
the same time, in a thousand congregations, held in
Judea, in Asia Minor, in Greece, and in Italy? If he
was in one, he could not be in another ; but he promised
to be in the midst of them all. Do Unitarians believe,
with Lutherans, the ubiquity of his human nature, or,
with Papists, the doctrine of transubstantiation ? Our
Lord promised to be in the midst of his disciples in the
same sense in which God was in the midst of his an
cient people, namely, by a real but invisible presence.
Once more, when he gave his Apostles a commission
to teach and baptize all nations, he said, " Lo ! I am
with you alway, even unto the end of the world."*
ices tw o-vtTtxuuL; tcu aiuysc. Some translate, lo the end of
the age, or the end of the Jewish dispensation. It is
certain, however, that the phrase occurs where it must
signify the end of the world, and I can see no good
reason for giving it here a different sense. In particular,
I am at a loss to conceive what Unitarians would gain
by the new version, and their efforts to establish it are
a waste of criticism ; for if, according to their hypothe
sis, Christ could be with his disciples to the end of that
age, he could as well be with them lo the end of the
world ; and we may, with perfect safety, admit the one
interpretation as well as the other. But the truth is,
that if he had been a mere man, he could not have per
formed his promise even for a short period, as we have
shown above ; and it is a mere imagination to think that
the difficulty is lessened by abbreviating the time. How
could Christ, if he was not a Divine person, be present
with his followers in all places of the world, in the plain
import of the promise? It would have availed them
little that they had his authority and approbation, or
even that be knew what they were doing, if he had not
been near to direct, assist and defend them.
In the third place, The Scriptures teach that Jesus
Christ is omniscient. " No man knoweth the Son, but
the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save
the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal
him."f We may remark by the way, that there must
be something peculiar about the Son, something which
distinguishes him from all other persons, since he is
known, fully understood, and comprehended only by
the Father. But what is to be observed in those verses
for our present purpose is, that the knowledge of the
Son by the Father, and of the Father by the Son, are
commensurate, that is, the Son as thoroughly knows
the Father as the Father knows the Son. There is no
distinction of degrees, but the one knowledge is as per
fect as the other. It may be objected, that others are
represented as knowing the Father, and therefore, that
the knowledge of the Son is not necessarily perfect
more than theirs, although it may be granted to be su
perior. But observe this difference, that the knowledge
which they possess is communicated by his revelation ;
whereas his knowledge is not revealed to him, but is
natural and underived, like that of the Father. As the
latter knows the Son, so the Son knows the Father by
intuition. Knowledge is in him, as water is in a lake
or reservoir ; but is in others, as water in a stream, in
ferior in quantity as well as dependent upon the source.
The simple consideration that their knowledge is se
condary, sets aside the idea of equality. He has such
knowledge of the Father as the Father has of him ; they
have such knowledge of the Father as the Son is pleased

* Matt, xxviii. 20.

fMatt. xi.27.

to communicate. — "Now when he was in Jerusalem at
the passover, on the feast-day, many believed on his
name when they saw the miracles which he did. But
Jesus did not commit himself unto them," or placed no
confidence in them ; and for what reason ? Had they
exhibited any external evidence of insincerity ? Had
they, byword or deed, given him any ground to suspect
them? The Evangelist lets fall no hint of this kind;
but adds, " because he knew all men, and needed not
that any should testify of man ; for he knew what was
in man."* The persons spoken of were struck by his
miracles, and acknowledged him to be the Messiah.
Any other man would have been satisfied with their pro
fession ; but he was not, because he was acquainted with
their sentiments and feelings, and knew that nothing
more had been produced by his miracles than a transient
impression. It is plainly affirmed that he saw their
hearts, although they were concealed from other eyes
by fallacious signs; that he saw the hearts not of those
alone, but of all men ; and that his knowledge was im
mediate and intuitive. He needed no testimony, but
knew in himself. Is not ibis the knowledge of God ?
knowledge which he claims exclusively to himself.
" The heart is deceitful above all things, and despe
rately wicked ; who can know it ? I the Lord search
the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man ac
cording; to his ways, and according to the fruit of his
doings. "f In accordance with the words of the Evan
gelist are those of our Saviour himself in the book of
Revelation. " All the churches shall know that I
am he that searcheth the reins and hearts ; and I will
give unto every one of you according to his works.":):
It is worthy of attention, that, with a slight alteration,
these are the words of God which have just been quo
ted from Jeremiah. — " Jesus saith to Simon Peter,
Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me ? Peter was
grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest
thou me ! And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest
all things, thou knowest that I love thee."|| An attempt
has been made to prove that these words do not imply
omniscience, because John says to Christians in general,
"Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know
all things. "§ But expressions are to be explained by
the connexion. The Apostle in this latter passage is
speaking of false teachers, antichrists as he calls them,
who were endeavouring to draw away the disciples from
the faith ; and he consoles them by the consideration
that they had received an anointing, the influences of
the Holy Spirit, to enable them to distinguish between
truth and error, to know all the subjects in dispute, or
all the essential doctrines of religion. It is perfectly
evident, that the universal phrase, all things, must be so
limited. But Peter, in his reply to Christ, refers, not
to the knowledge of doctrines or actions, but to the
knowledge of the heart. Jesus had thrice asked whether
Peter loved him. The repetition of the question after
it had been answered in the affirmative, seemed to im
ply a doubt of his sincerity, and he said, " Lord, thou
knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love thee."
' Why dost thou put the question so often ? There is
nothing concealed from thee, not even the secrets of the
heart. Thou needest not to be told that my affection to
thee is genuine.' This is plainly to ascribe omniscience
to Christ, who was so far from correcting the apostle,
as he would have done if he had deified him being only
a man, that he gave a virtual sanction to what he had
said, by subjoining, "Feed my sheep."
Farther, Immutability is ascribed to him, which is a
divine attribute incommunicable to a creature. " Jesus
Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, and for ever,"f
or the same in all ages, past, present, and to come.
This proposition was intended, as appears from the

* John ii. 23—25. t Jer. xvii. 9, 10.
|| John xx. 17. \ 1 John ii. xx.

J Rev. n. 23.
1 Heb. xiii. 8.

ON GOD : THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

169

context, either to excite the Hebrews to imitate the
conduct of their rulers who had died in the Lord, by an
assurance of the same happy result to themselves, foun
ded on the unfailing love and power of the Redeemer;
or to engage them to constancy in the faith, because the
Author of the Gospel is unchangeable in his authority
to command, and in his ability to protect and reward.
Whatever is the connexion, it is solemnly asserted that
he is a person, of whom perpetual identity of nature
and character may be predicated. If he is only a man,
it is impossible to conceive with what propriety these
things are spoken of him. His history is full of
changes. Not only did he pass through those which
commonly happen to men, but he was once in a state
of profound humiliation, and now he is raised to great
dignity and authority. According to Socinus and his
followers, he experienced the most wonderful of all
changes, for having been a man, he has since been
made a God. To ascribe immutability to his person, if
merely human, would be absurd and contrary to fact;
and on this hypothesis, such passages as convey that
idea can be understood only of his doctrine. But his
person is certainly the subject of the following address,
and he is contemplated in his uncreated nature. " And
thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations
of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thine
hands ; They shall perish, but thou remainest ; and
they all shall wax old as doth a garment ; and as a ves
ture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be
changed ; but thou art the same, and thy years shall
not fail." * There can be no doubt to whom these
words should be applied, because they are quoted in
the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to prove
the superiority of the Son to angels. They refer im
mediately to his immutable duration ; but this attribute
is peculiar to one who exists by necessity of nature,
which implies the perpetual possession of every pos
sible perfection.
Lastly, Divine power is ascribed to him. He is,
called the mighty God, when he is announced by a
prophet as a child to be born, and a Son to be given to
us ; f and "his kingdom ruleth over all." But the
consideration of his omnipotence leads me to the next
part of our division.
In the third place, It was proposed to prove the Di
vinity of our Saviour from the works which are ascribed
to him,, and which are evidently such as no mere man,
and I may add, no creature could perform. Of 'bis
our adversaries are aware, and accordingly employ
their arts of criticism to prove, that he did not perform
them. I begin with a passage, in which he evidently claims
Divine power, and represents his own works as of
equal extent with those of his Father. " But Jesus
answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I
work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill
him, because he had not only broken the Sabbath, but
said also that God was his Father, making himself
equal with God. Then answered Jesus, and said unto
them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do
nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do :
for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the
Son likewise.":): The occasion of these words, was a
charge brought against him of having profaned the
Sabbath, because he had cured a lame man upon it.
How does he justify himself? Is it by the plfea, that
works of mercy are not a violation of the sacred rest of
that day? No : it is by alleging the example of God,
who carries on the operations of providence upon all the
days of the week, and intimating very plainly, that he
had the same right to work whenever he pleased.
The example of God is appealed to in vain, if he did
not possess the same authority, and was not equally

* Heb. i. 10—12. W

flsa. ix. 6. j John v. 17— 19.

independent of the law of the Sabbath. No mere man
could plead, without impiety, this reason for working
on the first day of the week. How should we be
shocked if any person presumed to say to those who
reproved him for breaking the Sabbath, God works
and therefore I may work ? It is to be observed farther!
that he represents himself as doing the same works
which are done by the Father, and he expresses him
self without any reservation : " What things soever he
doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." Every
work performed by the one, is performed by the other.
But this was impossible without an equality of power;
and our Lord must be understood as, in the most expli
cit terms, claiming omnipotence. It may be objected,
that he says, " the Son can do nothing of himself."
But, if we should not be able satisfactorily to explain
these words, still it is clear that, in concurrence with
the Father, he is capable of producing every possible
effect. The words probably refer to the mysterious
uni^n of the Father and the Son, in consequence of
which the one does not work without the other, but
both carry on their operations in concert ; and he might
refer to this fact in order to repel the accusation of the
Jews ; for how could he be guilty of profaning the Sab
bath by a work, which he had performed in concurrence
with the Author of the Sabbath ? I proceed to partic
ulars. First, The creation of the universe is ascribed to
him. "All things were made by him, and without
him was not any thing made that was made." * n«fT«
is a universal term, and is so to be understood, unless
circumstances obviously require it to be limited in its
meaning. Our opponents would restrict it, not from
any necessity arising from the context, but because
they must get quit of this proof of the Divinity of
Christ. By all things, then, we are to understand, ac
cording to them, the moral world, or the Church. Jill
things are reformed by him, say some, for he introduced
a new religion, to correct the errors and vices of man
kind; or, all things were done by him, as other critics
choose to render the word trymTo. He did all things in
the New Dispensation ; he preached the gospel, and
gave a commission to the Apostles, and enacted laws
for the government of his followers. The Evangelist hap
pens to say soon after, "He was in the world, and the
world was made by him, and the world knew him not." j-
The translation of eyamo, which was proper in the third
verse, will be proper also in the tenth, which we must
read thus : " He was in the world, and the world was
done by him." Whether the world means the earth,
or its inhabitants, it would puzzle GEdipus himself to
explain the proposition, " The world was done by
Christ." To say, that all things are the church, or the
human race as reformed by the Gospel, is liable to this
objection, that the Evangelist uses the world, in verse
10, as an equivalent term to all things, in verse 3 ; and
the world never, in the sacred writings, signifies the
Church, although the world to come sometimes denotes
the New Dispensation. Besides, how could it be said,
that Christ was in this world, and it knew him not?
The reformed world always knew him, for it was re
formed by the Gospel which revealed him. This
Unitarian comment may be dismissed as unintelligi
ble. The most distinguished critics have understood
the words in the literal acceptation, and rejected the
figurative sense as absurd. WTe formerly referred to
this passage as a proof of the pre-existence of our Sa
viour ; and, taking into one view the various attempts
which have been made to explain away all the partic
ulars in it, we may say with Dr. Owen, " I think, since
the beginning, place it where you will, the beginning
of the world, or the beginning of the gospel, there nev
er was such an exposition of the words of God or

* John i. 3.

f John, i. 10.

170

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

man." Christ was in the beginning of his own min
istry ; a fact, no doubt, which we should not have
known, if the Evangelist had not informed us of it; he
was with God, or he retired to converse with him, and
to receive instructions for his ministry ; he was a
God, or, in truth, was not a God, but a mere man ; and
he made all things, that is. he made nothing, but re
formed some things. Such are the wonderful discove
ries of Unitarian criticism.
Colos. i. 1G, 17. — " For by him were all things crea
ted that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers ; all things were created by
him, and for him ; and he is before all things, and by
him all things consist." One should think that this
single passage would be sufficient to settle the dispute.
It is a commentary, or amplification of the words of the
Evangelist, "And without him was not any thing made
that was made." It will be acknowledged, I think, by
every person of candour, that, if it had been the design
of the Apostle to inform us, that Jesus Christ created
the world, he could not have selected terms more proper
for the purpose. The universe is described by " all
things in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible,"
for every thing is comprehended in this classification ;
and thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, are
specified, that no room might be left for imagining, that
he was concerned in making only the subordinate parts
of it. If it should be asked, how he, who was born
about sixty years before the date of this Epistle, could
give being to this material and intellectual frame, which,
according to the Hebrew chronology, had existed for
four thousand years? it is stated, that he was before it,
before it in time, in respect of his superior nature, of
which abundant proof has been already produced. Lest
it should be alleged, in order to evade the evidence of
his proper Divinity, that he acted by delegated power,
and was not the primary agent, but a minister of God,
it is added, that as all things were created, <fi clvtov, by
him, so they were created, w clvtov, to him, or for him.
He is the last end of the creation, as the Father is said
to be, " who made the world by Jesus Christ," and of
Whom it is Said, i£ CLVTOV, KAl SI CLVTOV, XCtl HO CLVTOV TO. TrcLVTdL,
" of him, and through him, and to him are all things."*
Now, he must be considered a principal in the work, for
whose glory it was wrought, it may be objected, that,
in the preceding verse, Christ is called vpunnaeas vMno
ktio-imc, the first-born of the whole creation,^ and is thus
numbered among creatures. But, this inference is di
rectly at variance with the verses following, for if all
things, without exception, were created by him, how
can he be one of them ? Did he create himself? Un
less we are disposed to charge the Apostle with a
palpable blunder, a gross contradiction, we must under
stand ir/M>TCToxoc, either, according to the explanation of
some, as signifying the first-begetter or the producer of
all things, or as used here (as it is on some other occa
sions) metaphorically, to denote a person holding the
chief place, the Lord of the whole creation, as the first
born in a family was lord and possessor of the inherit
ance. This sense of the term agrees with the words
following, for undoubtedly he is Supreme over all
things by whom " they were created." Here, again,
that species of criticism which seeks not to illustrate
but to obscure, not to interpret but to pervert, has em
ployed its usual arts to evade the evidence. The pas-
sao-e, we are told, signifies a new moral creation effected
by the Gospel ; the things in heaven and on earth are
the Jews and Gentiles, who have been enlightened and
reformed by it ; and things visible and invisible, are the
present and future generations of men. Was a com
mentary so far-fetched, and so different from the natural
sense of the terms, ever given before? We might ask

Eph. iii. 9. Rom. xi. 36.

f Colos. i. 15.

Unitarians, whether they actually believe this to be the
real sense of the passage ? Or, if it be said that we
have no right to bring them to confession, we may ask
them, whether it would have occurred to any person
who had not first determined to reject the literal meaning,
and then tortured his brains to find out another more
suitable to a preconceived system ? It is a discovery
of modern date ; for ages the words were understood as
we explain them ; and the Greek Fathers, who read the
New Testament in their vernacular language, considered
the Apostle as describing a proper creation.
In the second place, The preservation of all things
is ascribed to him. " By him all things consist,"*
crvno-TY.x.i, are kept together, or preserved from falling into
confusion or annihilation. This is surely a Divine
work ; and it could not be said, consistently with rea
son and piety, that the universe is sustained by a crea
ture. The same thing is taught in another place: 
" Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express
image of his person, and upholding all things by the word
of his power," — <^tpm ti tcl ttclvth. to pujusLTt thc SvyxLtsotc
clvtov, — "sat down on the right hand of the majesty on
high." j Tu wclvtcl signifies the universe, which the
Son of God bears up, or sustains, by his mighty word.
The expression excludes the idea of labour or difficulty,
and imports that the creation is continued in existence
and order by his efficacious will. " Thou, even thou,
art Jehovah alone ; thou hast made heaven, the heaven
of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things
that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and
thou preservest them all," or "makest them all to
live.":}: " Jehovah, thou preservest man and beast."||
When we find similar language used concerning our
Lord Jesus Christ, there can remain no doubt that he
also is Jehovah, unless we will venture to say, that
the sustentation of living and inanimate beings is falsely
ascribed to him by the Apostle, or that God has, since
the time when the Psalmist and Prophet wrote, admitted
a creature to co-operate with him in the administrations
of providence.
In the third place, The Tesurrection of the dead is
ascribed to him. It will be universally acknowledged
that this is exclusively a work of God. He only who
first framed the human body, and connected with it a
living spirit, can restore that body after it has undergone
dissolution in the grave, and bring back the soul from
the invisible world to its original abode. Agreeable to
this dictate of reason is the declaration of Scripture, that
it is " God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those
things which be not as though they were."§ Jesus
Christ raised the dead while he was sojourning on the
earth ; as the daughter of Jairus, the widow's son at
Nain, and Lazarus, besides many others not named ;
and it is he who will appear in the end of the world,
and restore to life the millions of the human race who
are sleeping in the dust. " The hour is coming, in
which all that are in their graves shall hear the voice
of the Son of God, and shall come forth ; they that have
done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that
have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation-''^
It may be objected, that this work is not a decisive
proof of his Divinity, because the dead were raised by
some of the Prophets, and by all the Apostles, who re
ceived power to this effect when they were sent forth
to preach, " Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the
dead."** The simple fact, that they received this pow
er from our Saviour, is sufficient to convince us of his
superiority. What they did, they did in his name ; and,
consequently, we cannot justly consider him and them
as possessing an equality of power. Let it be farther
observed, that while the Prophets raised the dead in the
name of the God of Israel, and the Apostles in the name

* Colos. i. 17. f Heb. i. 3. } Neh. ix. 6. || Ps. xxxvi. 6.
j Rom. iv. 17. T John v. 28, 29. ** Matt. x. 8.

ON GOD: THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

171

of their Master, be performed this miracle in his own
name, that is, by his own power, and spake of himself
in terms, which no Prophet or Apostle would have pre
sumed to employ : — " I am the resurrection and the life :
he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall
he live."* Still it may be said, that the power which
he displayed upon earth, and will more gloriously mani
fest at the general resurrection, is not his own, but is
the power of God, with the exercise of which he was
entrusted for the purposes of his mission. But the
delegation of omnipotence to a creature is inconceivable
and impossible ; the supposition of delegated power is
inconsistent with the performance of the work in his
own name, and it is directly opposed to his express
declaration, "As the Father raiseth up the dead, and
quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he
will."f These words are an explicit assumption of
equal power with the Father, and of the same uncon
trolled and sovereign exercise of it in the restoration of
life. In the last place, The final judgment is ascribed to
him. The Scripture says, that " Jehovah is our
judge ;"X but it says also, that " we must all appear
before the judgment-seat of Christ ; that every one may
receive the things done in his body, according to that
he hath done, whether it be good or bad."|| " When
the Son of Man shall come in his gloTy, — all nations
shall be gathered before him."§ The inference is plain,
that Jesus Christ is God. It may be said, (and this is
the language of Scripture itself,) that God will judge
the world by him ,- but let us not be carried away by the
sound of words, without attending to their meaning.
The visible Judge will be a man, it is acknowledged ; but
will he be a mere man ? Is a creature to decide the fate
of other creatures ? Was it his law which they obeyed
or transgressed ? Has a creature the reward of heaven
and the punishment of hell at his disposal? These
questions suggest a negative answer to every person
not divested of reason and piety. Everyone must give
an account of himself to God, and who but God is quali
fied to receive the account ? Omniscience is necessary
to him who pronounces the final sentence, as well as
omnipotence to execute it ; for it will proceed, not
merely upon the external actions of men, but upon their
motives and their thoughts, which are known to him
alone who sees not with the eyes of flesh, but searches
the hearts and tries the reins. Christ will indeed act
in concurrence with the Father, who is hence said to
judge the world by him ; but the high office necessarily
supposes him to be possessed of infinite perfections.

LECTURE XXXII.
ON THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.
Divinity of Christ inferred from the Religious Worship and
Honour rendered to him ; Instances — The Doctrine of his
Divinity shewn to be interwoven with the Scriptural Scheme
of Redemption — Objections stated and answered.
I proceed, in the fourth place, to prove the Divinity
of Christ from the religious honours which are given to
him. Reason and Scripture concur in appropriating religi
ous worship to God, who alone is possessed of those
perfections which are presupposed in the object of our
prayers and thanksgivings, and the sentiments and af
fections which those are designed to express, as su
preme respect, love, trust, hope, and resignation. It is
an understood condition, that he whom we address has
m perfect knowledge of our situation, — comprehending

* John xi. 25.
|| 2 Cor. v. 10.

+ John v. 21. \ Isa. xxxiii. !
f Matt. xxv. 31, 32.

our dangers, our temptations, our afflictions, and our
desires ; that he has resources adequate to the supply of
all who make application to him ; and that he is able to
afford us effectual assistance in every possible case. We
believe him to be omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite
in goodness. To worship a creature is as great an absur
dity as it would be to intreat a poor man to make us rich,
or a subject to pardon us, while the remission of punish
ment is the exclusive prerogative of the sovereign. It
is sacrilege, a robbery of God, from whom we take the
honour to which he has an exclusive right, and transfer
it to a being who, in comparison with him, is less than
nothing and vanity. It is the idolatry which is prohibit
ed under the severest denunciations, and which consists
in giving that glory to another which is due to God alone,
" Thou shalt have no other gods before me."* " Thou
shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt
thou serve."f ^ne Gentiles are condemned for erect
ing temples and altars, offering sacrifices, and address
ing prayers to others besides the Creator of heaven
and earth, and are pronounced guilty because " they
did service to those who by nature were not gods."
From these, and innumerable passages, it appears that
religious worship should be given to the self-existent
and all-perfect Being alone ; that he will not permit,
and still less command, us to worship a creature ; that
a creature cannot acquire by rank, or dignity, or office,
a right to the honour which is peculiar to Him who de
rives nothing from others, and gives to"*all the life
which they enjoy, and the qualifications by which they
are distinguished.
That religious worship is given to Jesus Christ, we
shall afterwards see ; but in the mean time, I remark,
that from a perception of the necessary connexion be
tween Divine worship and the Divinity of the object,
Socinus maintained that our Saviour, although a man
by nature, had, since his exaltation, become Verus De
us, true Gbd, having received supreme dominion over
heaven and earth, and being made a partaker of the
Divine perfections of omniscience and omnipotence.
But upon this point, there was a division among his
followers, some of whom denied that Christ could be
lawfully worshipped, while Socinus defended the con
trary opinion, and refused to acknowledge those who
differed from him to be Christians. The controversy
was carried on with much keenness, and Socinus, im
pelled by intolerant zeal, which, it seems, is not pecu
liar to the orthodox, complained to the Prince of Tran- t
sylvania, who committed his principal antagonist,'-,
Francis David, to prison, in which he died. If Soci
nus agreed with the Scriptures, in asserting that Divine
honours should be paid to our Lord, he was at variance
with his own fundamental tenet of his simple humani
ty, and sought in vain to reconcile the two statements
by the inconceivable notion of his subsequent deifica
tion. David and others who joined with him (for he
was not alone) saw more clearly, or avowed more hon
estly, the consequences of the opinion which they
held in common concerning the person of Christ : for
certainly, if he was only a man, they reasoned justly
when they affirmed, that by no change of state could "
he become entitled to the same honour with God. Re
ligious worship is not founded in arbitrary appoint
ment, but in the nature of things. It is not due to God,
merely because it is commanded, but because, possess
ing all perfection, he is worthy of it, and we are his
creatures who hold all by his bounty, and are depen
dent upon his care. This reason of worship is wanting
in all created beings, in the highest as well as in the
lowest. Hence Francis David and his friends had the
advantage in their dispute with Socinus, and urged
him with arguments, to which he could not answer in
a satisfactory manner.

* Exod. xx. 3.

f Luko iv. 8.

172

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

I proceed to the proof, that Jesus Christ is the ob-
;ect of religious worship, and begin with his own ge
neral declaration : " The Father judgeth no man, but
hath committed all judgment unto the Son ; that all
men should honour the Son, even as they honour the
Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not
the Father which hath sent him."* Observe the oc
casion on which these words were spoken. It was
when the Jews, who were offended because he had
profaned the Sabbath, as they thought, by curing a
lame man upon it. now accused him of blasphemy in
making himself equal to God. If our Lord had been a
mere, man, he would have repelled the charge, and
shewn that his pretensions were not higher than a
creature might have made without arrogance and impi
ety. But does he utter a single word to this effect?
No! his whole discourse is a repetition of his claim,
and the words now under consideration are not the
least remarkable part of it. We cannot conceive a
more explicit assertion of his equality with the Father.
He claims equal honour, and would he have done so,
if his dignity had not been equal? The honour which
is given to the Father, is to be given also to the Son.
Now the honour which we give to the Father consists
in adoration, praise, unreserved confidence, humble sub
mission, and, in a word, the dedication of soul and
body to his service. We are therefore to adore the
Son, to make him the object of our trust and hope, to
resign ourselves to his disposal, and to yield implicit
obedience .to his commands. There is no mention
made here of supreme and subordinate honour, but in
every respect it is the same. And it is enjoined by the
Father himself. But if Jesus Christ is a mere man, as
Unitarians affirm, how can the will of the Father, in
this case, be reconciled with his general declaration,
that he will not give his glory to another ? Has he
revoked it in favour of the Son of Mary? Is the God
of the New Testament at variance with the God of the
Old? It is in vain to compare the words of Paul,
" He that despiseth us, despiseth not man, but God ;"f
for they are totally different. There is no demand of
the same respect to the apostles, which belongs to God
himself, but a simple and intelligible declaration, that
as they were the messengers of God, the contempt
with which some might treat their message would ul
timately terminate upon Him. No Apostle ever said,
It is the will of the Father, that all men should honour
us, even as they honour himself. They would have
deemed it impious to speak so : and they guarded
against such an idea, by saying to those who were dis
posed to admire them, " Why look ye so earnestly
on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had
made this man to walk V'X " Neither is he that plant-
eth any thing, neither he that watereth ; but God that
giveth the increase. "||
That Jesus Christ was worshipped by the primitive
Christians, is a fact so clearly established in the New
Testament, that nothing but prejudice, blinding the
mental eye, can hinder any person from perceiving
it. The truth is, that this worship Was so general,
and so publicly known, that it is used as a descrip
tion of his followers, who are more than once de
nominated those who called upon his name ,- a phrase
which often occurs in the Scriptures, and signifies in
vocation or prayer. " He hath authority to bind all
that call upon thy name."§ — Tr±vT*; tow iTncixov/Ltyovt to
oto/j.% o-ov. " To the church of God which is at Corinth,
with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus
Christ our Lord," a-vy ttsxo-i tu< ittihilxovluvok to ovjlii. tok
Kvpiov hfiw lvo-cv Xpio-Tov.^ It has been asserted, indeed,
that the words may be rendered, who are called, or, who
call themselves by thy name, that is, who profess to be

* John v. 22, 23. t 1 Thess. iv. 8. t Acts iii. 12.
|| 1 Cor. iii. 7. \ Acts ix. 14 HI Cor. i. 2.

the disciples of Christ. It has been observed, however,
that in Scripture, when it is designed to express the
idea of denominating, or calling after another, a different
form is used, and the name of the one person is then
said to be called upon the other. "The house upon
which thy name is called." " My people upon whom
my name is called."* It has been farther observed,
that in the translation of the Seventy, when a tense
of the verb t7rui*xtu] occurs in the middle voice, it
has an active signification, and denotes calling upon
another. The phrase, i7rmxxeicr6ui to ovoiti, — t-k iuy,  ,
en, — *uToy,X occurs often, and is expressive of the act
of invocation. Even those critics, who would give a
different translation when the verb is used in reference
to our Saviour, render it in the sense of calling upon,
when passages are quoted from the Old Testament in
which the object is understood to be the Father ; thus
shewing, that their occasional deviations in translating
it, are not founded upon the settled meaning of the term,
but upon the necessity of their system. It is convenient
to conceal this decisive proof of the divinity of Christ,
and to represent the primitive Christians as not Calling
upon, butcalling themselves by, his name, as the ancient
philosophical sects adopted an appellation derived from
their respective founders. In short, eTrM-LXiio-Qxi is a
complaisant word, and changes its meaning on all ne
cessary occasions, to serve the cause of Unitarianism.
The first disciples were worshippers of Christ; and
there is one eminent instance which well deserves our
attention. " And they stoned Stephen, calling upon
and saying," (this is the literal translation, and the
word God, which our translators have inserted, is an
unnecessary and improper supplement,) " calling upon
and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he
kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay
not this sin to their charge."|| It has been said, that
"this solitary example is of itself no sufficient warrant
for a practice contrary to the precepts of Christ, and the
doctrine of the Apostles." That it is contrary to the
precepts of Christ, and the doctrine of the Apostles, we
deny ; and that it is not a solitary example, has already
appeared ; but it is thus that Unitarians, those masters
of reason, draw conclusions without premises, and as
sume as certain. what remains to be proved. Is this
their respect for a holy man and a martyr? Was the
last act of his life an act of transgression ? Did his
expiring breath utter the language of idolatry ? How,
then, was he "full of faith and of the Holy Ghost?"
It has been said again, that the invocation of Stephen
was justifiable, because Christ was really present, and
the martyr saw him ; but that our case is very different,
because Christ is now at a great distance from us in
heaven. But we would ask those who make use of
this argument, whether it would be lawful to pray to
our Saviour, or to invoke his aid, if he were present?
If they answer in the affirmative, then we tell them,
that it is lawful for us, as well as for Stephen, to pray
to him, because it has been proved that, in his divine
nature, he fills heaven and earth. But, as they allege
that he was only a man, we ask again, whether Stephen,
under the influence of the Holy Ghost, would address
such a prayer to him, even when he was present?
What was it to " receive his spirit," but to admit him
into the region of everlasting peace? What was it
" not to lay sin to the charge" of his murderers, but lo
repeal the sentence of the divine law, and grant them
impunity ? Were these blessings to be asked from a
creature ? What greater could he have asked from God ?
Can a creature pardon our sins, and bestow eternal life ?
It would be wise to abandon these miserable subterfu
ges. The passage is plain ; and no man of candour

* 1 Kings viii. 43. 2 Chron. vii. 14. margin.
f To call upon.
t To call upon the name, — God, — me, — -him.
H Acts vii. 59, 60.

ON GOD : THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

will rest in any other view of it, than that Stephen, en
lightened and guided by the spirit of grace and suppli
cation, died in the act of adoring his Saviour, and,
therefore, that the Saviour is God.
In the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
verse 6, the Apostle, among the proofs of the pre-emin
ence of the Son, quotes the following passage, and ap
plies it to him : " Again, when he bringeth in the first-
begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels
of God worship him." The words are taken from the
ninety-seventh Psalm, where they run thus : " Worship
him all ye gods." The term Elohim is sometimes
applied to created beings, and we have the authority of
the Apostle for considering this an instance. Those
who are called gods in the Psalm, are called angels in
the Epistle. They are addressed while a description
is given of the reign of Jehovah, on account of which
the earth is summoned to rejoice, and the multitude of
the isles to be glad. We should not have known that the
reference is to the reign of the Messiah, if Paul hadnot
informed us ; but, believing that he was under the
direction, of the Holy Spirit, we follow with confidence
when he leads the way. The gods, then, are angels,
and. the object of their worship is Jesus Christ. Jt is
a mere evasion to say that 5l the angels are the former
prophets and messengers of God, who are summoned
to do homage to Christ, in consequence of his resurrec
tion from the dead, and to acknowledge him as their
superior." If celestial beings are not mentioned in this
chapter, we can find them nowhere in the Scriptures ;
and that it is not simple homage, but religious worship
which is demanded, is evident from this consideration,
that he, whom they are called to worship, is, according
to the Psalmist, the Jehovah " whose righteousness
the heavens declare, and whose glory all the people
see." " Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our
sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and
priests unto God, and his Father ; to him be glory and
dominion for ever and ever. Amen."* " I heard the
voice of many angels round about the throne, and the
living creatures, and the elders ; and the number of them
was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of
thousands; saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the
Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and
wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and bles
sing."-)- All these things belong to our Saviour, and
are ascribed to him by the holy worshipping assembly.
The spirits of heaven, and the redeemed from the earth,
unite in celebrating bis praise. They worship him in
the same manner as Jehovah is worshipped. " Give
unto the Lord, ye kindreds of the people, give unto the
Lord glory and strength. Give unto the Lord the glory
due unto his name; bring an offering, and come before
him : worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness."
"Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and
the glory, and the victory, and the majesty ; for all that
is in the heaven and in the earth, is thine.":): As he is
honoured with the same ascriptions as the Father, so
he is joined with him in the same act of adoration and
thanksgiving. " Salvation to our God which sitteth
upon the throne, and unto the Lamh."|| Can Unitarians
produce another instance in which the name of a crea
ture is thus associated with that of God, in the devo
tions ofhis people ? They will not find it in the Scrip
tures ; they must seek for it in the litany of the church
of Rome; and even there, although divine honours are
given to creatures, care is professedly taken not to elevate
them to the same rank with the Supreme Being, as
Jesus Christ is elevated by an inspired writer in the
passages quoted.
I conclude with the argument derived from the form

* Rev. i. 5, 6.
{ 1 Chron. xvi. 28, 29. xxix. 11.

t Rev. v. 11, 12.
|| Rev. vii. 10.

173
' in the

of Christian Baptism, which is administered
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of ihe Holy
Ghost."* If we suppose u; to ovo^df to be used for
s» ™ evcfxctT^X we are baptized by the authority of the
Son, as well as of the Father: But how can this be, if
the Son is only a man ? Do religious ordinances ema
nate from the Creator and a creature, as a common
source? Do the commands of a creature bind our con
sciences as much as the commands of the Creator ? If
we translate ex to cvollo. literally, to the name, baptism is
our solemn dedication to the persons in whose name it
is administered. Are we dedicated to the service of a
creature ? Who is Jesus Christ, if he is only a man,
that we should obey him ? It is said, indeed, that the
Israelites " were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud
and in the sea."|| The word Moses sometimes signi
fies the religion which Moses delivered as the minister
of God. " When Moses is read to them, that is, the
books of Moses, or the laws of Moses, " the veil is up
on their hearts. "§ All agree that the meaning is, that
the Israelites, by passing through the Red Sea, were
separated to the service of God, as enjoined by the
ministry of Moses. But the meaning of the words
used in Christian baptism is manifestly different, un
less we choose to say that we are baptized in the name
of the Father, and in the name of the Christian Reli
gion. It is plain, that in the same sense in which we
are consecrated to the Father, we are consecrated to the
Son ; and consequently, that we are laid under an obli
gation to worship and serve the one, as well as the
other. We never read that the Israelites were baptiz
ed in the name of Jehovah and of Moses. The Lord
and the servant are not joined together as objects of
equal respect, as the Father and the Son are. The
cause of the difference is this, that the Son is himself
a Divine person, and therefore entitled to the same
honour with the Father.
I have gone over, in order, the proofs which are usu
ally adduced to establish the Divinity of Christ. It is
wonderful, that a point so clearly taught in the sacred
writings, should have ever been made the subject of
dispute ; it is still more wonderful that, after the ample
discussion which it has undergone, it has not been
settled to the satisfaction of all parties. There is
something unaccountable in the opposition which it has
met with from persons professing to receive the Scrip
tures as the standard of their faith. If the arguments
which present themselves in such abundance, whether
consisting in express testimonies, or in legitimate and
cbvious inferences from them, are deemed insufficient,
it would puzzle a wiser man than I pretend to be, to
tell what would convince. The doctrine could not
have been stated in plainer terms. He who runs may
read it, if he will open his eyes. It is probable that,
in whatever terms the doctrine had been delivered,
some men would have objected. Human language,
the only vehicle of Divine communications to human
beings, is not proof against Unitarian criticism, which
wrests words from their natural sense, and affixes any
meaning to them, however harsh and remote, which
suits the design of the critics. All that we can gain
by our controversy with them, is to expose their un
fairness to the world, that the simple and inconsiderate
may not be seduced : of convincing them we have no
hope, unless that power be exerted which casts down
imaginations, and every high thing, and brings all the
thoughts into captivity to Christ.
To the arguments which have been stated, nothing
needs to be added. But for your complete satisfaction,
I shall lay before you some considerations, arising from
a different view of the subject, and shewing that the
Divinity of Christ is interwoven with the scheme of

* Matt, xxviii. 19.
II 1 Cor. x. 2.

| Into the name.
j 2 Cor. ii

( In the name.
15.

174

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

Redemption. It is a sort of a posteriori reasoning,
which, from the character that he sustains in that great
work, and the part that he acts, proves that he must be
a person superior in dignity to all men, and to all crea
tures. First, Let us consider him as the Revealerof the Di
vine Will, the Instructor of the human race. In this
general office, men were associated with him, as the
Prophets of the old dispensation, and the Apostles of
the new; and hence he bears the same names, being
called " the Prophet whom God raised up according to
his promise," and " the Apostle of our profession."
His pre-eminence, however, is undisputed ; and it will
be acknowledged by all, that no other person was ever
so gifted, or possessed of equal authority. It belonged
to him in this character, to complete and close divine
revelation ; to make known to the world the whole
counsel of God; to publish truths which eye. had not
seen, ear had not heard, nor had it entered into the
mind of man to conceive; and further, internally to il
luminate the minds of men, to remove the veil of pre
judice and error, to impart a vivid and commanding per
ception of invisible things, to dispose them to receive
truths humiliating to the pride, and revolting to the
corrupt propensities of the heart. If it be granted that
the latter part of this statement was comprehended in
his office, it cannot be consistently denied that he was
greater than a human teacher; for no mere man has an
absolute control over the minds of others, and can guide
their movements according to his pleasure. But even
the communication of a perfect knowledge of the Di
vine Will, which was effected by his own ministry,
and by that of his Apostles whom he qualified for the
work, seems to have required greater powers of under
standing than could fall to the lot of a creature ; an un
derstanding commensurate to the subject, which has a
height and a depth, a length and a breadth, not to be
measured by a limited capacity. If it should be said,
that God might have illuminated his mind, as he illu
minated the minds of other Prophets, and fitted him for
his duty by successive revelations, we should recollect
that according to his own testimony, he had the same
knowledge of the Father which tlie Father had of
him. " No man knoweth the Son, but the Father, nei
ther knoweth any man the Father, save the Son."*
We should recollect, that the Evangelist John ascribes
a knowledge to him quite peculiar, when he says, " No
man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten
Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath de
clared him."f Would he have used such language of
any creature ? To see God, is to know him perfectly ;
to be in his bosom, is to be the intimate associate of his
counsels. More is meant than that the man Jesus Christ
had a greater degree of knowledge than other men ;
the words evidently import, that he had knowledge of
a totally different kind, arising from immediate vision,
and perpetual communion*. No Prophet or Apostle is
ever said to have enjoyed such means of knowledge,
even in an inferior degree. None of them had seen
God ; none of them was in his bosom. The voice
from the excellent Glory made a clear distinction be
tween him and all other teachers. " This is my be
loved Son : hear ye him." The Father substituted
him in his own room, as the instructor of the human
race ; he pointed him out as the object of the attention,
and faith, and obedience of the world ; he commanded
us henceforth to learn wisdom from his lips, and to re.-
gulate our conduct by his authority. Did he ever give
such a command concerning any other person ? Was
it ever said concerning any other, " He that believeth
on the Son hath everlasting life ; and he that believeth
not the Son shall not see life. "X " Every soul, which
will not hear this Prophet, shall be destroyed from
* Matt. xi. 27. -f John i. 18. { John iii. 36.

among the people."* We are informed that " the
people were astonished at his doctrine, because he
taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes ;"
but we rise a step higher and say, not even as the
Prophets. Between his manner, and theirs, there is a
very remarkable difference. They, in fact, claimed no
personal authority, and delivered their instructions in
the name of the Lord ; while he spoke in his own
name: " Verily, verily, I say unto you." Who is this
that requires men to take him as their supreme guide in
religion ? who is this that makes his own testimony
the foundation of faith ? Would a human messenger
have ventured to advance such pretensions ? Could he
have adopted this lofty style without impiety? In
conformity to this claim, when he gave the Apostles a
commission to teach the nations, he gave it in his own
name. They were his ambassadors; they were to pro
duce his warrant for the doctrines which they taught,
and the laws which they enjoined ; they were to sub
ject men to him as the Lord of their consciences. Was
it a mere man who issued such orders, and demanded
the homage of all people, and kindred, and tongues ?
I shall mention one circumstance more which is a proof
of his Divinity, that he inspired those ambassadors,
gave them the Holy Ghost, and invested them with the
power of working miracles, to attest the truth of their
message. The Apostles, it is true, also communicated
supernatural gifts ; but, there is this essential differ
ence, that what they did, was done confessedly in his
name, and, therefore, instead of weakening, strengthens
the evidence of his power : whereas he acted wilh in
dependent authority, dispensing, as a Sovereign, gifts
over which he had absolute control. " He breathed on
them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy
Ghost."-)- Surely this is the voice of a God, and not
of a man.
In the second place, Let us consider him in the char
acter of a priest, whose office it was to offer a propitia
tory sacrifice, for the whole human race, as some main
tain, or for the elect, according to others, composing a
multitude which no man can number. By offering a
propitiatory sacrifice, I mean, that he was to suffer
death for them, that the claims of justice beino- satis
fied, the moral Governor of the universe might release
them from the penalty of sin. Now, this transaction
supposes, that his sufferings were an equivalent for
theirs; that the ends of punishment were as fully an
swered by his death, as if the transgressors had died;
that the divine authority was upheld, the divine right
eousness was asserted, the divine holiness was mani
fested in unclouded splendour. Would these designs
have been accomplished by the death of a mere man!
There is a manifest disproportion between the means
and the end. It is unaccountable upon any principle
of moral calculation, that the blood of one man, what
ever value it might be conceived to have derived from
his virtues and endowments, should have been accept
ed as a full compensation for the debt which millions
owed, for innumerable violations of the law ! Its ac
ceptance as such, would have lowered the divine gov
ernment in the estimation of its subjects ; it would have
confirmed them in the opinion, that its demands were
not high, that it felt little resentment against crimes,
and that it wanted only the shadow of a pretext for dis
missing them with impunity. But the Scriptures
teach that the death of Christ was a true and proper
atonement for sin, and was so complete, that God is
just, although he remit the sins of those who believe;
and that the highest glory redounds to his moral per
fections, from the dispensation of grace. There must,
therefore, be a greater worth in the blood, and greatei
efficacy in the sufferings of Christ, than in the blood
and sufferings of any other person. No such effect is

* Acts iii. 23.

t John xx. 22.

ON GOD : THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

175

ever ascribed to the death of a prophet, an apostle, or
any other martyr; it is not said, that they expiated
their own guilt by the sacrifice of their lives, and still
less, that they expiated the guilt of their brethren. Had
our blessed Lord been only a man, his blood would
not have redeemed us from the curse of God, any
more than the blood of Stephen, and Peter, and Paul.
Of this our antagonists are sensible ; and accordingly
they deny that his death was vicarious, and affirm that
the sole design of it was to give us an example of pa
tience, and to attest his doctrine; thus maintaining the
consistency of their own system, although they are di
rectly at variance with the doctrine of Scripture. Such,
you may observe by the way, is the intimate connex
ion of the truth which I am defending, with other ar
ticles of Christianity, that the denial of it is the re
moving of the foundation, in consequence of which the
whole structure falls to the ground. We, who believe
the Divinity of Christ, can account, without difficulty,
for the great and happy effects which are ascribed to
his death. We can understand, how the sufferings of
a man, who was personally united to the Son of God,
were of greater value, in a moral estimate, than the
sufferings of the actual transgressors. We can see,
how this single sacrifice answered all the ends of jus
tice, and demonstrated in the most solemn manner, the
righteousness and holiness of the Universal Governor,
the unspeakable evil of sin, the immutable purity and
unbending rigour of the law. I shall not appeal to the
words, " Feed the church of God, which tie hath pur
chased with his own blood,"* because there is a vari
ous reading which substitutes Lord for God; but sure
ly the same Apostle meant to convey a higher idea of
our Saviour than that of a mere man, when he said,
" Had they" — the Princes of this world — " known,
they would not have crucified the Lord of glory ;"f
and again, " The law maketh men high-priests, which
have infirmity ; but the word of the oath, which was
since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for
evermore.":): They are more blind than the princes of
this world, who, amidst the light of revelation which
dow shines, can perceive upon Calvary no greater
scene than a common martyrdom. Strange, that not
withstanding the preternatural darkness, the earth
quake, and the opening of the graves, they should be
more insensible than an ignorant heathen, who, con
vinced by the signs in heaven and on earth, that the
supposed malefactor was no ordinary sufferer, exclaim
ed, " Truly this was the Son of God !"
Let us, in the last place, consider him as sustaining
the character of uniyersal Lord. He is represented as
invested with supreme authority over the church, and
all persons and things upon earth ; and likewise over
angels, principalities, and powers in the invisible
world, the noblest and mightiest creatures in the uni
verse. Besides his own declaration, " all power is com
mitted to me in heaven and on earth," let us attend to
the words of an Apostle, who, having informed us,
that, though " he was in the form of God, and thought
it not robbery to be equal with God," yet " he humbled
himself, and became obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross," adds, " wherefore God also hath
highly exalted him, and given him a name which is
above every name ; That at the name of Jesus every
knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in
earth, and things under the earth ; And that every
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the
glory of God the Falher."|| One should think, that
his investiture with unlimited dominion over the crea
tion, would prove to the satisfaction of every reflecting
mind, that he is not a creature, that he is not a mere
man, but a person, in whom the fulness of the God
head resides ; for it is impossible to conceive that he
» Acts xx. 28. f 1 Cor. ii. 8. \ Heb. vii. 28. || Phil. ii. 6—11.

could hold that dominion, and perform the various acts
which it implies, unless he were possessed of divine
perfections. It is certainly necessary, that be should
be acquainted with all his subjects, and all their cir
cumstances ; that he should be capable of conducting
the whole system of affairs with order, and to its des°
tined ends; and that he should be able to keep every
being" in his proper place, to restrain wayward move
ments or confine them within due bounds, and to make
the mightiest and the most refractory bend to his pur
pose. In other words, he could not govern the uni
verse without infinite knowledge, infinite wisdom, and
infinite power. It would be a mockery to place a crea
ture upon the throne, to whom the extent of his king
dom would be unknown, and whose proceedings would
be at one time marked by error, and at another embar
rassed by opposition. The duties arising from the re
lation in which we stand to him as our Sovereign, are
such as we owe to him alone, who is God over all.
We are bound by express command, to trust in him,
to worship him, to obey him, to submit to his dispo
sal, to expect from his lips the sentence which will de
cide our eternal state ; and what more do we owe to the
Father ? And we have already seen, that it is His will,
that all men should honour the Son, even as they hon
our himself. Unitarians get quit of this argument, by
the usual expedient of figures, as if the sacred writ
ers, as soon as they began to speak of our Saviour, had
been hurried away by some unaccountable impulse, in
to the region of metaphor, simile, and hyperbole. All
this magnificent language concerning his kingdom, we
must be careful not to understand literally, lest we fall
into the great error of supposing, that he is actually
placed at the head of affairs. Let us not be so simple
as to adopt this idea. Nothing more, is meant than the
moral influence of the Gospel ; and the reign of Christ
is like the reign of any other man over his followers,
who have embraced his doctrines, and submitted to his
institutions. " The subjection of all mankind to the
rules of piety and virtue delivered by Christ, is
shadowed out under the imagery of a mighty king, to
whom all power was given in heaven and earth." So
say our antagonists ; but they only will receive this in
terpretation, who have been given over to strong delu
sion, to believe a lie.
I have laid before you a variety of arguments, by
which the Divinity of Jesus Christ is evinced ; and in
doing so, I have endeavoured to obviate such objections
as are made to the passages quoted. I shall conclude
by bringing under your notice some other objections,
with answers to them.
It is objected, that the supposed Divinity of Christ is
inconsistent with the doctrine of the Unity of God ; and
those passages which affirm that there is one God, and
that there is no God besides him, are confidently brought
forward to refute our opinion. But we know those pas
sages as well as our opponents, and are fully persuaded
of the truth which they inculcate. We hold at the
same time, the Unity of God and the Divinity of Christ,
without at all thinking that we are liable to the charge
of self-contradiction ; for our doctrine is, not that the
Father is one God, and the Son is another, but that,
while there is only one Divine nature, the Father and
the Son are distinct persons in that nature. It is absurd,
therefore, to allege the acknowledged Unity of God as
subversive of our doctrine, till it is proved, and not
merely asserted, that personal distinctions in one Di
vine nature are impossible. For a more complete an
swer to this objection, I refer to our illustration of the
Trinity. It is objected, that whatever may be implied in the
title or designation, Son of God, it is a fair conclusion
from it, that he is not God himself. It is admitted, that
the son ,of a man as such, is also a man ; why is it de
nied, that the Son of God is also God? We .grant,

176

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

indeed, that the two cases are different, because a man
and his son are two separate beings, have the same
specific, but not the same numerical nature; but the
title leads us to conceive, that he who is the Son of God,
has the nature of God, and, since the nature cannot be
divided or multiplied, that the same nature is common
to both. The title implies a community of essence ;
and all that we can legitimately infer from it is, that he
is a distinct person from the Father.
It is objected, that our Lord excludes himself from
the honour of divinity, in these words, "This is life
eternal, that they might know thee the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."* But surely
a single passage, instead of being set in opposition to
an hundred other passages, should be explained, if pos
sible, in consistency with them. We grant that our
Lord would have denied his own Divinity, if he had
said that the Father or.iy is God, lo the exclusion of
himself; but it is quite evident that he merely distin
guishes his Father from other pretenders to Divinity.
He does not say "Thou only art the true God," but
" Thou art the only true God." When the Scripture
calls the Father, " the blessed and only Potentate, the
King of kings, and the Lord of lords," the design is
obviously to except, not Jesus Christ, but the " lords
many" of the Gentiles; and accordingly, Jesus Christ
receives the same title in other places, being designated
" King of kings, and Lord of lords," and the " Prince
of the kings of the earth." "The Socinian argues,"
says Bishop Middleton, " as if in our Saviour's days
there had been the same controversy about the nature
and essence of the One True God, which arose after
wards; whereas the dispute then was, whether there
were a plurality of Gods or only One.- The Jews held
the latter opinion, and the whole Pagan world the for
mer. Our Saviour, therefore, keeping, if I may so call
it, this controversy in view, tells his hearers that eter
nal life is to be obtained only by a knowledge of the
One True God, and of Jesus Christ, thus at once di
recting the mind to the truths both of natural and of
Tevealed religion ; and the hearers of our Lord could
not possibly have understood him in any other sense.
It is, therefore, perfectly frivolous to introduce this pas
sage into the Trinitarian dispute ; and the stress which
has been laid on it, can be accounted for only from the
extreme difficulty of giving to the opposite hypothesis
any thing like the sanction of Scripiure."t Besides,
there is a passage in one of the Epistles of John, from
which it appears that the words before us are not ex
clusive of the Son, because what is here affirmed of
the Father, is there affirmed also of him. "And we
are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ,
This is the true God, and eternal life.":): It is certain,
that the Father is often called God, and our Saviour is
mentioned, at the same time, as distinct from him.
The reason is, that in the economy of redemption, the
Father sustains the majesty and maintains the rights
of the Godhead, while Christ acts as Mediator. By
him we come to the Father, but we do not hold him,
personally considered, to be subordinate. We worship
the Son also ; but the usual order is to draw near to the
Father in the name of the Son. Keeping this economy
in mind, we can easily understand the passage before
us, and others of a similar nature. "To us there is
but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and
we in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things, and we by him."||
It is objected, that our Saviour himself acknowledged
his inferiority to the Father, and cannot, therefore, be
God in the proper sense of the term. " My Father is
greater than I. § But there is another passage which

* John xvii. 3.
f Middleton on the Greek Article, p. 372. ed. 1308.
{ 1 John v. 20. || 1 Cor. xiii. 6. } John xiv. 28.

we shall do well to take into consideration at the same
time. " Who being in the form of God, thought ii not
robbery to be equal with God."* The words have
undergone much criticism, which it would be tedious
to detail ; but, whether we translate ovx apTrzyucv hyao-zn,
he thought it not robbery, or, he did not seize as a prey,
or catch at equality to God, the result is the same,
namely, that he was really equal; for, if this had not
been the case, there would have been no humility in
declining to display his equality for a time; and, as an
example of humility, the case is introduced. It would
be a strange recommendation of the humility of a crea
ture, to say that he did not aim at equality to God. Now
we are sure, that the Scripture does not contradict itself;
and hence, when two parte of it appear to be at variance,
there can be no doubt that there is a mode of reconcil.
ing them, which we should endeavour to find out. Om.
Saviour is exhibited in two characters, as the Son of
God, and as Mediator. In the former, he is described as
possessing all the perfections of Deity ; but in the latter,
as the servant of the Father, acting in obedience to his
will. In this latter character the Father was greater
than he, not essentially, but economically, as he who
sends is in this respect greater than he who is sent;
and it is evident from the context, that this was the
character in which our Saviour spoke when he declared
the superiority of his Father. The subject of conver
sation was his ascension in human nature, his return to
the Father, to receive the promised reward of his la
bours upon earth ; and on this occasion he appeared to
be inferior, as the ambassador is to his Sovereign, who
confers honour upon him for the wisdom and fidelity
with which be has fulfilled his commission. "Ye
have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come
again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, be
cause I said, I go unto the Father : for my Father is
greater than I."
This explanation is connected with another objection
founded on the assignation of a subordinate character lo
him, while he is described as the servant of God : — "I
came — not to do mine own will, but the will of Him
that sent me."f It is certain that although two persons
be of equal rank, the one may consent, for a specified
time and a particular purpose, to act the part of a ser
vant to the other, without any diminution of his dignity,
and, in this case, is inferior only in office. Notwith
standing this subordination, his rights are preserved,
because it is entirely voluntary, and is intended to last
only for a limited period, after which he will appear in
his original equality. The application is obvious to our
Lord, who being in the form of God, took upon him the
form of a servant, and having emptied himself of his
visible glory, was found in fashion as a man. Yet this
humiliation, although profound, was not such as entirely
to conceal his true character. W'hile he held the place
of a servant, he acted as a Lord, exercising sovereign
authority over the elements, the bodies and souls of
men, and the invisible world. It was evident to all
who had eyes to see and minds to reflect, that he was
quite different from the other messengers of God.
" What manner of man is this, that even the winds and
seas obey him?" In connexion with this argument,
his own words have been referred to as inconsistent
with his Divinity, because they are expressive of sub
ordination and dependence : — "Verily, verily, I say unto
you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he
seeth the Father do.":): But we have already considered
them among the proofs of his divinity, and undoubtedly
they furnish a very strong argument for it, because they
are an explicit claim of omnipotence, for he immediately
adds, " What things soever the Father doeth, these also
doeth the Son likewise."
On the same general principle, we may reply to the

I

* Phil. ii. 6.

f John vi. 38.

} John v. 19.

ON GOD : THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

177

objection, that he called God, his God, that he prayed
to him, that he had a different will, saying, " Never
theless, not as I will, but as thou wilt."* The answer
is, that, while we believe his Divinity, we hold also
that he was a man, and as such stood in the same rela
tion to God, and owed the same duties as other men ;
and that, having assumed the character, he acted in all
things as the servant of the Father.
An objection is drawn from his answer to the per
son who said to him, "Good Master, what good thing
Bhall I do, that I may have eternal life ?"f The objec
tion is this, God is good, and therefore, he who denies
that this epithet ought to be applied to himself, is
not God. Griesbach, whom Unitarians consider as in
fallible authority in settling the text, gives a different
reading, " Why dost thou ask me concerning good, or
the good ?" But unluckily he retains the usual reading
in two other gospels, and the result of his critical la
bours is to introduce a contradiction among the Evan
gelists. We may presume, that originally they all
agreed, although now there is a difference in several
manuscripts, particularly as this alteration of the text
renders it in a great measure unmeaning. " Why
callest thou me good ?" Our Lord adapted his answer
to the notions which the enquirer entertained of him,
plainly looking upon him as merely a human teacher, —
as a prophet, perhaps, but not greater than a prophet.
He. would not allow flattering titles to be given to men,
not even to himself when he was supposed to be only
one of them. What right had a man to be called good,
in the full acceptation of the term, since goodness can
be predicated of him alone who possessed infinite per
fections ? Jesus does not speak of himself agreeably
to what he really is, but according to this person's ap
prehensions; and nothing is more unfair than to conclude
that he denied his own Divinity, because he refused to
be addressed in language which should be appropriated
to God, by one Who believed him to be a creature.
It is objected, that Jesus Christ is expressly called
a man, and such passages as the following are produced,
as containing an unanswerable argument against his
Divinity : — " There is one God, and one Mediator be
tween God and men, the man Christ Jesus." " Jesus
Christ, a man approved of God among you by mira
cles." "After me cometh a man, which is preferred
before me." " But now ye seek to kill me, a man
that hath told you the truth "X We know all these
passages, and if it would serve any purpose, would lend
our aid to Unitarians in collecting many others of a simi
lar strain; but they prove only, what we are always ready
to acknowledge, that our blessed Saviour was a partaker
of our nature, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh.
They do not prove that he was a mere man, unless it
be ascertained to be impossible that he, who is man,
may at the same time be God. This our adversaries
affirm ; but we demand demonstration which they are
unable to give. It was foretold that a " virgin should
conceive and bear a son," or that the Messiah should
be a man ; but it was added, that his name should be
Immanuel, which signifies, God with us.jj
As for the assertion, that if we maintain the Divinity
of Christ, we must admit that the Deity was born, was
imprisoned in the body of an infant, and suffered pain
and death, it is unworthy of a serious refutation. Let
Unitarians indulge, if they will, in coarse and vulgar
declamation, which can injure only themselves, and is
a pitiful attempt to prejudice the minds of men against
a cause which their arguments have failed to overthrow.
They know well that we disclaim such consequences,
and that our doctrine stands clear of them. The Deity
was not born, but the man was born who is united to

the Deity; the Deity was not imprisoned in the body
of an infant, but He was a child in his human nature
who, in his Divine, fills heaven and earth; the Deity
did not die, but we have the authority of Scripture for
saying, that when Jesus of Nazareth suffered, the Lord
of glory was crucified.

* Matt. xxvi. 39.
1 1 Tim. ii. 5. Acts ii. 22.
|] Isa. vii. 14. X

t Matt. xix. 16.
John i. 30. John viii. 40.
12

LECTURE XXXIII.
ON THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.'
Proof of the Personality of the Holy Spirit — Reason of tho
name. Spirit — His Divinity inferred from the ascription to
him of the Names, the Perfections, and Works of God; and
from the Worship rendered to him — The. Relation of the
Holy Spirit to the other two Persons of the Godhead — Dif
ference between the Eastern and Western Churches.
" Having endeavoured to prove, in some preceding
lectures, the Deity of our blessed Redeemer, I purpose
to lay before you the proofs of the Divinity of the Ho
ly Ghost.
I begin with observing, that, although conclusive,
they are not so numerous as in the former case ; but it is
not necessary that they should be equally ample. The
great difficulty in admitting the Divinity of any other
person but the Father, arises from the doctrine of the
Unity, with which a plurality of subsistences in the
Godhead seems to be inconsistent. As among men,
three distinct persons, although partakers of a com
mon nature, are not numerically one in essence, we are
apt to apply this analogy to the Divine nature, and to
think nothing clearer than that the supposition of two
or more persons infers its division into as many parts.
Trinitarians have, on this account, been frequently pro
nounced to be Tritheists. The only way of removing
this difficulty, is to shew from the infallible declara
tions of Scripture, that however incomprehensible the
doctrine is, and whatever repugnance may be imagined
in it to the dictates of reason, the Son is God, a's well
as the Father. We thus oppose positive proof to pre
sumptions, and set aside the hold and ignorant conclu
sions of our finite minds concerning an infinite essence,
by the express testimony of Him to whom that es
sence belongs. If we succeed in establishing the fact
that the Son is God, we prepare the way for the ad
mission of a third person in the Trinity, not without
proof, but upon evidence not equally luminous and di
versified. The great objection against believing that
there is a plurality in the Divine nature, is removed by
shewing that it is reconcileable with the Unity, be
cause il actually exists; and, being compelled to ac
knowledge the Deity of the Son, we are the more easily
persuaded to acknowledge that of the Spirit. My mean
ing will be illustrated by reminding you, that it would
require more evidence to convince us of afirst fact differ
ent from any which we had experienced, and therefore
apparently incredible, than it would require to convince
us of a second fact of the same kind, although, with
respect to the second, we should still demand that the
evidence be sufficient. This I consider as the reason
why the Scriptures, while they teach the Divinity of
the Holy Ghost, do not speak so fully upon it as upon
the Divinity of the Son.
The point which it is necessary to consider, in the
first place, is the personality of the Spirit. In other
words we must inquire whether he is a person, intel
ligent and active, or merely, as some affirm, an influ
ence, virtue, or divine operation. It is admitted, that
this is sometimes the meaning of the word, Spirit, in
the Scriptures ; or that, by a metonomy, the name is
used to denote the effect which the Spirit produces up
on the soul. Thus, the passages which speak of the
"pouring out" of the Spirit, of his being " received,;.'

173

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

and of being " filled" with him, have been understood
to signify nothing more, than that miraculous or sancti
fying gifts are bestowed upon men. But, allowing
that this view of such passages is just, I observe, that
there are many places of Scripture in which he is man
ifestly spoken of as a person, or properties and actions
are ascribed to him, which could be predicated only of
a person. Understanding and volition are assigned to
him ; the first, when he is said to " know thethings of
God," and to " search all things, yea, even the deep
things of God ;"* the second, in the following words :
"But all these," that is, the gifts enumerated in the
preceding verses, " worketh that one and the self-same
Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." f
Affections are figuratively attributed to him as well as
to the Father, when, for example, we are exhorted not
to " grieve the Holy Spirit of God.":): Who ever
heard of the grief of a quality ? We are informed, that
" the Spirit maketh intercession for the saints with
groanings which cannot be uttered ;" || and we can un
derstand, it has been remarked, what are interceding
persons, but have no apprehension of interceding and
groaning qualities. "The Comforter," says our Lord,
" which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will
send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and
bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I
have said unto you."§ "When the Comforter is
come — he shall testify of me ; and ye also shall bear
witness."^ " When he, the Spirit of truth, is come,
he will guide you into all truth ; for he shall not speak
of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he
speak : and he will shew you things to come. He
shall glorify me ; for he shall receive of mine, and shall
shew it unto you."** In this passage, he is represent
ed as performing many personal acts. He teaches the
disciples of Christ, and enables them to recollect what
they had heard from the lips of their Master ; he tes
tifies of Christ as literally as the Apostles testified of
him ; he guides believers into the truth ; he speaks
what he has heard ; he gives them the knowledge of
future events.
It is acknowledged by the adversaries of the Divini
ty of the Holy Ghost, that, in these and other passages,
which might have been mentioned, he is spoken of as a
person; but they evade their force by alleging that, in
the style of the Scriptures, personal properties and ac
tions are sometimes ascribed to things. Hence it is
said of charity, that it suffers long and is kind, envies
not, vaunts not itself, is not puffed up, seeks not its
own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil,-)-)- &c.
These things are attributed to charity, which is a qual
ity,. because they are true of the charitable man. In like
manner, the Holy Ghost is represented as performing
personal acts, although he is not a person, but the power
or virtue of the Father, because it is the Father who per-
formsthese acts by his own power, which is called the
Holy'Ghost. But this answer, however plausible, is
not satisfactory. It might be worthy of attention, if all
the acts which are attributed to the Spirit, might be
performed by the power of the Father ; but, if some of
those acts are such as cannot be predicated of the Fa
ther, if he cannot be said to do by his own power all
that is done by the Spirit, then it follows, that the Ho
ly Ghost is a person. There is nothing in the account
of charity, which is not descriptive of the charitable
man ; but there are some things affirmed of the Holy
Ghost, which are not true of the Father; and hence it
appears that he is personally distinct from him.
To make intercession, is the act or work of a person,
and is attributed to the Spirit, who " makes interces
sion for the saints according to the will of God.:)::): It
* 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11. f 1 Cor. xii. 11. X Eph. iv. 30.
|| Rom. viii. 26. } John xiv. 26 T John xv.26, 27.
** John xvi. 13, 14. ft 1 Cor. xiii. i, &c. t{ Rom. viii. 27.

is plain that be makes intercession for them to the Fa
ther, and equally plain that it would be absurd to speak
of the Father as making intercession to himself. With
this absurdity the hypothesis of our opponents is
chargeable, because they maintain that the Spirit is
merely the power or operation of the Father; but, upon
our supposition, every thing is clear, because it is one
person who intercedes with another. To come in con
sequence of a commission received from another, is a
personal act, and is attributed to the Spirit in the pass
ages quoted above. But it could not be said of the
Father, that he comes as the messenger or missionary
of another, for there is no other by whom he can be
sent; and there would be an evident impropriety and
confusion in representing him as coming in the name
of the Son, while the Son is uniformly described as
coming in his name ; not as sending him, but as sent
by him. If any man shall suppose the meaning to be,
that the Father sends his power by the authority, and
under the direction of his Son, and that his power, thus
sent, teaches, guides, and compels, he must admit,
that he has made a discovery which requires no small
degree of ingenuity, and that a book, to understand
which such an unnatural interpretation is necessary, is
written in defiance of the ordinary rules of composi
tion, and apparently with an intention. Again the
Spirit is said to speak and hear; but these personal
acts are attributed to him in a sense in which they can
not be attributed to the Father. To hear; when affirm
ed of him, signifies that he is commissioned by the Son
to make certain communications concerning him to the
world. " He shall receive, of mine."* But how could
such a thing be affirmed of the Father? The Spirit
does not speak of himself, but speaks what he hears.-)
But the Father does every thing of himself; and there
fore it is not true that the Holy Ghost is said to do
these things because he is the power of the Father. It
is plain, therefore, since acts are attributed to the Spir
it which cannot be attributed to the Father, that the at
tempt to evade the argument from the passages former
ly cited, is abortive; and that the Holy Ghost is not a
quality or energy, but has a personal subsistence.
It may be proper, in this place, to inquire into the
reason of the name or designation which is appropriated
to the third person of the Trinity. He cannot be called
the Spirit, on account of the spirituality of his essence;
for as it is common to all the persons, one of them could
not be denominated from it more than the others. —
" God isa Spirit." Whoever, therefore, has assigned
this as the reason of the name, has given a proof of in
accurate thinking. Spirit isa Latin word adopted into
our language, and synonimous with the Greek word,
Tnt-jLtx. Both literally signify, breath or wind. There
cannot be conceived any allusion to their original mean
ing, when they are applied to the Divine essence, or to
angelical beings ; but breath has been supposed to be al
luded to, when the third person in the Godhead is called
the Spirit. This word is understood to refer to the mode
of his subsistence, of which we shall afterwards speak,
and which is usually termed procession, (from the words
of our Lord, which we shall soon have occasion to quote)
but by the Schoolmen was named spiration. As the se
cond person is said to have been " begotten," so the
third is said to have " proceeded," as the breath pro
ceeds from the mouth. This idea is supposed to be au
thorised by the action of our Saviour, who " breathed up
on his disciples, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost"£
The Spirit is the breath of the Almighty. I make a sim
ilar remark upon the epithet, holy, as upon the term,
spirit, that it is very inaccuiate to suppose that it denotes
the holiness of his nature, because holiness, being a pro
perty of the divine essence which belongs equally to all
the persons, cannot be attributed to one of them by way

* John xvi. 14.

t Ibid. 13.

{ John xx. 22.

ON GOD: THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

179

of eminence or distinction. It would be as improper as
always to call one of them wise, or almighty, or just, or
good, while no such adjunct was connected with the
names of the others. There can be little doubt, that the
epithet, holy, refers to his official character. He is the
Author of all the holiness which adorns the creation, and
particularly in the economy of redemption he sustains the
character of the Sanctifier: " Wearesaved by the wash
ing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, shed
6n us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour."*
He comes forth from the Father, to restore his image in
the soul of man ; and all the virtues and graces are tbe ef
fects of his mighty operations.
Having proved the personality of tbe Holy Ghost, I
proceed to inquire, whether there be evidence in the
Scriptures that he is a Divine person, and not a creature,
as some who admitted his existence have affirmed. The
author of this heresy was Macedonius, Patriarch of Con
stantinople in the fourth century, who maintained, that
the Spirit was not a partaker of the same honours with
the Father and the Son, but was their minister and servant,
fixKovo; kzi wraps™?, as the angels are. It is thus that his
doctrine is stated by Sozomen, in his Ecclesiastical His-
tory.f 1 shall begin with shewing you, that the same names
are given to the Spirit, which are given to the Father
and the Son. Jehovah, you know, is the incommunica
ble name; and, importing underived, independent, and
immutable existence, it does not admit of application to
a creature. The evidence is not so distinct as in the
case of our Saviour ; but, that the Spirit is called Jeho
vah, may be inferred from the following passages. Com
pare Exodus xvii. 7, with Heb. iii. 9. In the former
place, it is said, that " the name of the place was called
Massab and Meribah, because of the chiding of the chil
dren of Israel and because they tempted Jehovah, saying,
is Jehovah among us, or not?" In the latter you read,
"wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day, if ye will
hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the day of
temptation, when your fathers tempted me and proved
me." Compare, again, Isaiah vi.8—10, with Acts xxviii.
5. " I heard the voice of Jehovah saying, Whom shall I
send, and who will go for us ?" The prophet answered,
" Here am I, send me. And he said. Go and tell this peo
ple, Hear ye indeed, and understand not ; and see ye in
deed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat,
and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes. " Now,
observe how the Apostle Paul quotes the passage : "Well
spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our
fathers, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye
shall hear, and not understand ; and seeing ye shall see,
and not perceive," &c. Compare, once more, Jeremiah
xxxi. 31 — 34, with Heb. x. 15 — 17. The passages are
too long to be quoted ; but, in them, as in those already
recited, whatis spoken by Jehovah in the Prophet, is said
by the Apostle to have been spoken by the Holy Ghost.
I do not affirm, that the argument from these passages
is perfectly conclusive, and particularly from the pas
sage in Isaiah, which is expressly applied to our Saviour
by the Evangelist John; but the regular substitution of
the Holy Ghost for Jehovah in them all, affords some
ground at least, for believing that he is entitled to the
former name, and, consequently, is that mysterious Be
ing, who comprehends in himself the past, the present,
and the future.
That the Holy Ghost is called God, I shall prove from
two passages. The first is in the fifth Chapter of the
Acts, where Peter, having said to Ananias, " Why hath
Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" asks
again, " Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart?
Thou hast not lied ui to men but unto God." Accord
ing to Peter, to lie to the Holy Ghost, is to lie to God ;
to lie to the Holy Ghost is not to lie to man, because the

* Titus iii. 5.

t Lib. iv. c. 26.

Holy Ghost is not rr.an ; and not to lie to an ano-el- be
cause the Holy Ghost is not an angel ; nor to lie to any
creature, because the Holy Ghost is not a creature ; but
to lie to God, because the Holy Ghost is God. If the
Spirit were not God, tbe Apostle might have said, "thou
hast not lied unto the Holy Ghost, but unto God." for
this would have been the proper manner of distin
guishing them, and also of pointing out the greatness of
his sin. But, since he first told him his sin, which was
lying to the Holy Ghost, and then declared its aggrava
tion, that he had not lied unto men but to God, it is
plain that the Holy Ghost, to whom he lied, is God.
In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul says to them,
" Know ye not, that ye are the temple of God, and that
the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"* and in another
place, " What ! know ye not that your body is the tem
ple of the Holy Ghost ?"f From both passages it is
plain, that the reason why they were the temple of Gcd
was, that the Holy Ghost dwelt in them. But the infer
ence would not be just, if the Holy Ghost were a crea
ture; they might be his temple, and not be the temples of
God. A temple is the habitation of the Deity ; but there
is no way in which we are his habitation, except by the
presence of his Spirit. Now, if the presence of the Spir
it is the presence of God, it follows, that the Spirit is
God. It is evident, that he is so denominated by the
Apostle, who in one verse calls believers the temple of
the Holy Spirit, and in another verse, the temple of God.
The next argument for the Divinity of the Holy Ghost,
is founded upon the ascription of Divine perfections to
him. Where the qualities or properties are found, there
is the essence to -which they belong. He is represented
as possessing the attribute of eternity in the following
words : " How much more shall the blood of Christ, who,
through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot
to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve
the living God V'X There is a difference of opinion
about the words, " the eternal Spirit," by which some un
derstand the Divine nature of Christ, through which he
offered himself, that is, through which his oblation was
rendered infinitely valuable. But his Divine nature is
not so expressed in any other passage of Scripture : this
sense of the phrase is not the natural one, or the sense
which would first present itself to our minds; and the
connexion does not necessarily lead to it, but rather sug
gests the idea of the Holy Ghost, through whose sanc
tifying influences he offered himself without spot, or his
human nature was made a pure immaculate sacrifice. He
is the eternal Spirit, from everlasting to everlasting God.
— Another attribute of Deity, is immensity, or omnipres
ence, which, if I may speak so, is a modification of im
mensity, or the infinite essence of the Deity considered
in relation to the system of created things. God is pres
ent in every part of the universe. It is certain, there
fore, that the Spirit is God, for these are the words of
the Psalmist : " Whither shall I go from thy Spirit ?
or whither shall I flee from thy presence ? If I ascend
up into heaven, thou art there ; if I make my bed in hell,
behold thou art there: If I take the wings of the morn
ing, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even
there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall
hold me."|| Wherever God is, the Spirit is. The Fath
er and the Spirit co-exist throughout all time, and in all
space. — A third Divine perfection, of which the Spirit is
possessed, is omniscience. " The Spirit," says Paul,
" searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."§
That searching here signifies knowing, is evident from
the preceding part of the verse, in which it is said that
God had revealed to the Apostle the mysteries of salva
tion by the Spirit; and from the next verse, in which Paul
obviously intends to explain his meaning : " The things
of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. "If Om-

* 1 Cor. iii. 16. t 1 Cor. vi. 19.
|| Ps. cxxxix. 7—10. 6 1 Cor. ii. 10.

t Heb. ix. 14.
TIb.lt.

180

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

niscience is expressly ascribed to him, when he is said
to search or know all things ; but lest any person should
6uspect that these are only created 'things, he adds, yea,
the deep things of God, the secrets with which none
was acquainted but himself. When the Apostle asks,
" Who hath known the mind of the Lord ?"* we must
answer, no man knows it, nor any angel ; but it is known
to the Spirit, and therefore he is God. — I mightmention
also, almighty power ; but the illustration of this partic
ular will be given under the next division, to which I
proceed. The third argument for the Divinity of the Spirit, is
taken from the works which he performs, and which pre
suppose the Worker to be omnipotent. Some passages
of Scripture represent him as concerned in Creation :
" The earth was without form and void, and darkness
was upon the face of the deep ; and the Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the waters. "f As the original
word signifies both spirit and wind, some have suppos
ed that nothing more is meant by the inspired historian,
than that a mighty wind, in the Hebrew idiom a wind
of God, agitated the newly created chaos. Wind is the
atmosphere in motion ; but, it is questionable whether
the atmosphere existed at this time, and its production
seems rather to have been the work of the second day,
when the firmament was made ; for the firmament, or ex
panse, as the word may be rendered, seems to be the
air, from the office assigned to it, namely, to divide the
waters from the waters. This separation is effected by
the atmosphere, which bears aloft the water that has been
exhaled from the ocean and the surface of the earth. If
these remarks are just, it was not a wind, but the Spirit
who moved upon the face of the deep ; and, whatever is
implied in this motion, it is certain lhat he was aetive in
the formation of the material system. I quote another
passage from the Psalms : " By the word of the Lord
were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the
breath of his mouth ;" or rather, " by the Spirit of his
mouth.":): The Fathers thought (and many moderns are
of the same opinion) that this verse refers to the co-oper
ation of all the persons of the Trinity in the creation.
The Word of the Lord, is not his simple command, but
the Logos of the New Testament, his essential Word, by
whom the Father made the worlds; and the breath of
his mouth, is the spirit of his mouth, the Divine person
proceeding from him, of whose agency in this work Mo
ses has given us a general account. By him the host of
heaven was made, comprehending the angels of light, and
the glorious orbs which shine in the firmament. This
sense of the words agrees with another passage in Job,
where it is said, that " by his Spirit, God hath garnished
the heavens,''|J or adorned them with all their splendour.
That Providence also is his work, has been inferred from
the following words ; " Thou sendest forth thy Spirit,
they are created; and thou renewest the face of the earth."§
Creatures fade and die when their Maker withdraws his
support ; but as soon as the Spirit, the great vivifying
principle, the Author of life natural and spiritual, im
parts his influences, they revive. — But I proceed to re
mark, that miracles are represented as performed by his
power : " If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then
the kingdom of God is come unto you."f " To another
are given the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to an
other the working of miracles ; — all these woriteth that
one and self-same Spirit, dividing to everyone several
ly as he will."** A miracle is a suspension or altera
tion of the laws of nature, which God established in the
beginning, and over which none has control hut himself.
It is as impossible for a creature to work a real miracle, as
it is to create a world. We say, indeed, that they were
performed by Prophets and Apostles ; but we speak

* 1 Cor. ii. 16. f Gen. i. 2 { Ps. xxxiii. 6.
|1 Job xxvi. 13. j Ps. civ. 30 T Matt. xii. 28.
** 1 Cor. xii. 9—11.

loosely, and according to appearance, for they were on
ly the instruments by which superior power was exert
ed, and the real Worker of all miracles was God. If
then, miracles were wrought by the Spirit, he is greater
than any creature, because the person is manifestly Di
vine who possesses the attribute of omnipotence.  Last
ly, the resurrection of the dead, which is appropriated
to God in the Scriptures, is ascribed to him. The true
God is called " God who quickeneth the dead;" and no
person ever supposed that any created power is capable
of reuniting the dust of the grave in its original form, and
restoring the principle of life. This, however, the Ho
ly Ghost will do at the last day. " If the Spirit of him
that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that
raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quieken your
mortal bodies, by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."*
The last argument for the Divinity of the Holy
Ghost, is founded on the religious worship which is
given to him. We are baptized in his name, as well
as in that of the Father and the Son. His equality in
dignity is declared by his association with them in this
solemn act of religion. It is performed by his authority,
as well as by theirs ; and we are dedicated as expressly
to his service, as to that of the other persons of the
Trinity. We have an example of prayer to him in the
following words, which are still used in the solemn
benediction of the church : " The grace of the Lord Je
sus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of
the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen.")- Here, he
is acknowledged as the source of spiritual blessings, as
well as the Father and the Son, and is invoked in the
same spirit of devotion. It is vain to call this merely
a wish ; it is as distinctly a prayer as any other which
occurs in the Epistles ; and there would be no question
about its nature, if there were no design to evade the
evidence of his personal dignity. The words of John,
in the beginning of the Revelation, are also considered
as a prayer to the Spirit : " Grace be unto you, and
peace from him which is, and which was, and which
is to come, and from the seven spirits which are before
his throne, and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful
witness, and the First begotten from the dead, and the
prince of the kings of the earth.":): The Father and the
Son are distinctly mentioned ; but who are the seven
spirits that are conjoined with them ? If you say that
they are created spirits, I would call upon you to pro
duce an instance in which a creature is thus associated
with God, and, as in tbe present case, is placed between
two Divine persons as their equal. Besides, I would
ask, what grace and peace a creature has to bestow,
that he should be called upon to extend his favour to
the church ; and whether idolatry would not be carried
to the greatest possible height, if a creature were set
upon the throne of tbe living God, addressed in the
same invocation, and pronounced to be equally able to
bless us? Nothing more needs to be said, to prove
that the seven spirits which are before the throne are
not created spirits. It appears, then, that they cannot
be understood to mean any other than the Holy Ghost.
If you ask why he is represented as Seven Spirits, I
answer, that Seven is a favorite number in the Scrip
tures, and seems to be the number of perfection ; and
that this representation was probably intended to signify
that the influences of the Holy Ghost are inexhaustible,
and are suited to al 1 the exigencies of the people of God.
Perhaps the number alludes to the seven churches of
Asia, to which the introductory chapters of this book
are addressed.
To sum up the arguments which have been advanced
in support of tbe Divinity of the Holy Ghost : if be is
designated by names peculiar to God, if Divine perfec
tions are ascribed to him, if he has performed such
works as manifestly surpass created power, and if leli-

* Rom. viii. 11.

f 2 Cor. xiii. 14. . t Rev. i. 4, 5.

ON GOD: THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

181

gious worship is addressed to him, we are warranted
to affirm that he is not a created spirit, but God over
all, blessed for ever.
It remains to speak of the relation of the Holy Ghost
to the other persons of the Godhead. His relation to
the Father is called his procession from him ; and the
term is founded upon these words of our Saviour : —
" But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send
unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth,
which proceedeth from the Father," — I rap* tou raT/w
arrofwiTcu, — "he shall testify of me."* Hence the
Greeks call it txmpa<rt;,-\ and sometimes orpooSoo-X No
man can tell, what " proceeding from the Father"
means; it is equally unintelligible as is the generation
of the Son. Attempts have been made to explain both
terms ; but, in doing so, ideas borrowed from material
substances have been generally applied to the incompre
hensible nature of a spiritual Being. The generation
of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, have been
understood to import that both " received their essence"
from the Father. This mode of expression is common
in the writings of the Fathers, and has been adopted
from them by many modern Divines. I acknowledge
that I am unable to conceive what idea they affix to the
words: but, whether they be mere words without sig
nification or not, they seem to suggest a notion incom
patible with the absolute eternity and perfect equality
of all the persons of the Godhead. If the Divine es
sence was communicated to the Son and the Spirit, the
Father must be conceived as prior to both, what
ever ingenuity may be displayed in talking of eternal
emanations, and proving that the existence of the rays
of the sun is co-eval with that of the sun himself. The
subject is beyond the reach of our faculties ; and it is
presumptuous to attempt to explain it, especially by
the introduction of terms which either mean nothing, or
are calculated to mislead. We do not know what is
the procession of the Spirit. Let us be sensible of our
ignorance and acknowledge it, remembering, that as
this is our duty, so it is more honourable than to indulge
in vain babbling, and to darken counsel bywords with
out knowledge. It is a proof of the folly of this mode
of expression, that, being used with respect to the Spirit
as well as to the Son, it makes the relation of both to
the Father to be the same, while the Scripture plainly
states a distinction between them, saying, that the one
was begotten and the other proceeded. God must
speak to us in our own language ; and if be is pleased
to give us any information respecting the mysteries of
his essence, he must do so by terms to which we are
accustomed. But it would be absurd to suppose, that
they bear their usual sense in their new application.
The utmost that can be conceived is an analogy, and
that too a very faint one between things finite and infi
nite. It is therefore a part of wisdom to abstain from
explanations and commentaries, and to confine ourselves
to the words of inspiration.
The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. But it
is no where said, that he proceeds from the Son ; and
hence it has been a subject of inquiry and dispute,
whether he stands in the same relation to him as to
the Father. The Greek Fathers strictly adhered to the
language of Scripture, and affirmed, that the Spirit pro
ceeds from the Father, but did not. say, that he proceeds
from the Son. They, however, did not hesitate to say,
that he " receives" from the Son. This expression the
Latins understood to imply the same thing which they
meant by procession, namely, that the Spirit received
his essence from the Son ; and accordingly they did not
hesitate to make use of the term, when speaking of the
Spirit as well as of the Father. Their words were dif
ferent, but their ideas were substantially the same.
But as this was one of the points which afterwards di-

* John xv. 26.

f Procession.

X A going forth.

vided the Eastern and Western Churches, it is neces
sary to inform you how the controversy arose.
After Macedonius had vented his new heresy, denvins-
the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, the Council of Con
stantinople, a. u. 38], judged it necessary to make an
addition to the article of the Nicene creed, " I believe
in the Holy Ghost;" which was enlarged thus, "I be
lieve in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Author of life,
who proceeds from the Father." This creed was re
ceived by the Catholic Church ; and it was afterwards
enacted by the Council of Ephesus, that no addition
should be made to it. But in process of time the
question began to be discussed in the West, whether
the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son as well as the
Father; and it being decided that he did, the new article
was inserted in the creed by the Latins ; — " Credimus
in Spirilum Sanctum ex Patre Filioque procedentem."*
Hence, a violent controversy arose between them and
the Greeks ; which, being heightened by other grounds
of dispute, terminated in their open separation from the
communion of each other; the Greeks condemning the
Latins for adding to the Creed an article contrary to
the authority of the Councils, and the truth of which
they suspected or denied ; and the Latins obstinately
retaining it, because it was sanctioned by the Pope, and
expressed in their opinion a doctrine agreeable to Scrip
ture, which the Greeks themselves had once admitted
in different words.
In adding the words "Filioque"] to the Creed, the La
tins thought themselves justified by plain Scripture rea
soning. Although the procession of the Spirit from the
Son is not literally asserted, yet it is implied in some
things which are said of him in relation to the Son.
The same expressions, which are used concerning the
Holy Ghost in reference to the Father, because he pro
ceeds from him, are used in reference to the Son ; and
hence it seems warrantable to conclude that the reason
is the same. The Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of
the Father, because he proceeds from him : " It is not
ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which
speaketh in you.":); But he is also called the Spirit of
the Son ; and there seems, therefore, to be no valid
ground why we should not believe that the same rela
tion is expressed in the one case and in the other :
" Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit
of his Son into your hearts." " If any man have not the
Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."|| Again, the Holy
Ghost is sent by the Father, because he proceeds from
him, — it being suitable to the order of subsistence in
the Godhead, that the Father should send him, not that
he should send the Father. Our Lord speaks of him
as the Comforter, whom the Father would send. But
he is also sent by the Son : — " When the Comforter is
come, whom I will send unto you." " If I depart, I
will send him unto you."§ If his mission by the Fath
er is the consequence of his procession from him, may
we not conclude, upon the same ground, that he also
proceeds from the Son ?
Such are the reasons assigned bythe Western Church
for deviating from the language of the East and of the
ancient creeds. There is a degree of probability in the
reasoning; but at the same time candour requires me
to say, that, as we do not know what procession means,
we perhaps venture too far when we positively affirm,
that the expressions which we have quoted are equiva
lent to that term. It is only when we thoroughly un
derstand a subject, that we have authority to pronounce
that different modes of expression convey exactly the
same idea. I presume that no man will affirm that he
is thus qualified to decide the present controversy. He

* We believe in the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father
and the Son.
| And the Son. t Matt. x. 20.
|| Gal. iv. 6. Rom. viii. 9. \ John xv. 26, and xvi. 7.

182

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

who is called tbe Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit of
tbe Son, does certainly appear to stand in the same re
lation to both ; and, if no other language had been used,
there could have been but one opinion on the subject.
But, when we find that this person is said to proceed
from the Father, and is not said to proceed from the
Son, we need not be surprised that some should hesi
tate whether it can he truly affirmed that he proceeds
from the Son. If they acknowledge that he is true
God, and is the Spirit of the Son, their refusing to say
that he proceeds from him, should be accounted a ve
nial error, and, if censured at all, should be censured
with gentleness, as having arisen from a principle,
w hich cannot justly be condemned, of scrupulous adhe
rence to the language of Scripture. The Greeks might
be wrong, in their violent condemnation of the Latins
for adding the words Filioque to the creed ; but the
Latins were at least as culpable, in accusing the Greeks
of heresy, because they preferred their ancient phrase
ology. The Latins had arguments on their side, dedu
ced from the interpretation of particular passages; the
Greeks had on their side the express language of Scrip
ture itself. It was a controversy which, if it could not
be avoided, both parties should have carried on with
mildness, and in which they should have mutually ex
ercised the spirit of forbearance. There was no heresy
on either side ; both were sound in tbe doctrine of the
Trinity, and their difference related to a point which
neither understood. Legitimate inferences from Scrip
ture, are of the same authority with Scripture itself.
But, when the inference is attended with a degree of
doubt ; when it is deduced from premises which are
rather assumed than proved, it may be proposed to the
consideration of others, but their assent to it should
not be imperatively demanded. It may be true that
the phrase, "the Spirit of the Father," is equivalent to
the phrase, " proceedeth from the Father;" but, as this
cannot be demonstrated, it would have been wiser not
to have made a doctrine, founded upon the idea that
they are equivalent, an article of faith. We have seen
the grounds upon which it rests ; but, while there is
reason to believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Son,
we should deem it rash to condemn the man who would
not assent to this proposition, for this reason, that he
could not find it so expressed in the Scriptures.

LECTURE XXXIV.
ON THE DECREES OF GOD.
Connexion between the Knowledge and Decrees of God — Na
ture and Objects of the Divine Decrees — They are Eternal,
Wise, Free, Absolute, and Unconditional — Unconditional
Decrees not inconsistent with human Responsibility.
Having spoken of God and his perfections, of the
Holy Trinity, and the Divinity of the Son, and the Ho
ly Ghost, I now proceed to speak of the Acts of the
Divine nature.
Of these, according to systematic Divines, there is a
threefold distinction. First, there are immanent and
intrinsic acts which have no respect to any thing ex
ternal. Such are the acts which are implied in the gen
eration of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit :
and such are the acts of the Divine persons towards
each other, of which their mutual love may be men
tioned as an instance. The Divine nature, although
single, is not solitary ; it is the soul, if I may speak
so, of communion more intimate and delio-htfu] than the
closest fellowship among creatures; and thus it enjoys
in itself a perpetual source of infinite blessedness. Se
condly, there are extrinsic and transitive acts, which
are not in God, but from God efficiently, and in crea
tures subjectively; or, to express the matter more

intelligibly, are exertions of his power terminating up
on creatures as the objects of them. To create, to up
hold, and to govern, are acts of this kind. Thirdlv,
there are immanent and intrinsic acts in God, which
have a respect or relation to things without him ; and
these are his Decrees, to which I shall direct your at
tention in this lecture.
The decrees of God are his purpose or determina
tion with respect to future things. I call them pur
pose or determination, in the singular number, because
there was only one act of His infinite mind about fu
ture things; although we speak as if there had been
many, in reference to the process of our own minds,
which form successive resolutions, as thoughts and oc
casions arise, or in reference to the objects of his de
cree, which being many, seem to require a distinct pur
pose for each. But, an infinite understanding does
not proceed by steps, as they necessarily do whose
knowledge, like light, advances by degrees, and whose
ideas come in a train ; it perceives all things by a
single glance. " Known unto God are all his works
from the beginning of the world."*
This seems to be the place, in which it is prop
er to introduce a distinction, which is usually made,
of the knowledge of God unto the knowledge of
simple intelligence, or natural and indefinite knowl
edge, scientia simplicis intelligentias; and the knowl
edge of vision, scientia visionis, which is also call
ed free and definite. The former is the knowledge
of things possible, and is called indefinite, because
God has defined or determined nothing concerning
them. God knows all possible causes, and all their
possible effects. The latter is the knowledge of fu
ture things, of things which shall take place, and is
called definite, because their existence is determined.
They differ, you see, in their object ; that of the for
mer, being all things that might exist; that of the lat
ter, being only such things as are to exist. The first
kind of knowledge is founded on the omnipotence of
God ; he knows all things which his power could per
form. The second kind of knowledge is founded 01
his will or decree, by which things pass from a state
of possibility to a state of futurition. God knew of
innumerable worlds and orders of creatures which his
power could have brought into being; but be knew of
them, not as things which were to be, but as things
which might be. But, he knew of the universe which
actually is, as certainly to have a future existence, be
cause he had determined to create it. Lastly, these
two kinds of knowledge differ in their order, because
the former preceded his decree, and the latter is subse
quent to it. Of the things which his Almighty pow
er could accomplish, he purposed to do this and not
that ; and consequently, the one became certain, and
the other remained only possible.
There is a third kind of knowledge, which some Di
vines have ascribed to God, and which is called scien
tia media, because it lies in the middle between the
two kinds already explained, and differs from both. It
differs from natural and indefinite knowledge, because
it is conversant not about possible, but about future
things; it differs from free and definite knowledge, be
cause it is not founded upon the decree of God, but up
on the actions of his creatures, which he foresees. He
knows how men will actjf placed in particular circum
stances, if endowed with certain talents, if favoured
with certain opportunities, if exposed to certain temp
tations. His knowledge is not the effect of his own
purpose, but of the foresight of their character and con
dition ; it is not derived from himself, but from his
creatures. The design of introducing' this distinction,
was to give support to the doctrine, that the divine de
crees which relate to men are conditional ; or that, for

» Acts xv. 18.

THE DECREES OF GOD.

183

example, men were chosen to eternal life upon the fore
sight of their faith and obedience ; and hence it has
been strenuously opposed by the advocates of uncon
ditional decrees. They have endeavoured to shew, that
it is a useless distinction, this middle science being
comprehended in the knowledge of simple intelligence,
or the knowledge of all possible things ; that it solves
no difficulties, but leaves the question, how God is not
the author of sin ? unanswered, since he placed Adam
in circumstances in which he knew certainly that he
would fall ; that it renders God dependent upon his
creatures, from whom part of his knowledge is derived,
and by whose conduct his determinations are regulat
ed ; and that it exempts men from the control of their
Maker, leaving them to act independently of any act of
his will, or any prior arrangement of his wisdom, sole
ly in the exercise of their own liberty. Some of these
objections appear to have weight ; hut, perhaps, this
media scientia might be so explained as to free it from
them, and render it quite consistent with orthodoxy.
Whether you give a distinct name to it or not, you
might, one should think, say with the utmost safety,
that God, whose understanding is infinite, knew in what
manner men would act if placed in particular circum
stances, and did place them in such circumstances, with
a view to accomplish the design of his administration.
You will understand, by what has been said, the
connexion between the knowledge and the decrees of
God. When he decreed, he selected, if I may speak
so, from the infinity of possible things, those which
his wisdom judged proper to be done; and the things
thus selected were henceforth future and certain.
No man will deny, that there are divine decrees, who
believes that God is an intelligent being, and considers
what this character implies. An intelligent being is
one who knows and judges, who purposes ends and de
vises means, who acts from design, conceives a plan,
and then proceeds to execute it. Fortune was worship
ped as a goddess by the ancient heathens, and was re
presented as blind, to signify that she was guided by
no fixed rule, and distributed her favours at random.
Surely no person of common sense, not to say piety,
will impute procedure so irrational to the Lord of uni
versal nature. As he knew all things that his power
could accomplish, there were undoubtedly reasons,
which determined him to do one thing, and not to do
another; and his choice, which was founded upon
those reasons, was his decree. Upon this subject, we
cannot avoid speaking of him after the manner of men ;
because, in endeavouring to conceive the acts of his
mind, we necessarily refer to the operations of our
own, however great is the difference between infinite
and finite. When various plans are laid before us, and
we prefer one to the rest, this act of our minds is a de
cree or purpose by which our subsequent conduct is
regulated. The works of God, in like manner, neces
sarily presuppose a decree, as the plan of which they
are the developement. It will certainly be admitted,
that God intended to create the world before he actual
ly created it ; that he intended to make man before he
fashioned his body, and breathed the breath of life in
to his nostrils ; that he intended to govern the world
which he had made, according to certain laws; and it
will be farther admitted, that when he resolved to
create the world, and to make man, and to establish
laws physical and moral, he had some ultimate object
in view. Having constructed a machine, and set it in
motion, he knew what would be the result; and this
result was the true reason, or the final cause, why the
machine was constructed. This intention of the Deity
is his decree. To this general idea of a decree no man
can object, whatever difficulties may occur in the de
tail of the doctrine, because it is as simple, and as ne
cessarily forced upon our minds, as the idea of a pur
pose in the mind of a wise man, preceding an enter

prise in which he embarks, or a particular mode of life
which he adopts. In fine, the decree of God is his
will, in which the exertions of his power, and the
manifestations of his other perfections, originated.
When we speak of his decreeing or purposing, wj
mean nothing mysterious and profound, but merely,
that before he acted, he willed to act, that his opera
tions ad extra * were not the effects of necessity, but
of counsel and design.
The Scriptures make mention of the decrees of God
in many passages, and in a variety of terms. They
speak of his foreknowledge, his purpose, his will, the
determinate counsel of his will, his good pleasure, and
his predestination : Christ, says an apostle, "was de
livered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
of God:"f "Whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate." X " He hath made known unto us the
mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure,
which he hath purposed in himself."l| " He worketh
all things after the counsel of his own will."§ It is un
necessary to multiply quotations. There are two re
marks which I would make upon the language of Scrip
ture : First, when it represents the decrees of God as
his counsel, the word is not to be understood in its
usual acceptation, as implying consultation with oth
ers, or reflection, comparison, the deduction of infer
ences from premises, and the establishment of a con
clusion as the result of the previous process. This
slow procedure suits our limited faculties, but the de
cisions of an infinite mind are instantaneous. His de
crees are called his counsel, to signify that they are
consummately wise. Secondly, when they are called
his will, it is not meant to insinuate that they are ar
bitrary decisions ; but merely, that in making his de
crees, he was under no control, and acted according to
his own sovereignty. When a man's will is the rule
of his conduct, it is usually capricious and unreasona
ble ; but wisdom is always associated with will in the
divine proceedings ; and accordingly his decrees are
said to be the " counsel of his will."
A question has been agitated upon this subject, which
is very abstruse, and of which I almost despair of being
able to convey a clear idea to you, as I am not sure
that I distinctly understand it. It relates to the manner
in which the decrees are in God, whether essentially,
or inhesively and accidentally. The first is accounted
the orthodox opinion. I know not how to explain it ;
but it is affirmed that the decrees of God are not differ
ent from himself, and are identified with his essence,
and that he never was without his decrees. If I have
any glimpse of the meaning, it appears to be this,, that
in God there is nothing analogous to thought in man,
which is not his soul itself, but an act of his Soul. It
is easy to put together words, which shall express this
proposition ; but I doubt much whether any man can
affix a distinct idea to it, with whatever confidence he
may repeat it. You may say that the decrees of God
are God himself decreeing, and you may say the same
thing of « man, that his decrees are the man himself
decreeing : the decrees, however, are not more identified
with the essence in the one case, than in the other. We
do not indeed understand the operations of an infinite
mind, and they must be very different from those of our
own ; but we would persuade ourselves and others that
we do understand them, although it frequently happens,
(and the present case, I think, is an instance,) that we
darken counsel by words without knowledge. What
is the meaning of decrees which are God himself? or
what can we infer from the assertion, that God could
not be without his decrees, but that they were as neces
sary as his existence, and consequently, that it was
necessary that the world should be created, and all the

* Exteriorly.
|| Eph. i. 9.

f Acts ii. 23.
} Ibid. 11.

t Rom. viii. 29.

184

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

events should happen, which have taken place, or will
take place throughout an endless duration? There
have been distinctions invented to support this opinion,
and to answer objections ; but I may spare myself and
you the trouble of retailing them, as they would neither
entertain nor instruct you.
The decrees of God relate to all future things without
exception ; whatever is done in time, was fore-ordained
before the beginning of time. His purpose was con
cerned with every thing, whether great or small,
whether good or evil ; although, in reference to the
latter, it may be necessary to distinguish between ap
pointment and permission. It was concerned with
things necessary, free, and contingent ; with the move
ments of matter, which are necessary ; with the volitions
and actions of intelligent creatures, which are free;
and with such things as we call accidents, because
they take place undesignedly on our part, and without
any cause which we could discover. It was concerned
about our life, and our death ; about our state in time,
and our state in eternity. In short, the decrees of God
are as comprehensive as his government, which extends
to all creatures, and to all events. God did not merely
decree to make man, and place him upon the earth, and
then to leave him to his own uncontrolled guidance :
he fixed all the circumstances in the lot of individuals,
and all the particulars which will compose the history
of the human race from its commencement to its close.
He did not merely decree that general laws should be
established for the government of the world, but he
settled the application of those laws to all particular
cases. Our days are numbered, and so are the hairs
of our heads. We may learn what is the extent of the
Divine decrees from the dispensations of Providence,
in which they are executed. The care of Providence
reaches to the most insignificant creatures, and the most
minute events, the death of a sparrow and the fall of a
hair. Some, indeed, talk of a general providence, by
which I know not well what they mean, unless it be to
save the Almighty the trouble of entering into details,
and to burden him only with the office of upholding the
general system. Hence they wisely tell us, that he
takes care of the species, but not of the individuals ; not
perceiving that it is hardly possible to express a greater
absurdity in fewer words. A species is a general name
by which the common and distinguishing qualities of a
number of individuals are denoted. The species is
nothing but the individuals under a particular classifi
cation. How then can the species be taken care of, if
the individuals be neglected ? In the same way, to
allude to a familiar instance, in which a man would
take care of his pounds who took no care of his
pence. The notion of a general, to the exclusion of a
particular providence, is irrational as well as unscrip-
tural. It is only by attending to individuals, and the
regulation of minute affairs, that the business of the
world can be carried on. We may say of providence,
as the Psalmist says of the sun, that nothing is hidden
from its heat, that its influence pervades the whole sys
tem of things. As God works all things according to
the counsel of his will, we infer from his works what
his counsel is, as we judge of an architect's plan by
inspecting the building which was raised under his
directions. I proceed to lay before you some of the properties of
the Divine decrees. And, in the first place, I remark,
that they were made from eternity. This is readily
granted with respect to some of the decrees, those, for
example, which relate to the creation of the world and
of man, and to the mission of Jesus Christ; but, it has
been maintained, that those, which relate to things de
pendent upon the free agency of man, are made in time.
This opinion, however, is so far from receiving any
countenance from Scripture, that it is directly contra
dicted by it. It is expressly affirmed that believers

were chosen in Christ, and that grace was given to
them, "before the world began."* When an Apostle
says, " Known unto God are all his works from the
beginning of the world,"f he virtually teaches that his
decrees are eternal ; for his words import, that at the
commencement of time the plan was arranged, according
to which his works were to be executed. It is manifest
that, if they had not been determined upon, they could
not have been foreknown as certain. To suppose any
of the Divine decrees, to be made in time, is to suppose
that some new occasion has occurred, some unforeseen
event or combination of circumstances has taken place,
which has induced the Most High to pronounce a new
sentence, or form a new resolution. If he knew from
eternity all that he knows in time, no reason can be
assigned why he should have delayed his arrangements
so long. Temporal decrees suppose the knowledge of
the Deity to be limited, and that he is receiving acces
sions to it in the progress of time. He comes to a reso
lution respecting men, after he has found what part
they would act in particular circumstances. No man,
who believes that the Divine understanding is infinite,
comprehending the past, the present, and the future,
will ever assent to the doctrine of temporal decrees.
And is there any thing which God does not know? Is
he ignorant of events which depend upon human voli
tions? No; he has foretold them in innumerable in
stances; prophecy is founded upon his infallible pre
science, and shews that all things were certain to him
from the beginning, and were so settled that they could
not be changed. Although we cannot understand what
is meant by identifying God's decrees with his essence,
yet we have no hesitation in fixing theirdate in eternity.
In the second place, The divine decrees are wise.
Wisdom is discovered in the selection of the most
proper ends, and of the fittest means of accomplishing
them. That this character belongs to the decrees of
God, fs evident from what we know of them. They
are disclosed to us by their execution ; and every proof
of wisdom in the works of God, is a proof of the
wisdom of the plan in conformity to which they are
performed. It is indeed, but a very small part of them
which falls under our observation ; but, we ought to
proceed here as we do in other cases, and judge of the
whole by the specimen, of what is unknown, by what
is known. He who perceives works of admirable skill
in the parts of a machine, which he has an opportunity
to examine, is naturally led to believe that the other
parts are equally admirable. In this manner we should
satisfy our minds, when doubts obtrude themselves
upon us, and repel the objections which may be sug
gested by some things which we cannot reconcile to our
notions of what is expedient and proper. As far as we
can go, every thing is worthy of God ; why should we
not believe, that beyond the point which bounds our
researches, there is the same order, the same beauty,
the same correspondence with the Divine character and
attributes ? Convinced as we are by experience, that
the plans of the Almighty are the result of consummate
intelligence, ought we not, while we stand at the brink
of the abyss which we cannot fathom, to exclaim in the
language of profound reverence and humble adoration:
" O, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and
knowledge of God ! how unsearchable are his judg
ments, and his ways past finding out!":): Incompre
hensible as are the counsels of God, we may be assured
that no part of them is the effect of caprice, or of mere
will, but that to his mind there appeared a sufficient
reason for every thing which he purposed to do. Some
have said, that as his knowledge is infinite, and his
wisdom perfect, he must have discerned among possible
events which was the best, and have chosen according
ly ; and consequently, that the actual system of things
* Eph. i. 4. 2 Tim. i. 9. f Acts xv. 18 t Rom. xi. 33.

THE DECREES OF GOD.

185

is the best possible system. In this manner, they
account for the permission of moral evil, and for the
creation of such a being as man, although God foresaw
that he would abuse his liberty, and involve a whole
race in guilt and misery. A system pregnant with
such consequences, was preferred, because it was, upon
the whole, better than any other. When we reflect
upon the wonderful dispensation which has resulted
from the fall, and by which God is glorified in the
highest, we are almost disposed to assent to this theory ;
but it seems to be a speculation beyond the reach of our
faculties. It is an attempt to soar to a region too pure
and sublime for us to breathe in it. Let us be content
to move in a lower sphere, and to trace the evidences of
wisdom with which we are surrounded there, and by
which we shall feel this truth deeply impressed upon
our minds, that God is wonderful in counsel, and excel
lent in working.
In the third place, The decrees of God are free :
" Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or, being
his counsellor, hath taught him ? With whom took he
counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the
path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and
shewed to him the way of understanding ?"* He was
alone when he made his decrees, and his determinations
were influenced by no external cause. He was free to
decree, or not to decree, and to decree one thing, and
not another. This liberty we must ascribe to Him who
is supreme, independent, and sovereign in all his dis
pensations. In settling the notion of human liberty,
Calvinistic divines maintain against Arminians, that it
does not consist in a power to act with motives, or
without them, or in opposition to them ; but in the
power of acting according to the prevailing inclination,
or according to the motive which appears strongest to
the mind. Human volitions are not arbitrary, but are
influenced by the previous state of the mind. A man
chooses what appears to be good, and he chooses it
necessarily, in this sense, that he could not do other
wise. The object of every volition, is to please him
self; and to suppose a man to have any other object,
that is, to will any thing which does not please him in
itself, or in its circumstances, is absurd ; it is to suppose
him to will, and not to will at the same time. He is
perfectly voluntary in his choice ; but his willingness
is the consequence of the view which his mind takes
of the object presented to it, or of his prevailing dispo
sition. If we apply this reasoning to God, it will fol
low that his decrees are not the result of mere will, but
of will under the direction of wisdom ; and as, in hu
man deliberations, the strongest motive prevails, so in
the Divine counsels that system of things was preferred
which appeared to be best. Advance a step farther,
and you will say, that God could not have chosen any
other system, more than a man can act in opposition to
the strongest motive, while he is feeling the full force
of its influence. Observe now the consequence of the
conclusion at which we have arrived. It is this, that
the decrees ofGod could not have been different from what
they are. But, are we prepared to admit this conclu
sion ? Shall we believe that God could not have made
this world, in any respect, different from what it is ; that
he could not have placed man in such circumstances as
would have prevented his fall ; and that, when man had
fallen, he could not have abstained from glorifying him
self by his salvation? Surely we have cause to suspect
the reasoning which leads to a belief so contrary to Scrip
ture, and so injurious to the feelings of piety. God might,
or might not, have created the world ; he might have
confirmed man in a state of holiness, as well as have
permitted him to fall ; he might have withheld his Son,
his only-begotten Son, and left the human race to per
dition ; and having given his Son, he might have saved

* Isa. xl. 13, 14.

more, or saved fewer, than shall be actually redeemed
by him. We are ignorant of the reasons of his choice
but we cannot persuade ourselves that they are such'
that no other choice could have been made. We assert'
then, that the decrees of God are free. No necessity
can be supposed to influence the procedure of a self-ex
istent and independent Being, except the necessity aris
ing from his infinite perfections, of always acting in a
manner worthy of himself. To his infinite understand
ing there must have appeared more than one way of do
ing so; and although there were undoubtedly reasons
for the choice which he has made, it would be boldness,
not to be vindicated from the charge of impiety, to say
that he could not have adopted another.
I remark once more, that the decrees of God are ab
solute and unconditional. The execution of them is not
suspended upon any condition which may, or may not,
be performed. Here we have many opponents, Luther
ans, Arminians, Jesuits ; all, in a word, who have not
adopted those views of the subject which are usually
called Calvinistic. It is granted, that some of the de
crees of God are conditional, in this sense, that something
is supposed to go before the event which is the object of
the decree, and that, this order being established, the one
will not take place without the other. He decreed, for
example, to save Paul and the companions of his voy
age to Italy ; but he decreed to save them only on condi
tion that the sailors should remain in the ship.* He
has decreed to save many from the wrath to come ; but
he has decreed to save them only if they believe in
Christ, and turn by him from the error of their ways.
But these decrees are conditional only in appearance.
They merely state the order in which the events should
be accomplished ; they establish a connexion between
the means and the end, but do not leave the means un
certain. When God decreed to save Paul and his com
panions, he decreed that the sailors should be prevented
from leaving the ship; and accordingly gave Paul
previous notice of the preservation of every person on
board. When he decreed to save those who should be
lieve, he decreed to give them faith ; and accordingly
we are informed, that those whom he predestinated he
also calls into the fellowship of his Son.f That any
decree is conditional in the sense of our opponents,— that
it depends upon the will of man, of which he is sovereign
master, so that he may will or not will as he pleases, —
we deny. " My counsel," says God, " shall stand, and
I will do all my pleasure."}: But be could not speak
so, if his counsel depended upon a condition which
might not be performed. He mightdesire the event for
his own glory or the good of his creatures, and take
measures to accomplish it ; but if theultimate determina
tion depended upon the human will, over which he had
no control, it would be uncertain till the moment arriv
ed what the issue would be. He might wish to save a
particular person ; but, as that person might believe, or
not believe, it could not be known beforehand how he
would act, and the design of God with respect to him
might be frustrated. If you assert conditional decrees,
you must suppose that God is ignorant of the result,
that the event is not in his power, or that he has deter
mined nothing concerning it, and has left it to chance.
But " known unto him are all his works from the begin
ning of the world. "|| It is evident that they could not
be known, if they had not been unconditionally decreed ;
because, on the contrary supposition, they would be the
objects, not of knowledge, but of conjecture. " He
worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."§
But this could not be, if the will of his creatures some
times counteracted his will, if the execution of his pur
poses was suspended upon a co-operation which it was
in their power to withhold. It will be shewn afterwards,

* Acts xxvii.
|| Acts xv. 18.

t Rom. viii. 30.
J Eph. i. 11.

| Isa. xlvi. 10.

186

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

that those acts of tbe human will, upon which his de
crees are supposed to be suspended, aTe under his direc
tion, and are comprehended in his decrees ; which, as
we have already observed, while they appointed the end,
also provided the means.
Here we come to a question which has engaged the
attention, and exercised the ingenuity, and perplexed
the wits of men in every age. If God has fore-ordained
whatsoever comes to pass, the whole series of events
is necessary, and human liberty is taken away. Men
are passive instruments in the hands of their Maker ; they
can do nothing but what they are secretly and irresisti
bly influenced to do ; they are not, therefore, respon
sible for their actions ; and God is the Author of sin.
To this objection it is replied, that the divine decree is
extrinsic to the human mind ; that it exerts no force or
influence upon our faculties ; and that, while it insures
the futurition of events, it leaves them to be accomplish
ed in the exercise of our liberty. While it determines
that some, things should be brought to pass necessarily,
it determines that other things should be brought to pass
freely. God has decreed, not only that men should act,
but that they should act freely, and agreeably to their
rational nature. He determined the act; but men being
free agents, it was possible, in respect of their liberty
abstractly considered, that they might act differently.
When, however, you have reflected upon this answer,
and stripped it of its technical form, you will find that
it amounts to nothing. It just says, that, notwithstand
ing the decree of God, man retains his liberty of action ;
and, consequently, puts us off with an assertion under
the pretext of giving us an explanation. Believing that
all things are immutably fixed in the divine counsels,
we wish to know how the predetermination is consist
ent with liberty. To what purpose is it to tell us, that
God has decreed that some things shall take place ne
cessarily, and other things freely? What information
does this answer give us ? what doubt does it solve?
Still the question remains, How can those actions be
free, which were so fixed that they could not be avoided?
It is a more intelligible method to explain the subject
by the doctrine, which makes liberty consist in the. pow
er of acting according to the prevailing inclination, or
the motive which appears strongest to the mind. Those
actions are free which are the effect of volition. In
whatever manner the state of mind which gave rise to
the volition has been produced, the liberty of the agent
is neither greater nor less. It is his will alone which
is to be considered, and not the means by which it has
been determined. If God fore-ordained certain actions,
and placed men in such circumstances that the actions
would certainly take place agreeably to the laws of the
mind, men are nevertheless moral agents, because they
act voluntarily, and are responsible for the actions which
consent has made their own. Liberty does not consist
in the power of acting or not acting, but in acting from
choice. The choice is determined by something in the
mind itself, or by something external influencing the
mind ; but, whatever is the cause, the choice makes the
action free, and the agent accountable. If this definition
of liberty be admitted, you will perceive that it is possi
ble to reconcile the freedom of the will with absolute
decrees ; but we have not got rid of every difficulty.
By this theory, human actions appear to be as necessa
ry as the motions of matter according to the laws of grav
itation and attraction ; and man seems to be a machine,
conscious of his movements, and consenting to them, but
impelled by something different from himself.
Upon such a subject, no man should be ashamed to
acknowledge his ignorance. We are not required to re
concile the divine decrees and human liberty. It is
enough to know that God has decreed all things which
come to pass, and that men are answerable for their ac
tions. Of both these truths we are assured by the Scrip
tures ; and the latter is confirmed by the testimony of

conscience. We feel that, although not independent
upon God, we are free ; so that we excuse ourselves
when we have done our duty, and accuse ourselves when
we have neglected it. Sentiments of approbation and
disapprobation in reference to our own conduct or that
of other men, would have no existence in our minds if
we believed that men are necessary agents. But the
tie which connects the divine decrees and human liber
ty is invisible. " Such knowledge is too wonderful for
us ; it is high, we cannot attain unto it."* If every
thing in religion were level to the comprehension of rea
son, there would be no room for faith. It is better'to
believe humbly, than to reason presumptuously. And
presumptuous all those reasonings may be called, which
lead to the denial of the immutability of the divine coun
sels, or of the freedom of the human will ; which make
man a machine, and God the author of sin.
It is worthy of attention, that the great objection a-
gainst unconditional decrees, that they are inconsistent
with the liberty of action, is not removed by denyino-
them, if it be granted at the same time, that our actions
are fore-known. The foreknowledge of God is not con
jecture, or probable calculation, but distinct and infalli
ble prevision of future events. Whatever is the founda
tion of his foreknowledge, what he does foreknow will
undoubtedly take place. Here, then, the actions of men
are as unalterably fixed from eternity, as if they had
been the subject of an immutable decree. I would ask,
therefore, how they are more free in one case than in the
other? Absolute decrees are objected to because they
render human actions necessary ; that is, having been
fore-ordained, they must take place, and cannot be avoid
ed. But there is the same strong necessity, in conse
quence of foreknowledge. Actions which were certain
ly foreknown, will certainly take place ; and it is as im
possible to avoid them, as it is to pluck the sun from
the firmament. Thus, in endeavouring to escape one
difficulty, we run into another equally formidable. In-
cidit in Scyllam, qui vult vitare Charybdim.f
The rejection of absolute decrees is intended to pave
the way for the establishment of that kind of liberty
which consists in the self-determining power of the will,
or is the consequence of the admission of such liberty.
Arminians maintain, that after all motives have been
presented to his mind, a man retains the power of com
plying with them or resisting them, that the will remains
in a state of indifference, and inclines to the one side or
the other by its own sovereign choice. Absolute de
crees overturn this notion of liberty from the foundation.
It is evident that actions are not contingent; that is, it is
not true that they may or may not be, if they are prede
termined. But it is equally evident that they are not
contingent, if they are foreknown. If God foresees that
an event will take place, its future existence is neces
sary ; that is, it is impossible that it should not take
place. It was certain from all eternity that a good man
would perform a virtuous action yesterday, as it is now
certain that he did perform it. How, then, could that
action be subject to the arbitrary decision of his will ?
How could it still be equally possible that he might or
might not perform it ? On the supposition of simple
fore-knowledge, even without any positive decree, the
Arminian notion of liberty falls to the ground. It were
well if the abettors of this system would consider, that
tbe consequences, with which they charge the doctrine
of absolute decrees, arise equally from their own doc
trine of fore-knowledge. The objection, that they ne
cessitate human actions, would cease to alarm them,
and their minds would be disposed to assent to the doc
trine of our Church, that " God from all eternity did, by
the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely
and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass."^
* Psalm cxxxix. 6.
t He that wishes to avoid Charybdis, falls upon Scylla.
} West. Conf. chap. iii. $ 1.

PREDESTINATION.

187

LECTURE XXXV.
ON PREDESTINATION.
Predestination defined — Systems of the Supralapsarians, Sub
lapsarians, and Arminians— Decree of Election — Its Eterni
ty, Sovereignty, and Immutability — Its connexion with the
Mediation of Christ — Thi9 Decree not the Rule of human
conduct. The preceding Lecture was devoted to the considera
tion of the decrees of God. I endeavoured to prove
that there are Divine decrees, or that God has fore-or
dained whatsoever comes to pass, and to illustrate their
.properties or distinguishing characters. I shall now
proceed to speak more particularly of those decrees
which relate to his intelligent creatures.
They are commonly comprehended under the gener
al title of Predestination. It is applicable, indeed, ac
cording to the import of the term, to all the purposes
of God which determine beforehand what is to come
to pass ; but it is usually limited to those purposes of
which the spiritual and eternal state of man is the
object. It is evident from reason, that the Divine decrees re
late also to angels, and it is inferred from that passage
of Scripture in which the elect angels are mentioned.*
As they were created by the power of God, so it was
not without an act of his will that some of them stood,
and others were permitted to fall. We cannot suppose
the angelical order to have been left out of his plan, any
more than the human race, or created will to have acted
with more independence and sovereignty in the one
case than in the other. But, as the Scriptures have
said little on this subject, we should have no assistance
in pursuing the inquiry but the feeble light of our own
minds, and should be encumbered by greater difficul
ties than those which attend the decrees of God in re
lation to man. We shall therefore pass to the consid
eration of the latter, on which our information is more
ample, and which it is manifest are not, like the for
mer, a subject of mere speculation ; for, although the
decrees are not a rule of conduct to us, they are calcu
lated to awaken sentiments of piety, and are represent
ed as furnishing ample grounds of admiration, gratitude,
consolation and hope to believers.
_ The term, predestination, includes the decrees of elec
tion and reprobation. Some, indeed, confine it to elec
tion ; but theTe seems to be no sufficient reason for not
extending it to the one as well as to the other, as in
both the final condition of man is preappointed, or
predestinated. Upon a subject so abstruse, it is not
wonderful that there should be a diversity of opinion,
especially when, instead of implicitly acquiescing in
the dictates of revelation, men begin to reason and to
j ud ge of the proceedings of an infinite Beingbytheirown
notions of wisdom and fitness. I shall lay before you
a short account of the different systems which have
been espoused by divines of different denominations.
The first is that of the Supralapsarians, who main
tain, that, as what is last in accomplishment is first in
the intention of a wise man, the object of God in his
eternal decrees was the manifestation of his infinite per
fections, and particularly of his mercy and justice, in
the happiness of some of his creatures and the misery
of others. To accomplish this design, he decreed to
create man after his own image, but to place him in
such circumstances that his fall would necessarily fol
low: to send his Son to die upon the cross for the salva
tion of those whom he had chosen, and to give them effec
tual grace to convert and sanctify them, while the rest
should be delivered up to blindness and impenitence.
According to this system, as the name of those by
* 1 Tim. y. 21.

whom it is adopted imports, the Divine decrees bad ne
respect to the fall of man, except as it was the means
of executing them. Men were elected or rejected
without any consideration of the fall, and were viewed
by God, not as sinners, but simply as creatures. God
thought only of his own glory, and all the events which
take place in time, the creation of man, his apostasy, and
his recovery, are so many steps in the process. While
we must concede to this system the praise of consisten
cy, by which I mean the regular disposition and close
connexion of its parts, our minds revolt from the idea
of such absolute sovereignty as appears in the destina
tion of intelligent creatures to everlasting misery, not
only before they had actually committed sin, but prior
to the consideration of it. We startle at tbe thought of
the destruction of immortal creatures being appointed
by God, solely for the purpose of glorifying his name,
and at the formal and direct introduction of sin as the
fittest expedient for exhibiting him in his various charac
ters of excellence to the admiration of the universe. We
begin to grow giddy at the elevation to which we have
ventured to soar. We experience a confusion of ideas,
and know not well what to think. We are at a loss
to determine whether justice in God be the same in
kind with justice in man, and whether we should re
gard him as the affectionate and bountiful Parent of
the human race, or as a despot, whose arbitrary will is
his law, and who sports with their interests and feelings
solely for Ms pleasure.
The Sublapsarians agree with the Supralapsarians in
holding, that God has chosen some to life, and doomed
others to death ; that he decreed to send his Son to die
for the former, and to give them his effectual grace ;
and that this purpose was eternal ; but they differ from
them with respect to the character in which the objects
of his purpose were considered, affirming that they were
regarded, not simply as creatures, but as sinners. God,
having foreseen from all eternity that man, whom he in
tended to create after his own image, would fall from a
state of innocence, elected some of the human race to
everlasting life, and left the rest to perish in their sins.
The advantage which this system proposes is, that, the
objects of the decree being considered as guilty, the same
objection cannot be urged against the rejection orpre-
terition of some of them, as in the former case, where all
were considered as innocent. It is alleged, indeed, by
Supralapsarians, that it admits a conditional decree, pre
destination being founded upon the foresight of what
man would do, and consequently, that it is encumbered
with all the difficulties which accompany conditional de
crees ; or that the decree is conditional only in appear
ance, God having previously decreed to permit man to
fall. Future events cannot be foreseen, unless they be
certain ; they cannot be certain, unless God have de
termined to bring them to pass. If, then, the fall of
man was certainly foreseen, it was infallibly decreed.
It was fixed from eternity ; it was a link in the chain
of events, which was to terminate in the manifestation
of the Divine glory. The Sublapsarian scheme re
moves no difficulty, but merely speaks in terms less
offensive. It is virtually the same thing to say, that
God decreed that Adam should fall, and then decreed
to save some of his posterity, and leave others to perish ;
as to say that God first decreed to save some, and con
demn others, and then, in order to accomplish this de
sign, decreed the fall of Adam, and the whole human
race in him. As both parties appear to hold the same
ideas upon the subject, it does not seem to be' material in
what order they are arranged. Whatever truth there
may be in such observations, the Sublapsarian scheme
has a milder aspect ; and although we cannot solve eve
ry difficulty, and reply to every objection, it seems wiser
to adopt that mode of speaking on a subj ect so little un
derstood, which is most consonant to our notions ot the
moral character of God.

188

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

The third system is that of the Arminians, or Remon
strants as they are also called, who deny absolute and
unconditional decrees, and maintain, that whatever God
has decreed respecting man is founded upon the foresight
of their conduct. Having foreseen without any decree,
that Adam would involve himself and his posterity in
sin and its consequences, he purposed to send his Son to
die for them all, and to give them sufficient grace to im
prove the means of salvation ; and knowing beforehand,
who would believe and persevere to the end, and who
would not, he chose the former to eternal life, and left
the latter in a state of condemnation. There has been
a diversity of opinion among the holders of this general
system; and some of them, who have gone so far, in
support of their idea of the freedom of the will, as to
maintain that human actions, being contingent, cannot
be certainly foreseen, have been led to affirm, that the
decrees of God respecting men are not eternal, but are
made in time; that men are elected to eternal life after
they have believed, but that, if they fall into a state of
unbelief and impenitence, the sentence or decree is re
versed. The doctrine of our church is so expressed, that with
out putting any unnatural construction upon the words,
it might be supposed to be agreeable to the Supralapsa-
rian scheme. I refer to the third chapter of the Confes
sion of Faith, and to the explanation of the decrees in the
Larger Catechism. The Shorter Catechism may be
supposed to be modelled after the Sublapsarian scheme,
as the fall is mentioned before election, and election
seems to be represented as an act of God, following in
order the consideration of the fall. We may therefore
conclude, that it was not the intention of the Church to
give any decision upon the controversy, and that every
man is at liberty to arrange the decrees in that order
which appears to him most agreeable to the language
of Scripture, and to the views which it gives us of the
perfections of God. And it is well, that there has been
no attempt to dictate to us upon a subject so abstruse,
and in a case where a difference of opinion may be held,
not only with a good conscience, but without the slight
est injury to the interests of piety and holiness. Su
pralapsarians and Sublapsarians are agreed in ascrib
ing to God the glory of Supreme dominion and sovereign
grace, and in acknowledging, that his unmerited love is
the source of all our blessedness in this world, and of
all that we hope to enjoy in the world to come ; "for of
him, and through him, and to him, are all things."*
It will be the business of the subsequent part of this
lecture, to shew that God did actually choose, before the
foundation of the world, some of the human race to eter
nal life, and that he left the rest to perish in their
sins. Let us begin with Election, which may be defined to
be the choice which God, in the exercise of sovereign
grace, made of certain individuals of mankind to enjoy
salvation by Jesus Christ. This definition may be illus
trated and confirmed by the following particulars.
First, God has chosen some to salvation in preference
to others. Nothing would be more absurd, than to op
pose this proposition, in the first instance, as inconsist
ent with the impartiality of the Supreme Being, or with
his justice and goodness, while we have a safer mode of
ascertaining whether it should be received or rejected,
by examining the Scriptures. Is it contained in them,
or may it be deduced from them by plain and necessary
consequences ? Now, I may appeal to every candid
person, whether it is not the obvious import of those
passages which speak of certain persons under the char
acter of the elect, as chosen in Christ, + as chosen to sal
vation,^: as predestinated to the adoption of sons,|| and to
be conformed to the image of God's Son,§ as elect accord-
* Rom. xi. 3G. f Rora- *vi- 13- t 2 Thess. ii. 13.
|| Eph. i. 6. } Rom. viii. 29.

ing to the foreknowledge of God,* as vessels of mercy
whom he hath before prepared unto glory. f Whatever
else such phrases may imply, they manifestly refer to
some act of God in relation to the persons designated,
by which they are distinguished from others. When a
choice is made, we must conceive that, of a number of
persons, some are taken, and others are left. There can
be no such thing as the election of a whole class, view
ed as separated from every other class. Election is a
relative term, and necessarily involves the idea of rejec
tion. The election of which we speak cannot be consid
ered merely as a general purpose to furnish mankind
with the means of salvation. The term can bearnosuch
meaning; and to use it in this sense, would be an exam
ple of abuse or perversion, to which it would not be ea
sy to find a parallel. It is an express purpose to confer
salvation upon certain individuals. It is not an elec
tion of characters, but of persons; that is, it is not a gen
eral design to give eternal life to those who shall believe
and repent, but a specification of those who shall actu
ally enjoy it. Hence their names are said lobe written
in heaven,:): and to be written in the book of life.|| They
are a class of persons, whom God foreknew ; whom, in
consequence of his foreknowledge, he calls, and distin
guishes in his dispensation of grace, as he had previous
ly distinguished them in his purpose. " Even so at this
present time also there is a remnant according to the
election of grace. What then ? Israel hath not obtain
ed that which he seeketh for ; but the election hath ob
tained it, and the rest were blinded."§ God, who is in
dependent, and owes nothing to his creatures, may give
or withhold his favours according to his pleasure. If
men have forfeited all claim to his regard, if they have
fallen under his wrath, and might have been" doomed to
hopeless misery, there is not the shadow of injustice in
the exerciseof hismercy only to a portion of the criminals.
When one man is exempted from punishment, no inju
ry is done to his companions in condemnation, who are
left to the vengeance of the law, because they richly de
served to suffer it and do not become less guilty, because
he is pardoned. The cry against election, as if it made
God a respecter of persons, is a senseless one, and pro
ceeds either from stupidity or malignity. He only is a
respecter of persons, who confers favours upon some,
and withholds them from others equally deserving; not
he, who, where none has a claim upon him, disposes of
his gifts, in the free exercise of the power over them
which naturally belongs to him. May he not do what
he will with his own ?
Secondly, The election of certain persons to eternal
life was made from eternity. Some indeed, as we have
already mentioned, speak of an election which takes
place in time; and only such an election is consistent
with the other parts of their system. God, they say, pur
posed from eternity to send his gospel to men, and to
save such of them as should believe it ; but, as the de
terminations of the human will are sovereign, the per
sons who will obey the gospel must be unknown, until
they are ascertained by the event, and their actual faith
must precede their proper election. You perceive that
this is the opinion of those who are led by theirextrav-
agant notions of liberty, to deny the Divine prescience
of what they call contingent actions. But, to take no
notice of the strange and impious tenet, so inconsistent
with the absolute perfection of the Divineunderstanding,
I observe, that an election in time is at direct variance
with the doctrine of Scripture. " We are bound," says
Paul to the Thessalonians, " to give thanks always to
God for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God
hath from the beginning chosen yon to salvation through
sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth. "If
Some understand by " the beginning," the beginning of

* 1 Pet. i. 2. + Rom. ix. 23. t Heb. xii. 23.
|| Phil. iv. 3. Rev. xiii. 8. } Rom. xi. 5, 7. IT 2 Thess. ii.

THE DECREES OF GOD: PREDESTINATION.

189

the gospel, and suppose the Apostle to mean, that they
were elected at the time when the gospel was first preach
ed to them, and they believed it. But the absurdity of this
opinion is manifest. Who cansuppose that all the Thes
salonians to whom the Epistle is directed, believed from
the moment that the glad tidings were first proclaimed to
them? Did it not happen in Thessalonica, as in other
places, that some believed at first, and some afterwards,
and that those who were to be saved, were gradually
added to the Church? It is worthy of attention, that
the words in the following verse — " Whereunto he call
ed you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of
our Lord Jesus Christ" — evidently import, that their
call to the enjoyment of salvation was subsequent to their
election ; for the Apostle distinguishes between the two
facts, asserting that they were chosen to salvation from
the beginning, and then called to it by the gospel. It
seems', therefore, more consonant to the whole passage,
to assign to the term beginning, the sense, which it
bears in other passages, where it. signifies eternity. " In
the beginning was the Word."* "I was set up from
everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was."-)-
But the following passages are more explicit, and their
evidence can be set aside, only by such criticism as per
plexes what is simple, and darkens what is clear. " Ac
cording as he hath chosen us in him before the founda
tion of the world, that we should be holy and without
blame before him in love.":): "He hath saved us, and call
ed us with an holy calling, not according to our works,
but according to his own purpose and grace, which were
given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."|| In
finite knowledge is a divine perfection. The eye of
God sees" at one glance the past, the present, and the fu
ture. No event occurs which he did not foresee ; no cir
cumstance takes place, which did not enter into his plan.
"Known unto God are all his works from the begin
ning of the world."§ All things relative to every indi
vidual of the human race were settled, long before man
was created ; the number of the inhabitants of heaven was
fixed, " while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the
fields, nor the highest parts of the dust of the world."
In the third place, In the election of certain persons
to eternal life, God did not proceed upon the ground of
their foreseen qualifications. The choice was an act of
his sovereignty. I would not be understood to insinu
ate, that the procedure of the Almighty was arbitrary,
or that there was no reason why he preferred some to
others, because he who acts without reason, acts without
wisdom ; but I affirm, that the preference was not owing
to any difference in the moral characters of its objects.
Many, who admit the doctrine of election, which is so
clearly taught in the Scriptures, maintain that the decree
was conditional. God, they say, having purposed to
send his gospel to this and the other nation, foresaw in
what manner each individual would conduct himself
in reference to it. He foresaw, that while some, under
the influence of pride of understanding and worldly af
fections, would treat it with neglect and contempt, oth
ers would embrace it with a sincere and upright heart,
and live in obedience to its precepts; and these he ap
pointed to salvation on the ground of their foreseen faith
and good works. The decree of God, although prior to
time, is posterior in order to the actions of men, and is de
pendent upon tbe determination of their will. But, to
this opinion, so derogatory to the supreme dominion and
absolute authority of God, the doctrine of Scripture is
directly opposed. Election is ascribed to grace, to the
exclusion of works ; and these two causes are represent
ed as incompatible and mutually destructive. " Even
so then at this present time also there is a remnant accord
ing to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it
no more of works ; otherwise grace is no more grace.

» John i. 1.
|| 2 Tim. i. 9.

f Prov. viii. 23.
} Acts xv. 18

} Eph. i. 4.

But if it be of works, then is it no more grace ; otherwise
work is no more work."* How is it possible to recon
cile with these words, the opinion that the foresight of
men's good works was the cause of their election ? Be
sides, it is worthy of particular attention, that faith and
holiness, which the advocates of conditional decrees
make the causes of election, are expressly said in Scrip
ture to be effects of it. " God hath from the beginning
chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the
Spirit, and belief of the truth ;"| not for your faith and
holiness, but through them as the means, by which the
Divine purpose is executed. A passage in the Epistle
to the Ephesians must be cited again. " According as
he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of
the world, that we should be holy and without blame
before him in love.":): Here the order is exactly the re
verse of that which is laid down in the system of our
opponents. Men are not first holy, or foreseen as to be
holy, and then chosen ; but they are first chosen, and then
holy, their holiness being not the cause, but the end ol
the decree. In the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the
Romans, Paul produces the case of Jacob and Esau as
an illustration of the subject,! and traces the predes
tination of individuals, to happiness or misery, to the
sovereignty of God without any consideration of their
works. " When Rebecca had conceived by one, even
by our father Isaac, (for the children being not yet born,
neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose
of God according to election might stand, not of works,
but of him that calleth,) it was said unto her, The el
der shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob
have I loved, but Esau have I hated."|| As the lot of
the two sons of Isaac was settled prior to their personal
conduct, so the Apostle signifies, that the appointment
of particular persons to salvation depends solely upon
the good pleasure of God. It is, indeed, impossible to
conceive, that God could foresee faith and holiness in
men previous to their election, because, human nature
being totally depraved, they can have no existence but
as effects of divine grace ; and if there beany thing clear
in the Scriptures, it is this, that the communication of
grace is the consequence of the love of God before the
foundation of the world. This eternal love is the source,
from which proceed those heavenly influences that puri
fy the human soul. But how, it may be asked, does it
happen, that in the face of all this evidence, so many
should maintain conditional election ? The true answer
is, that the sovereign exercise of mercy renders us ab
solute debtors to our Maker; it leaves not a vestige of
merit, it humbles us in the dust. How contrary this
procedure is to out natural inclinations, you need not be
informed. Man, fallen and degraded as he is, would
still be great; and nothing comes with more reluctance
from his lips than the right answer to this question,
Who maketh thee to differ from another? He wishes
to find some ground for saying, I have made myself to
differ, and fondly embraces any theory which makes him
the arbiter of his destiny, and suspends his final doom
upon his own determination.
In the fourth place, The purpose of God respecting
his elect, is immutable. It cannot be reversed. Some,
indeed, have maintained, that the decrees of God are
subject to change, like the purposes of men ; and that
a person who is one of the elect to-day, may become one
of the reprobate to morrow. This notion is in unison
with their ideas of the freedom of the will, which, pos
sessing a power to act in opposition to the influence of
motives, may disappoint the calculations which had
been made of its decisions, and render ineffectual the
means employed to regulate its choice. Hence there
may be sudden transitions from faith to unbelief, from
the love of God to the love of the world ; in consequence

* Rom. xi. 5, 6.
X Eph. 1. 4.

f2 Thess. ii. 13.
|| Rom. ix. 10- ^13.

190

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

of which the name of tbe unworthy persons shall be
blotted out of the beck of life. This is the doctrine of
Arminius and his followers, in whose writings we
meet with such expressions as these : " Ii is false to
say that election is confirmed from everlasting;" "men
may make their election void ;" " they do sometimes.
of elect, become reprobate, and of reprobate, elect;" and
"as they change themselves from believers to unbe
lievers, so the Divine determination concerning them
changes." As it is evident that this doctrine is calcula
ted to impair the. consolations of the people of God,
and to fill them with perplexity and fear; so it is in di
rect opposition to his word, which declares, that "the
counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts of
his heart to all generations."* But besides this gener
al assurance of the immutability of his counsel, it is af
firmed in particular, that " the foundation of God stand
eth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that
are his."f There is no reason to doubt that " the foun
dation of the-Cord" here signifies his decree, which is
the ground of his knowledge of those who are his; and
when we consider, that the words are introduced in con
nexion with the mention of false teachers who bad er
red concerning the truth, and overthrown the faith of
some, we are led to infer the stability of the Divine pur
pose respecting the elect, and their subsequent security
against Ihe danger of total and final apostasy. We find
our Saviour saying to his Father concerning his disci
ples, "Thine they were, and thou gavest them me. —
Those that thcu gavest me I have kept, and none of them
is lost, but the son of pprdition ;"£ but that he was not
properly an exception, is manifest from the words im
mediately subjoined, " that the scripture might be ful
filled," which import that his perdition was foreknown
and predetermined. In a word, the immutability of the
decree is evident from the close connexion established
between election and final salvation, by a process, all
the steps of which are inseparably conjoined. " Whom
he did predestinate, them he also called ; and whom he
called, them he also justified; and whom he justified,
them he also glorified. "|j You perceive that a chain
stretches from eternity to eternity, not one link of which
can be broken. The purpose of God, according to elec
tion, shall stand. The rage of the world, the malice
of devils, and the will of man, froward and perverse as
it is, shall not be able to overthrow it. "lam God,
and there is none else ; I am God, and there is none
like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and
from ancient limes the things that are not yet done,
saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my
pleasure."! This, then, is the sum of what has been said on the
subject of election ; that God did make choice of cer
tain individuals to enjoy salvation in preference to oth
ers ; that he chose them before the foundation of the
world ; that in doing so, he acted according to his sover
eign will, and was not influenced by the foresight of
their good qualifications ; and that this decree is im
mutable, it being impossible that any of the elect should
perish. There is one particular which remains to be consid
ered, namely, what is the connexion between the de
cree of election and the mediation of Christ. Had God
any respect to it, in choosing some men to salvation?
If he was not influenced by the foresight of their faith,
was he influenced by the view of their future relation to
the Saviour? In other words, were they predestinated
to life for his sake ? And is this the meaning of the
Scripture when it says, that they were chosen in him
before the foundation of the world ? — To this question I
return an answer in the negative. Whatever is the
sense of the phrase now quoted, this cannot be its mean-

* Ps. xxxiii. 11.
U Rom. viii. 30.

f 2 Tim. ii. 19. J John xvii. 6, 12.
{ Isa. xlvi. 9, 10.

ing. We must explain one passage of Scripture in con
sistency with anotber; and, as we find that the mission
of our Saviour was the effect of the love of God, or, to use
his own words, that " God so loved the world, that he
gave his only begotten Son,"* we conclude that his me
diation was not the cause, but the consequence of elec
tion. The end is first in intention, and then the means
are appointed. The end in this decree was the sal
vation of the elect, and the means were the incarnation,
and death, and intercession of our Lord. In the Divine
mind, there is no succession of thoughts; butaccording
to our analogical mode of conceiving its operations, the
appointment of certain persons to salvation, was ptior
to the appointment of the means by which they should
be saved. The phrase, chosen in Christ, signifies, I ap
prehend, that God had a respect to the mediation of his
Son, not as the reason of their election, but as the ex
pedient by which his purpose would beexecuted. When
he chose them, he gave them to Christ, as he himself
speaks. He constituted himjheir Head ; he set him up
from everlasting as their Representative and Surety, by
whom all would be performed which his justice requir
ed as the condition of their final happiness. Hence,
grace is said to have " been given them in Christ Jesus,
before the world began, "j and eternal life is called the
promise " which God that cannot lie, promised before
the world began.":): In both passages there is an ob
vious reference to Christ, to whom eternal life and all
the blessings of grace were promised, as the federal head
of the elect. But they were first chosen and then giv
en to him, agreeably to his own declaration. "Thine
they were, and thou gavest them me."||
Election, being the purpose which God purposed in
himself, an intrinsic act of the Divine mind, remains un
known till it be manifested in its execution. No man
can read his own name, or that of another, in the Book
of life. It is a sealed book, which no mortal can open.
We are assured that there is such a decree, by the ex
press testimony of Scripture ; but of the persons inclu
ded in it, nothing is known or can be conjectured, till
evidence be exhibited in their personal character and
conduct. An Apostle points out the only means by
which this important point can be ascertained, when he
exhorts christians to " give all diligence to make their
calling and election sure."§ To make sure, signifies in
this place, to ascertain, to render a thing certain to the
mind. Now, the order of procedure is, first to make
our calling certain, or to ascertain that we have been
converted to God, and thus our election will be sure, or
manifest to ourselves. It is the same kind of reasoning
which we employ, in tracing out the cause by the effect.
The operation of divine grace in the regeneration of the
soul, is a proof that the man in whom this change is
wrought, was an object of the divine favour from eterni
ty. The love of God is the source of all the blessings
conferred upun believers. In particular, that operation
of his power, by which they are brought into the fel
lowship of the Gospel, is declared to be the consequence
of a prior purpose to save them. " Whom he did pre
destinate, them he also called." The evidences of re
generation, therefore, are evidences of election ; but
there is no other process by which the latter may be
proved. The Scriptures give us no information on the
subject: it cannot be known by special revelation, for
God makes no disclosure of such secrets; nor is it to
be inferred from impressions or feelings of the mind,
for these are the effects of fancy, and no wise man will
attend to them. Till the decree bring forth, no created
being can tell what are its contents. For " who hath
known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his coun
sellor ?"
As no man can know his election till he believe, it is

* John iii. 16.
|| John xvii. 6.

T2Tim. i. 9.
} 2 Peter i. 10.

} Titus i. 2.

THE DECREES OF GOD : PREDESTINATION.

191

plain that the decree ought to have no effect upon his
conduct in reference to the Gospel. What is unknown
can have no moral influence upon the mind, any more
than what does not exist. The rule of our duty is the
word of God. The only subject into which we should
inquire, is the declaration of his will respecting us ; and
no inference, which we may draw from the doctrine un
der consideration, will justify us in neglecting our duty.
God has not told us whom he has chosen to salvation ;
but he has told us, that all to whom the Gospel is
preached should believe it, and that every man who does
believe shall be saved. We have a law plain and ex
press, and a promise encouraging obedience to it, which,
having been made by Him who is incapable of deceiv
ing us, will certainly be performed. This should satis
fy us, and put an end to our disputes. " Secret things
belong unto the Lord our God, but things that are re
vealed to us and to our children forever."*
The doctrine of election is attended with difficulties ;
but, if it is delivered in the Scriptures, as I trust has
been proved, we are bound to receive it. All that we
ought to expect with regard to sujyects so profound, is
sufficient evidence of their truth ; it is impossible that,
to our limited faculties, they should be made so clear
as to supersede all objections. The proper office of faith
is to assent to the doctrines of religion upon the Divine
testimony alone ; and its strength is never so fully dis
played, as when it receives no aid from sense or reason,
and, although both should ask with an air of scornful
triumph, How can these things be? rests with unshaken
confidence upon the word of Him who cannot lie. Let
us never forget that it is not reason, but revelation,
which is our guide in religion, and that, when the latter
speaks, it is the province of the former to listen and ac
quiesce.

LECTURE XXXVI.

ON PREDESTINATION.

Decree of Reprobation — Proof that there is such a Decree — The
Ground of it ; and wherein it consists — Practical Utility of
the Doctrine of Predestination — Objections to it.
Having considered, in the preceding Lecture, tbe
decree of election, I now proceed to speak of that of re
probation. Our Church gives the following account of
it : — " The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according
to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby
he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for
the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to
pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for
their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice. "f To
reprobate is to disapprove, or to reject ; and the term is
used to express that act of God by which, when all
mankind were before the eye of his omniscience, he re
jected some, while he chose others. Some are dispos
ed to prefer the word preterition, not only because it
is a softer term, but because they conceive that there
was no positive act of God in reference to those who
were left in their sins, but that he merely passed them
by. His procedure towards them, they consider as a
simple negation of the favour which he extended to oth
ers. But, although there is no reason for employing terms
unnecessarily strong, upon a subject which in itself is
very awful, and we would not imitate those who have
chosen to express themselves in the harshest and most
offensive manner, as if they had felt some strange de
light in painting it with the darkest colours ; yet I do
not see how we can suppose nothing more than a sort of

* Deut. xxix. 29.

f West. Conf. chap. iii. J 7.

inactive preterition, as there was undoubtedly an act of
the will of God with respect to the reprobate as well as
the elect. When, out of many objects which are pre
sented to him, a person makes a selection, he as posi
tively rejects some as he chooses others. He does not
pass by any without taking notice of them ; but, having
them all at once, or in succession, under his eye, he
takes and leaves, for reasons which are satisfactory to
himself. Not to choose, is a negative phrase, but it
does not imply the absence of a determination of the
mind. It is not to words, but to things, that we ought
to attend ; and any man, who reflects upon the operation
of his own mind in a similar case, will perceive that
the will is exercised in passing by one object, as much
as in choosing another. There seems to be no reason,
therefore, for denying, that what is called reprobation
was a positive decree as well as election. Some distin
guish reprobation into negative and positive ; calling it
negative, as it consists in withholding from the objects
of it the favour which is extended to the elect, and pos
itive, as it consists in a purpose to permit them to be
hardened in sin, and to punish them for their final un
belief and impenitence.
Without dwelling upon these niceties, let us proceed
to shew, that there is such a purpose of God as is com
monly called reprobation. It appears from what has
been already said, that it is necessarily implied in the
idea of election, so that, having proved the one, we have
virtually proved the other. Election and rejection are
correlative terms, and men impose upon themselves.
and imagine that they conceive what it is impossible to
conceive, when they admit election and deny reproba
tion. When of several objects some are chosen, the
rest are rejected. It is to no purpose to say that noth
ing has been done to them, but that they are left in the
state in which they were found. In one sense this is true
and in another it is not true; because, as they might
have been chosen but were not, there has been an act
of the mind refusing to choose them. The person to
whom they were presented has said, ' These I will take,
and those I will not take.' There are many passages
of Scripture in which this doctrine is taught : we read
of some whose names are " not written," and who con
sequently are opposed to those whose names are written,
" in the book of life ;"* who are " vessels of wrath fitted
to destruction,"-)- who were " before of old ordained to
condemnation,"^ who " stumble at the word, being diso
bedient, whereunto also they were appointed ;"|| of per
sons wbom God is said to hate, while others he ]oves.§
Let any man carefully and dispassionately read the ninth
and the eleventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans,
and he will entertain np more doubt that some are or
dained to death, than that others are ordained to life. He
will see a distinction stated between the children of the
flesh and the children of the promise, and traced up to
its source in the sovereignty of God, who will " have
mercy on whom he will have mercy, and will have com
passion on whom he will have compassion ; so that it is
not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of
God that sheweth mercy. For the Scripture saith unto
Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee
up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my
name might be declared throughout all the earth. There
fore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and
whom he will he hardeneth."^ He will find, that some
have not obtained righteousness or salvation, but that
others have obtained it : and that the former are called
" the election," and the latter "the rest,"** oixoim,,
the remainder, or those who were left. However aw
ful and revolting to our feelings the doctrine may be,
however liable to objections it may seem, and whatever
startling inferences our perverse reason may deduce from

* Rev. xiii. 8.
} Mali. 2. 3.

fRom.ix.22. fJude,4. || 1 Peter ii. 8.
If Rom. ix. 15—18. ** Rom. xi. 7.

192

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

it, it is impossible, with any appearance of fairness, to
deny that it is delivered in the Scriptures.
If we inquire into the reason why God passed over some
in his eternal decree, while he extended mercy to others,
we must content ourselves with the words of our Lord,
which were spoken in reference to the execution of his
purpose : — " Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in
thy sight.* It may be supposed, indeed, that we need
not resolve the decree of reprobation into the sovereign
ty of God, as a sufficient reason for it may be found in
the moral character of its objects, who, being consider
ed as fallen and guilty creatures, may be presumed to
have been rejected on this account. But although this
may seem at first sight to have been the cause of their
reprobation, yet upon closer attention we shall see rea
son to change our opinion. It is obvious that, if they
had not been considered as fallen, they would not have
been rejected, unless we adopt the Supralapsarian hy
pothesis, which affirms that they were viewed only as
creatures, and that, by that uncontrolled power which
may make one vessel to dishonour, and another to hon
our, their appointment to perdition, for the glory of Di
vine justice, was prior to the purpose to permit them to
fall. There is something in this system repugnant to
our ideas of the character of God, whom it represents
rather as a despot, than the Father of the universe. But,
although their fall is pre-supposed to their reprobation,
it will appear that the former was not the reason of the lat
ter, if we recollect that those, who were chosen to sal
vation, were exactly in the same situation. Both class
es appeared in the eyes of God to be guilty, polluted,
and worthy of death. Their sinfulness, therefore, could
not be the reason of rejection in the one case, since it
did not cause rejection in the other. If it was the rea
son why some were passed by, it would have been a
reason why all should be passed by. As, then, it did
not hinder the election of some, it could not be the
cause which hindered the election of others. You ought
not to think that there is too much refinement and sub
tlety in this reasoning. If you pay due attention to the
subject, you will perceive that, as the moral state of all
was the same, it could not be the cause of the difference
in their destination. If there was sin in the reprobate,
there was sin also in the elect ; and we must therefore
resolve their opposite allotment into the will of God,
who gives and withholds his favour according to his
pleasure : — " He hath mercy on whom he will have
mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."-)-
In this decree of God, the two following things are
to be distinctly considered. The first is the purpose to
withhold from the objects of it that grace which he
would extend to the elect. He would send his Son into
the world to seek and to save that which was lost, but
he did not intend him to be the Saviour of the reprobate ;
for, to say that he did, would be to say that he intend
ed what is not accomplished, and consequently that he
is disappointed. He would make his gospel be preach
ed to them, or at least to many of them ; but he would
not accompany it with those supernatural influences
which would illuminate their minds, and change their
hearts, and enable them to yield the obedience of faith.
He would lay restraints upon them by his providence,
so that the wickedness of their hearts would not find an
opportunity of exerting itself in all its activity and viru
lence; but he would ieave them in all other cases, to
follow their own incl, nations. Is there unrighteousness
with God in this prousdure? God forbid. How can
there be unrighteousness in denying a favour to which
there is no claim ? There is certainly no law by which
he is bound to deliver bis apostate creatures from guilt
and its consequences. Having transgressed, they are
amenable to his justice ; and if justice take its course,
who has a right to find fault 1 God found men in sin ;

* Matt. xi. 26.

f Rom. ix. 18.

and in leaving them there, he did no wrong, and was
chargeable with no cruelty, if sin is a voluntary evil
and deserves the pains and penalties which are denoun
ced against it in his word.
The second thing to be considered is, the purpose to
subject the objects of this decree to everlasting punish
ment. They are " appointed unto wrath :"* " Who
soever was not found written in the book of life, was
cast into the lake of fire."f Of this part of the decree,
we must admit sin to be the proper cause. It is not the
cause, as we have seen, of their preterition ; but it is the
cause of their destination to perdition. As this is an
act of God in the character of a judge fixing beforehand
the punishment of the guilty, the sentence must be pre
ceded by the consideration of their guilt. There can be
no will in God to punish any but sinners ; nor could the
intention to punish be just, without a respect to disobedi
ence. God does not arbitrarily, or in the exercise of sov
ereignty, consign any of his creatures todamnation. Ina
case of this nature, sovereignty has noplace; it is justice
alone which decides; and if there were no fault, justice
would inflict no surging. It is for their sins against
the law, if they lived under it alone, or for their sins also
against the gospel, that they are doomed to destruction.
I am disposed to doubt, notwithstanding the opinion
of Divines to the contrary, whether this purpose is any
part of the decree of reprobation, which properly con
sists in passing by its objects, or rejecting ihem. The
dooming of them to perdition seems to belong to a
different decree, especially as it is founded on a differ
ent cause. They were appointed to wrath for their
sins ; but it was not for their sins, as we have shewn, but
in the exercise of sovereignty, that they were rejected.
This is all that I have to say on this part of the subject.
I have endeavoured briefly to explain my views of it,
and to prove that they are agreeable to Scripture ; but
we must close this inquiry with the words of the Apos
tle: "How unsearchable are his judgments, and his
ways past finding out \"X
The doctrine of the Divine decrees relative to the fi
nal destination of men, is not a barren speculation.
There are practical purposes to which it may be appli
ed ; and in particular, it is calculated to inspire senti
ments of reverence and gratitude towards God.
FiTst, It exhibits him in the august character of the
Supreme Lord of the universe, who doth according to
his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabi
tants of the earth, and whose arm none can stay, saying
to him, What dost thou ? We do not ascribe to him
an absolute power to consign his creatures to misery,
without any consideration of their guilt, because we do
not wish to exalt his authority at the expense of his good
ness and justice, and because such a Beingcould never
be the object of our confidence and love. At the same
time, we acknowledge that he does exercise a sovereign
power over his creatures, considered merely as his crea
tures, for he has made some angels, somemen, and some
irrational animals. But it is to his uncontrolled sway
over his creatures, as fallen, that the present subject di
rects our attention. They were all before his eye in a
state of pollution, and under a sentence of death. He
might do with them what he would ; and he has done
according to his pleasure. He has not left all under
their doom, nor extended mercy to all ; but has distin
guished between objects, in which there was no ground
of distinction, and said to some, Ye shall live, and to
others, Ye shall die. His will is the law, and from
his sentence there is no appeal. It is by a view of his
supreme dominion that the Apostle silences the murmurs
and complaints of impious men : " O man, who art
thou that repliest against God ? Shall the thing form
ed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me
* 1 Thess. v. 9. 1 Pet. ii. 8. Jude 4.
t Rev. xx. 15. { Rom. xi. 33.

THE DECREES OF GOD: PREDESTINATION.

193

thus ? Hath not tbe potter power over the clay, of the
same lump to make bne vessel unto honour, and anoth
er unto dishonour ? What if God, willing to shew his
wrath, and to make his power known, endured with
much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to de
struction ; and that he might make known the riches
of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had
afore prepared unto glory ?"*
Secondly, It affords an illustration of the exceeding
riches of his grace. It may be thought, indeed, that it
rather represents him as severe and terrible, in consign
ing so many of the human race to perdition ; but, al
though it is acknowledged that it does so, as we shall
afterwards see, let us remember that there are two as
pects under which the subject may be viewed, and that
one of them is of the most pleasing and consoling na
ture. In the destination of a portion of the human race
to the enjoyment of everlasting felicity, God appears in
the character of the God of love. It is love of the
purest and most disinterested kind, as it flowed out
spontaneously towards its objects, while there were,
not only no qualities in them to attract it, but every
thing was Tepulsivc. It strikes. us the more, because
its date is so aneient ; because it anticipated the exis
tence of its objects, and provided for their relief as
soon as their necessity was foreseen ; thus proving that
love is essential to the Deity, and that nothing is more
agreeable to him than the exercise of benevolence. As
tbe whole series of events was open to his all-seeing
eye, tbe riches of his grace appear still the more won
derful, because the communication of them to the objects
of his favour could not take place without a sacrifice,
(if I may be permitted the use of this expression on
such an occasion), without a sacrifice on the part of
God, which nothing but infinite love could have made.
The incarnation, the humiliation, the sufferings, the
death cf the Son of God, were the consequences of his
purpose to bestow eternal life upon tbe unworthy ob
jects of his choice. And when we add, that election is
but the first step in the dispensation of mercy to man
kind, that it is the first link of a chain which runs into
eternity, and has no end, may we not say, How great
is the goodness which thou hast wrought for them that
fear thee ? " Whom he did predestinate, them he also
called ; and whem he called, them he also justified ;
and wbom he justified, them he also glorified. "f
Lastly, It gives a solemn and impressive view of his
justice and severity. We have seen that sin was not prop
erly the cause of reprobatier, because, upon this ground,
the. whole human race would have been rejected. But
sin rendered it just in God to pa?s by such as he plea
sed, and to doom them to everlasting misery. While
we speak of his sovereignty in choosing some, and leav
ing others, let us not forget to think of his justice, be
cause, when it is admitted as a principle of his pro
cedure in the final allotment of the ungodly, some of
the objections which are advanced against predestina
tion will fall to the ground. The rejection of so many
of Ihe human race is a proof that God is holy arid just ;
that sin is contrary to his nature, and the object of his
abhorrence ; so that, notwithstanding his essential
goodness, which disposes him to promote the happiness
of his creatures, he will not suffer it to pass with im
punity. His justice appears the more awful and inflex
ible, because it is manifested at the same time with his
love. Behold the goodness and severity of God ; his
goodness to the chosen, his severity to the rejected.
This is such an association as we find in the proclama
tion of his name, to which the mention of this terrible
attribute, after the celebration of his mercy in language
studiously varied, gives a solemn close. " The Lord, the
Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and
abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thou
sands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression and sin,

* Rom. ix. 20—23.
z

f Rom. viii. 30.

and that will by no means clear the guilty." O ' how
great is he who sits upon the eternal throne as the ar
biter of life and death, and pronounces the dreadful sen
tence upon many (how many we cannot tell) to display
his power, and proclaim to the universe, that, full as his
heart is of benevolence to his sentient creatures, the
honour of his own character and government is dearer
to him than their happiness ! " Who would not fear
thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name ? for thcu only art
holy." If the doctrine of predestination has a practical ten
dency, the question, whether it should be publicly
taught, admits of an easy solution. It seems impossi
ble, indeed, to assign a good reason for attempting to
suppress any truth which is contained in the Scriptures.
If it were useless, and still more, if it were dangerous,
God would not have revealed it. But, as the subject
is so difficult, and lies so far beyond our range of thought,
it is plain that it is not to be attempted by every scio
list, who, with a few common notions of Theology in
his head, may deem himself competent to engage in
the most profound discussions ; and farther, that it calls
for modesty and diffidence in the best informed, and
for the utmost care, to avoid human speculations, and
to adhere, as much as possible, to the language of
Scripture. When we allow reason to be our guide in
these abstruse matters, we are not sure of the way, and
may seem to ourselves to be treading on the high road,
when we are wandering in a devious path. It may
also be safely laid down as a rule, that it should not
be frequently introduced, because, although it has a re
lation to the faith and practice of christians, there are
other subjects of which the influence is more immediate
and extensive, and which ought therefore to occupy a
more prominent place in a course of instruction. I
should not entertain a favourable opinion of the wis
dom of a minister who often declaimed upon these high
mysteries, while he might spend his time more profi
tably to himself and his hearers, in speaking of the
simple doctrines of the gospel, by which men live, and
in which is the life of their souls; and I am disposed
to suspect, that we should find him and his followers
'more distinguished by pretensions to superior knowl
edge and disputatious zeal, than by humble faith and
spirituality of mind. Attention should likewise be
paid to times and circumstances in teaching this doc
trine. None but a thoughtless zealot would bring it
forward to meet the view of an inquirer into the truth
of our religion, and thus take the direct method to dis
gust him at the outset: a wise man would begin with
the elements or first principles, and then go on to thei
higher branches of the science, giving milk to babes,
and reserving strong meat for men. It would be im
prudent and cruel to obtrude the subject upon a person
who was depressed with a sense of sin, and the fear of
never enjoying the favour of God : unless we wish
ed to increase his perplexity, and to drive him to
despair, we would have recourse to different topics,
to the freeness of Divine grace, the infinite value
of the Saviour's blood, and the unlimited offer of sal
vation. It would betray great unskilfulness in the
work of righteousness, to intermix this subject with
an exposition of the common doctrines of the gos
pel ; when we are speaking of the death of Christ as a
sacrifice for sin, to be sure uniformly to add, that he died
onlyfor the elect ; when we are inviting sinners to come
to him, not to let pass the opportunity of reminding
them, that unless they are elected, they never will be
lieve ; when we call upon men to repent, to take care
not to omit, that if they be among the reprobate, they
will not repent, as they are given up to hardness of
heart. This sort of preaching, I should consider as
injudicious in the highest degree, and as calculated to de
feat the design of the preacher, if his design were the
salvation cf souls. We have no example of it in the

13

194

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

Scriptures, nor do I think it consistent with common
sense. I conclude with quoting the words of our Con
fession of Faith : " The doctrine of this high mystery
of predestination is to be handled with special pru
dence and care, that men, attending the will of God re
vealed in his word, and yielding obedience thereunto,
may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be
assured of their eternal election. So shall this doc
trine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration
of God ; and of humility, diligence, and abundant con
solation, to all that sincerely obey the gospel."*
I shall conclude by taking notice of some of the ob
jections which are advanced against the doctrine of
predestination. First, It has been often said, that it represents God
as a respecter of persons. In order to ascertain wheth
er there is any force in this objection, it is necessary to
inquire what respect of persons means. I suspect that
this isa point which our objectors have not been at pains
to settle, and that they ignorantly suppose the prefer
ence of one to another to be the same with respect of
persons, while there are not two things in the world
more distinct. "Of a truth," said Peter to Cornelius,
" I perceive that God is no respecter of persons : but
in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh right
eousness, is accepted with him."f From these words
you perceive, that respect of persons is the preferring of
one man to another, although both were equally entitled
to regard, on account of some accidental circumstance,
as, for example, his belonging to a particular nati on.
It is to give him the advantage above another, not for the
«uperiorily of his worth or the justice of his claim, but
for some consideration altogether foreign to the man and
his cause. Thus a judge is chargeable with respect of
persons, when he is induced to pronounce an improper
sentence, either by pity for a poor man, or by adulation
of the rich. To this very case the law of Moses refers :
"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou
shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour
the person of the mighty ; but in righteousness shalt
thou judge thy neighbour."':): It has been laid down
by Divines as a maxim, that respect of persons has no
place in acts of bounty, in relation to which a man
may do as he pleases, but has place in acts of juctice,
¦with regard to which there is an obligation upon him
who distributes, to render to every one his due. It is
absurd, therefore, to call God a respecter of persons in
predestination, because, in his eternal purpose, he act-
ednot as ajudge but as a sovereign, as one who owed
nothing to his creatures, and was guided by his own
views of fitness and expedience, without any external
consideration. As the whole human race was fallen
and -guilty, there was nothing in any of them which
could influence him to prefer them to others ; he was
moved solely by his own wisdom, and cannot therefore
be called a respecter of persons.
Secondly, It is objected, that the doctrine of predes
tination supposes men to be laid under the necessity of
sinning, and consequently makes God the author of
their sin. I acknowledge that this horrible inference
seems to be naturally deduced from the Supralapsarian
Scheme, -which represents the introduction of sin as the
appointed mean of executing the purpose of the Al
mighty, respecting the final doom of his creatures.
But it does not follow from our scheme, which presup
poses sin as the. groundwork of predestination, and
makes the act of God towards the reprobate to be noth
ing more than his purpose to leave them in their sin,
and to withhold his grace, which he was under no ob
ligation to communicate. God does not will the sins
of man, or effect them by any operation of his power ;
he merely arranges his plan with a view to them, and
overrules them for his glory. I confess that the state-
* West. Conf. c. iii. } 8. f Acts x. 34, 35. f Lev. xix. 15

ment may be objected to as not complete ; that there
are still difficulties which press upon us ; that perplex
ing questions may be proposed, and that the answers
which have been returned to them by great Divines are
not so satisfactory in every instance, as those imagine
who do not think for themselves, and take too much
upon trust. The subject is above our comprehension.
There are two propositions, of the truth of which we
are fully assured, — that God has pre-ordained all things
which come to pass, and that he is not the author of
sin. There can be no doubt about either of them,
in the mind of the man who believes the Scriptures.
He may not be able to reconcile them, but this ought
not to weaken his conviction of their truth. Instead of
suspecting the one or the other, it will be wise in him
and in us to suspect our own reasonings from them.
We are sure that they harmonize ; but, if our reasonings
terminate in making them appear contradictory, we have
ground to call their accuracy in question. By our rea
sonings, I mean our application of human ideas to the
Divine decrees, and the inferences which we deduce
from them.
Thirdly, It is objected against the doctrine of predes
tination, that it supersedes the use of means. If a man
has been elected, he shall be saved, although he should
give himself no concern, and even should live in sin :
if he has not been elected, all bis efforts to obtain eter
nal life will prove unavailing. But, of all objections,
this is the silliest, although it is brought forward with
great confidence, and by many is deemed very formi
dable. It is not an objection at all against the Scriptural
doctrine of predestination, but against a spurious kind,
hatched in the brains of ignorance, or concocted by ma
lignity to bring odium upon the truth. The predes
tination to which this objection would be applicable, is
an absolute pre-appointment of an end, without any re
gard to the means. But such predestination cannot
without impiety be attributed to God, because it would
be disgraceful to one of his intelligent creatures. Who
ever reasons against this kind of predestination, is at per
fect liberty to bringall the arguments which he can mus
ter up to bear upon it, till he has fairly driven it off the
stage. He must allow us, however, to tell him, that he has
given himself a great deal of unnecessary labour; that
he has been contending with a chimera, and has gained
an empty triumph, as our doctrine remains untouched.
The predestination which we maintain, is a purpose
which embraces means and ends, fixes the means as
surely as the ends, and so connects them, that without
the former, the latter cannot take place. If God has
elected some persons to eternal life, he has chosen them
to it through faith and holiness as the means of salva
tion; if he has appointed other persons to wrath, his
sentence is founded on their impenitence and unbelief.
This is the doctrine of Scripture; and if you will still
assert that it renders all means unnecessary, you may
with equal reason maintain, that a man who has been
assured that, by the use of a certain medicine, his life
will be prolonged, may justly take occasion from this
assurance to neglect the medicine, and, at the same
time, expect to live. Paul was assured, by a vision, ot
the lives of all that were in the ship with him, but still
he said to the centurion, " Except the sailors abide in
the ship, ye cannot be saved." And why did he say
so, but because God had determined that the company
should be saved by the skill and activity of the sailors?
The man who says that the decrees of God supersede
the use of means, does not know what he is saying.
The means are an essential part of the decree, and are as
necessary as the end. I mean, tbatit is not more neces
sary, that those who were chosen to life should bo
saved, than it is, that they should repent and believe.
You would say, that the decree of God had failed, if
any of the elect should perish; and I would say with
equal truth, that it had failed, if any of them were

CREATION.

195

saved in a state of carelessness and indolence. The
uselessness of means, in consequence of the doctrine
of absolute decrees, is a topic of vulgar declamation,
which every man who wishes to maintain the credit
of his understanding, should leave to sciolists and
fools. Lastly, Tt is objected, that tbe doctrine of predestina
tion is inconsistent with the invitation of the gospel ;
for how could God offer salvation to men, if he had ex
cluded them from it by an immutable decree ? and how
could he earnestly entreat them to believe, although he
had determined to withhold his effectual grace ? There
is a greater difficulty here than orthodox Divines some
times seem willing to acknowledge, and the mode in
which they meet it, is not always satisfactory. A dis
tinction between the secret and revealed will of God
must be admitted, and in many instances is perfectly
intelligible ; but it is not easy lo reconcile them, when,
in revelation, he declares, that he is not willing that any
should perish, but by his secret counsel, has left many
to perish. He who sees no difficulty here, has not, as
lie probably imagines, more understanding than other
men, but less. It may be remarked, however, that this
objection does not press upon the system of absolute de
crees alone, but meets every man, who simply admits
the Divine prescience of future events ; for how, it may
be asked, can God in sincerity invite, beseech, and ex
postulate with men, evidently with a design to effect a
change of their sentiments, although be knows infalli
bly before-hand, that they will never change ? I know
what may be said in answer to the objection ; but I con
fess my inability to give complete satisfaction to my
self or to you. Let us suspect our own views of the sub
ject, rather than suspect the sincerity of God. Of the
latter we are certain ; it is essential to his moral char
acter and is the foundation of our faith in his testimony,
and our dependence upon his promises. We can never
be certain that we understand the subject of predestina
tion, so well as we understand that God is sincere.
The latter truth, therefoje, let us hold fast, whatever
may become of our speculations respecting the former.
Here we may err, because the subject is mysterious ;
but on the other point, we cannot be deceived. The
gospel is preached to every creature. All are command
ed to believe, and encouraged by the promise of sal
vation. God would " have all men to be saved, and to
come unto the knowledge of the truth."* If doubts
respecting these comfortable declarations of Scripture
6hould be suggested to us from any quarter, let us repel
them as hostile to our own peace, and subversive of
religion, and say with the Apostle, " Yea, let God be
true, but every man a liar."f
In this and the two preceding lectures, 1 have con
sidered the Divine decrees, first generally, and then
more particularly, as they relate to men, and their eter
nal state. The doctrine which I have endeavoured to
establish is, that God, before the beginning of the
world, pre-ordained whatever comes to pass ; or that,
in the works of creation, providence, and redemption,
he acts according to a plan previously settled in his own
mind. To this general view of the subject there can
be no objections, but as soon as we proceed to the ap
plication of it to human affairs, difficulties present them
selves, which we are unable to solve. Two things are
certain, that there are Divine decrees, which will be
infallibly executed, and that man is responsible for his
actions ; but how to reconcile them is a question which
has perplexed thoughtful men in every age, and to
which a satisfactory answer has not yet been discover
ed. In this case, our duty is, not to reject either of
those points, but to call in the assistance of faith, when
reason fails, and to believe, that by a mysterious link,
God, as the poet expresses it,

" — binding nature fo't in fale,
Left free the human will'."*
It can serve no great purpose to muster up objections
against the infallibility of the Divine decrees, or the re
sponsibility of man ; to listen to them when proposed
by others; to revolve them in our minds; to perplex
ourselves with attempts lo answer them, and to allow
ourselves to be disquieted and to doubt because our en
deavours are not successful. Although we should
prove to our satisfaction, as many have dene to theirs,
that the decrees of Gcd are not absolute, or that man is
not free, all that we have gained is, to confirm our minds
in the belief of a falsc-hocd ; for both doctrines must bo
true, as they are expressly declared in the Scriptures.
To their authority let us bow ; and by their decision let
us regulate our thoughts and our conduct. If we still
oppose our reasonings to their dictates, we must take
our course ; but let us beware lest we dispute ourselves
into infidelity or atheism, and seek a refuge frcm our
doubts in the rejection of revelation, because it incul
cates truths which to us appear contradictory, or in the
cheerless conclusion, that we live in a fatherless world,
where chance bears sway, that man is the phantcm of
an hour, the sport of accident and passicn, and that, as
he knows not whence he came, so he cannot tell whith
er he is going. In opposition to this comfortless and
impious conclusion, let us hold fast the creed which is
consonant to reason as well as to revelation, that the
Supreme Being manages the affairs cf the universe
which he created ; that all creatures are dependent upon
him, and all events are subject to his control : that
while good men obey him frcm choice, the wrath and
wayward passions of the bad are subservient to his de
sign ; that, while his almighty power bends them to bis
purpose, he is a moral Governor and Judge, whose
righteousness will be displayed in punishing transgres
sors, even for those actions which were the means of
executing his own decrees.

* 1 Tim. ii. 4.

J Rom. iii. 4.

LECTURE XXXVII.
ON CREATION.
Idea of Creation — Evidences that the Universe w?.s Created —
Illustration and defence of the Mosaic Account — God's De
sign in creating the Universe.
God works all things according to the counsel of his
will, or, in other words, his external operations are con
formable to the plan which was arranged by his wisdem
from eternity. We are therefore naturally led, after
having considered his decrees, to speak of their execu
tion in his works. Our attention shall be directed, in
the first place, to Creation, in which the execution of
his purposes commenced.
In entering upon this subject, it is necessary to ascer
tain what is the precise idea of creation, or in what
sense the term is used, when it is employed to denote
the agency of God in the production of the universe. In
this inquiry, we can receive no assistance from the con
sideration of the terms S03 and x<n£«, by which it is
expressed in the Scriptures. Compound words are sig
nificant in themselves, because they are made up of
terms to which a meaning has been previously affixed ;
but simple words are arbitrary sounds, which convey
no idea to the hearer till he has been informed of what
notion they are appointed to be the signs. Now, we
find that the words under consideration have several
acceptations in the Scriptures: and in particular, that
the former signifies to make something out of nothing, to
make something out of materials already existing or to

Pope.

196

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

give them a new form and arrangement, to revive and
re-invigorate, and, lastly, to effect a change in the mor
al qualities of the soul, as when a new heart is said to
be created within us. It is evident that the term is
used in the first of these senses in the first chapter of
Genesis, when God is said to have " created" the
heavens and the earth. The subsequent verses of that
chapter give an account of the order in which matter
already existing was disposed, while, in our world the
sea was separated from the land, and the earth was
clothed with herbs, and filled with inhabitants ; and in
the higher regions, the luminaries had their stations and
revolutions assigned to them. The manifest design is,
to inform us by what steps God brought the mass of
rude matter into that beautiful assemblage of parts which
excites the admiration of every beholder. The first
verse, therefore, must be understood to refer to the origin
al production of matter by his almighty power. " In the
beginning." or at the commencement of time, he made out
of nothing the matter of which the heavens and the earth
were composed, and upon which their present form was
afterwards superinduced. This, I think, is the natural
way of explaining the words ; and, according to this
view of them, the Bible opens with an ascription of the
act of creation to God, in the highest, or rather, the on
ly proper sense of the term.
There is another passage which will assist us in as
certaining the sense in which God is said to have crea
ted the world. " Through faith, we understand that the
worlds were framed by the word of God ; so that things
which are seen, were not made of things which do ap
pear,"* /uh tie ycuyoy.ivw, t*. j2xs7ro/uitu. yeyovet-u. Now, re
mark, that the Apostle would have suggested a different
idea had he used the phrase, at [*.* quveitr/aty ; j for he
would have intimated, that visible things were made of
things invisible, which mighthave been supposed to sig
nify the dark original chaos of the Heathens. But the
expression, llh ex. tpsuK^.sw,;); imports something very dif
ferent, a denial that the universe was formed out of pre
existing matter. In other words, the worlds, according
to the Apostle, were made out of nothing. Even the
chaos of the ancients was invisible only because no
sun, as Ovid says, gave light to the world, and tbe
evening moon did not then repair her new horns; || it
would have been seen, if there had been a medium
through which it might be perceived. "The things
that appear" are matter, which light has rendered visi
ble, or matter which may be seen; and of this matter,
Paul assures us the worlds were not framed.
Different arguments have been employed to prove
that the universe had a beginning, and, consequently,
that it was created by the power of God. To suppose
the universe to be eternal, is to suppose it to be self-ex
istent. But, besides that there is nothing in matter,
which is inert, passive, divisible, aud subject to perpet
ual change, to suggest the idea of its self-existence, it
should be remembered, that whatever is self-existent, is
necessarily existent. But as this necessity is the same
every where, it follows, upon the supposition, that mat
ter must have existed every where, or must have filled
every portion of space, and have been infinitely extend
ed. But this is absurd, and contrary to fact. There is
another consequence which is equally false, that, if mat
ter exists necessarily, it must exist either in a state
of motion or in a state of rest, as necessity will deter
mine every part of it to be in the same state. It would
be impossible that, as is actually the case, one part of
it should be in motion and another at rest. The neces
sity of its existence would extend to all its modifica
tions ; and, indeed, if we closely consider the subject,
we shall find that it could have no modifications, but
* Heb. xi. 3. t Of things which do not appear.
X Not of things which appear.
|| Ovid, Metar.iorph. lib.i. v. 10.

that, under the influence of necessity acting uniformly
every where, it must have presented everywhere one
uniform mass. How contrary this is to the actual
state in which matter appears, we all know by observa
tion. Another argument against the eternity of the universe
is founded in the nature of time, which is a succession
of moments. We can conceive time to commence at
any given period, and to run on ad infinitum, or never to
come to an end ; but we cannot conceive it to be actually
infinite. An infinite duration can never be made up of
finite parts ; because as each of those parts has an end
the sum which they compose must also have an end.
As it is impossible that an infinite succession of nn>
ments can be past, it is impossible, that tbe universe can
have existed from eternity. Further, if matter has ex
isted from eternity, it must have existed, as we have
seen, in the same form which it at present sustains, for
this is the consequence of its necessary existence. The
earth on which we dwell, and the heavens above ns, are
eternal ; and the same motions have been incessantly jjo-
ing on in the immense regions of space. The earth has
been revolving on its own axis, and, as well as the othei
planets, has been performing its circuit around the sun.
Its revolutions upon its axis have been infinite; and so
have been its revolutions in its orbit ; and so have been
the revolutions of Saturn. Mark the consequence. We
have here three infinites, which are made up of unequal
parts; an infinite made up of the revolutions of Saturn, the
time of which is twenty-nine times less than the infinite
made up of the annual revolutions oftheearth, and many
thousand times less than the infinite made up of the diur
nal revolutions of the latter. Thus we are landed in a
palpable absurdity, from which we can only escape by
renouncing the untenable hypothesis of the eternity of
the universe, and admitting the Scriptural doctrine of its
creation. Another argument against the eternity of the world is
founded on the recent date of authentic history. If, in
deed, the accounts of some nations were to be credited,
we should believe, that our earth has existed for many
millions of years ; but these are the dreams of poets, oi
of men of wild and undisciplined imaginations, and have
been satisfactorily proved to be false. No credible his
tory reaches farther back than the period which Moses
has assigned for the creation ; and profane history has
nothing to relate but fables and rumours till the age of
Herodotus, who flourished about five hundred years
before the christian era. The silence of history with
respect to any event prior to the time when we suppose
the world to have been created, is unaccountable, if it
had existed for eternity, or even for millions of years.
How does it happen that not a hint has come down to
us of innumerable former generations ? Surely, the
human race must have possessed letters and science
long before the date which we assign to them. How
have all their monuments perished ? Bow is it that tb
us thousands and thousands of generations are as if the*
had never been ? And how is it that civilization and
learning can be traced back only to a period which is
but as yesterday, if the earth and its inhabitants had no
beginning ? The want of all records of a higher date,
the recent origin of nations, and the late invention of
arts, all concur to shew, that only a few thousand years
have elapsed, since our earth and its inhabitants came
into existence. This argument was employed long
ago by Lucretius, a follower of Epicurus, who, although
an atheist, maintained, according to the doctrine of his
master, that the present system had a beginning, in re
spect at least of arrangement and form. If the heavens
and the earth are eternal, why have the actions of illus
trious men so often sunk into oblivion ? Why does no
record remain to perpetuate their fame? Why does
history begin with some facts of comparatively modern
date ]

CREATION.

197

Car supra bellum Thebanum et funera Trojse,
Non alias alii quoque res cecinere poetae )*
Why sang not other poets other deeds
Beyond the Theban war, and ruined Troy 1
Notwithstanding these arguments, none of the ancient
philosophers, not even Lucretius or his master, had any
proper idea of the creation of the universe. They all
believed the eternity of matter. Ocellus Lucanus, in
his treatise TLepi tou otclvto;,] maintains the eternity of the
universe by this argument, that what will have no end
had no beginning ; drawing a confident conclusion from
a mere assumption, and taking for granted two things,
which any person was at liberty to deny, and for which
lie could not produce the shadow of proof, that the uni
verse will last for ever, and that it is impossible for a
being to last for ever which had a beginning. It is im
possible, he says, for any thing lo be produced out of
nothing, ex. tuv ecu otTun, or to be resolved into nothing.:):
He does not speak of a Being distinct from matter, by
whom it was reduced to order. The doctrine of Plato
was, that there were two principles of the universe, both
self-existent and independent, matter and God ; and that
God wishing all things good, and as far as his power ex
tends, nothing evil, having received matter in a discordant
state, brought it from disorder into order, judging this
to be preferable. Even Socrates treated as fools and
madmen those who attempted to solve the question,
whether all things Were generated and perished, or were
eternal and indestructible. Epicurus admitted, that the
heavens and the earth had a beginningin respectof their
present form, and, as we may infer from his disciple
Lucretius, seems to have considered their origin as not
very remote; but he maintained, in common with other
philosophers, the eternity of the matter of which they
were composed. According to his fanciful theory, it
existed in the form of atoms, which moving in the im
mensity of space, met at last, and formed that stupen
dous and beautiful system, which no man can contem
plate without admiration and delight. In order to ac
complish this design, Epicurus was under the necessity
cf making many gratuitous assumptions. He supposed
tjiat his atoms were in motion, although no reason could
be assigned why they were once in motion, and are now
at rest; that their motion up or down, was not perpen
dicular but somewhat inclined, so that there might be
a possibility of their meeting ; and that, small as they
were, they were not of a uniform shape, but that while
some were smooth, others were hooked, and so could
lay hold of their neighbours, and coalesce into a palpa
ble body. Furnished with these postulates, he was
ready to show how the universe was framed by mechani
cal causes, without the intervention of an almighty and
intelligent Agent. His theory has been repelled by
heathen and christian writers ; but the ravings of wild
speculation never deserved a serious answer. You
will observe, that as Archimedes could not move the
earth, as he promised, because he could not find a place
on which to rest his lever, so without atoms Epicurus
could have done nothing. Like the other philosophers,
he conceived it impossible that the heavens and the earth
should have been made, without pre-existing materials.
It is, then, with propriety and justice, that an Apos
tle declares, that " through faith" we understand, that
the worlds were framed by the word of God. It is
revelation which has informed us, that all things had
a beginning, and reason assents to the doctrine as true,
and derives from its own reflexion new arguments to
support it.
The act of creation, which we ascribe to God, is the
production of something out of nothing. The power
by which creation was effected, we may not be able to
conceive, because it is different from the power which

« Lucret. de Rerum Nat. Lib. v. 327.
f Concerning the universe. { Chap.

we exert, or which we have seen exerted by others.
All that we can do is to operate upon materials already
existing; and even here, the sphere of our activity is
very limited. But there is no reason why we should
deny or doubt, that there is such power in God ; for it
is one of the first dictates of reason, that we ought not
to measure him by our standard. As there is nothing
to limit the perfections of the First Cause, we believe
his power to be infinite, by which we mean, power
which can perform every thing that does not imply
a contradiction, or which can perform every thing possi
ble. It is plain, I think, that the production of something
out of nothing implies no contradiction ; and to say, there
fore, that God could not create, in the sense already ex
plained, would be to say, that his power was not the great
est conceivable, that he was finite in one of his attributes,
and consequently finite in them all.
In speaking of the creation of the universe, the
sacred historian adopts the common and obvious divi
sion of it into two parts, the earth and the heavens.
The earth, indeed, is but a very small part of the uni
verse, like a drop to the ocean ; but, as it is the allotted
habitation of the human race, it was worthy of distinct
mention, and a particular description. At first, it
seems to have existed in a fluid form, without order
and beauty, or to have been covered with water. " The
earth was without form and void ; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep : and the Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the waters." * As the word
rendered Spirit, signifies also wind, some have sup
posed, that in this place it may be so translated ; and
that Moses meant to inform us that a mighty wind,
called in the Hebrew idiom, a wind of God, agitated
the unwieldy mass. But this view of the passage is
destitute of any foundation. Wind is air in motion ;
but at this period, it would seem the atmosphere did
not exist, it appears to have been the work of the sec
ond day, when God said, "Let there be a firmament in
the midst of the waters; and let it divide the waters
from the waters." f The word jrai, which is trans
lated by the Seventy <rTipmi<a, and in the Vulgate/rma-
mentum, from which our " firmament" is derived, sio--
nifies an expanse; a term which very aptly denotes the
atmosphere, capable as it is of being so much expand
ed by heat, and extending to a great distance from the
surface of the earth. Besides, the office assigned to the
firmament, of dividing the waters from the waters, be
longs to no part of nature which we know, but the at
mosphere, in which the water exhaled from the earth
and the sea is suspended, till, condensed by cold, it falls
down in dew and rain. Whatever, then, may have been
the operation to which Moses refers, it was the Spirit
of God who moved upon the face of the waters.
It is unnecessary to enter upon a particular detail of
the successive steps by which the earth was brought in
to its present form. On the first day, light was created ;
on the second, the atmosphere was formed ; on the third,
the water was collected in the seas and lakes, and the
dry land appeared, which was immediately clothed with
grass, and herbs, and trees ; on the fourth, the sun, and
moon, and stars were made, or became visible ; on the
fifth, the waters and the air were replenished with in
habitants ; on tne sixth, terrestrial animals were produc
ed, and man, last of all, appeared lo have dominion over
this lower world.
I shall take notice of only one particular in this nar
rative, which, to those who are acquainted with the ac
tual system of the universe, may seem to render it in
credible. The sun is the great fountain of light to the
inhabitants of the earth ; but according to Moses, light
existed prior to the sun. The objection supposes us to
know what we certainly do not know, that light is ne
cessarily dependent upon the sun. But, although it

• Geo. i. 2.

j Gen. i. 6.

198

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

now comes to us principally from him, yet be is not the
only source from which it flows. There is light pro
duced by the ignition of combustible substances, light
struck out from hard bodies by percussion or friction,
phosphoric light, and electric light, of which we some
times see a brilliant display in the Aurora Borealis. As
there is light, even at present, without the sun, what
difficulty or improbability is there in conceiving light
to have been without him at the beginning ?
We cannot tell whether it now proceeds from his bo
dy or from his atmosphere ; and on this subject, phil
osophers are divided in opinion. We know not, indeed,
what light is, although we are acquainted with its laws
and properties ; but whatever is its nature and its con
nexion with the sun, I would understand the making of
that luminary on the fourth day, not to be the creation
of the matter of which it consists, but the collection of
light in him as its grand repository. My reason fordo
ing so is, that God is said at first to have created the
heaven as well as the earth, and that the six days were
employed merely in arranging them in their present form.
This view will obviate another objection which may oc
cur to a philosophical mind, — that the earth could not
have occupied its proper place in the system, if it had
been made before the sun, by which it is retained in its
orbit. But, if the law of gravitation had then been es
tablished, and the planetary movements had begun, the
matter can be satisfactorily explained, by supposing
that the sun was created at the same time with the earth,
but that it was not till the fourth day that he became a
luminous body. The influence which he exerts upon
the motion of the earth, depends not upon his light, but
upon his solid mass.
All the other parts of creation are comprehended under
the name of the heavens, which, in the plural number,
signifies in the language of the Jews, the region where
clouds and meteors are formed, or the air; the region
of the sun, moon, and stars ; and lastly, the heaven of
heavens, the habitation of the blest. We have spoken
of the first, which properly belongs to the earth, in our
remarks upon the firmament or expanse. The sun, we
have already seen, is the great source of light to our sys
tem ; and the moon, although probably created as soon as
the earth, is said to have been made on the fourth day, be
cause then only it became visible by reflecting the rays
of the sun. Under the denomination of the stars are in
cluded not only those luminaries, which are properly
called so, but the planets also which belong to our sys
tem. Our Bibles give us no farther account of them,
than that they were appointed for signs and for seasons ;
and any additional information respecting them, is found
ed on observation and reasoning. The discoveries of
modern science make no part of Theology ; but they are
worthy of attention, because they exalt our ideas of the
might and beneficence of our Creator. As the planets
are removed from us by many millions of miles, they
could not be visible unless their magnitude was great.
How much greater is the magnitude of the fixed stars,
the distance of which from the earth is such, that it
seems but a step to the utmost planet which revolves
around the sun ! It is natural to ask, for what purpose
they were placed in the heavens ? It was not surely
to give light to the earth ; for all their light is of little
account, and more would be furnished by a single addi
tional satellite of a size far less than the moon. It is not
to mark the revolution of the year, and the progress of
the seasons; for this is ascertained by the motion of the
sun, and the changes which take place upon the surface
of the earth. Shall we then suppose that, they were
created in vain ? Shall we suppose that a Being of in
finite wisdom, who made the little ball which we inhab
it for great purposes, and made that star which we call
the sun, to give it light, ha3 lavished his power in the
production of thousands and millions of suns for no as
signable end ? Why are such vast bodies so situated

as to appear to us only as points? Was their surpass
ing splendour, which attracts, indeed, the eye of a spec
tator upon earth, but darts upon it only a faint and inef
fectual ray, bestowed to be wasted on the barren fields
of ether? We cannot for a moment admit a conclusion
which seems to charge the Lord of nature with folly
and is at variance with the proofs of intelligence and de
sign which are so amply supplied by his other works,
The opinion, that around those suns planets revolve, the
inhabitants of which rejoice in their light, and are cheer
ed by their influences, is something more than a flight
of fancy. It rests upon strong grounds of belief ; and
while it vindicates the wisdom of God in replenishing
with so many bodies tbe wide regions of space which
would be otherwise useless, it fills us with admiration
of his inexhaustible goodness which has diffused life and
happiness far beyond the reach cf the eye, and the more
extended range of imagination. It may be mentioned
as a corroboration of this theory, that in the heavenly bo
dies which lie nearer us, we observe certain phenomena,
which indicate that they are destined for some other
purpose than to give light to the earth. The surface
of the moon, like that of our globe, is diversified by hills
and vallies, which we cannot conceive to be of any use,
if the moon is a solitude. In three of the planets, we
observe a provision similar to what is made for us, to
alleviate the darkness of the night, in the satellites
which move around them, in different times, and at dif
ferent distances. Why are they accompanied with
moons, if there are no inhabitants to whom their light
would be grateful in the absence of the sun? To U3
they can be of no use, because they are invisible to the
unassisted eye. There is another wonderful fact, from
which, however, we cannot reason socerlainly, the ring
of Saturn, because we are unacquainted with its use;
but we may be confident that it was not placed therein
vain. If it was intended for ornament, there must be
some spectators nearer than the inhabitants of this globe,
to whom it was unknown till modern limes, and of whom
scarcely one in a hundred thousand has ever seen it, and
then very imperfectly through a telescope : if it was
intended for accommodation, it was the accommodation.
not of the planet itself, which no more needed this ap
pendage than Jupiter or Mars, but of the beings who
reside upon its surface. Upon the whole, it is highly
probable, that as the fixed stars are luminous bodies of
an immense size, or in other words, suns, they are sur
rounded, like our sun, with planets, which are not de
serts, but the seats of life, and activity, and enjoyment.
Thus, the universe opens upon us in all its magnificence
and extent; and lifting up our thoughts to Him, at whose
fiat it arose out of nothing, we feel ourselves constrain
ed to express our admiration and praise in the words of
the Psalmist, " How manifold, O Lord, are thy works !
in wisdom hast thou made them all ; the earth is full of
thy riches."
The heavens signify, in the last place, the region of
peace, and purity, and joy, where God manifests him
self in all his glory to his perfect creatures. It must bo
a place, because human bodies at present dwell in it,
and it is the destined abode of the just after the resur
rection ; and it must therefore, have been created. We
can say little more about it ; but'we may bestow a few
words in passing, upon its original inhabitants, the an
gels, although no mention is made of them in the Mosaic
account of the creation. We, know that they are crea
tures, who, as an Apostle informs us, were called into
existence by our Saviour, who created things visible and
invisible, probably at that time when the heavens were
made, with all their host. We are told, that when God
laid the foundation of the earth, " the morning stars sang
together, and the sons of God shouted forjoy."* They
are pure spirits, although they have occasionally assum-

* Job xxxviii. 7.

CREATION,

199

ed a visible form. They were created in a state of holi
ness and felicity, from which some of them fell through
pride, and have been cast down into darkness, where
they are " reserved in chains unto the judgment of the
great day."* They excel in wisdom and strength, are
possessed of knowledge far superior to that of man, and
of power which his mightiest efforts could not resist.
They are employed by God in the affairs of his govern
ment. They execute judgments upon the wicked, and
minister to them who are the heirs of salvation. Al
though we do not see them, yet they are well known to
us by means of the Scriptures, which make frequent
mention of them, and give a detail of their offices and
operations. But I shall not enlarge upon this subject
at present : it is sufficient to have referred to angels as
a part, and a distinguished part of the creation.
Our next inquiry relates to the time when the world
was created. According to the Hebrew chronology, as
ascertained hy Archbishop Usher, the creation took place
four thousand andfour years before the birth of Christ;
but according to the Septuagint, nearly six thousand
years. There can be little doubt which of these compu
tations should be preferred. Tbe original, when all the
copies agree, is surely higher authority than a transla
tion. With me, the authority of ihe version would go but
a short way; and I cannot conceive for what reason
some learned men are disposed to pay such deference to
it in this and in other matters, as it is full of mistakes
and blunders, and is probably the most inaccurate of
all translations. But, here we are encountered by the
pretended discoveries of modern science ; and the obser
vations which have been made upon the structure of the
earth, are supposed to contradict the Mosaic account, by
proving that it must have been created at a more distant
period, if it was created at all ; and that it must have un
dergone many revolutions prior to what we call the be
ginning. Some reject the account of Moses entirely ;
and others conceive that it tells us, not of the original
creation of the earth, but of the changes which took place
upon it after some terrible convulsion. Thus, according
to the words of a celebrated poet, —
- " Some drill and bore
The solid earth, and from the strata there
Extract a register, by which we learn
That He who made it, and revealed its date
To Moses, was mistaken in its age."f
This is manifestly a subject beyond the reach of our
faculties ; and geology, as sometimes conducted, is a
monument of human presumption, which would be
truly ridiculous were it not offensive by its impiety.
" Where wast thou," said the Almighty to Job, "when
I laid the foundation of the earth ? Declare, if thou hast
understanding."^: Our philosophers do not pretend to
have been present when the earth was founded ; but
they profess to shew us how it was made, and that a
much longer period was necessary to form its rocks and
its strata, than the Scriptures assign. Thus puny mor
tals with a spark of intellect, and a moment for observa
tion, during which they take a hasty glance of a few su
perficial appearances, deem themselves authorised to
give the lie to Him who made and fashioned them, and
every thing which they see. It happens, however, that
forsaking the only safe guide in such high speculations,
and following thefaintand deceitful light of reason, they
wander in the mazes of error and uncertainty. Their
theories are different ; what one builds up, another de
stroys ; amidst the conflict of opinions, all equally false,
the narrative of Moses stands unmoved, like the rock
amidst the waves, resting on the solid basis of all the
proofs by which the genuineness and inspiration of his
writings are demonstrated. " From the endless discor
dance in the opinions of philosophers on this point,"
says a learned Professor; "from the manifest inade-
» Jade 6. f Cowper's Task, B. III. { Job xxxviii. 4.

quacy of the data we are at present in possession of-
and from ihe physical impossibilities which must forever
be a bar to any thing more than a superficial knowledge
of the earth's structure, — it is preposterous to suppose,
that that high decree of moral evidence on which the
credibility of Scripture rests, can with any justice be
weakened by our interpretation of phenomena, the con
nexion of which among themselves even, we certainly
are at present, and probably ever shall be, incapable of
explaining." The vanity of the reasoning of modern geologists,
may be made manifest, and the basis of their theories
overturned, in a very easy way. They talk of primitive
formations, and ascribe the origin of rocks to precipitation
and crystallization. Looking at a piece of granite from
the mountains, they point out the characters of aqueous
or igneous fusion, and say that it was formed by the
agency of water or fire, carried on through a long pro
cess, which it required ages to complete. It is not de
nied that the substance might have been produced by the
laws of chemistry, but is it certain that it was so pro
duced ? Those laws are at present operating through
out our world ; but, if it was not eternal, they must have
had a commencement. Why may we not suppose that
their Author anticipated their operation, and immediate
ly created substances of such a texture or composition,
as would have resulted from them in the natural order?
Why may we not suppose, that he made rocks at first
such as they would have been made by precipitation and
crystallization? No geologist can deny that the thing
was possible, unless he be an Atheist, and then we have
nothing to do with him or his theory ; and if it was possi
ble, his argument from primitive formations against the
comparatively modern date of the earth, vanishes into
smoke. We say that, although certain substances might
have been produced by secondary causes, God could,
and did produce them at once. That there was a first
man, will be denied by none but an Atheist. Now, if
we were in possession of one of his bones, we should
find that in all respects it resembled the bones of his
posterity ; and reasoning according to our geologists,
we should conclude that at first its fibres were soft, that
they gradually became cartilage, and last of all acquir
ed the hardness of their perfect state. But we should
reason falsely, because that bone was made solid and
firm in a moment. If we saw one of the first trees, we
should perceive no difference between it and a tree of
more recent date. On being cut across, it would exhibit
the same folds or circles, indicating the growth of suc
cessive years, and increasing in hardness as they were
nearer to the centre. The theory of the geologist would
justify us in maintaining that it had originally sprung
from a seed, and required many years to bring it to ma
turity ; while the fact would be, that it was the work of an
instant. In both cases, we have all the apparent effects
of the processes of ossification and lignification, while it
is certain that the processes never took place. We have
therefore demonstration of the authority of a rule which
has been laid down, and effectually destroys all the
geological systems which represent second causes as im
mediately concerned in the formation of our earth. It
is this, that sensible phenomena cannot alone determine
the mode of formation. We have no occasion to con
vert each of Moses' days into thousands of years, and
to conceive the chaos as an immense laboratory, from
which, after the operations of ages, the earth came forth
as we now see it. There was a power adequate to
create it at once which formed the primeval rocks with
out the aid of fire or water, as it made perfect bones, and
perfect trees, independently of the second causes, by
which they are at present produced.
God created the heavens and the earth about four
thousand years before the Christian era. The materi
als were produced out of nothing in an instant; but it
isrelated., that six days were employed in arranging

200

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

vhem in their present form. Some are of opinion that
these were not natural days, but periods of an indefinite
length ; because they think that the world must have
been created at an earlier date than Moses has assigned
to it, and ages were necessary to give rise to those ap
pearances which are observed in its structure. But,
besides that this opinion is objectionable on the ground,
that its puts a meaning upon the word day, although it
is distinctly defined by the evening and the morning,
which it bears no where else in simple narrative, it re
mains to be proved that there is any necessity for such
interpretation. Although the Mosaic account gives no
philosophical explanation of material phenomena, yet it
informs us that the earth was at first in a state of fluidi
ty, and that it was covered with water again more or
less, for a year at the deluge, when it underwent a ter
rible convulsion, perhaps by the operation of internal
fire, of the existence of which we have proofs in so many
volcanoes. The crust of the earth seems to have been
then entirely shattered, when the fountains of the great
deep were broken up. It is impossible for us to con
ceive the changes which must have been produced in
its structure by this awful catastrophe, and the irresisti
ble action of such an immense body of water as sub
merged the whole globe. If we cannot answer partic
ularly all the objections of geologists, neither can they
satisfactorily shew that the appearances, upon which
they found their theories, were not caused by that event,
and by the state in which the earth existed before it
was brought into its present form. We may, therefore,
understand the words of Moses literally, when he says,
that in six days God created the heavens and the earth.
As he could have perfected them at once, we cannot
conceive any reason why he proceeded by degrees, but
that he might exhibit his power and his w-isdom more
distinctly to us, who should be afterwards informed of
the process ; and that he might confirm, by his own
example, the command to work on six days, and rest
on the seventh.
There is a question which is more curious than use
ful, and which, like some other questions which have
been proposed, does not admit of a satisfactory answer —
respecting the season of the year when the world was
created. On this point, men, as we might have expect
ed, have been divided in opinion ; but many have ima
gined that it was created in autumn, because then the
civil year of the Jews commenced, as well as their Sab
batical year and the year of Jubilee ; and chiefly because
autumn is the season when the fruits are ripe, and con
sequently provision was ready for the use of man, and
other animals. I do not think that there is any force
in either of these reasons ; and with regard to the latter,
it is obvious, that it leaves the matter as unsettled as
before, because autumn is a local term, which varies in
its application to different countries, according to their
geographical situation. Even upon our side of the Equa
tor, harvest is beginning in some countries when the
seed-time is scarcely over in others ; and hence, unless
we know the place of paradise, to say that the world
was created in autumn, gives no information at all with
respect to the time when it was made.
Whether God ceased to create when he had made the
heavens and the earth, is another question which we
are not competent to answer. We cannot, without pre
sumption, affirm or deny that he has since exerted his
creating energy in other portions of space. It is certain
that although he is said to have " rested" on the sev
enth day, he was not fatigued nor were his resources ex
hausted : " The Creator of the ends of the earth faint-
eth not, neither is weary." Nothing more is implied
in that expression, than that he produced no new species
of creatures, and effected no new arrangement in the vis
ible universe, or at least, on our earth. In strict lan
guage, the act of creation was confined to the first day,
when the matter, of which the heavens and the earth are

composed, was produced. The work of the following
days consisted in separating it into its component parts
assigning to each of them its place and office, and com
bining them into a harmonious whole. The subsequent
production of vegetables and animals is not properly a
creation, but a new arrangement of matter already ex
isting ; which, however, required the same Almighty
power that at first brought matter out of nothing. It
must be granted, at the same time, that God continues
to exert his creating power in producing the living
principle in animals, and, in particular, the soul of men ¦
which, being a spiritual substance distinct from the bo
dy, derives its existence immediately from the will of
the Almighty.
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and a.l
their host. The magnificent fabric was erected to be a
monument of the power, and wisdom, and goodness of
its Maker. His glory shines in every part of it; but it
would have shined in vain, if there had been no crea
ture to contemplate it with an eye of intelligence, arid
celebrate the praises of the Divine Architect. Man,
therefore, was introduced into the habitation which had
been prepared for him, — a being of a higher order than
those which were already made, endowed with an un
derstanding to know his Creator, and with moral pow
ers to be employed in his service.
If it is inquired, what was God's design in the crea
tion of the universe? we must answer, that in this
as well as in all his other works, his ultimate end was
his glory. God hath made all things for himself. Of
him, and through him, and to him, are all things. In
the things which he has made, his power, and wisdom,
and goodness are displayed. When we say that he
made all things for himself, as it is evident that we do
not mean that they were necessary to him, or that he
derives any benefit from them, so it is not to be under
stood that his purpose was to make a naked manifesta
tion of his excellences, to be looked at, and admired by
his creatures. We cannot, consistently with the great
ness and dignity of his character, conceive this to be
an object worthy of him, and sufficient to have induced
him to exert bis Almighty energy in the production of
external things. We should thus separate his interests
from those of his creatures, and convert the act of crea
tion into an exhibition, and men into mere spectators of
its magnificent scenery. The Maker of the universe is
the Parent of its living inhabitants, and particularly of
those who were endowed with intelligence ; and in giv
ing them existence, was influenced by the principle of
benevolence. While other perfections are revealed in
the fabric of creation, we must refer its origin to the
goodness of the Diety, who, enjoying infinite happiness
in himself, was willing to diffuse happiness around him.
It may be objected that, if this was his design, it has
been frustrated by the introduction of sin, with its con
sequence, misery. But, besides that still even in oui
world there is a copious, I had almost said, a profuse
distribution of the riches of his liberality, the remedial
scheme of redemption, which is intended to restore the
happiness forfeited by sin, seems to confirm our idea of
the diffusion of happiness being the design of creation;
and it should farther be considered that, as the universe
fills the unknown regions of space, and, we have reason
to believe, is peopled with innumerable sentient beings,
what has happened in our diminutive planet, and among
the celestial spirits, may be a deduction from the gen
eral good not greater than that of a unit from millions.
By what motive can we conceive Him, who is indepen
dent and self-sufficient, to have been influenced to scatte*
through the mighty void suns and worlds, teeming with
life, but that he might contemplate the spectacle, which
must be pleasing to his benevolent nature, of countless
myriads rejoicing in his bounty, blessed by the emana
tions of his love, and rendering to him the willing tri
bute of gratitude and praise ?

ON ANGELS.

201

LECTURE XXXVIII.
ON ANGELS.
Existence of Angels — Date of their Creation — Their Nature —
Divided into two classes — Characteristics of Good Angels—
Their Offices in the affairs of Providence ; and, in particular,
their Ministry to the Saints — Are there Guardian Angels ?
In my last Lecture, in speaking of the heavens, I
slightly adverted tp the Angels as the inhabitants of that
glorious region of the universe, in which God manifests
himself in the full splendour of bis perfections. The
history of this higher order of creatures, is of too much
importance to be dismissed with an occasional no
tice, and is peculiarly interesting to us, as our affairs
are intimately connected with the agency of Angels,
Whether they have retained their integrity, or have apos
tatized from God, and become corrupt and malignant.
I begin with the common observation, that the word
Angel is a name, not of nature, but of office. It signi
fies literally a messenger, or a person sent. This is
the primary meaning of ayytxoc in Greek, and ~]H'tn in
Hebrew, whether it is used in reference to human beings,
or to invisible agents. It seems on one occasion at least,
to denote persons invested with authority over others,
and the Angels of the seven churches are probably their
bishops or presidents.
That there are such beings as those whom we call
Angels, in the common acceptation of the term, it might
seem impossible for any person to deny who had read
the Scriptures, and considered them as worthy of credit.
Yet Luke informs us, that the Sadducees said that there
was no resurrection, neither Angel nor Spirit.* It has
caused no small surprise, that while they acknowledged
the inspiration of the sacred books of the Jews, they
should have ventured to controvert a fact so explicitly as
serted in them ; and curiosity has been excited to discov
er by what reasoning, or what pretexts, they justified their
unbelief. It has been supposed that they explained all
the passages in which Angels are mentioned, in a figur
ative sense ; or that they understood them to be tempo
rary appearances, caused by the power of God, which
vanished as soon as the purpose intended by them was
accomplished. It is probable that Justin Martyr re
fers to the Sadducees, when he says, in his dialogue
with Trypho the Jew, that some said that God, when
he pleases, makes his power come forth, and again
draws it back to himself, and that in this manner he
made Angels. According to this opinion, they were
not real and permanent substances, but spectres which,
after a short time, dissolved into air, or disappeared like
the colours of the rainbow. There have been moderns
who coincided with the Sadducees in denying the ex
istence of Angels, and affirmed that good Angels signify
good thoughts, and bad Angels sinful thoughts. The
opinion of at least some Unitarians respecting the former
is, that they are manifestations of Divine power ; the idea
of such beings as devils is generally, if not universally,
exploded by them ; and in the usual manner, the language
of Scripture is wrested to favour this hypothesis. It is
not, surely, necessary that we should enter upon a formal
refutation of the doctrine of either the ancient or the mo
dern Sadducees. There would be no end of disputation,
if every thing which might be said without the slightest
appearance of reason, were deemed worthy of a serious
answer. We feel no disposition to contend with a fool,
who denies that the sun is shining at mid-day. If we can
believe our own eyes when we peruse the sacred pages,
and trust that we understand the meaning of words, we
can entertain no more doubt of the existence of Angels
than of that of man ; and if some choose to spend their
time in elaborate attempts to prove, that what is, is

2 A

* Acts xxiii. S.

not, we may leave them to amuse themselves as thev
please. *
To the question, When were Angels created? we can
return only a general answer. Moses has not made
mention of them, unless, with some, we suppose them
to be included in the hosts of heaven ; but these seem
rather to signify the celestial luminaries, the sun, moon,
and stars. Different reasons have been assigned for this
omission, of which I know not whether any is satisfac
tory, as, indeed, is not to be expected, when men at
tempt to point out the motives of a writer who lived
more than three thousand years ago, and particularly of
a writer who was guided in the composition of his works
by the Spirit of inspiration. We have no reason, how
ever, to think that the creation of Angels preceded the
time to which Moses refers in the first chapter of Gen
esis. A prior date was assigned by many of the an
cients, and some moderns have concurred with them ;
but it is a mere conjecture, and seems to be at variance
with the general language of Scripture, which repre
sents the creation of the visible universe as preceded by
eternity, when the Almighty existed alone. To affirm
that Angels were created before the earth, and the heav
ens stretched over it, destroys the argument for the eter
nity of our Saviour, which the Apostle draws from these.
words of the Psalmist as addressed to, him, " Thou,
Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the
earth, and the heavens are the work of thine hands;"*
and that priority to the visible creation is equivalent to
eternity, is evident from the ninetieth Psalm, which is in-
titled, A Prayer of Moses, the man of God : — " Before
the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst
formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting
to everlasting, thou art God.")- The sacred historian
does certainly teach, that the heavens were created at
the same time with the earth ; and although he takes no
notice of the inhabitants of the heaven of heavens, there
is ground to believe that that was the date of their ex
istence. On what day they were created, is a question
of mere curiosity. The following words have been un
derstood to signify that they were created on the first
day. " Where wast thou when I laid the foundations
of the earth ? declare, if thou hast understanding ; —
when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons
of God shouted for joy.":): It appears that they were
present when this fabric was reared, and celebrated the
praises of the Divine Architect ; and farther it is to no
purpose to inquire.
Angels are spiritual beings. As such they are repre
sented in a passage of the Psalms, which is quoted in
the Epistle to tbe Hebrews, " Who maketh his angels
spirits, and his ministers a flam'e of fire."|| A modern
critic has translated it thus : " Who maketh the winds
his messengers, and flaming fire his ministers," in contra
diction to the known usage of the Greek language, which,
by prefixing the article to the noun cLyyixov;,§ clearly
marks them out as the subject of discourse, and mivy.*-
tcl\ as the property or quality affirmed of them. Angels
are spirits ; and no better definition, although it is of the
negative kind, can be given of a spirit than that of our
Saviour, who said to his terrified disciples, " Handle me
and see ; for a spirit bath not flesh and bones as ye see
me have."** It is vain for us lo inquire into the es
sence of a spirit. It eludes our search ; but not more
than does the essence of body, of which we know only
th6 properties. Nothing is more foolish, and I may
say unintelligible, than the definition of some philoso
phers, that the essence of spirit consists in thought.
They might with equal propriety say, that the essence
of matter is colour, taste, or extension. But as every
person, whom false philosophy has not deprived of com-

*Heb. i.lO.andPs. cii. 25. tFs-xc-z- t Jobxxxviii.4,7.
|| Heb. i. 7, and Ps. civ. 4. } Angels.
Tf Spirits. ** Luke xxiv. 39.

202

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

mon 6ense, perceives that colour supposes something
coloured, and extension something extended, so, it is
equally evident that thought implies a thinking sub
stance. A materialist, who supposes thought to be the
effect of the organization, and motions of matter, may
allege that he is unable to conceive the existence of a
pure spirit ; but, for the same reason, he must believe
the Divine essence to be material ; and it is but a step
from thence to atheism, or the belief that the Deity is
merely the unknown cause of attraction and gravitation,
and the other laws and affections of body. To us who
are convinced, by reason and revelation, that there is an
immaterial principle in man, there is no difficulty in ad
mitting an order of incorporeal beings, who inhabit the
higher regions of the universe. It is no objection to
the spirituality of their essence, that they are, and must
be understood to be, in a particular place. Locality
is the necessary attribute of a creature : it has an ubi,
as the Schoolmen speak ; if it is here, it is not there.
We, indeed, are accustomed to think of place only in
relation to body, because we are corporeal beings, and
perceive objects and relations by means of our senses.
But reason tells us that spirits also must have a place,
although it can give us no assistance in conceiving how
they are in it. At the same time, there is a fact familiar
to us which confirms this dictate of reason, and we find
it in ourselves ; for if we have souls as well as bodies,
they are confined to a place, as our experience assures
us. Our thoughts may wander to the most distant re
gions, and pass in a moment from heaven to earth, but
we ourselves remain in a particular spot. Nor is it any
objection to the spirituality of Angels, that they have
often appeared, and performed such actions as we per
form by means of our bodies. We read also of appear
ances of God, but do not infer from them that he has
corporeal members. In all such cases, a body was form
ed by the power of God, that his ministers might be seen,
and might hold intercourse with men ; and when it had
served its purpose, it was no doubt laid aside.
Angels are immortal spirits ; as we may infer from
those words of our Lord, in which he announces the fu
ture condition of the righteous : " Neither can they die
any mofe : for they are like," or rather equal to, " the
Angels,"* 10-u.yyixot. It may be supposed, that their
immortality is the natural consequence of their imma
teriality. Not consisting of parts, they are not liable
to be dissolved. But the proper ground is the will of
God, upon which the continuance either of matter or of
Spirit depends ; and this will be more evident, if we re
flect, that the laws of nature are nothing but the perma
nent agency of the Creator in a determinate manner ;
that it is his power which sustains the universe, and
prevents it from returning to nothing; and that conser
vation, as we formerly showed, is not improperly called
a continual creation. The human body does not die by
crumbling into pieces, but by causes which put a stop
to the motions upon which life depends. Sometimes,
indeed, it is previously wasted by disease, and its vital
parts are consumed ; but often it falls in full vigour, and
without any preparatory process. There is an inaccu
racy and a false statement in representing death as ow
ing to the divisibility of matter, as is always done when
the indivisibility of spirit is assigned as the cause of its
immortality. The dissolution of the body is not the
cause, but the consequence of death. Had Adam been
obedient to the voice of his Maker, his body would
have been immortal as well as his soul ; and although
the future bodies of the saints, however highly refined,
will still be material, yet, we have heard, that they will
be " equal to the Angels." It is not, therefore, the spir
itual essence of the latter which accounts for their im
mortality, but the will of God. He willed that they
should never die, even although they should be guilty
* Luke xx. 35.

of sin ; but in this respect they have no pre-eminenc«
above the souls of men, which are not injured by the
stroke of death, but merely separated from that portion
of matter, which they had animated for a time, and are
destined to animate again.
The following observations relate exclusively to good
Angels ; and I shall reserve what I have to say concern
ing" the Angels of darkness to another occasion.
First, They are intelligent creatures, and are endowed
with a high degree of knowledge and wisdom. That
this was the belief of the Jews, is evident from the words
of the woman of Tekoah to David : "As an Angel of
God, so is my Lord the King, todiscern good and bad."
And again she says, " My Lord is wise according to
the wisdom of an Angel of God, to know all things that
are in the earth."* She expressed, no doubt, the com
mon belief of her country respecting Angels; and al
though in itself it is not decisive, yet we are led to as
sent to it by a consideration of the case. They are con
fessedly creatures, of a higher order than men ; they en
joy opportunities of discovery which we do not possess ;
and they are free from those impediments to which we
are subjected by our connection with the body, which
limits our range of observation, and lays us under the
necessity of receiving knowledge by the medium of the
senses. A degree of knowledge was originally commu
nicated to them proportionable to the superiority of their
nature and rank, by which they were qualified for the
service of their Maker. It has since been augmented
hy observation and experience, and by immediate reve
lations ; and, it may be presumed, will go on progrea.
sively for ever. There is no doubt that the highest at
tainments of men, when compared with theirs, are like
those of children ; that subjects which we grasp after a
tedious and painful investigation, are perceived by them
at a glance ; that many things, which to us are myste
ries, to them are plain ; and as they are represented as
inquiring into redemption,-)- and learning wisdom by
the Church,:): — not, you will observe, from its lessons,
but from the Divine dispensations towards it, — that
wonderful scheme presents itself to them with a glory,
of which the most enlightened saint upon earth can form
only a faint conception. Still, however, it must be con
sidered, that their knowledge is limited, and on this
ground, we have stated it to be progressive. They could
not know all things, unless they were equal to God ;
they do not know the secrets of the heart, which are
open only to his eye. We might indulge in curious
speculations concerning the mode in which they acquire
knowledge, and hold communication with one another;
but we could not arrive at any thing satisfactory. Our
own spirits being united to a body, and perceiving exter
nal things by the senses, we can form no idea of the ope
rations of a pure spirit, nor understand how it is made
sensible of the existence, and qualities, and motions of
matter and material beings.
Secondly, They are holy beings. Such they must
have been when they came from the hand of God, pure
like the ray of light when it issues from the sun; and
such, many of them have continued, although others have
fallen into sin. Hence they are called the holy Angels, |j
and the ministers of God whodo his will ;§ and they are
exhibited as patterns to us in the prayer which Christ
taught his disciples : " Thy will be done on earth, as
it is in heaven." They have now existed during al
most six thousand years ; but not in one instance have
they done any thing which was displeasing to God, nor
has a single sinful thought arisen in their minds. They
were once tempted ; but they indignantly resisted the
solicitation of counsel and example ; they have witnessed
many a foul display of human and angelical depravity,
but have not received the slightest moral taint. Theii
« 2 Sam. xiv. 17, 20. f 1 Pet. i. 12. t Eph. iii. 10.
\ Matt. xxv. 31, ace. \ Ps. ciii. 31.

ON ANGELS.

203

constant employment is to praise God and to serve him ;
and his commands are always listened to and cheerful
ly obeyed. Their piety is manifested in their reverence
and humility ; and the holiness of the Divine nature is
contemplated by them with reverence and delight. They
cover their faces with their wings, and cry, " Holy, Ho
ly, Holy is the Lord God of Hosts; the whole earth is
full of his glory."* It is on this account, that although
they are benevolent beings, they feel no reluctance to ex
ecute the judgments of God upon his enemies ; and they
will perform, with pleasure, the final office of this kind,
by gathering " out of his kingdom all things that offend,
and them which do iniquity," and casting " them into a
furnace of fire."")
Thirdly, They are beings of great activity and
strength. We connect activity with the idea of a spirit,
especially a spirit not encumbered with material organs.
That of the Angels is represented by the description of
them as creatures who have wings and fly. It is mani
festly figurative, because they are pure spirits ;but it is
intended to express the speed with which they execute
their commissions, as of all visible creatures, those move
with the greatest velocity which have wings. A created
spirit must exist in some definite portion of space, and
its motion must consist in its removal from one place to
another ; but what is the motion of a spirit we cannot
tell. It is swifter no doubt than that of bodies ; and
there is a passage in Scripture, which shews how rapid
ly they can transport themselves from heaven to earth.
As soon as Daniel began his supplication recorded in
the ninth chapter of his Book, the command was given,
and the Angel Gabriel, being caused to fly swiftly,
touched him while he was yet praying about tbe time
of the evening oblation. "Thinkest thou," said our
Lord to Peter, " that I cannot now pray to my Father, and
he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of
Angels?":): In strength they are said to excel, || and in
Scripture they are called mighty Angels.§ We con
nect our idea of strength with that of bodily organs, as
the instruments by which it is exerted ; but we should
reflect that the seat of strength is in the mind. It is the
mind which moves the members of the body, and puts
forth its energies by them. All that we know is, that
when the soul wills, the body moves ; we see the effect,
and know the cause, but the relation between them we
cannot explain ; and there is reason to believe that, if
such had been the will of God, our soul might have
acted with equal power upon any other piece of matter,
either constantly or occasionally. The relation between
soul and body, in consequence of which they influence
each other, is unquestionably an arbitrary constitution.
We can therefore feel no difficulty in conceiving spirits
without bodies, to be endowed by the Creator with
power to act upon matter in general, just as our souls
have power to act upon our bodies ; and the modus is
not more inconceivable in the one case than in the oth
er, or rather is equally inexplicable in both. We know,
that Angels are possessed of this power, for they are re
presented in Scripture as defending the bodies of some,
and inflicting plagues upon those of others; and as per
forming stupendous works, which far exceed human
ability. But there are limits to their power as well as
to ours. We must not attribute to them the power of
working real miracles, or suspending the laws of na
ture, for this is the province of Omnipotence. They
cannot call back the separated spirit from the invisible
world, and raise the corrupted body from the ground : It
is " God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those
things which be not as though they were."f
Lastly, They are happy beings. The recollection
of the past creates no uneasiness, and the prospect of
the future awakens no fear or anxiety. They have

* Isa. vi. 3.
|| Ps. ciii. 20.

f Matt. xiii. 41, 42.
{ 2 Thess. i. 7.

} Matt. xxvi. S3.
V Rom. iv. 17.

always served God with fidelity, and tbey will always
enjoy his love. Their usual residence is heaven, the
region of bliss; but their felicity is not impaired by
their visits to the earth. There they behold marry an
offensive scene, which must excite strong disapproba
tion ; but no disquieting emotion is felt. They have
acts of vengeance to perform ; but, as we have already
observed, they detest sin, and glow with zeal for the
glory of God, and perform, therefore, with pleasure any
service which will redound to his honour. "In heaven,
the Angels do always behold the face of my Father
which is in heaven."* They enjoy the beatific vision,
and must, therefore, be happy ; but let us not think that
they are deprived of it when they are sent on errands
to other parts of the universe. God is still near to
them, and they retain a full sense of his love.
We know little concerning the external economy of
those glorious spirits ; but from some passages in Scrip
ture it has been inferred that there are different ranks
and degrees among them. The Platonic philosophers
divided their genii or demons into three orders, the
supra-celestial, the celestial, and the sub-celestial. The
same number of orders has been assigned by the Jews ;
and a similar division has been adopted by some christian
writers. Among these the chief place belongs to Diony-
sius, the Areopagite, or rather to the person who assumed
his name and, under its authority, gave to the world his
reveries respecting the heavenly hierarchy. According
to him, there are three classes, the supreme, the middle,
and the last ; the supreme comprehending cherubim,
seraphim, and thrones ; the middle comprehending do
minions, virtues, and powers; and the last comprehen
ding principalities, archangels, and angels. Each of
these classes is subdivided into three, so that upon the
whole, there are nine orders. This is a baseless fabric
of fancy, which could obtain credit only among those,
who, believing the author to be the real Dionysius,
were persuaded that he had derived his knowledge
from immediate revelation, or from the mouths of the
Apostles. Whoever was the author of these pretended discove
ries, he was unquestionably chargeable with intruding
into things not seen. We cannot safely proceed a
single step farther than the Scriptures lead us. All that
we learn from them, is the different names which are
given to the spirits of light ; — cherubim, seraphim,
thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, angels,
and archangel in the singular number, for I do not find
that it ever occurs in the plural. But we cannot tell
what is the ground of these names ; whether they are
expressive of a difference of rank, or of office, or origi
nate in some other cause ; or why it is that one is called
a cherub, and another a seraph. The different names,
thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, may be
used simply to denote the dignity and power of angel
ical beings, as they are expressive of the highest de
grees of honour and authority among men. It has
been a subject of dispute, whether the title Archangel is
descriptive of a created Angel, or is a designation of
our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the prince or ruler of
principalities and powers. By many he is supposed to
be meant in the book of Revelation,)- when Michael
and his Angels are said to have fought against the
dragon and his Angels ; and in the book of Daniel,
where it is said, "At that time shall Michael stand up,
the great prince which standeth for the children of thy
people.":): In the epistle of Jude, Michael is called
the Archangel : " Yet Michael the Archangel, when
contending with the devil, he disputed about the body
of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusa
tion, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."|| But this pas
sage has been considered as unfavourable to the hy
pothesis, that the Archangel was the Son of God, be-
* Matt, xviii. 10. t R". xii- 7. t Dan. xii. 1. D Jude 9.

204

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

cause it represents him, long prior to his incarnation
and humiliation, as under the authority of law, and
abstaining from opprobrious language from reverence
for Obd. The Archangel seems to be plainly distinguish
ed from our Saviour in the following words, " The
Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
with the voice of the Archangel, and with the trump
of Gcd ;"* for if the voice of the Archangel means the
voice of Christ himself, we can see no reason why it
should be spoken of as the voice of a different being.
Besides, in the tenth chapter of Daniel, Michael, who
is elsewhere called the Archangel, is said to be "one
of the chief princes ;"f a title which could not with
propriety be given to our Lord, who is not one of the
Angels, but above them all, the head of all principality
and power. The phrase " one of the chief princes,"
if there is a reference to Angels, as the name Michael
implies, would lead us to think that there are several
chiefs or leaders of the army of heaven ; and conse
quently, that there is a subordination established among
them, although the details are unknown. It is remark
able, however, as I have already observed, that Arch
angel is always used in the singular number. We
must leave the question undecided, and may be con
tent to remain in uncertainty, as it is not an article of
faith. God employs Angels in the administration of the af
fairs of providence ; not, however, because he stands
in need of their assistance, but for reasons with
which we are not fully acquainted. This was repre
sented to Jacob in a dream, when he saw " a ladder
set up on the earth, and the top of it reaching to hea
ven ; and behold the Angels of God ascending and de
scending upon it.":): This representation justifies the
saying of our great epic poet, that
" Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth
Unseen, both when we wake, and when we sleep. "||
We do not suppose that by them the great laws of
nature were established, and are upheld ; for in these
we acknowledge the immediate agency of Almighty
power ; but that they are concerned, by the direction
of the Supreme Ruler, in particular events. There
are many passages of Scripture which prove this fact ;
some cf which will be mentioned when we come to
speak of their ministrations to the saints. Angels were
employed in the Divine dispensations towards the Is
raelites, and particularly while they were residing in
the wilderness. When God was offended with them
after they had set up the golden calf, and worshipped
it, he told Moses that he would not go up in the midst
of them,butwould send an Angel before them.§ Upon
the earnest prayer of Moses, this threatening was re
voked, and the Lord said, " My presence shall go with
thee, and I will give thee rest."^" But when, on a for
mer occasion, God promised to send an Angel before
them,** neither Moses was alarmed, nor the people,
for this was not a created Angel, but the Angel of the cov
enant, and consequently God himself; and accordingly
it is added, " My name is on him ;" and he is represent
ed as possessed of Sovereign power, to pardon or not to
pardon their transgressions. What has been now said is
a digression ; but it serves to reconcile two passages
which seem to be at variance, as what is announced
as a favour in the one, is viewed as a punishment in
the other. But, although God did not send a created
Angel before the Israelites, yet those glorious spirits
were the ministers of his providence to them. We
have explicit notice of their agency in the most solemn
transaction in the wilderness, the promulgation of the
law with such awful pomp from Mount Sinai. It is
called in one place, "tbe word spoken by Angels,"-)-)-
* 1 Thess. iv. 16. + Dan. x. 13. } Gen. xxviii. 12.
|| Par. Lost, B. iv. 1. 677. j Exod. xxxii. 34.
1 lb. xxxiii. 14. ** Exod. xxiii. 20. ft Heb. ii. 2.

and in another is said to have been received, tic imTnya,
cLyytxm ;* a difficult expression, signifying " by the
disposition of Angels, or "by the ministration of
Angels," or, " amidst ranks of Angels." "The Lord
came from Sinai, — and he came with ten thousands of
saints ; from bis right hand went a fiery law for them."+
The interference of Angels in the affairs of the
world, is pointed out in the tenth chapter of Daniel;
when the person who spoke to him, and was undoubt
edly an Angel, informs him that he was opposed
by the prince of the kingdom of Persia; and that
Michael, one of the chief princes, came to his assis
tance.:): There is another example of the agency
of Angels, in the destruction of the army of Sennache
rib, who had defied the living God. " It came to pass
that the Angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the
camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five
thousand ; and when they arose early in the morning,
behold, they were all dead ccrpses."|| It has been
supposed that the instrument was the hot wind which
is known in the east, and causes sudden death ; and
that it is figuratively called the Angel of the Lord, be
cause it was sent by him. But there is no occasion
for this attempt to strip the narrative of what would be
called, its poetical machinery, and to render itas agree-.
able as possible to the principles of philosophy, by
bringing forward to view only natural causes. There
is the same reason for believing, that a real Angel was
concerned in this as in any other case where Angels
are mentioned ;, and whether his purpose was effected
by corrupted air or by lightning, it was under his man
agement and direction. Many events which take place
in such a manner as to appear quite natural, may yet
be brought to pass by the ministry of Angels. To
them, for aught that we can tell, may be referred the
unaccountable impressions upon the minds of men ; the
presentiments of futurity; the sudden resolutions, and
unpremeditated movements, which seem in themselves
to be of little or no moment, but which are followed by
consequences of the greatest importance to them, and
those with whom they are connected. We are igno
rant, in a great measure, of the means by which God
governs the world, and particularly the minds of men;
and in this department there may be ample scope for
the interference of invisible beings.
I shall devote the remainder cf this lecture to the
ministry of Angels to the saints. " Are they not all
ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who
shall be heirs of salvation ?"§
First, They have been employed in revealing the
will of God to his people. I might produce the in
stances of Ezelriel, Zechariah, and Daniel; but, as I
do not mean to enlarge upon this particular, I enly
observe, that the Revelation, that prophetic hiscoTy of
the Church to the consummation of all things, wras die-*
tated to the beloved disciple by an Angel. "The
revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto
him, to shew unto his servants the things which must
shortly come to pass ; and he sent and signified it by
his Angel unto his servant John."^
Secondly, It has been supposed that they suggest
good thoughts to the saints. It is acknowledged that
we can produce no positive proof from Scripture in fa
vour of this hypothesis ; and some have objected to itas
entrenching upon the work of the Holy Ghost, whose of
fice it is to enlighten and sanctify the soul. But this is a
very weak objection, as it would equally exclude all tbe
assistance which men give to one another in religion,
by suggesting topics of pious meditation, and endeav
ouring to excite holy affections. Reasoning from an
alogy, would lead us to adopt the affirmative ; for, if
the spirits of darkness stir up evil thoughts and pas>

* Acts vii. S3.
|| 2 Kings xix. 35.

t Deut. xxxiii. 2.
\ Heb. i. 14

X Dan. x. 13.
V Rev. i. 1.

ON ANGELS.

205

sions in the minds of men, why should we not conceive
that the spirits of light are equally active in exciting
such as are good ?
Thirdly, It is more certain that Angels are appointed
to watch over the saints, and to preserve them from
dangers. In two passages of the Old Testament this
office is expressly assigned to the Angels : — " There
shall no evil befal thee, neither shall any plague come
nigh thy dwelling ; for he shall give his Angels charge
over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall
bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot
against a stone."* In another place, the Psalmist
says, " The Angel of the Lord encampeth round about
them that fear him, and delivereth them."-)- The same
doctrine is taught by our Saviour, when he urges the
care of the Angels over those who belong to him, as a
reason why the meanest of them should not be despised
or ill treated : — " Take heed that ye despise not one of
these little ones ; for I say unto you, that in heaven their
Angels do always behold the face of my Father which
is in heaven.":): The design of their ministry is not to
defend the saints from every evil or calamity, because
it is the will of God that often they should suffer afflic
tion, and trials are over-ruled for their good ; but from
such other calamities as would not be subservient to
this end, they are preserved by their vigilant guardians.
They are with them when they lie down and rise up,
when they sit in the house and walk by the way. Their
agency is not visible and miraculous, like that of the
Angel who delivered Peter from prison ;|| it is secret,
and is carried on without disturbing the order of na
ture. Fourthly, They are employed, as we have seen, to ex
ecute divine judgments upon the enemies of the saints,
and thus minister for them, by enfeebling, disarming,
and destroying those by whom they would be injured. I
have already given an instance in the fate of the Assyri
an army which had invaded Judea ; and I may remind
you of another, recorded in the Acts, the miserable end of
Herod the persecutor, who was smitten by an Angel. §
In the Revelation of John, which is, indeed, highly
figurative, but foretells real events and their causes, An
gels are represented as the agents in the terrible revo
lutions by which the wicked will be punished, and the
Church will be delivered. We are not permitted to
see them, as David was, who_beheld an Angel stand
ing over Jerusalem, with a sword in his hand ;% their
operations are concealed from us by the veil of natural
causes. But it is consoling to the saints to be assured,
by testimony which is not to be disputed, that those
who are for them are more in number and greater in
oower than those who are against them ; and that not
only is their cause, and that of truth and righteousness,
patronized by the Supreme Ruler of the universe, but
there areupon its side myriads of glorious spirits, one of
whom could crush the combined potentates of the earth.
Fifthly, It is their office to convey the souls of the
saints into the mansions of bliss. Having attended
them during the journey of life, or at least from the
moment of their conversion, they are present at the
closing scene ; and when their spirits have escaped from
the earthly prison, they fly away with them, and deliv
er up their precious charge. In the parable of the rich
man and Lazarus, it is said that the latter died and was
carried by Angels into Abraham's bosom.** Notwith
standing the figurative character of the composition, it
may be presumed that our Lord intended this fact to
be literally understood. To our natural feelings, a
death-bed scene is revolting and afflicting. We behold
a helpless human being, emaciated by disease, panting
for breath, and convulsed with pain ; his countenance
pale, his lips quivering, and his brow bedewed with a

cold sweat ; and, with his expiring groans, are mingled
the lamentations of his disconsolate friends. But, were
not the spiritual world hidden by a veil, we should see
the glorious inhabitants of heaven surrounding his bed
and sympathising with the sufferer, — for even the Lord
of Angels has a fellow-feeling of the infirmities of his
people — yet rejoicing at his unmurmuring patience, and
his stedfast hope, which looks at a brighter world ;
and when the struggle was oveT, bearing his spirit
away to their own abode,.where " there is no more death,
neither sorrow, nor crying, nor any more pain."
Lastly, The Angels will minister for the saints at the
second coming of Christ. We know, from Scripture,
that they will be his attendants ; and we learn also, that
they will have important services to perform. By them
the saints will be " caught up in the clouds, to meet the
Lord in the air."* At the great harvest of the world,
as our Lord has taught us, the angels will be the reap
ers ; and as they will then pluck up tbe tares, and
throw them into the fire, so they will gather the wheat
into the garner. -j- " He shall send his angels with a
great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together
his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to
the other.":):
When we are speaking of the ministry of angels, the
question naturally occurs, whether there is any founda
tion for the opinion not only of the Jews, but of many
Christians in ancient and modern times, that there are
guardian angels ; or in other words, that there is as-
sighed to each individual a particular angel, who at
tends him during the whole course of his life. Some
seem to consider this opinion as almost heretical, and
reject it as dangerous ; although where the danger lies,
it is not easy to perceive. It appears to mc to be a
very harmless opinion, and to be by no means unnatur
al, as, according to our ideas, a multiplicity of affairs
is best managed by a division of labour, and by allot
ting to each of those who are engaged in it, his partic
ular department. The great objection is, that we have
no evidence of its truth. The Scriptures do not enter
into details upon the subject, and only say, " He shall
give his angels charge over thee,"|[ representing the
care of the saints as a general concern. There are, in
deed, several instances in which a single angel was em
ployed ; but it does not hence follow that this was ht3
exclusive province. Our Lord says concerning bis dis
ciples, that their angels beheld the face of his Father ;§
but nothing can be fairly inferred from this passage,
except that the heavenly hosts are appointed to watch
over them. The strongest argument is founded on the
words of the disciples, who were praying for the de
liverance of Peter on the night before his expected exe
cution, and when the servant affirmed that it was he
who was knocking at the gate, exclaimed, " It is his
angel ;"% for they could not believe that it was Peter
himself. Attempts have been made to evade this argu
ment, by giving a different meaning to the words ; but
I think they are absurd. There is no doubt that these
disciples, being Jews, did believe that there were guar
dian angels ; but, we do not know that any of them were
inspired men, and therefore we are not bound to adopt
their sentiments, unless they be supported by higher
authority. Christians should be grateful for the care of God ex
ercised towards them by the ministry of Angels, and
should admire that wonderful economy which has uni
ted the two great families of heaven and earth, which
sin had separated, and inspired with aversion and hos
tility. What a high honour is conferred upon them, in
having such guardians ! How safe are they under their
protection ! and with what caution and reverence should
they actin the presence of witnesses so august and holy .

* Ps. xci. 10—12. f Ps- xxxiv. 7. } Matt, xviii. 10.
|| Acts xii. } lb. 23. IT 1 Chron. xxi. 1 6. * * Luke xvi. 22.

* 1 Thess. iv. 17.
|| Psalm xci. 11.

t Malt. xiii. 39. } Matt. xxiv. 31.
j Matt, xviii. 10. V Acts xn. 15.

206

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

LECTURE XXXIX.
ON ANGELS.
Fallen Angels — Remarks on their Fall — Its effects upon their
Moral and Intellectual Qualities, and upon their State or
Condition — Their subordination to Satan — Their Employ
ment — Their Power over the Bodies of Men — Demoniacs —
Power of Fallen Angels over the Minds of Men, considered.
It appears from Scripture, that there are two classes
of Angels, the same in nature, but distinguished by
their moral qualities, their employments, and the usual
place of their residence. Those of the one class are
holy, are engaged in the service of God, and inhabit
the regions of light. Those of the other class are de
praved, are active in propagating sin and misery among
the human race, and are doomed to dwell in the region
of darkness and sorrow. Of these I purpose to speak in
this Lecture.
I begin with observing, that the whole angelical or
der was created pure ; and this position is not only
countenanced by Scripture, but is necessary to vindi
cate the character of God. The question concerning
the origin of evil, caused much perplexity to the spec
ulative men of the heathen world ; and in order to ac
count for it, they had recourse to the hypothesis of the
malignity of matter, or to that of the existence of an
Evil Being, who was independent upon the Author of
good. But as the latter supposition is repugnant to rea
son, as well as to revelation ; so the former, which, by
the bye, is unintelligible and absurd, is totally inap
plicable to the case of spiritual beings, who have no
connexion with matter, and therefore could not be taint
ed by it. They must, therefore, have existed in a state
of innocence ; for, were we to admit the idea, that they
were originally corrupt, we should charge their sin up
on their Maker. But, as he is essentially holy, it was
impossible that there should be the slightest stain of
sin upon any intelligent creature, when it came from
his hands ; as only pure light can proceed from the sun.
The angels of whom we are speaking, are said not to
have kept their first estate ;* from which words it is
plain, that they were once in every respect similar to
the angels who stand in the presence of God.
How long they retained their integrity, we are not
able to determine, as Scripture is silent; but, as we
have no reason to think that angels were created before
our world, we may say of them as well as of men, that
" being in honour, they abode not." It was by the agency
of one of them that our first parents were seduced ; and
although it is absurd to suppose that the fall of man
took place in the same day on which he was made, yet
there is good ground to suppose, that paradise was on
ly for a short time the abode of purity and peace.
When we think of the mode in which sin could find
admission into the mind of a creature perfectly holy,
we perceive that much obscurity rests upon the sub
ject. If, as is necessarily implied, the understanding
were free from error, and clearly apprehended the na
ture and relation of things, how could it form a false
judgment, or be imposed upon by the sophistry of
others? If the heart was full of love to God, and un
der the uncontrolled influence of his authority, how
could any representation excite a wayward affection,
or a desire which it was improper to indulge ? The diffi
culty is greater in the case of angels than in that of man ;
for, as he was connected with matter, and subject to
the influence of the senses, his attention might be di
verted, and his judgment biassed, by allurements ad
dressed to them, while pure spirits were secured against
any such temptations. But, it is in vain to bring for
ward argnments to prove that a fact is impossible or
* Jude 6.

improbable, if we have it in our power to shew that *
has actually taken place. As men sinned in the earth
ly paradise, through the subtilty of a tempter, so an
gels sinned in the heavenly paradise, without a temp
ter; for although we do not possess a history of theii
apostasy, yet we know that they were not solicited, as
man was, by some being of superior artifice, because
they were the sole inhabitants of heaven.
There has been a diversity of opinion with respect
to the sin of the angels. Some of the ancients ima
gined that it was lust, having given this sense to these
words in Genesis, " The sons of God saw the daughters
of men that they were fair ; and they took them wives
of all which they chose."* It is not possible to con
ceive a more ridiculous opinion, since, besides other
absurdities, which are so obvious that it is not neces
sary to point them out, it makes the fall of angels long
posterior to the fall of man, in direct contradiction to
the Scripture, which affirms that he was seduced by the
devil. A modern author, Cocceius, has maintained that,
as we read of no prior sin of the angels, their first sin
consisted in tempting our first parents; not perceiving,
that he mistakes the effect for the cause, as it is plain
that they must have sinned, before the idea of seducing
others could have entered into their minds. Others
have thought that their sin was envy ; envy either of
those angels who were superior to them in rank and
dignity, or of man whom God had created in his own
image, and invested with dominion over this lower
world. Lastly, the most common opinion is, thattheir
sin was pride, and it is founded on these words of an
Apostle: " Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride,
he fall into the condemnation of the devil." ~\ But how
pride arose, it is not so easy to tell. There was no be
ing to solicit them to it, or to suggest it. But their own
rank might be their temptation. Concentrating their
thoughts upon their own excellences, and admiring
them, they might gradually forget their relation to God
as their Creator. They might lose the sense of their
dependence upon him ; and as soon as this feeling was
suspended, humility was at an end, and a train of ar
rogant imaginations and claims would occupy its place.
They would then see only themselves ; their self-im
portance would be flattered by the view; and having
erred in heart, they might proceed openly to renounce
their allegiance to God. Milton has supposed that
their pride was excited by a command to all the heaven
ly powers to do homage to the Son of God as their Lord;
that Satan, who was higher than the rest,
"could not bear
Through pride that sight, and tl ought himself impaired :"£
and that the armies under his command listened to his
counsel, and joined in his revolt:
" Will ye submit your necks, and choose to bend
The supple knee / Ye will not, if I trust
To know ye right, or if ye know yourselves
Natives and sons of heaven. 'j|
His powerful imagination has "wrought out a sublime
description of the apostasy and overthrow of angels,
from a single passage in the book of Revelation, which
however, relates to a different subject. "And there was
war in heaven ; Michael and his angels fought against
the dragon ; and the dragon fought, and bis angels, and
prevailed not; neither was their place found any more
in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that
old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which decei-
veth the whole world ; he was cast out into the earth,
and his angels were cast out with him."§ Amidst this
diversity of opinion, tbe most probable is that which
makes pride the first sin of angels ; but the means by
which it was excited, and the mode in which it opera.
ted, are unknown.

« Gen. vi. 2. +1 Tim. iii. 6. J Par. Lost, B. v. 664,
|| lb. 787. J Rev. xii. 7 -9.

ON ANGELS.

207

Angels were not placed under a federal head, like
tbe human race, which existed in the beginning solely
in its progenitors, and was to be deduced from them in
successive generations. As they were all created at
once, each individual seems to have been committed to
his own care, and was to stand or fall according to his
personal conduct. The only effect which one could have
upon another, was by example and counsel, and exci
tation to good or evil. Had there been a federal repre
sentation among angels as among men, the whole order
would have shared alike in its consequences. The
individuality of the moral agency of angels, if I may
speak so, is manifest from the fact, that while some re
volted, others maintained their allegiance. Hence
arises a new subject of speculation. It does not appear
that the apostasy of angels was successive, or that some
apostatized at one time, and some at another; but we
have some reason to believe that the revolt was simulta
neous. How, then, was the concurrence of a multi
tude obtained ? It is incredible that the same thought
should, at the same moment, have suggested itself to
myriads ; or that, without any external cause, the same
temptation should have affected so many independent
minds. It is probable, therefore, that, as on earth, the
woman being deceived enticed her husband, so in heaven
one angel, or a few angels, having admitted sin into
their thoughts and affections, exerted their influence
with success upon others ; and that, although the ad
dress to his followers, which our great poet has put in
to the mouth of Satan, is a mere creation of fancy, yet
by some similar means a general conspiracy was form
ed. The Scriptures favour the conclusion, that there
was one angel with whom it originated, by the pre
eminence which it assigns to him, and by speaking of
" the devil and his angels."
It is impossible to tell how many angels were enga
ged in this revolt. They are represented as many; but
nothing is said about their number. The idea that they
amounted to a third part of the inhabitants of heaven,
has arisen from a mistaken view of a passage which
relates to a different subject. "And his tail," that is,
the tail of the dragon, " drew the third part of the stars
of heaven, and did cast them to the earth."§
The fall of angels effected no change in their nature.
With respect to their essence, they are still pure spirits,
immortal, and possessed of great power and activity.
But a change has taken place in regard to their quali
ties, intellectual and moral. Originally of a higher
order of creatures than man, they retain their superiori
ty in mental ability, although it cannot be doubted that
t is greatly impaired. Man did not, in consequence
of his fall, cease to be a rational creature ; he has
even now more understanding than the beasts of the
field, and the fowls of the air, and is capable of high
exertions of intellect. Yet, bis knowledge is more
laboriously acquired than it would have been, if sin had
not shed its malignant influence upon his body and
mind, is far more limited, and is mixed with many
errors arising from the illusions of sense, and the in
fluence of prejudice. It is agreeable to analogy to con
ceive, that the intellectual powers of fallen angels have
been blighted ; that their understandings are obscured,
and perverted by theirpassions; and that their wisdom,
which has degenerated into cunning, often leads them
astray, and involves them in perplexity and confusion.
Their moral qualities have undergone a total change.
Of their original holiness, not a vestige remains. Sin
is now so natural to them, that it seems almost to be
their essence ; it is the element in which they live and
move. Sin is the subject of their thoughts, and gives
a character to all their actions. Evil is their only
good. There is an important difference between them
and men, which is worthy of particular attention.
* Rev. xii. 4.

The depravity of men is, in some degree, checked
and concealed by certain natural feelings a id affec
tions, which, although not virtuous, have the effect of
virtue in restraining them from acts of malice and cru
elty, and leading them to perform deeds of justice and
beneficence. The wisdom of God has permitted these
to remain, because the earth would have been turned
into a scene of confusion, society would have been dis
solved, and the human race would have been extin
guished, if the propensities of the human heart had
been permitted to operate without control. But we
have no ground to believe that there is any thing analo
gous to these affections and feelings in apostate angels.
Sin rages in them unrestrained ; every malignant and
furious passion boils within them : and if they expe
rience any relief from their sufferings, it consists in
wreaking their malice and cruelty upon man. We may
judge how sin produced immediately its full effect up
on them, from the conduct of the tempter. He had
been recently expelled frcm heaven, and what was
his first work ? He visited our earth with the most
nefarious and vindictive design, to mar its beauty, and
to poison and destroy human nature in its source ;
and he accomplished it by a train of deliberate false
hood, and systematic cruelty. There was no relenting
at the thought of a whole race being involved in eter
nal misery ; his dark mind rejoiced in the prospect of
myriads for ever enduring the same agonies with him
self. " He was a murderer from the beginning, and
abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in
him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his
own ; for he is a liar, and the father of it."* This
passage is strong, and illustrates in a very striking
manner the depravity of fallen angels ; for what is said
of one, is true of them all. The devil is a murderer
and a liar, cruel and false. It is bis nature to be so.
He does not learn falsehood from another, nor is he so
licited to it by another ; it comes spontaneously from
himself; he brings it from the evil treasure of his heart ;
" when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own."
Various names are given to fallen angels in tbe
Scriptures, which are descriptive of the depravity of
their nature. They are called evil spirits, unclean
spirits, lying spirits, spiritual wickednesses, and the
rulers of the darkness of this world. Their leader is de
nominated Satan or the adversary, the devil or the accu
ser, Apollyon or the destroyer, the prince and god of the
world, the dragon or the old serpent, and he who has
the power of death.
The existence of such beings has been denied by
many, and all that is said concerning them in Scripture
has been explained in a figurative manner. It has been
objected, that the common notion of a devil, having
other wicked spirits under his command, is a modifi
cation of the doctrine of two principles, which was
held by some nations in the east, and was adopted by
the Gnostics and Manichees, who, in the first ages,
gave so much trouble to the church. It seems to some
men to be inconsistent with just ideas of the Almighty
power and moral character of God, to suppose that
there are malignant spirits continually employed in op
posing his designs, and seducing his creatures. But
all our reasonings concerning the fitness or unfitness of
any thing, are superseded by an authoritative declaration
of Scripture. The attempt to explain away its testimony
is irreverent, and completely fails ; for we may as well
deny the existence of good as of bad angels, and turn
into allegory any histofical narration. It is not more
repugnant to the honour of God, that there should be
invisible agents who oppose his designs, than that the
same thing should be done by embodied spirits, or by
men, who daily trample upon his laws ; or that we
should be tempted by them, than that we should solicit

* John viii. 44.

208

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

one another to sin. The Christian doctrine concerning
the devil and his ministers is very different from that
of the ancient Persians, or of those sects who held that
there was an evil being co-existing with the good, and
carrying on perpetual war against him. Besides that
it is not liable to the difficulty involved in the idea of
a being originally and necessarily evil, it preserves the
absolute supremacy and independence of the Creator;
for the devil is represented, not as self-existent, and
"exempt from his authority, but as one of his creatures,
who, having become wicked by his own choice, is per
mitted to live and to act according to his depraved incli
nations, but is under the constant restraint of Divine
power, so that there are limits beyond which he cannot
pass, and his ultimate designs are counteracted and frus
trated. The evil, which prevails in the creation, does not
exist in spite of the Creator, butbecause he did not choose
to prevent it ; and it will be over-ruled to his glory. The
devil is his subject, and his minister; for he makes
his wrath, as well as the wrath of man, to praise him,
and the remainder of it he restrains. It is probable
that the oriental doctrine of two principles originated in
the traditionary account of an evil being who had revol
ted from the Creator ; and that the extravagant stories
of the Gnostics concerning ./Eons, as they called them,
who existed in the pleroma of the Deity ; the creation
-of the world by one or more of them ; the corruption of
the human race by their influence ; and the continual
opposition which they made to the Supreme Being ;
were a distorted representation of the fact, that some of
tbe angels of heaven had fallen, and seduced mankind
to join in the rebellion.
The angels who sinned were expelled from heaven,
as being unworthy to enjoy its felicity, and incapable
of taking any partinits employments. " God spared not
the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and
delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved
unto judgment."* He cast them into Tartarus, for Pe
ter uses the word TtffT«/»>sr«. Neither the verb, northe
substantive tsoth/w, occurs in any other place of the
New Testament, although frequent in Greek writers ;
and it is, therefore, from them, that we must learn its
meaning on this occasion. Now by Tartarus, they un
derstood the lowest of the infernal regions, the place
of darkness and of punishment ; in which those, who
had been guilty of impiety towards the gods, and of
great crimes against men, were confined and tor
mented. The word, as adopted by the Apostle, con
veys the same general idea. Whatever mistakes the
heathens committed with respect to the local situation
of Tartarus, and the nature of its punishments, Peter,
retaining the radical sense of the term, undoubtedly
uses it in this passage as equivalent to_ hell. That
is the region assigned to the apostate spirits: and in
the sentence of the last judgment, by which wicked
men are also doomed to it, it is said to have been
"prepared for the devil and his angels." It is repre
sented as a region of darkness and sorrow. Darkness
and light, when spoken of in relation to spirits, are me
taphorically used ; since, not having bodily senses, they
are not affected, as we are, by the presence and absence
of the sun. The darkness of Tartarus is therefore signi
ficant of the deprivation of all joy, and all hope. Hav
ing incurred the wrath of their Creator, the fallen
ano-els can experience only evil, and must utterly de
spair of any favourable change. The positive mise
ry of their state, is also described by figurative lan
guage. It is " everlasting fire," which is prepared
for the devil and his angels ; but spirits can no
more be affected by fire than by light. But, as fire
applied to the human body causes the most excruciat
ing pain, this image has been chosen to awaken the
idea of the most dreadful torment ; and that the mind

* 2 Peter ii. 4.

can suffer without the body, or while no injury is done
to it, and there is no derangement of its parts, we all
know by experience. The fallen angels are wretched
as well as wicked. The passage, indeed, which I
have quoted, represents them as reserved to the judg
ment of the great day ; and in the Gospels we hear
them asking our Saviour, why he had come to torment
them before the time ; but we are not to infer that at
present they are exempt from suffering. These words
merely imply that the time of vengeance is not fully
come, and that there is reserved for them a more dread
ful punishment than that which they are at present
enduring. Although the angels are said to have been cast down
into Tartarus, and there to be reserved in chains,
we are not to conclude that they are constantly con
fined to that place. The term, chains, is evidently
figurative, and signifies the irreversible sentence by
which they are doomed to perdition, or the Almio-hty
power of God by which they are secured. It appears
from their history, that they are prisoners at laro-e.
The work assigned to them is carried on upen earth ;
and they must therefore be permitted frequently to visit
it. Yet we say, that their proper habitation is Tarta
rus or hell, as heaven is the habitation of the good
angels, although they are much in our world, and may
be employed in various offices, in other regions of the
universe. After the final judgment, they will be shut
up for ever in their dismal dungeon. There will then
be a complete separation between the kingdom of dark
ness, and the kingdom of light. The latter will be the
scene of righteousness and peace ; no evil shall ever
sully its purity, or disorder disturb its harmony ; the
tempter shall not find entrance into the celestial para
dise. We have seen that it is not perfectly certain that
there is a subordination among the angels of light; but
that it exists among the angels of darkness, is manifest
from such expressions as these : " the devil and his
angels," and " the prince of the devils," and by the
appropriation of the name, Satan, to an individual,.and
tbe mention of " his kingdom," of which all other
wicked beings, human and angelical, are subjects. It
has been remarked by a late critic, that the word
StajZoxot, which is rendered devil in our version, but
properly signifies an accuser, is used in the plural
number in reference to men, but never occurs in that
number when spirits are the subject of disccurse.
Among these there is only one Sv.jlcxo; and other im
pure spirits are expressed b3' a different name, and are
called demons. The distinction is lost in our transla
tion, where both words are indiscriminately rendered
devil ; but it ought to be attended to, as there was un
doubtedly a reason for it, although we are not able to
shew in what the difference consists. The words
iojLiay, and tajfiziia,* were used by the Greeks to de
signate an order of beings who were accounted divine,
but inferior to the higher gods, and were the objects
of religious worship. To this order belonged the souls
of heroes, legislators, and other great men, who were
deified after their death. Of the demons acknowledged
by the heathens, some were good, and others were bad ;
but, in their writings, the word generally occurs in a
favourable sense. It is in a bad sense that the word
is used in the New Testament ; in a]l these cases at
least, which relate to the spirits who are associated
with the devil, and are under his direction. Tbe fact,
then, that there is one devil, and that the rest are called
demons, that these demons are his angels, and that the
kingdom which they are endeavouring to uphold and
extend, is his kingdom, leads to the conclusion; that a
monarchy is established among them. With respect
to its origin, we cannot tell whether it is founded on a

i

* Daemon.

ON ANGELS.

209

subordination, which existed prior to their fall ; or is
the result of their voluntary submission ; or is an ar
rangement imposed by the will of Providence, for
some end to us unknown. We are equally ignorant
whether, while one is evidently chief, there may* not
be a gradation of ranks ; as in the kingdoms of men,
some, although inferior to the sovereign, are superior
to their fellow subjects.
It remains to inquire, in what manner evil angelsare
employed ; and it will appear that their work corres
ponds with the depravity of their nature, and the male
volence of their dispositions. It is their perpetual aim
to dishonour God, and to injure men ; and in prosecut
ing their designs, they submit to no restraint but Al
mighty power.
We learn from the Scriptures, that they are permitted
to exercise power over the bodies of men, and over
other things which may have an effect upon them. I
might appeal for proof to the first chapter of Job, in
which, licence is represented as having been given to
Saun to make trial of that good man, and a series of
calamities to have ensued, that terminated, as we see
in the second chapter, in a painful and loathsome dis
ease, which must be considered as having been caused
by the agency of that malignant spirit. That it is a
true history, is evident from the references to it in other
parts of Scripture, which are altogether inconsistent
with the supposition that it is an allegorical descrip
tion, or dramatic representation, of more recent events
But, if there should be any doubt to what extent the
narrative is figurative, I may appeal, in the next place,
to the possessions related by the Evangelists, which
are instances of power exercised by evil spirits upon
the bodies of men, and of the infliction of diseases by
them. It has been alleged, indeed, that these were
not cases of real possession ; that the patients laboured
under common diseases, as madness and epilepsy ; that
the Jews believed that these were caused by the influ
ence of evil spirits ; that the E vangelists accommodate
their account of them, and of the cure, to the popular
belief; and that the patients are called faiftovifrftwci,*
and are said ixtftnui *XuyA solely because the vulgar
thought so. But it has been justly observed, that
" when we find mention made of the number of demons
in particular possessions, their actions so expressly
distinguished from those of the men possessed, con
versations held by the former in regard to the disposal
of them after their expulsion, and accounts given how
¦they were actually disposed of; when we find desires
and passions ascribed peculiarly to them, and simili
tudes taken from the conduct which they usually ob
serve, it is impossible to deny their existence, without
admitting that the sacred historians were either de
ceived themselves in regard to them, or intended to
deceive their readers.":): We must proceed still far
ther, and say, that our Lord himself favoured the de
ception, encouraged the people in a foolish superstiti
ous notion, and gave a false representation of the nature
of his miracles. It is objected against the credibility
of possessions, that they were peculiar to that age, and
that we have no certain accounts of them in any prior
or subsequent period. It is beyond doubt, however,
that they have been supposed to exist in other ages ;
but, granting that they were confined to the time of the
ministry of our Lord and his Apostles, would it not be
sufficient to say in answer to the objection, that they
were then permitted to furnish an opportunity for dis
playing the power of our Saviour over the spirits of
darkness, and to give sensible attestation to the general
design of his coming, which was to " destroy the works
of the devil ?"|| To affirm that there never were pos-
* Demoniacs. t To have a daemon.
I Campbell on the Gospels. Preliminary Dissert, vi.
n 1 John iii. 8.
S»B 14

sessions at any other period, is to reject tbe testimony
of the Jews and other nations, not upon the authority
of more credible testimony, but upon presumptions and
abstract reasoning. " It is probable," says Dr. Mac-
knight, " that the possessions mentioned in the Gos
pels, were diseases carried to an uncommon height by
the presence and agency of demons. And if this is
allowed to have been tbe true nature of these posses
sions, there will be found, without doubt, abundant
examples of the like possessions in all ages. For there
is nothing absurd in supposing that there always have
been, and still are in the world, many incurable dis
eases, which, though commonly attributed to natural
causes, are really the effect of the invisible operation
of devils, who have power given them for that pur
pose."* That the fallen angels exercise power over the minds
of men, is an alarming truth, which is proved, in the
first place, by the seduction of our first parents ; and in
the second place, by many facts, and declarations, and
admonitions, in the Scriptures. The mode of their
agency is concealed ; and as it would be vain to make
an attempt to discover it, so it would serve no valuable
purpose to indulge in conjectures. Of one thing we
are certain, that they have no such control over men as
to compel them to obey ; for such a power would be
destructive of moral agency, and would therefore in a
great measure defeat their own design, which is to in
volve us in guilt; they can succeed only by influencing
the volition, through the medium of the understanding,
and imagination, and passions. ^
The devil was the lying spirit in the mouth of the
false prophets under the Mosaic dispensation ; and bis
concern in the idolatry which prevailed over the whole
earth, with the exception of Judea, prior to the incar
nation of Christ, may be inferred from his declaration
when the seventy disciples returned from their mission,
and related their success, " I beheld Satan as lightning
falling from heaven." He anticipated the result of the
preaching of the gospel, which would effect the over
throw of all the false religions of mankind ; and by re
presenting this event as the fall of Satan, he intimated
that he patronized them, and by their means, upheld
the interests of his kingdom. " We wrestle not," says
an Apostle, "against flesh and blood, but against
principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
darkness of tbis world, against spiritual wickedness in
high places." f He may be understood to speak of the
conflictwhichisgoingoninallages, between fallen an
gels and the followers of Christ; but he refers, I pre
sume, in a particular manner, to the contest in which
the Apostles were engaged with them, while tbe for*
mer attacked, and the latter defended the various sys
tems of error and corruption, by which the knowledge,
and worship, and laws of God had been almost banished
from the earth. The powers of darkness did not as
sume a visible form, and wage open war with the ser
vants of Christ; but they influenced the minds of their
own votaries, and excited a vigorous resistance by all
the arts and all the force of which they were possessed.
During the reign of heathenism' Satan was emphati
cally the god of this world, over which he ruled with
uncontrolled dominion. Princes, priests, the common
people, and philosophers, were his subjects ; for all had
departed from the true God, and wandered in the ma
zes of error and vice. It is a curious question, wheth
er evil spirits had any concern in the heathen oracles ;
and while some affirm, others deny. It would be ab
surd to suppose, that they could predict future events,
of which the causes were not then in existence, and
which depended upon the volitions of free agents ; for,
of such future things they are as ignorant as mar,, and
* Macknight's Harmony. Essay on the Demoniacs.
f Eph. vi. 12.

210

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

it is the prerogative of God to declare the end from the
beginning. Some future things, however, men may
foretell, because they are in a train to be accomplished,
and the sagacity of spirits is greatly superior to ours.
If it could be proved that the heathen oracles ever re
vealed any thing secret, any thing which was done at
a distance, any thing which the priests could not have
known by natural means, we should be under the ne
cessity of admitting supernatural agency. But their
responses were commonly obscure, ambiguous, clogged
with conditions, on the failure of any of which the cre
dit of the oracle was saved, although the event did not
take place ; and in general, there is reason to believe,
that they were managed by the dexterity of the priests.
In whatever manner we decide this question, there can
be no doubt that the monstrous fabric of paganism was
upheld by the artifice of Satan and his ministers. Its
overthrow is described in the Revelation by a war be
tween Michael and his angels, and the dragon and his
angels, and the expulsion of the latter from heaven.
There is the same authority for affirming that he was
active in the great apostasy from the truth, which pre
vailed over Europe in the dark ages, and still subsists
in many of its kingdoms. When the devil is cast in
to the bottomless pit for a thousand years, it is with a
design that he should no more deceive the nations ;*
from which it appears that it was he who formerly de
ceived them. It is the old dragon, the old serpent, who
gives to the beast " his power, and bis seat, and great
authority ;"j- and the coming of the man of sin is said
to be " after the working of Satan, with all power, and
signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness
of unrighteousness ;"X that is, the man of sin came in
the same manner as Satan came when he seduced the
nations into heathen idolatry ; and he acts in concurrence
with him, and by his assistance. If heathenism was
his offspring, he may justly be considered as the fath
er of popery, which is paganism revived, and, with the
change of some of its tenets, and the substitution of new
names for the old, retains its idolatry and its ritual ob
servances. The signs, and powers, and lying won
ders by which it is supported, are not real miracles, (for
if evil spirits could perform these, they would be no
criterion of a divine commission,) but appearances of
miracles effected by superior knowledge of nature, by
sleight of hand, and by other contrivances ; which, how
ever, may be said to be after the working of Satan, be
cause by such arts, he had deceived men in former ages,
and they are arts which no man could use but by his
instigation. Whether evil spirits ever interposed any
farther for the maintenance of the antichristian system,
I pretend not to say ; but, if all the stories in theiT le
gends are true, it cannot be doubted that they have.
One thing, however, is certain, that such of the mira-
xles as have been subjected to examination, have been
discovered to be tricks of worthless monks and saints,
ito impose upon an ignorant credulous people.
_ In ancient times, the heathens were addicted to ma
gic, and the profane science obtained credit among the
.Jews, who pretended that they had been taught it by
Solomon. It was founded on a supposed intercourse
with demons, by whose aid men were enabled to per
form many wonderful works. But there is every rea
son to think, that there was nothing real in it, and that
the whole was a system of delusion and imposture. In
more modern times, a similar art has been known by
the name of witchcraft, which avowedly consists in a
correspondence with wicked spirits. The dealers in
this art were supposed to have entered into a compact-
with- the devil, by which they engaged to be his ser
vants, on condition that he should invest them with pre
ternatural power, of the effects of which marvellous
stories are current among the vulgar. Their ideas seem

to receive countenance from the Scripture, which makes
mention, at least in our translation, of wizards and
witches, and dealers in familiar spirits. But, besides
that it is difficult to ascertain the precise import of the
original terms, it is uncertain whether the persons were
really possessed of the art which they professed, or
were only pretenders to it. The story of the Witch of
Endor favours the former supposition; but there are
some circumstances, which will lead an attentive rea
der to suspect, that she exceeded her art on the occa
sion referred to, and that the effect was beyond her ex
pectation. Whatever may be determined with respect
to those of former times, the more recent tales of wiz
ards and witches are rendered improbable by this cir
cumstance, that, in proportion as knowledge has advan
ced, such characters have disappeared, and that their
existence is now credited only by the most illiterate.
There is therefore ground of suspicion, that their whole
history may be traced to the ignorance of the ages in
which they flourished.
Nothing is more plainly taught in the Scriptures,
than that evil spirits are employed in tempting men to
sin. The devil is called " the spirit that worketh in
the children of disobedience;"* the wicked are said to
be " of their father the devil,"f and to do his works ;
and it is affirmed that " he who committeth sin is of the
devil.":): It was Satan who tempted Judas to betray
his Master,! and put it into the heart of Ananias and
Sapphira to agree together to lie to the Holy Ghost.§
His efforts are, in a particular manner, directed against
the saints, who are the objects of his envy and hatred,
because they have been restored to the favour of God,
and are engaged in his service. Our Lord told his dis
ciples, that Satan had desired to have them, that he
might sift them as wheat ;1f and an Apostle says in the
name of all his brethren, " We are not ignorant of his
devices."** With respect to both saints and sinners,
he is represented as " a roaring lion, going about, and
seeking whom he may devour."")-)
These, and many other passages, fully prove that fall
en angels are employed in endeavouring to draw men intc
sin, and justify us in believing their agency, although
we cannot explain it. It would be endless to attempt
to give a particular account of their temptations, which
are greatly diversified, and adapted, we may presume,
with consummate art, to the varieties in the tempers
and circumstances of individuals. They solicit men to
pride, to profaneness, to avarice, to sensuality, to ma
lignity ; to every evil, in a word, which will dishonour
God, and bring ruin upon their souls.
There are two extremes, which, when speaking up
on this subject, we should be cautious to avoid. Some
seem to ascribe so much influence to Satan, as to re
present the human heart as a mere passive instrument
in his hand, and trace to him all its wickedness, as if,
without his instigation, it would have adopted no er
rors, and committed no crimes. To him the blame of all
its vices and extravagancies is transferred by a sweep
ing sentence. Others exclude him from having any
concern in the depravity of human nature, and find, it
man himself, the origin of all the corruptions in princi
ple and practice, which have prevailed on the earth. The
Scriptures adopt a middle course ; and while they speak,
in the strongest terms, of the deceitfulness and desper
ate wickedness of the heart, they affirm, that its appe
tites and passions are excited, and drawn forth into ac
tion, by an invisible Tempter. When the Prince of this
world came to our Saviour, he failed in his design, be
cause he found nothing in him, who was perfectly pure;
but, when he comes to us, he finds materials upon which
he operates with success.

* Rev. xx. 7, 8.

t lb. xiii. 2. X 2 Thess. ii. 9. 10.

* Eph. ii. 2. f John viii. 44. X 1 John iii. 4.
|| John xiii. 2. I Acts v. 3. V Luke xxii. 31.
** 2 Cor. ii. 11. -ft 1 Pet v. 8.

MAN IN HIS STATE OF INNOCENCE.

211

Hence it appears, that men are in continual danger,
and that it assails them from a quarter of which many
entertain no suspicion. Christians alone are apprised
of it by divine admonitions, and feel the necessity of vigi
lance, and prayer, and exertion. They are not left to
struggle with their active and powerful adversaries ; but,
while heavenly grace is ready to assist them, they are
amply provided with the means of defence, and earnest
ly exhorted to them. " Put on," therefore, " the whole
armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against
tbe wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh
and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against
spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore, take
unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able
to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to
stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about
with truth, and having on the breast-plate of righteous
ness ; and your feet shod with the preparation of the
gospel of peace ; above all, taking the shield of faith,
wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts
of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and
the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God ; pray
ing always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit,
and watching thereunto with all perseverance and sup
plication for all saints."*

LECTURE XL.
MAN IN HIS STATE OF INNOCENCE.
Mosaic Account of the Creation of Man — Pattern after which he
was made ; the image of God — His resemblance to it in the
Spirituality ofhis Soul ; the Authority with-which he was in
vested; his Knowledge; and his original Righteousness — Hap
piness of Man's Primeval State — Its Duration.
When the earth was prepared by the hand of the Al
mighty, adorned with its sublime and beautiful scene
ry, and enriched by his liberality, man was introduced
into it as his dwelling, and placed at the head of its
other inhabitants. In vain, as we have already remark
ed, should God have displayed the wonders of his pow
er and wisdom, if no being had been raised up to con
template them, and to offer up the j ust tribute of praise.
All his works glorify him ; but they do so, by mani
festing his excellencies to intelligent creatures, who are
capable of perceiving the tokens ofhis presence, and of
feeling the devout impressions which these are fitted to
make. A world which was a mere solitude, or was in
habited only by animals possessed of no higher pow
ers than instincts and the external senses, would have
existed to no purpose worthy of its Maker ; and the art
displayed in the arrangement of its parts would have
seemed to be a waste of skill. But it appears to be a
work worthy of its Author, when we find it peopled
by a race of a higher order, who see him in the objects
which surround them, and are led by the gifts of his boun
ty to love and adore the Giver. Heaven is his throne ;
" but the earth hath he given to the children of men."+
The creation of man took place on the sixth day, and
was delayed till that time, that the earth might be pre
pared for his reception. Having made " the beast of
the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and
every thing that creepeth upon the earth, after his kind,"
God said, " Let us make man in our image, after our like
ness ; and let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle,
and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in
his own image, in the image of God created he him :
male and female created he them."f It is thus that
Moses relates the origin of the human race.

» Eph. vi. 11—18. f Psalm cxv. 16. t Gen. i. 26, 27.

There are two things in these words which deserve
particular attention. There is an unusual solemnity
observed at the creation of man. While, on the other
days, nothing is heard but tbe simple and majestic
command, which is instantly obeyed, " Let there be
light," " Let the waters under heaven be gathered
together unto one place," " Let the earth bring forth
grass ;" on this occasion there is something like what
we call deliberation and consultation ; a sort of prepa
ration for the work, as if it were of superior import
ance. This surely may be inferred from the peculia
rity of the form, that the creature about to be made,
was of a nobler species than the other inhabitants of
the earth, and destined to a higher purpose. God was
now to crown his lower works, by bringing forward the
last and the best of them. The earth being fashioned
and furnished, only one thing remained to complete his
design ; and he therefore said, Let us now make man.
— The other thing remarkable, is the use of the plural
instead of the singular pronoun. God said not, " Let
me make man," but " Let us make man after our
image." Different methods have been adopted to ac
count for this unusual mode of expression. He spoke,
say the Jews, to the earth, to the heavens, to the ele
ments. I presume that these are words without mean
ing ; and simply to state this opinion, is to refute it.
When we are informed what is meant by God's speak
ing to the elements, or summoning them to join with
him in the creation of man, and how man was made
after their image, that is, when nonsense is proved to
be sense, the opinion will deserve to be considered.
Others say that he spoke to the angels ; but, as he said,
" Let us make man," it follows, upon this supposition,
that he called upon them to co-operate with him in the
production of his noblest work. Is not this opinion as
unintelligible as the former ? Did God need tbe as
sistance of angels ? And what assistance could they
give him ? The Scripture declares that we ha-ve all
one Father, and that one God created us ;* but now it
seems that this information is not correct, and that we
have many Creators, the angels having been concerned
as well as he, to whom alone we supposed ourselves
to be indebted for existence. This fancy being evi
dently absurd, others have maintained, that God spake
in the style which is used by kings ; who, although
individuals, employ the plural number for greater dig
nity, or because they are the representatives of the
people over whom they reign. But it ought to be con
sidered that this style was altogether unknown in'an-
cient times, and is of modern date ; and, consequently,
that there would have been an obvious impropriety in
using it more than five thousand years prior to its in
troduction. It would have been misunderstood ; it
would have been supposed to import that there were
more beings, more gods than one, concerned in the
creation ; and thus, merely for the sake of anticipating
a mode of expression which had nothing to recommend
it, an occasion would have been presented of leading
mankind into the fundamental error of polytheism.
The mode of expression, I say, had nothing to recom
mend it. When strictly examined, it is inaccurate,
and cannot be excused on the plea of dignity or ma
jesty, because the singular form is evidently more dig
nified, as it represents the authority of a sovereign, as
concentrated in bis single person, and not shared by
any other individual upon earth. The most natural
and satisfactory account of the use of a plural word, on
this occasion, is to suppose a reference to a plurality
of persons in the Godhead ; which some conceive to be
implied in the plural name of God, Elohim, and which
is manifestly signified in several other passages of the
Old Testament, that were quoted when I was illustrat
ing the doctrine of the Trinity. With this doctrine the
* Mai. ii. 10.

212

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

jieople of God, under the ancient economy, were ac
quainted ; and the language under consideration was
not calculated to misWd them. They knew that God,
on this occasion, consulted with himself; and inferred
from his words, that all the Divine Persons were con
cerned in the creation of man.
The body of man was made of the dust, or of the
earth, and hence the name Adam seems to be derived.
The reason for forming it of such mean materials,
seems to have been to teach him humility, when,
amidst the honours which were to be conferred upon
him, as Lord of the inferior creatures, he should reflect
that, in one respect, he had the same origin with the
beasts of the field. It was calculated also to awaken
sentiments of devotion, while he contemplated in his
own body an admirable proof of the wisdom and good
ness of God who had constructed a frame of such
curious workmanship, out of the dust which our first
parent was daily treading under his feet. " I will
praise thee," says the Psalmist, " for I am fearfully
and wonderfully made : marvellous are thy works ; and
that my soul knoweth right well."* No description
can do full justice to its wonderful mechanism ; and
whether we consider the form and articulation of
the bones, or the muscles by which they are moved,
or the nerves which convey feeling and activity to
every part, or the circulation of the blood, or the vari
ous organs of secretion and digestion, or the action of
the lungs, or the senses by which it communicates
with the external world, or its external symmetry and
features, we pronounce it to be, in every respect, wor
thy of its divine Author, and fitted to serve the various
purposes of the sentient and intelligent being to whom
,it belongs. I remark, in passing, that it is only in a
secondary sense that the body of man is said to have
been created. It was not made of nothing, but pre
existing matter ; but equal power was necessary to
produce, out of that matter, flesh, and blood, and bones.
When the body of man was fashioned, " The Lord
God," says the sacred historian, " breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life ; and man became a living
soul."f The language is figurative; for breathing can
not be literally ascribed to God, who is not a corporeal
being. The words import at least, that God caused
the air to enter into his body, that its several parts
might begin their functions, the lungs to respire, the
heart to beat, and the blood to circulate. But, although
this process may be considered as mechanical, we know-
that it cannot be carried on merely by mechanical
causes. If a body be dead, the introduction of air into
the lungs will not set them and the other parts of the
system in motion. A living principle is wanted, dis
tinct from the body, upon wbich its operations depend,
as the motion of a machine constructed by human skill
is caused by something different from the machine, as
water or steam, or wind. Hence, although we may
not be able to prove, that breathing into man the breath
of life necessarily implies the communication of this
principle, yet the case requires us to understand the
words in this sense, especially as the effect is said to
have been, that man became a living soul. As we
know that the nature of man is compound, consisting
of a soul as well as of a body, and no mention is made
of the former in any other part of tbe narrative, we may
reasonably conclude that Moses, who certainly would
not omit a particular of so much importance, here re
fers to its creation. The body which was made of dust,
is plainly distinguished from the soul, when the wise
man informs us, that at death, " the dust returns to the
earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave
it.":): The living soul of man was created, in the
proper sense of the term. It is not a quality, but a
Substance ; and as it did not previously exist, it must
» Psalm cxxxix. 14. f Gen. ii. 7. X Eccl. xii. 7.

have been produced out of nothing by the Father of
Spirits. These two constituent parts of human nature were
joined together by an invisible and mysterious tie. Al
though they possess no quality in common, and it might
seem, therefore, that they could no more operate upon
each other than if they were separated by an interval
as wide as the space between heaven and earth, yet, by
the will of God, which is the cause of all relations and
connexions between created things, the soul moves the
body, and the body affects the soul by its organs of sense,
and all its modifications. Thus united, they constU
tute one individual, as really as if the essence of man,
like that of the angels, had been perfectly simple. We
cannot explain the fact, but we are all assured of it by
experience. When Adam had been created, there was not found
" a help meet for him."* Among all the living inhabi
tants of the earth, there was not one who resembled him
in shape or in mental endowments ; there was not one
who was fit to be his associate. Surrounded with crea
tures of different species he was placed in a solitude,
affording no scope for the exercise of his distinguish
ing faculties, no means of intellectual intercourse, no
objects to awaken the tender sensibilities of tbe heart.
To supply this want, " the Lord God caused a deep
sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one
of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And
the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made
he a woman, and brought her unto the man."| Upon this
narrative it would be useless to attempt a commentary,
as we are altogether incapable of advancing a single ad
ditional idea to illustrate it. God seems to have chosen
this mode of making the woman, instead of forming her
also out of the dust, to constitute the closest conjunction
between her and Adam, who was destined to be her hus
band ; to be an image of the intimacy of the conjugal
relation ; and further, to derive the whole human race
from one common stock, or to make them all literally
of one blood. "And Adam said, This is now bone of
my bone, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called
Woman, because she was taken out of man. There
fore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife ; and they shall be one flesh."J
This simple fact, like many other passages of Scrip
ture, has been made the foundation of allegory. Adam
sleeping, is a type of Jesus Christ dead upon the cross,
and Eve is a figure of the Church, which is consecra
ted and purified by the blood and water which flowed
from his wounded side. But such interpretations of
Scripture are fanciful, and although they may please
for a moment, will not bear the examination of sober
judgement. W"e have no authority for them but that of
their authors, and shall do well not to indulge in them,
Let us proceed to consider the declaration of Scrip
ture, that man was made in the image, and after the like
ness of God. I shall not stop to enquire, what is the
distinction between image and likeness, or whether
there be any difference of meaning ; the important truth
wbich we are evidently taught is, that man was so for
med, as to bear a resemblance to his Creator. It is al
most unnecessary to remark, that it did not consist in,
his external form, because God having no bodily parts,
any configuration of matter could not constitute the im
press of bis image. When Solomon says, that "God
made man upright,"|| he does not refer to his erect pos*
ture — the os sublime § of the poet — but to the state of bis,
mind. First, The image of God may be conceived to con
sist in the essence of the human soul, which is spiritu
al like the Divine essence. God created matter, but
it was not made after his image, because he is not him-

* Gen. ii. 20.
|| Eccl. vii. 29,

fib. 21,22. } lb. 23,24.
j Lofty countenance.

MAN IN HIS STATE OF INNOCENCE.

213

self material. But the soul resembles him, because it
is uncompounded, indivisible, immortal, capable of
thought and activity. The opinions respecting the na
ture of the soul have been various. Some have sup
posed that it was fire ; some, that it was air ; some, that
it was a material substance highly refined ; and some
have denied that there is any soul at all, and have affirm
ed that sensation and thought are the effects of corporeal
organization. But certainly the known properties of
matter are the most remote that we can conceive from
intelligence ; and in the most refined states in which it
is found to exist, as in the solar light, or the electric
and magnetic fluids, it approaches no nearer to think
ing and willing, than in its rudest and dullest form.
No man can conceive perception to result from the mere
arrangement or the motion of particles of matter, be
cause these things are toto cosh different, and have no
more connexion with thought than colour has, or sweet
ness, or sound. But it would be superfluous to attempt
to prove the immateriality of the soul by a process of
reasoning. To christians the point admits of no doubt,
since revelation has decided the question, and pronoun
ced the soul to be a spiritual substance, so indepen
dent upon the body, that, when the latter dies, it shall
survive in a state of consciousness and activity. In
tbe invisible and nobler part ofhis nature, man resem
bles bis Maker, who is a Spirit.
Secondly, Tbe image of God in which Adam was
made, consisted in the authority with which he was in
vested. "Let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle,
and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth."* This dominion implied
that all things were placed in a state of subjection to
man, and were subservient to him. It has been ques
tioned whether he had a right to make use of the low
er animals for food ; some supposing that this right was
not given till after the flood, when it is first expressly
mentioned. Without entering into this controversy,
it may suffice to observe, that man was constituted the
lord of this lower world ; that all the creatures were
inspired with respect for him, and submitted to his
government ; and that he was at liberty to employ them
for such ends, as an innocent being could desire to ac
complish. He might be said to have been created in
the image of God, because he was his representative
and vicegerent.
[ proceed to observe, in the third place, That the im
age of God principally and properly consisted in the
qualities of his soul, which were similar to the perfec
tions of his Maker. The words of Moses which we are
considering, as illustrated by those of an Apostle, who
addressing christians on the subject of their restora
tion to the state from which Adam fell, says, "Ye have
put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge
after the image of Him that created him;"t and again,
"Put on the new man, which after God is created in
righteousness and true holiness.":): From these pas
sages we learn, that tbe image of God, in which Adam
was created, consisted, not merely in intellectual en
dowments, but also in holy dispositions. As a mirror
reflects the brightness of the sun, so did his soul ex
hibit a counterpart of the moral attributes of God, ac
cording to its limited capacity. He who made all oth
er creatures perfect in their kin.d, did not withhold from
man what constitutes the chief excellence, the noblest
ornament of his nature. It was as impossible that he
should have come from the hands of his Maker with a
mind labouring under ignorance, or a heart tainted with
impurity, as that darkness should proceed from light,
or evil from good.
The understanding of man, in his primeval state, was
illuminated with all necessary knowledge. In speak

ing upon this subject, there are two extremes which
should be avoided. Some reduce the knowledge of the
first man almost to nothing, represent him as a child in
understanding, although his body was in the maturity
of manhood, and maintain that he was left to acquire
wisdom by degrees, in the exercise ofhis faculties up
on the objects around him, and under the tuition of ex
perience. But this opinion supposes him to have been
less perfect than the lower animals, who were no doubt
endowed at once with all their peculiar instincts in per
fection ; is at variance with the Scripture, which affirms
that he was created in the image of God, of which, ac
cording to an Apostle, knowledge was a constituent part ;
and places him in a situation in which he could not,
for some time at least, fulfil the design of his creation,
and must have been unavoidably exposed to the dan
ger of error. Is it not more rational to believe, that
all the knowledge, which was necessary in his circum
stances, was at once infused into his mind ? Others give
an extravagant account of his knowledge, as if it had
almost equalled 'that of angels, and our first parent had
been acquainted with all the arts and sciences which
have been slowly acquired by his posterity. The truth
lies between these extremes. He was neither so igno
rant as the former affirm, nor so enlightened as the lat
ter would persuade us. It is enough to maintain, that
he possessed all the knowledge that was necessary to
him as an intelligent and moral agent. < We may pre
sume that his faculties were stronger and more active ¦
than those of any ofhis children; and it may be infer- ¦
red, from bis naming the inferior creatures when they
passed in review before him, that his acquaintance with
natural objects was extensive and accurate. But the :
knowledge which chiefly distinguished him in his ori
ginal state, and was an essential part of the divine image,
was the knowledge of God and his will, of every thing
which it behoved him to know, in order to fulfil the end '
ofhis creation. He knew himself; he knew his rela
tions to his Maker; he knew the duty which he owed
to him ; he knew what he had to fear from sin, and
what to hope from obedience. This knowledge was
not obtained by observation, and inquiry, and reflection,
but by immediate inspiration; it was a light from heav
en, which shone into his mind from the first moment
of his existence. It may be justly called perfect know
ledge, because it was distinct, accurate, and full. Man
was not ignorant of any thing in which he was concern
ed ; he was not mistaken in any of his notions ; he did
not, in a single instance, suppose good to be evil, or
evil to be good; and as he was sensible of his dependence
upon the Author of his being, and looked to him as his
guide, so God was always ready to grant to him such '
new discoveries as might be conducive to his happiness.
More knowledge he might have acquired, and would
have acquired, by natural means or supernatural reve
lation, if he had continued in innocence ; but his pres- ,
ent knowledge was sufficient for his present condition.
This is the only perfection in knowledge of which a ¦
creature is capable, either upon earth or in heaven.
Knowledge absolutely perfect is omniscience, which is
an incommunicable attribute of the Creator.
It has been a subject of inquiry, whether our first-
parents were endowed at once with the knowledge of
language, or were left to form a language for them
selves. Those who maintain the latter opinion, are
compelled to admit that they understood the words
in which they were addressed by God, and after
wards by the serpent; but they conceive that the
other words in their vocabulary were of their own
invention. To state this hypothesis, is to expose
it as whimsical and ridiculous. If God inspired them
with the knowledge of some words, what good reason

* Gen. i. !

f Col. iii. 10.

X Eph. iv.

can be assigned for supposing that he stopped here,
and did not go on to finish what he had begun? '¦-
there any advantage gaiued by the supposition ?

214

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

there a single hint to favour it in the narrative of
Moses? Is it more rational than the other opinion,
or more analogous to other parts of the Divine proce
dure ? It is a mere conjecture, and a conjecture so
manifestly arbitrary, that it deserves rather to be
laughed at than seriously refuted. For a time, our first
parents must have been mute, except that they could
repeat the few words in which God had instructed
them ; for a time, they must have been incapable of
celebrating the praises of their Maker, and of carrying
on intercourse between themselves, but by signs, like
the speechless savages, who never existed except in
the brains and writings of dreaming philosophers. Can
we allow ourselves to think that man, the chief of God's
works, was brought upon the stage in a state so im
perfect? No ; we believe that he, who infused knowl
edge into his mind, taught him how to express it in ar
ticulate sounds.
I proceed to observe, that another feature of the Di
vine image consisted in the rectitude of his will, by
which I mean, that be was fully disposed to the per
formance of his duty, or to act according to the light
which shone in his mind. As he was a moral agent,
we must hold that his will was free ; and that it was
so, is manifest from the event, for he did turn aside
from the path of duty, and make a choice which proved
fatal to himself and his posterity. " God made man
upright, but they have sought out many inventions."*
By freedom of will, however, I do not mean that his
mind was in a state of suspense, or of indifference to
good and evil. I believe such a state to be impossible,
unless it be preceded by complete ignorance of both ;
and, if possible, to be criminal, because our knowledge
of what is right and good should immediately determine
the choice. His mind was not inequilibrio, like a bal
ance, the scales of which are pressed down by equal
weights ; he was averse to evil, and inclined only to
good ; but he might reject the good, and choose the
evil. He was not confirmed in purity, as angels
and glorified saints are ; he was a mutable creature,
and might change by an act of volition, and in this
consisted his freedom of will. The rectitude of his
will is implied in the uprightness which is predicated
of him in his original state. His will was in unison
with the will of God. He had no desires or incli
nations of his own which he was disposed to gratify ;
his pleasure arose from doing what was pleasing to
his Maker. This seems to be that righteousness which
the Scriptures affirm to be an essential part of the image
of God, and which, at the same time, they distinguish
from knowledge and holiness, meaning, probably, by the
latter, the pure thoughts, and affections, and actions,
which resulted from it. The state of man in inno
cence may be illustrated by contrasting it with that
of his descendants, in whom there is found an op
position between their convictions of duty and their
inclinations. This internal conflict, this rebellion of
the will against reason or conscience, was observed
and lamented by the Heathens ; and every scholar
knows the confession or complaint of the poet, that he
perceived and approved what was right,- but pursued
what was wrong :
a Video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor."f
The Apostle Paul shews, from his own experience,
that this conflict takes place even in the regenerated,
in consequence of the remains of depravity. " I see
another law in my members, warring against the law
of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law
of sin, which is in my members."!; Hence it is that

* Eccl. vii. 29.
f The better things I see and approbate.
The worse — I follow. ( Rom. vii. 23.

virtue, although eloquently recommended, and praised
in rapturous strains, is often in practice totally disre
garded. Notions floating in the head, and, it may be,
slightly affecting the conscience, are too feeble to sub
due the strong and inveterate aversion of the heart. In
the soul of tbe first man, the most perfect CTder reign
ed. His knowledge was not speculative, but practical.
His will obeyed the dictates of his enlightened under
standing. His perceptions of duty were accompanied
with perfect submission to the authority by which it
was enjoined. What the first Adam was, we may learn
by contemplating the Second, all whose powers har
monized in the service of God, and who accounted it
his meat and his drink to do the will of his Father, and
to finish his work.
Some have affirmed that man did not at first possess
this righteousness, but that it was afterwards infused
into him. He was intfocent, they say, or free from
sin, when he was created,but was not positively holy.
As, in this state, a conflict might have taken place
between the inferior and the superior part of his na
ture, between appetite and reason, righteousness was
superadded to check and restrain every disorderly
movement. An obvious consequence of this opinion
is, that the loss of this righteousness has only pla
ced him in his original circumstances ; and that we
come into the world just such creatures as Adam was,
having as much liberty of will to choose good, and
refuse evil, and equally capable of acquiring virtuous
habits. It is true that he was subsequently placed
in a. more advantageous situation, when be was en
dowed with supernatural gifts ; but, wanting these,
we are on the same footing on which he stood when
he came from the hands of his Maker. It is obvious
that this opinion overthrows the Scriptural doctrine of
original sin. In opposition to it, we maintain that,
although man may be conceived as being without righte
ousness, yet, in point of fact, Adam never wanted it;
that from the beginning, it was an endowment of his
nature ; that he was holy as soon as he became a
living soul ; and we found our assertion upon the
declaration of Scripture, that God created man in his
own image. He did not stamp his image upon him
after he was made, but it was the pattern according to
which he fashioned him at first.
To illustrate further the subject of original righteous
ness, I observe that, at his creation, the will of man
was holy and only inclined to good. Had there been
any bias of his nature to evil, any tendency to it, how
ever faint, any appetite or passion which was not com
pletely under the government of reason, or rather of the
Divine law, he would not have been upright in the full
and perfect sense of the word. What we now assert,
is opposed to the opinion already stated, that there was
a conflict between appetite and reason in man, that he
was subject to concupiscence or desire excited by the
objects around him, which it might be necessary in
some cases to resist. Our appetites and passions, it is
said, are not in our power, and do not wait for our
permission, but are often moved before we are aware.
Now, the constitution of Adam being the same with
ours, he must have occasionally felt desires which
could not have been gratified with innocence, but
which, being involuntary, would not be imputed to
him as sin. In a -word, it is maintained, that there
was from the beginning a struggle in the human breast,
similar to that which takes place in the regenerated,
according to the description of an inspired writer, "that
the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against
the flesh ; and these are contrary the one to the other."*
This may pass with some men as conclusive reason
ing; but it is much of the same kind as if we should
say, a man infirm and diseased is never free from pain ;

* Gal. v. 17.

MAN IN HIS STATE OF INNOCENCE.

215

and, therefore, a man of a sound constitution, and ir.
good health, is never perfectly at ease. The primeval
itate of man was so different from his present state,
that it would be downright folly to argue from the one
to the other. There was then a harmony, a subordina
tion among his faculties, which we can hardly conceive
who have daily experience of their disorder. There
was such light in his mind, and such love to God in
his heart, as retained his appetites in a state of com
plete subjection. No wandering thoughts or irregular
desires found admission into his holy soul. The
dominion of the law of God over all the principles of
his nature was absolute. It is the effect of the fall,
that the connexion established between the intellectual
and active powers of the soul is unsettled ; that reason
and conscience often dictate in vain, and the will
rebels against both; that the affections rush headlong
upon forbidden gratifications ; and man, with all his
knowledge, and all his resolutions to the contrary, is
hurried away by their violence. But this is a descrip
tion only of fallen man. In a state of innocence, his
soul was like a curious machine, all the parts of which
moved in harmony by the force of one master spring,
the love of God, which actuated and sanctified all its
powers. It is true, then, that God made man upright, that he
was a creature worthy of the Author of his being, the
fair image of his excellencies, a mirror from which the
unspotted purity of the divine nature was reflected.
Man, being holy, enjoyed all the felicity which was
suitable to his nature and his circumstances. His body
contained no seeds of disease, and was not subject to
languor or pain. The objects around him, arrayed in
the freshness of youth, and beautified by the hand of
the Creator, were calculated to delight his senses.
Work was prescribed to him ; but it was of the easiest
kind, and served merely as an agreeable recreation.
He was placed in the garden of Eden, where nature
appeared in all her loveliness; a garden which God
•himself had planted, and in which grew "every tree
which was pleasant to the sight, and good for food."
I shall not stop to inquire in what region it was situ
ated, although many learned men have amused them
selves with the inquiry. Some hints are given in the
history of Moses ; but they are too general to enable
us to come to a certain conclusion. In the midst of
abundance man experienced no present want, and felt
no anxiety respecting the future ; for unconscious of
guilt, he looked up with confident expectation to the
goodness of his Maker. And this leads me to remark,
¦that it was not from external objects that his happiness
was chiefly derived, but from the intimate fellowship
with his Creator to which he was. admitted. He re
joiced in his glory, which his enlightened eye contem
plated in the splendour of the heavens, and the varied
scenery of the earth: he rejoiced. in a sense of his
favour, in a feeling of his love; and assured of his
friendship, he reposed without suspicion upon his wis
dom and benevolence. All was calm within, and all
was peaceful without. He was happy now ; and he
should be happy always, if he continued to perform
the easy service which was enjoined upon him. Easy
it may be justly called, for it consisted in yielding to
the bent of his own will, which was inclined only to
good, and exercising the holy faculties with which he
was endowed. Obedience was natural to him ; and
what is conformable to nature is attended with plea
sure. How delightful must have been his emotions,
while he was employed in admiring, and loving, and
praising, and executing the orders of that Being who
had lately called him into existence, and showered in
numerable blessings upon him ! The life which he
led in Paradise was like the life of angels.
The Scriptures, have not informed us how long our
first parents retained their innocence, and enjoyed the

delights of their primeval state. There is room, there
fore, for conjecture ; and in this, as in other cases, there
have not been wanting theologians, who have filled up
the void with the suggestions of fancy. Some have
thought, that they fell on the same day on which they
were created, and have even appealed to the authority
of Scripture. " Man being in honour abideth not,"
says the Psalmist, " he is like the beasts that perish."*
Now, the word translated to abide, signifies to continue
for a night. Hence these profound critics, presuming
that there is an allusion to the first man, boldly con
clude that he did not continue for a night in the honour
of his original state ; and some of them have supported
the conclusion by arguments of the most ridiculous
nature. It is quite sufficient to remark, that the view
which they have taken of the verse is perfectly un
natural, and would have occurred only to an interpreter
who was in search of proofs to support a favourite
opinion. It contains obviously a general reflection
upon the transitory nature of fallen man, and the in
stability of his enjoyments. His wealth and glory
vanish like a vapour ; and he himself, after a short in
terval, returns to the, dust from which he came. We
have no reason to think that the period of human in
nocence was of long duration ; but we have also no
reason to believe that it lasted only for a few hours.
Was there not one day of purity and peace? Was the
work of the Almighty marred as soon as it was finished ?
The narrative of Moses seems to be inconsistent with
this supposition. The business of the sixth day was
so various as to occupy, we should think, the whole
of it. First, quadrupeds and reptiles were created ;
next Adam was made ; then the command was given
respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ;
afterwards the various animals passed before him, and
he gave them names ; again he was cast into a deep
sleep, and Eve was formed of a rib taken from his
side ; last of all, the woman was brought to him, and
they were joined together by God himself in the con
jugal relation. This was the busiest day of the six,
but it were still more crowded with events, if the fall
took place upon it; for then we must suppose that
Adam and Eve, who bad so lately met, separated
almost immediately, although for what reason it is
impossible to conceive ; that Eve had a conversation
with the serpent, by whom she was persuaded to eat
the forbidden fruit ; that she then went in search of her
husband, and prevailed upon him to imitate her exam
ple ; that they then discovered themselves to be naked,
and clothed themselves with fig-leaves ; and that all
this happened before the cool of the day, probably the
afternoon, when the sun was declining, and the air was
refreshed by a gentle breeze. We must add to these
transactions the procedure of God as a judge towards
them and their tempter, and their expulsion from Para
dise. This simple detail of facts is sufficient to shew,
that the opinion under consideration is destitute of the
slightest probability : but I go a step farther, and say
that it is manifestly false; for at the end of the sixth
day God saw all his work that it was good. But how
could this be, if sin had introduced misery and death
into our world ; if man had become a rebel, and a curse
had been pronounced upon him, and upon the earth for
his sake ? It is evident from the narrative of Moses,
that the temptation and fall of man were subsequent to
the seventh day, on which God rested from all his
work which he had made.
God pronounced his work to be good, because sin
had not entered to mar its beauty, and disturb its order.
The heavens were resplendent with the glory of their
Maker, and the earth was full of his praise. The trees
and herbs of the field displayed his wisdom and good
ness ; the inferior animals were perfect in their kind ; and

* Psalm xlix. 12.

216

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

man,' placed at their head, was enlightened by reason,
and adorned with every moral excellence. There nev
er was so lovely a sight as our world bearing the re
cent impress of the hand which fashioned it. The mem
ory of its original state, conveyed down by tradition,
suggested to the heathen poets their descriptions of the
golden age, when the earth spontaneously yielded its
fruits, the manners of its inhabitants were simple and
virtuous, and life flowed on smoothly in innocence and
peace. The whole creation declared the glory of God ;
and man, as the priest of nature, gave a voice to its si
lent homage, and offered up to the Universal Parent, the
pure sacrifices of adoration and thanksgiving.

\ LECTURE XLL
ON PROVIDENCE.
Doctrine of Providence — A Providence inferred from the ac
knowledged Perfections of God ; from tbe dependent nature
of Creatures ; from the Order maintained in the Universe ;
from the existence of Morai Sentiments ; and from various
Facts in the History of our Race — Particular Providence.
Whatever elevated conceptions the wiser and more
contemplative heathen philosophers might entertain of
the Deity, they could not rise to that sublime view of
him which is exhibited in revelation. They might con
ceive of him as One, Invisible, and Perfect ; but not
knowing him in the proper character of Creator, they
could not feel all that reverence for him which his pow
er in the production of the universe, is calculated to in
spire, nor those emotions of love and gratitude which
are awakened by the display ofhis creative benevolence.
Some of them, indeed, did speak of him, as the Arti
ficer of all things ; but it should be recollected that, ac
cording to their undisputed maxim of the impossibility
of creation in the proper sense of the term, his office
was limited to the arrangement of pre-existing materi
als ; and that over matter, which was eternal as himself,
he had not absolute control, but was under the necessi
ty of executing his designs only so far as its nature
would permit. How different is the God of Jews and
Christians, who, subsisting alone from . infinite ages,
manifested himself in the beginning of time, by calling
out of nothing that immense and glorious system, which
fills the regions of space ! Of the work of creation we
have already spoken, and have illustrated the Mosaic ac
count of it, and endeavoured to vindicate it from the ob
jections of infidelity and of modern science, whether they
seek to prove, that there is no vestige of a beginning,
and no prospect of an end, or that its origin must be
traced to a period far beyond the limits of history, and
anterior by thousands or millions of years to the date
assigned to it in the Scriptures.
We have seen that, at the command of the Almighty,
the material system arose out of nothing ; and by sub
sequent exertions of his power, under the direction of
his wisdom, was arranged in that order which aston
ishes us by its magnificence, and delights us by its
beauty. Whatever speculations we may indulge re
specting the other parts of creation, which are too re
mote to be subjects of minute observation, we know
that tbe earth was not intended to be a solitude. While
the land, the sea, and the atmosphere, were filled with
living creatures of various kinds, man was formed to
be the spectator of the wonders with which he was sur
rounded, and to proclaim tbe glory of God, which they
could only passively display. Distinguished from
them all by his erect posture, and the gift of reason,
he was still more highly elevated by bis moral endow
ments, which being a transcript of the divine excellen
cies, properly constituted the image of God, with which
he was adorned. But this state qf things was of short

duration. Sin finding admission even into paradise,
the sacred seat of innocence and bliss, caused a sudden
and melancholy change ; and while man was divested
of the glory of his nature, his offended Creator was pro-.
voked on his account to blast the earth with his curse;
so that, though still lovely, it is but the faded image of
what it once was, and the marks of heaven's anger may
be traced in the ruggedness, and sterility, and unheal
thiness of many parts of it, as well as in the turbulence
and desolating fury of the elements. This revolution,
which seemed to defeat the design of God in creation,
could not have taken place without his knowledge, nor
without his permission ; for there is no doubt that, as
he could have prevented our first parents from being
tempted, so he could have enabled them to resist the
strongest temptations. Mysterious as the subject is,
we must believe that, although we cannot say that God
willed sin, he willed not to hinder it, and that it was his
purpose to overrule it for an end worthy of himself. It
follows, that his Providence was concerned in the fall;
although we may not be able to describe the nature and
extent of its agency. Before, therefore, I proceed to a
particular consideration of the fall and its consequences,
I shall endeavour, in some lectures, to explain the doc
trine of Providence.
It may be remarked at the commencement, that men
have not been more generally agreed in the belief
that there is a God, than in the persuasion that the uni
verse is under the direction and control of superior pow
er and wisdom. In this sentiment, I may say, all na
tions have concurred. It seems to be a natural deduc
tion of reason from the idea of a Deity ; and to be sug
gested to a reflecting mind by the appearances of nature,
and the course of events. Certain philosophers, in
deed, have denied that the affairs of mortals are
under the Divine superintendence ; and of these some
have doubted or denied the existence of a God ; while
others, granting it in words, have with manifest in
consistency cut off all intercourse between him and
his creatures, and shut him up, as it were, in the
solitude of heaven. To this latter class belonged
Epicurus, and his followers, who were Atheists in
reality, although Theists in profession : Be iollit,
says Cicero of Epicurus, oratione relinquit, Deos.*
The Divine nature, according to the Epicureans, as
the philosopher Sallustius observes in his book de
Diis et Mundo,\ " is neither itself disturbed, nor does
it give disturbance to others." The same opinion is
ascribed to them in Cicero's first book de Natura
Deorum .-X " That which is happy and eternal gives
no trouble either to itself or to others, and is suscep
tible neither of anger nor of favour, because what
ever is subject to such emotions, is weak." Happi
ness, as they imagined, consisted in doing nothing,
in being engaged in no occupation, in performing no
work ; and their God rejoiced in his own wisdom
and virtue, and in the assurance of always enjoy
ing the greatest delights. The God of other phil
osophers, whose task was to govern the world,
maintain the courses of the stars, the changes of the
seasons, the order and revolutions of the universe,
to contemplate the lands and seas, support the
life and supply the wants of men ; this God appeared
to them to be necessarily unhappy, because he was
involved in irksome and laborious operations. Thus
they denied a Providence, and by doing so, as the
wiser heathens remarked, subverted the foundations
of religion. "If God is such," says Cicero, "that
he feels no good will or love towards men, away with
him ! for why should I say, Let him be propitious ?
* De Nat. Deor. lib. i. He takes away the gods in reality;
while, in words, he allows them to remain.
\ Concerning the gods and the universe.
X Concerning the nature of the gods.

PROVIDENCE.

217

He can be propitious to no person, since as you say,
favour and love are proofs of imbecility." ||
The word Providence, which we have derived from
tbe Latin word Providentia, and the Greek word Tlpoyoict,
are used to express the action or conduct of God to
wards the universe, which he upholds by his power,
and regulates by his wisdom. The question concern
ing Providence is whether, as there is a Creator,
there is also a Ruler of the world; or whether, the
heavens and earth are under the superintendence of him
who brought them into existence. Providence, is the
care which God takes of all things, to uphold them in
being, and to direct them to the ends which he has
determined to accomplish by them, so that nothing
takes place in which he is not concerned in a man
ner worthy of his infinite perfections, and which is
not in unison with the counsel of his will. More par
ticularly we may observe, that two things are included
in the notion of Providence ; the preservation and the
government of all things. Preservation immediate
ly respects things themselves, which by his power
are sustained, or continued in existence. Government
Tespects their actions and motions, which by his al
mighty influence are disposed in a certain order, and
are rendered subservient to certain ends. In partic
ular, the objects of Providence, as exercised in this
world, are men, whose proceedings, partaking as they
do of a moral character, are in themselves of so much
importance ; and whose thoughts, and volitions, and
operations, are the means by which the Supreme Ruler
carries on his designs.
The first argument which I shall produce in proof
of a Providence, is drawn from the acknowledged per
fections of God . As these prove that he is qualified
to undertake the management of his creatures, and all
their affairs, so they furnish sure ground for the con
clusion, that he has not, and will not, dismiss them
from his care. Manifold as his works are, they are
all under his eye, for omniscience is an attribute of
his nature ; and consequently, the minutest objects are
as well known to him as the greatest, and the most
secret actions as well as those which are performed in
the light of the sun. And, although a finite under
standing would be perplexed and burdened by the
countless myriads of creatures, it costs him no labour
to attend to them, for he surveys the immense field
of creation at a glance. His power is adequate to
all the purposes of his government, whether natural
or moral, because it is as unlimited as his knowledge ;
and it can be exerted upon any object wherever it is
situated, or upon ten thousand objects at the same mo
ment, because his power, if I may speak so, is com
mensurate with his essence, and he is equally present
in every part of the universe. He who called it into
existence by his simple command, is able to uphold it
by the word of his power. Of the sufficiency of his
wisdom for the regulation of affairs, no doubt can be
entertained, after what has been said of his knowledge.
Knowledge furnishes the materials which wisdom ar
ranges. And can he, to whom all the component parts
of the universe are perfectly known, and who is inti
mately acquainted with their situations, their powers,
and their uses, be at any loss to adjust them to one
another, and to dispose them in such a manner as
to accomplish those ends which will promote his
glory, and the general good ? I may ask again,
would it have been worthy of his wisdom, to have
created an immense system of material and immaterial
beings, and then to have left it to itself? In this
case, we could not conceive what purpose he had
in view, or by what motive he was influenced in
the production of it. Why did he fill the regions
of space with innumerable worlds, and people them

with various orders of inhabitants, and then with
draw his attention from them, or look on an uncon
cerned spectator of their movements and actions? But
another argument may be drawn from his goodness,
which was conspicuous in creation itself, but would
seem to have been exhausted by this effort, if a Provi
dence be denied. The benevolence which prompted
the Deity to call the universe into existence, would
surely prompt him to extend his protection to it.
There could not be a higher impeachment of his char
acter, than to suppose him to have abandoned his own
works ; to have deserted his rational offspring, and to
have delivered them up as helpless orphans to chance,
or to the blind operation of general laws ; to the dubi
ous guidance of their feeble reason, and to the arbi
trary rule of their wayward passions. What a re
volting idea do they give us of the First and Great
est of all beings, who would persuade us that be is
indifferent to countless myriads of creatures, whom
he himself formed with desires and a capacity for
happiness, but who are now the sport of accident,
and tossed up and down for no determinate end, like
atoms in a sun-beam ? How much more amiable and
august is the Deity, whom reason and revelation
exhibit as the Parent and Guardian of all that live,
as caring for the meanest of them, and scattering bis
gifts among them with a munificent hand ! Lastly, as
justice is one of his perfections, it follows that he
must exercise a moral government over his creatures.
Their actions cannot be indifferent to him ; nor can
he permit them to go on without interfering to restrain
or to encourage, to reward or to punish, in such a
degree as is consistent with the present, which is
not our final state ; to defeat, in some instances, the
purposes of the wicked ; to prevent the full execu
tion of them in others ; and, in all, to overrule them
so as to promote the ultimate end of his administra
tion, the triumph and establishment of righteousness.
The denial of a Providence, indeed, is so manifestly
inconsistent with the belief that God is good and
just, that the Epicureans, as we have seen, laid it
down as an indisputable maxim, that the Divine
nature is susceptible neither of favour nor of anger.
There is no mora] principle in that being who is
not inclined to interpose, and does not actually inter
pose when he can, to patronize virtue, and to check the
progress of vice.
A second argument in favour of Providence, is foun
ded on the dependent nature of creatures. We affirm
that they not only derived their being from God, but
that it is solely by his power that they are sustained ;
and consequently, that the continued existence of the
universe, and the motions which are going on in it,
whether mechanical or voluntary, are proofs of a Pro
vidence. Nothing can be stronger, and more exclusive
of the idea of independence on the part of creatures,
than the following words of Scripture: "In him we
live, and move, and have our being;"* and of the same
import is the declaration of an Apostle, that our Sa
viour, who is God, " upholds all things by the word of
his power."f The assertion of Divines, that the pres
ervation of existence is a continual creation, is not mere
ly a rhetorical figure, importing that the power of God
is as truly admirable in preserving all things as in cre
ating them, but is a literal statement of a fact. God
alone exists by necessity of nature, or, in other words,
has the ground of his existence in himself; the exis
tence of all other beings is contingent. It is the result
of an act of his will; and as it might not have been,
so it may cease to be, there being nothing in the nature
of things to ensure its continuance. Thus they touch
upon nothing on all sides, upon the nothing which pre
ceded, and the nothing which may follow. As the

2C

* De Nal. Deor. lib. i.

* Acts xvii. 28.

f Heb. i. 3.

218

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

ground of their existence is not in themselves, it is evi
dent that they cannot, by their own will and power,
prolong it for a single moment; and consequently, that
it depends upon the will and power of God, as the flow
ing of the stream depends upon an uninterrupted sup
ply of water from the fountain. They exist by the im
mediate concourse of his power, which prevents them
from returning to nothing, from which they came, and
to which they are always near; for, as the universe
was created in a moment, in a moment it might be an
nihilated. The expression formerly quoted, that God
upholds all things by the word ofhis power, is worthy
of particular attention, and will enable us to form a just
idea of the subject at present under consideration; for,
as there is no need of a positive exertion to make a
thing, which we bear up in our hand, fall to the ground,
but it is sufficient to permit it to fall, by no longer sup
porting it, so, God has only (so to speak) to withdraw
his hand, and the whole system of created things would
instantly perish. It was his will which made, and it
is -his will which sustains them. — It is certain, and evi
dent to reason, that any given moment in the succes
sion of time does not depend upon any other moment ;
for time is not like a line composed of one continuous
substance, but like a line formed by placing a number
of separate parts one after another. Now all created
beings exist in time, that is, their existence is meas
ured by moments. If, then, one moment has an exis
tence independent of that of another; if the first mo
ment is independent of the second, the second of the
third, and the third of those which succeed, itfollows,
that the existence of any created being in one moment
does not necessarily imply its existence in another, or
that, because it exists now, it must exist the next in
stant. Hence it appears that the operation of the same
cause, to which its present existence is owing, is ne
cessary to its future existence. In other words it is
necessary that the power of God, which gave it being,
should uphold it in every stage of its duration. As tbe
same power which brought it out of nothing must be
incessantly exerted to prevent it from returning to noth
ing, there is evidently ground for affirming that the up
holding of all things is a continual creation. As, how
ever, this term is commonly applied to their first pro
duction, tbe word preservation, or conservation, is more
frequently used.
It has been objected against this view of the abso
lute dependence of all things upon God, that while it
6eems to honour him by giving an exalted idea of his
power and dominion, it implies a reflection upon bis
wisdom, as if he had executed a work so imperfect, as
to require his constant interference to prevent it from
running into confusion and perishing. Even men can
construct works which, when finished, have no farther
need of their care. A house will stand although the
builder should never see it again ; and a watch, or
clock, will point out the hour when it has passed out
of the hands of the maker. But it should be consider
ed that, in such cases, men merely give a particular
form or arrangement to certain materials which were
ready for their use; they neither make them, nor up
hold them in being ; and consequently, there is a wide
difference between the office wbich they perform, and
that which we assign to God, when we affirm that his
interposition is necessary to preserve his creatures in
existence. They merely put matter in a particular
shape and order; but they could not retain it in that
state for a single moment if it had a tendency to anni
hilation. The durability of their works plainly de
pends upon some other cause than their own power,
because they continue after they have entirely aban
doned them. With respect to those works which are
intended to perform certain motions, and do perform
them without the presence of the artists, as a watch ot
clock, or any other piece of machinery, let it be far

ther considered, that the process is not owing to men,
in any other sense, than that they have made a proper
disposition of the parts. It is the effect of the laws of
nature, which experience has enabled them to apply
to a particular purpose. The moving power is not in
the machine itself, but in the elasticity of a spring, or
the influence of gravitation, or tbe expansive force of
the atmosphere. To represent, therefore, the works of
God as being, on the supposition of the constant care
of providence, more imperfect than the works of man,
serves only to betray our ignorance. " Tbe full an>
swer to this objection," says Dr. Price, "is, that to ev
ery machine or perpetual movement for answering any
particular purpose, there always belongs some first mo
ver, some weight or spring, or other power, which is
continually acting upon it, and from which all its mo
tions are derived ; nor without such a power is it pos
sible to conceive of any such machine. The machine
of the universe, then, like all besides analogous to it,
of which we have any idea, must have a first mover.—.
It follows, therefore, that this objection is so far from
being of any force, that it leads us to the very conclu
sion which it is brought to overthrow. The excellence
of a machine by no means depends upon its going prop
erly of itself, for this is impossible, but in the skill with
which its various parts are adjusted to one another, and
all its different effects are derived from the constant ac
tion of some pmver"* which is not in the machine.
A third argument in favour of providence, is found
ed on the order which is maintained in the universe.
It is composed of many parts, endowed with different
qualities, in some instances contrary to, and destruc
tive of each other; but they are all retained in their
proper places, and perform their peculiar functions;
and a harmony is established among them, the Tesult
of which is the general good. In this immense and
complicated machine, no part ever goes wrong ; the mo
tion is never suspended or embarrassed ; its operations
are carried on with such regularity, that tbey are the
subject of calculation, and the same effects are con
stantly produced. The revolutions of the heavenly
bodies are performed in their appointed times, notwith
standing the boundless regions which their orbits em
brace ; and although some of them go their rounds in
eccentric paths, which cross those of other revolving
bodies, tbey never meet, or drive one another from their
course. No comet has ever rushed into the sun, or in
fringed upon a planet, or produced any other effect,
than to excite the curiosity and astonishment of men of
science, and to terrify the ignorant with direful fore
bodings of disastrous changes. The sun, the source
of light and heat, although he has ministered to the
system of which he is the centre, for thousands of years,
has lost no portion of his splendour and his influence.
It is only in the descriptions of poetry that he grows
dim with yeaTS. The seasons succeed each other in
the order which they have observed since the begin
ning of time ; the earth retains its productive powers
at the close of many generations, wbo have been sup
ported by its produce ; the sea continues within its
ancient boundaries, and leaves the dry land to be the
abode of terrestial animals. The various classes of
animals and vegetables, notwithstanding the ravages
of disease, of violence, and of inclement seasons, have
propagated themselves ; so that the earth is still stock
ed with inhabitants, and with ample provision for their
wants. Shall we not infer that there is a superinten
ding Deity by whom this order is maintained? If we
saw a house in which every thing was found in its
proper place, every office was regularly performed,
and everything was provided wbich was wanted for
the accommodation and comfort of the family ; we
should conclude that it was under the direction and
* Price s Dissertation on Providence, sect. ii.

PROVIDENCE.

219

command of a wise, active, and vigilant master. If
we saw a state in which just and beneficial laws were
established, every order of the citizens was secure in
the possession of its peculiar privileges, all the arts of
life were cultivated, and wealth and happiness abound
ed ; we should immediately conclude that it enjoyed a
regular government, and those, by whom it was admin
istered, were worthy of their high office. These ex
amples were brought forward by heathen writers, in
support of the doctrine of Providence, and furnish an
analogy from which it may be fairly deduced. When
we contemplate this immense system, so wonderful in
its contrivances, so constant in its movements, so ad
mirably balanced, and proceeding from age to age with-
mt tbe slightest confusion ; can it be imagined by any
man in his senses, that there is no presiding mind by
which it is governed ? The evidence is still stronger
to those who are more intimately acquainted with na
ture, and know that, in the motions of some of the
heavenly bodies, there are occasional apparent irregu
larities, but that means are provided for correcting them,
so that they return to their proper place.
It may be objected, that the order which prevails
throughout the universe, may be accounted for by the
laws of nature, without an immediate interposition of
the Deity, and proves only the wisdom of its original
constitution. But as, before we attempt to remove an
objection, it is necessary to understand it, I ask, what
is meant by the laws of nature ? It is not enough to re
mind me of the law of gravitation, the laws of motion,
the laws of light, and other laws mentioned by philoso
phers ; because, after the most complete enumeration
of them, the difficulty remains, what is the meaning of
a law, in the present application of the term ? I am
disposed to think that, in using it, many impose upon
themselves, as well as upon others. In its primary signi
fication, it is a rule established and enforced by author
ity, and obviously implies intelligence and power; but,
when it is tranferred to inanimate things, there is a
change of the sense. It then signifies merely the stat
ed, regular order in which they are found to subsist.
Thus, finding that bodies near or on the surface of the
earth tend towards its centre, and the planets belonging
to our system tend towards the sun, we call this the law
of gravitation; and in like manner, we speak of other laws
by which matter is governed. But the truth is, that
these are only facts, and are called laws solely on ac
count of their uniformity. After all our observation
and experience, we have merely discovered the fact,
that bodies gravitate to a centre, and that the rays of
light are subject to refraction and reflection ; but we
have not advanced a single step in explaining the phe
nomena of nature, or in shewing what is the true cause
by which it is moved and sustained. Do we suppose that
nature possesses intelligence, or activity, or power of
any kind ? Let us not confound ourselves by words,
and forget that inertness, or a total incapacity of exer
tion, is an acknowledged property of matter. It is con
fessedly inactive. It can neither put itself in motion,
nor stop itself when in motion ; and every modification
which it undergoes, is the effect of some external pow
er. What then are laws of nature? They are the
particular modes in which the Deity exerts his power,
which, beinguniform, are accounted natural, while any
deviation from them is pronounced to be miraculous.
If this be a just description of them, (and it is ignorance,
or philosophy falsely so called, whieh gives any oth
er,) it follows, that they are so far from accounting for
the order which is maintained in the universe, that they
necessarily imply the actual and constant interposition
of the Creator, and as irresistibly suggest the idea of
a Lawgiver, as do the laws of any human society. The
truth is, that the laws of nature, if understood to be dif
ferent from the operation of the Deity, are a name and
nothing more, with which simpletons may be amused ;

but certainly no man of common sense, who is inquir
ing into the cause of the stability of the universe, will
deem it satisfactory to be answered with a sound
" The philosopher," says that great man, Maclaurin'
|' who overlooks the traces of an all-governing Deity
in nature, contenting himself with the appearances of
the material universe only, and the mechanical laws of
motion, neglects what is most excellent ; and prefers
what is imperfect to what is supremely perfect, finitude
to infinity, what is narrow and weak to what is unli
mited and almighty, and what is perishing to what en
dures for ever." " Sir Isaac Newton," he adds,
" thought it most unaccountable, to exclude the Deity
only out of the universe. It appeared to him much more
just and reasonable to suppose that the whole chain of
causes, or the several series of them, should centre in
him as their source ; and the whole system appear de
pending on him, the only independent cause."*
A fourth argument in favour of Providence, arises
from a variety of facts in the history of mankind. I
take notice, in the first place, of those moral sentiments
and feelings which exist in the mind of every human
being, who has received any degree of cultivation.
" The Gentiles, who have not the law," says an Apos
tle, " are a law to themselves, and shew the works of the
law written in their hearts." f In whatever way men
acquire notions of morality, there is a principle within
them which distinguishes not only between truth and
falsehood, but also between right and wrong ; and hence
arises that train of feelings, of which we are all con
scious, and which are the sources of pleasure or pain,
ofpeace or disquiet. Although the language is figur
ative, yet there is a manifest propriety in calling con
science the deputy or vicegerent of God in the soul. If
it is natural to men, as we may infer from its univer
sality, it was planted in the human breast by the hand
of God ; and its proper office is to remind us, not only
of his existence, but of his government ; to recognize
him as presiding over our affairs, and taking notice of
our actions ; to re-echo his voice ; to pronounce, in his
name, a sentence of approbation or disapprobation ; and
to summon us to his tribunal, where the sentence will
be ratified. If there were no Providence, conscience
would be an illusive faculty ; its decisions would have
no better foundation than the hopes and terrors of
superstition ; but, if it be an original principle of our
nature, it bears testimony to the moral administration
of our Maker, and presupposes a supreme law, the
commands and sanctions of which it proclaims and in
culcates. There would be no place for the operations
of conscience under such a deity as Epicurus fancied,
who took no concern in our world, and regarded all its
affairs with indifference.
While speaking of the moral sentiments and feel
ings with which mankind are inspired, I am led to
point out another proof of the doctrine of Providence,
arising from the fact, that we find, by experience, that
we are actually at present under a government which
dispenses rewards and punishments in a natural way.
Thus we find that vicious actions are immediately, or
at least speedily, punished, by involving the guilty in
disgrace, by reducing them to poverty, by subjecting
them to bodily diseases as Well as to mental suffering,
and by bringing them to an untimely end. On the
other hand, we find that virtuous actions qre not only
the source of inward peace and satisfaction, but lead
to respect, to success in business, to health and long
life, to a more equable and regular, and consequently
a greater degree of enjoyment than is derived from
the unbounded, and consequently short-lived, indul
gences of intemperance. All this, it may be said, is
the consequence of the constitution and course ot

* Account of Sir Isaac Newton's Discoveries Book iv. chap
ix. sect. 1. and 5. t R°m- "• 14> "'

220

V

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

nature ; but, as these words mean nothing, unless they
signify the order which God has established and upholds
by his power, all this proves, that, as he is the Creator,
so he is the Governor of his intelligent offspring.
The experience of individuals furnishes proofs of a
Providence. Where is the man to whom events have
not occurred which have led him irresistibly to ac
knowledge the hand of God ? He has seen it in the
wonderful turns in the course ofhis affairs, in his suc
cesses and disappointments, in his escapes from danger,
in the sudden thoughts and unaccountable suggestions
which have sometimes led to most important results.
If he has been an attentive observer, he must have seen
it also in the circumstances of others around him. It
is displayed before the eyes of all men upon the great
theatre of the world, where scenes are acted which
extort, even from the thoughtless, occasional expres
sions of devotion. The rise of mighty kingdoms, from
small beginnings to extensive and uncontrolled domin
ion, and their subsequent fall into decay and dissolu
tion, may be accounted for by the operation of second
causes, but are often accompanied with circumstances,
which point to Him who lifts one up and casts another
down. This is particularly the case of the revolutions
of the great monarchies of ancient times, when viewed
in connexion with the prophecies concerning them ; for
who can doubt that they were accomplished by Him
who foretold them ages before they took place, and
while those monarchies had not even been founded ?
And when we see order rising out of confusion, and
disastrous events producing good, like the tempest
which purifies the atmosphere, that man must have a
dull understanding, or a hard heart, who feels no emo
tion of reverence and gratitude towards the great Being
whose mysterious wisdom and unbounded beneficence
presides over the affairs of mortals.
An additional proof of a providence is derived from
the judgments which are occasionally executed upon
notorious transgressors. There is, indeed, a danger of
presumptuously explaining events, by hastily conclud
ing, as did the friends of Job, that he is a great sinner
who suffers singular calamities. A little sober reflec
tion, and particularly a reverent attention to Scripture,
will be an effectual guard against such an abuse. It
is certain that, in general, " no man knoweth either
love or hatred by all that is before them;"* and con
sequently, that we ought not to be judge of the virtue or
the vice of individuals by their external circumstances.
But our caution must not be carried so far as to benumb
our understandings. The fall of tyrants, the tragical
fate of persecutors, the punishment of blasphemers
while the language of impiety is issuing from their
lips, the discovery of crimes which had long eluded
the search of every human eye, the manifest retribu
tion which takes place when the cup which the sinner
had administered to others is forced to his own lips ;
these, and similar events, can be viewed by a reflecting
mind in no other light than as evidences, that " verily
there is a God that judgeth in the earth.")" The Lord
is known by the judgment which he executes.":):
Before I conclude, I shall mention two facts in tbe
history of our species, which are well worthy of atten
tion. The first is the proportion between the sexes,
which are so well balanced, that, if there be any dif
ference, it js on the side of the males ; provision being
thus made for the greater waste of them, by war, and
the various accidents to which they are exposed by sea
and by land. Here, then, is a double proof of Divine
wisdom, in taking care, that the number of the two
6exes should be nearly equal for the regular continua
tion of the species, and that the small excess, which
has been observed, should be in that sex where it was
manifestly wanted to keep up the proportion. No in-
* Eccl. ix. 1. f Ps. lviii. 11. } Ps. ix. 16.

quirer into nature can account for this fact. If any
man should be so stupid as to assert, that the produc
tion of human beings is the effect of the mechanism
of the bodies of their parents, he surely will not ad
vance so far in absurdity as to maintain, that it is
owing to mechanism that in one age or country they
are not all born males, and in another females ; and that
whatever may take place in particular families, the
result is always what we have already stated. It is im,
possible to evade this evidence, that the affairs of the
world are still under the direction of Him who made it.
The other fact to which I referred, is the variety in
the human countenance. Its features are few, but they
are so wonderfully altered and combined, that, in a
million of men, you shall not find two who are exactly
alike. The advantages which result from this diver
sity are great, but are not always attended to. If the
faces of all men were alike, or if instances of this
kind were frequent, much inconvenience and confusion
would ensue. Impositions would be daily practised ;
opportunities would be afforded of prying into the
secrets of others, of entering into their houses, of as
saulting them when they have no suspicion, of com
mitting innumerable crimes with facility, and of elud
ing discovery. How does it happen that, although
all men resemble one another in tbe general configura
tion of their faces, they are, at the same time, so dif
ferent ? How does it happen that this dissimilarity
is observed even among those who are descended from
the same common parents ? No reason, I presume,
can be assigned but the will and power of God, who,
in this as in every other instance, has provided for the
safe and comfortable intercourse of mankind.
The arguments which I have brought forward, are
sufficient to establish our minds in the belief of the
doctrine of Providence, which was acknowledged by
the wiser Heathens, and is explicitly and fully taught
in the Scriptures. By Providence, I do not mean
merely a general superintendence of the affairs of the
Universe, but a particular care exercised towards every
constituent part of it. Some maintain only a general
Providence, which consists in upholding certain gen
eral laws, and exclaim against the idea of a particular
Providence, which takes a concern in individuals and
their affairs. It is strange that the latter opinion
should be adopted by any person who professes to
bow to the authority of Scripture — which declares that
a sparrow does not fall to the ground without the
knowledge of our heavenly Father, and that the hairs
of our head are all numbered — or by any man who
has calmly listened to tbe dictates of reason. If God
has certain designs to accomplish with respect to, or
by means of, his intelligent creatures, I should wish
to know how his intention can be fulfilled without par
ticular attention to their circumstances, their move
ments, and all the events of their life ? I confess, that
I do not distinctly understand what is meant by a gen
eral, to the exclusion of a particular, Providence. If
it mean, that God takes care of the world, but not
of particular things in the world, of the human race,
but not of individual men, I am not surprised that I do
not understand it, because it is absolutely unintelligi
ble. How can a whole be taken care of without taking
care of its parts ; or a species be preserved if the indi
viduals are neglected ? " We cannot conceive of any
reasons than can influence the Deity to exercise any
providence over the world, which are not likewise rea
sons for extending it to all that happens in tbe world.
As far as it is confined to generals, or overlooks any
individual, or any event, it is incomplete, and therefore
unsuitable to the idea of a perfect Being."*
It is urged as a formidable objection against a par»
ticular Providence, that it is inconsistent with the

* Price's Dissert.

PROVIDENCE.

liberty of man, and the general laws which divine wis
dom has established. It supposes the occasional sus
pension of those laws, and such interference with hu
man agency, as is subversive of freedom. But this ob
jection, as Dr. Price observes, " shews narrow views.
It would indeed, be impossible, if a man, for example,
happens to be under a wall when it is falling, to pre
vent his being killed, without suspending the law of
gravitation; but how easy would it have been, had his
death been an event proper to be excluded, or which
was not consistent with exact order and righteousness
in the regulation of events ; how easy, I say, in this
Case, would it have been to hinder him from coming
too near the dangerous place, or to occasion his com
ing sooner or later, by insensibly influencing the train
of ideas in his mind, and in numberless other methods,
which affect not hi3 liberty. And since this was easy
to be done, and yet was not done, we may assuredly
conclude that it was not right to be done, and that the
event did not happen without the counsel and ap
probation of Providence. In general, every person,
whenever any event, favourable or unfavourable, hap
pens to him, has the greatest reason to own the
Divine hand in it ; because, it appears, as far as we
can judge, that had the Deity so pleased, it might have
been prevented by a secret direction of natural causes,
and of the thoughts of men, without offering any
violence to them. How plainly may we perceive,
that if we ourselves had a greater acquaintance with
the powers of nature, and nearer access to the minds
of men, we could easily over-rule and direct many
events not at present in our power, agreeably to our
own purposes, without tbe least infringement of the
general laws of the world, or of the liberty of mankind !
But how much easier must it be for that Being to do
this absolutely and perfectly, to whom all the powers
of nature are subject, who sees through all dependen
cies and connexions, and has constant access to the
heart of every man, and can turn it whithersoever he
pleases ! Where, then, can be the difficulty of be
lieving an invisible hand, an universal and ever
attentive Providence, which guides all things agree
ably to perfect rectitude and wisdom, at the same
time that the general laws of the world are left
unviolated, and the liberty of moral agents is pre
served ?"*
As the doctrine of a particular Providence is agreea
ble both to Scripture and to reason, so it is recom
mended by its obvious tendency to promote tbe piety
and the consolation of mankind. To a God who
governed the world solely by general laws, we might
have looked up with reverence, but not with the confi
dence, and gratitude, and hope, which arise from the
belief, that he superintends its minutest affairs. The
thought, that he " compasses our paths, and is acquain
ted with all our ways ;" that he watches our steps, or
ders all the events in our lot ; gqides and protects
us, and supplies our wants, as it were with his own
hand ; this thought awakens a train of sentiments and
feelings highly favourable to devotion, and sheds a
cheering light upon the path of life. We consider him
as our guardian and our Father ; and reposing upon
his care, we are assured that, if we trust in bim, no
evil shall befal us, and no real blessing shall be with
held. The doctrine of a particular Providence is
eagerly embraced, and fondly cherished, by the humble
and pious ; while a general Providence is espoused
and maintained by cold-hearted speculatists, whose
science, falsely so called, turns from the Author of
nature, to the more congenial contemplation of the op
eration of mechanical laws, and the play of human
passions. * Dissertation on Providence, sect. i.

221

LECTURE XLII.
ON PROVIDENCE.
Objects of the divine Providence— Its concern in the Preserva
tion and Government of all things; in the Life, and Death
and in all the Actions of Man — Providence the Source of all
Good Actions — Discussion of the question, How far Provi
dence is concerned in Sinful Actions — Distinctions of Ihe
Calvinistic Theology on this subject.
In the preceding lecture, I endeavoured to prove that
there is a Providence, by several arguments. In giving
a definition of it, I remarked, that it signifies in general
the Divine care, direction, and control, which may be
arranged under two heads, the preservation of his crea
tures, and the government of them.
First, He preserves his creatures. They are as de
pendent upon him for the continuance of their being,
as life in the branch is upon the juice which flows from
the trunk, or the growth of the members of the human
body is upon the blood which is propelled from the
heart. No idea can be more false than to suppose, that
the communication of being renders that, to which it is
communicated, independent. What is derived is not
self-existent. It is, indeed, perfectly distinct from its
Maker, as any other work is from the workman ; but,
if I may speak so, he pervades its essence, and upholds
it by the word of his power. But enough was said
upon this subject, when we were demonstrating the
doctrine^of Providence, from the dependence of all cre
ated things upon the power which produced them.
Secondly, He governs his creatures, that is, he ex
erts an influence upon them, unseen and unfelt, and
by their means produces certain effects ; but, as they
differ widely in their properties and their functions,
the general term will admit of various modifications
of its meaning, in its application to particular subjects.
He governs the material system according to those
laws which account for the order established, and regi
ulate the movements which are continually going on
in it. Hence, in figurative language, he is said to
command the sun to rise, the stars to shine, and other
natural events to take place. It is his hand which
keeps the sun in his place, and wheels the planets
around him in their orbits ; it is his hand which fixes
the mountains on their bases, and confines tbe ocean
within its ancient boundaries. And if those laws are, as
we ha<ve stated, only the regular modes of his agency in
the production of effects, it is evident that the exertion
of his power upon tbe material system is immediate.
He governs the vegetable tribes by those laws which
relate to the formation and generation of the seed, the
protrusion of the stalk or stem, the expansion of the
leaves and flowers, and the concoction of the fruit. He
so governs them, that not only are the different species
preserved, but they continue distinct although growing
together, with occasional varieties arising from climate,
and soil, and cultivation. Wheat never produces rye,
nor oats rice ; but from age to age any particular seed
multiplies itself, so that the husbandman can calculate
with certainty, if not upon the quantity, yet upon the
nature of the crop. He governs the lower animals by
their instincts, which prove a surer guide to them than
even reason is to man. Impelled by those instincts,
they choose fit habitations, select their proper food,
avoid dangers, rear their young, act in appearance at
least prospectively — for instance, when they lay in
provisions for winter — and often discover a skill which
excites our admiration although a moment's reflection
will convince us, that it is not the wisdom of the ani
mal, but of its Maker. The Scripture makes mention
of many facts, from which it appears, that tbey are
absolutely under his control. Thus frogs, lice, and

222

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY

flies, were his instruments in punishing the Egyptians ;
ravens were his ministers to supply the Prophet Elijah
with food ; and as, at one time, lions were sent to
plague the idolatrous nations, who had taken posses
sion of the vacant seats of the ten tribes, so at another,
they were as harmless as lambs, when for his piety
towards God, the holy man Daniel had been cast into
their den. By their subservience to his will, " beasts,
and all cattle, creeping things, and flying fowl, praise
the Lord."
The divine government of men, being more impor
tant in itself, and attended with greater difficulties,
demands closer attention, and a more extended illus
tration. I begin with observing, that Providence is
concerned in the birth of each individual. God has
not only appointed that human beings shall be pro
duced according to a general law, but has further
settled the number, and the time and order, in which
they shall appear. When a man plants a tree, or drops
a seed into the ground, he does not know how much
fruit it will yield ; but the exact sum of the human
race is known to him, who is the Former of our bodies,
and the Father of our spirits. Hence, children are
promised in the Scriptures as a blessing, and barren
ness is mentioned as a reproach and a punishment ; to
intimate that both were subject to his disposal. We
find too, that the birth of certain persons was foretold
before they were conceived in the womb ; and we may
hence infer, that the birth of all other persons is regu
lated by the counsel and will of the Almighty. And
this will be still more evident, if we consider, that
every individual is not a solitary unit, but a link in a
chain ; and~consequently that his appearance at a par
ticular time is necessary to continue the series, to pre
serve the course of events unbroken, and to secure that
other individuals, who are to spring from him, shall
appear at the proper season to act their part upon the
theatre of the world.
Again, Providence is concerned in our death, as well
as in our birth. The natural causes of death are vari
ous ; as old age, accidents, and diseases slow or rapid
in their progress. Nothing is more precarious than
human life. It has indeed been made the subject of
calculation ; but the reasoning proceeds upon general
principles, and does not admit of a confident applica
tion to particular cases. Life is like a vapour which
is dissipated by the wind, or a flower which is chilled
by frost, or crushed by the casual tread of the passen
ger. Yet we cannot doubt, that it is under the direction
of Him, without whose knowledge a sparrow does not
fall to the ground. Surely it is not bj' chance that a
gift so precious is taken from those upon whom he had
bestowed it; that the course of service and trial, through
which they are passing, is terminated ; that their spirits
are dislodged from the habitation which he had assign
ed to them, and called into his presence, to give an
account of the deeds done in the body. The time, the
place, and the manner of our death are'appointed. No
man can evade his doom. Till the fixed period arrive,
he is immortal, to whatever dangers he may be ex
posed ; when it comes, all the precautions of wisdom
and the contrivances of art cannot save him. "The
days of man are determined, the number of his months
is with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he
cannot pass." " All the days of my appointed time
will I wait till my change come." " Thou prevailest
for ever against him, and he passeth ; thou changest
his countenance, and sendest him away."* These
pious reflections of Job upon the closing scene of life,
will appear to be well founded when we reflect that,
as the death of every man takes place in consequence
of the original sentence pronounced upon us at the fall,
it must be considered as inflicted by the hand of our

» Job xiv. 5, 14, 20.

Maker, in the character of a righteous Judge. It is
no objection, that, some men are said not to live half
their days, and others to have their lives prolonged ;
because the meaning obviously is, that, in the one case,
they die sooner than others of the same standing, or
sooner than might have been reckoned upon from the
strength of their constitution, by the effects of intem
perance or by some natural cause; and that, in the
other, they survive diseases which threatened to be
fatal, and reach a good old age. In both cases the
ultimate cause is the will of God, who wounds and
heals, who kills and makes alive.
Providence is concerned in all the events of our life.
Man has been said to be the artificer of his own for
tune ; and the saying is founded upon the influence
which his conduct is frequently observed to have upon
his temporal condition ; but it is more worthy of a
Heathen or an Atheist, than of a believer in the Scrip
tures, which declare, that our lot is ordered by the
Lord. We find, indeed, that certain actions are com
monly followed by certain consequences ; and it is
right that it should be so, because we should otherwise
be like a ship in the wide ocean without a compass,
and should have no motive to act in one way rather
than in another. This regularity is so far from inval
idating the argument for the divine interference in
human affairs, that it confirms it, like the order main
tained in the material system. But, in human affairs,
order does not prevail with equal steadiness. There
are frequent deviations from it, which compel us to
acknowledge, somewhat in the same way as miracles
do, the controlling power of God. "The race is not
always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong."* In
many cases, industry is frustrated of its reward, and
the plans of wisdom prove abortive. Worldly wealth
is apportioned according to no fixed law with which
we are acquainted, and falls to the share of the weak
as well as the worthless, while men of superior talent
contend for it in vain. The same remark may be ap
plied to earthly honours ; and hence, in the language
of worldly men, temporal blessings are called the gifts
of fortune, to intimate that in appearance they are dis
tributed blindly, and without any regard to merit. But
these things are disposed by the sovereign will of God.
" The rich and pcor meet together : the Lord is the
Maker of them all." "f" " Promotion cometh neither
from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south.
But God is the judge ; he putteth down one, and setteth
up another.":):
Here I would remark that, although the terms, for
tune and chance, are frequently used, they are exceed
ingly improper, unless they are intended merely to
express our ignorance of the causes of events. No
rational being, who allows himself to reflect, can sup
pose that any thing takes place without a cause. As
every motion of matter is the effect of impulse, so
every action of intelligent creatures is the effect of
some motive, or of some previous state of the mind.
The turning up of a particular side of a die, is as cer- -
tainly the result of the laws of nature, as the fall of a
heavy body to the earth ; and our most careless and
unpremeditated actions are as certainly the consequence
of thought and volition, as the proceedings which are
founded on mature deliberation. But as we cannot
trace the motions of the die, we say that it exhibits a
certain number by chance ; and to chance we ascribe
our own actions, when the thoughts which led to them
passed so rapidly and lightly through our mind as to
leave no impression behind them. By chance, we went
to a particular place ; by chance, we met with a parti
cular person. But there was no chance in the case ;
for, if we could recal the previous train of thought
which is irrecoverably gone, we should find, that our
« Eccl. ix. 11. f Prov. xxii. 2. \ Ps. lxxv. 6.

PROVIDENCE.

223

going to the place was as natural as the motion of a
ship in a given direction, by the force of the tide or
of the wind, and that all the consequences are so many
links in a chain of causes and effects. Chance, in
deed, is impossible under the government of God;
unless we should suppose his government to be par
tial or imperfect, and that there are some events to
which its power does not extend. Nothing seems to
be more a matter of chance than the decision of a lot ;
yet the Scripture says, " the lot is cast into the lap,
but he whole disposing thereof is of the Lord."* An
arrow shot at random may fall to the ground, or may
kill one man as well as another ; but in the case of
Ahab, it had received a commission, and pierced the
bosom of the impious and devoted monarch.")- If then,
we will speak of chance, let us affix to the term an idea
consonant to reason and religion, and let it express
solely our ignorance of the causes of events.
With regard to the particulars now mentioned,
every person will readily assent to them, as soon as
they are accurately and clearly stated. A part of the
subject which remains, namely, the divine government
of the actions of men, is more difficult, because it in
volves the question respecting the consistency of the
agency of the Creator with the liberty of his creatures.
The general fact, that he is concerned in their actions, is
manifest from their absolute dependence upon him, in
whom they live, and move, and have their being ; and
from many declarations of Scripture. " The king's heart
is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water ; he
turnetb it whithersoever he will ;"X and the same thing
may surely be said of the subject of kings.
That his Providence is concerned in the good
actions of men, will not be denied. Their goodness
may seem to justify his interference ; and the assis
tance which he gives will be deemed worthy of the
purity and benevolence of his character. It will be
readily acknowledged that he excites men to good
actions ; that he presents to them proper objects
and proper motives; that he strengthens their fac
ulties ; that he imparts an agreeable feeling to their
minds, while they are engaged in them ; that he en
courages them to persevere amidst difficulties and
obstacles ; and that he enables them, in many instances
at least, to accomplish what they intend. The Scripture
asserts, " that God works in us, both to will and to do
of his good pleasure,"|| and on this ground calls upon
us to be thankful and humble. Against the doctrine
of efficacious grace, which is plainly taught in this,
and many others passages of Scripture, the common
objection is, that it leaves nothing to the human will
but a simple concurrence with the motions of grace ;
and consequently, takes away its power of choosing or
refusing, according to its own determination. With
out entering into this controversy at present, I observe,
that the influence which God is conceived to exert in
good actions, is, in some respects, analogous to that
which one man exerts upon another, without being
suspected of at all intrenching upon his liberty. If
one man excite another to a good action ; if he lay be
fore him strong inducements to engage in the perform
ance of it ; if he strengthen his faculties by culture
and exhortation ; if he give him every possible assis
tance, and endeavour to make his duty agreeable to
him, we never doubt, when the latter complies, that
the action is his own, and that all its merit is imputa
ble to him, although strictly it did not originate with
himself, and he perhaps would not have thought of it,
unless the former had been his monitor and counsellor.
We never dream that he is less free in this, than in
any other action which he spontaneously performed,
because in whatever way his consent was obtained, he

* Prov. xvi. 33.
t Prov. xxi. 1.

•f 1 Kings xxii. 2 Chron. xviii.
|| Phil. ii. 13.

did consent, and the action was perfectly voluntary.
There is no difference between the Divine agency upon
men, and the agency of one man upon another, except
that God is conceived to exert immediately some power
upon the minds of his creatures, which one creature
cannot exert upon another. Whether this power is
ahy infringement of their liberty, we cannot determine
by abstract reasoning, because we are ignorant of its
nature and operation. The question must be decided
by experience, which assures those who are the sub
jects of this influence, that they retain perfect freedom
of choice, and by Scripture, which declares that God
makes them willing in the day of his power. It is
certain, that its operation is in strict accordance with
the nature of man ; that it does not compel, but in
clines him ; that it takes away nothing which is essen
tial to moral responsibility, because, whenever choice
is exercised, a man is accountable. The concern of
Providence in good actions will be admitted by all,
but those who, carrying their notions of liberty to
an extravagant height, would exempt the human mind
from the government of God, and constitute man an in
dependent sovereign, who sways the sceptre of his
will without control.
The concern of Providence in the sinful actions
of creatures cannot be so satisfactorily explained, be
cause it is difficult to ascertain how far the Divine
agency may proceed, without having any part in the
sinfulness of the action. The followers of Manes or
Manicheus solved the difficulty by maintaining, after
the ancient Persians, two principles, the one good and
the other evil; and some individuals and sects have
hot hesitated to affirm, that God is the Author of sin.
These impious errors we indignantly reject; but while
we speak of them with abhorrence, let us beware lest,
in attempting to explain the subject before us, we un
wittingly fall into them, or say any thing which may
imply, that our sins are chargeable upon God.
First, God permits sinful actions : " My people
would not hearken to my voice, and Israel would none
of me. So I gave them up to their own hearts' lusts :
and they walked in their own counsels."* " In times
past, he suffered all nations to walk in their own
ways ;"f that is, to practise idolatry, and to live in
those sins with which the heathens were polluted.
The permission of sinful actions does not import that
he approves of them ; for, as he is infinitely boly, sin
must always be the object of his abhorrence; and
accordingly, we find him testifying against the sins
into which he permits men to fall, denouncing his
threatenings against them, and actually punishing the
sinners. Nor is permission to be considered as an in
active sufferance of events to take place, without know
ing them beforehand, or without being able to hinder
them. Either of these suppositions is unworthy of
God ; the one impeaches his omniscience, and the
other his omnipotence. As things future are known
to him, as well as things present, and as he de
clares the end from the beginning, so he is able, in
many ways, to prevent creatures from acting. He can
influence their thoughts and volitions ; he can withhold
opportunities ; he can deprive them of ability; he can
place obstacles before them, which it is not possible
to surmount. Hence we may perceive what is im
plied in the permission of sinful actions. God does
nothing to prevent them, except that he testifies against
them by conscience, and by his word, which is full of
dissuasions from sin and of considerations which haye
a moral tendency to restrain men from committing it.
He does not keep them out of the way of temptation ;
he does not take away the means of effecting their pur
poses ; he does not, by any influence upon their minds,
repress their desires and inclinations; he does not

*Ps.lxxxi. 11, 12.

f Acts xiv. 16.

224

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

represent to them, in a strong and efficacious man
ner, the wickedness of their conduct, or terrify them
with an apprehension of the consequences ; he does not
employ other men to oppose them ; he does not, as he
could do, change their hearts, and turn them to the
love and practice of holiness. It follows that, as tbey
are left to themselves, in circumstances which afford
full scope for the exercise of their natural dispositions,
the sinful actions which God has permitted do not fail
to take place. They are not in the number of con
tingencies, ot of things which may, or may not hap
pen : there is a certainty of the event, without which
it could not be the object of the Divine foreknowledge.
It has been said, that the permission of sinful actions
is so far from being merely an inactive sufferance of
them, that it implies a positive act of his will, in as
much as he wills to permit sin for ends worthy of
himself. And here this distinction is made, that God
does not will sin considered in itself, but the permis
sion of sin, because evil itself cannot be the object
of his will, but he must always will what is good.
If sin is said to be the means of manifesting the
Divine glory, it does not follow that God, who wills
the end, must also will the mean considered in itself.
Sin is in this case called a mean, not causally or effec
tively, but materially and objectively, as it furnishes
an occasion of glorifying God. It is a mean,not in it
self, for its natural tendency is to dishonour him, but
by accident, or in consequence of his wisdom, which
brings good out of evil. He who wills the end, wills
also the means, but not always with the same kind
of will ; for, if the. means are of a different nature from
the end, he may will the latter effectively because
it is good, but the former only permissively because
they are evil ; the object of his will being not properly
the means themselves, but the use of them. I know
not whether you have clearly apprehended this distinc
tion, nor am I sure that it will throw much light upon
the subject; but I have mentioned it, because it has
been considered as important by some theological
writers. Secondly, He limits sinful actions ; for, we are not
to suppose that, when he permits men to sin, or leaves
them to themselves, he exempts them entirely from his
control. Such a supposition would be inconsistent
with the dependent condition of creatures, and with the
character of God as the Governor of the world. They
are at all times under his superintendence, and subject
to such restraints as it may seem proper to his wis
dom to impose. Were.the elements let loose, and suf
fered to exert all their fury, to mingle and conflict with
unbridled rage, the earth would exhibit a scene of con
fusion and devastation, and the whole human race
would be swept away in one general ruin. Similar
Would be the effect, if the appetites and passions, eman
cipated from physical and moral restraints, should dis
play all their violence and malignity. If ambition, and
avarice, and lust, and cruelty, and oppression, knew no
bounds, the earth, where so much peace and comfort
are enjoyed, would be transformed into the image of
hell; with this difference, that its inhabitants, being
mortal, would gradually melt away by the calamities
which they mutually inflicted, and the race would be
come finally extinct. The designs of the Almighty
could not be carried en without the application of checks
and restraints; they would be embarrassed and defeat
ed by the wayward movements of the wicked, driven
hither and thither by the wild and tumultuary fluctua
tions of their passions. If the revengeful man had al
ways an opportunity to gratify his resentment, how
many lives would be lost, the preservation of which is
necessary, not only for the comfort and prosperity of
families, but for the continuation of the succession in a
particular line, and for other important purposes, which
the individuals thus preserved are appointed to accom

plish! If desp otic power were suffered to gather strength
and to extend its sway according to its lawless wish,
the most flourishing regions of the earth would, in the
progress of time, be characterized by the same stagna
tion of the human mind, the same deel ine of agricul
ture and the arts, the same degradation and consump
tion of the human species, which are seen in the fine
countries that groan under the iron yoke of the Turk
ish dominion. Had persecutors been able to carrv in
to full effect their plans of destruction, the church of
Christ must have long since existed only on the bloody
page which recorded the fate of its martyrs. But Pro
vidence opposed various obstacles to the rage cf the
Heathen emperors in the early ages, and to the still more
diabolical procedure of Antichrist and his followers ;
so that, although thousands and tens of thousands were
the victims of their unhallowed power, a remnant was
always saved ; the succession of the friends of truth
was secured ; and the prediction of our Saviour was
fulfilled, that " the gates of hell should not prevail"
against his church.* " The remainder of the wrath of
men thou restrainest." God says to the wicked, as to
the waves of the sea, " Hitherto shall ye come, and
no further." Their strength or courage fails; diffi
culties arise which deter them ; or their passions are
kept at bay by the opposing passions cf others ; or they
change their intentions, and of their own accord aban
don their work before it is finished. Such means are
always at the command of Providence; and there is
still another way in which it can set bounds to the
wickedness of men, by depriving them, through disease
or a sudden stroke, of bodily or mental ability, so that
they can sin no more ; or by cutting them off in the
midst of their projects, like Herod the persecutor, who
was smitten by an angel, and perished in a miserable
manner. Thirdly, He over-rules sinful actions, so as to ac
complish great and good designs by them ; and thus
he makes the wrath of man praise him. The envy of
the sons of Jacob against their brother Joseph, which
prompted them to sell him into Egypt, was the occa
sion of his elevation to the highest authority in that
kingdom; in consequence of which he saved alive his
father and his family, in a famine which afterwards
took place. "As for you," he said to them, "ye thought
evil against me, but God meant it unto good, to bring
it to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. "|
The reproach and persecution of the ungodly, which
cause much disquiet and distress to the people of Gcd,
are made the means of exercising and strengthening
their graces, and of fitting them more and more for a
state of perfection. God " chastens them" in this and
in other ways, " that they may be partakers cf his holi
ness ;"X and " their afflictions work for them a far more
exceeding and eternal weight of glory. "|| The intro
duction of sin into the world, which was followed by
the fall and all its dreadful consequences, has given
rise to the brightest manifestations of tbe glery of God,
and the highest exercise of his benevolence, in the me
diation of Christ, and the salvation of the guilty through
his blood. But although God turns evil to good, it by
no means follows that men may do evil that good may
come. His procedure is like that of a skilful physi
cian, who, finding poison in existence, so proportions
and mixes it with other ingredients, that it proves me
dicinal ; while they are like, the man, who should first
make a poison, and then administer it with a rash and
presumptuous hand. The natural tendency of sin ison-
ly to evil ; and under the management of creatures,
nothing but evil will result from it. No man, there
fore, should commit sin with a view to good, not only
because the mean which he employs is absolutely for
bidden, but because it is calculated to produce exact-

* Matt. xvi. 18. TGen.i.20. } Heb. xii. 10. |]2Cor.iT.J7

PROVIDENCE.

225

ly the reverse of what be professes to aim at. The
end. is beyond his reach ; the process by which good
is deduced from evil, can be carried on only by infi
nite wisdom and almighty power. God finding sin
in the world, renders it subservient to the purposes of
his moral administration ; but this does not justify our
first parents, who introduced it, or those who continue
to practise it, any more than it would excuse a man
who had violated the laws of society, that his crime
had somehow contributed, through dextrous manage
ment, to promote the public good.
Thus we have seen, That God permits the sinful ac
tions of his creatures ; that he limits them ; and that he
over-rules them. But we are not yet done with this
important and mysterious subject. The most difficult
part remains, — the physical agency of God in sinful
actions. We have endeavoured to sbew, that creatures
are absolutely dependent upon God, and that, as he up
holds them in existence, so it is by his secret influence
that they are enabled to exert the faculties with which
they are endowed. It seems to follow from this posi
tion, that he is the first cause of all their operations ;
and, consequently, that whether they do good or evil,
tbey cannot act till they are first acted upon by him.
Somegivethis explanation of the matter, that, although
God preserves his creatures and their faculties, by the
same power which was exerted in creating them, yet
he leaves to them the right or wrong use of those facul
ties, that they may be the proper subjects of praise and
blame, reward and punishment; and that thus their
sins are imputable to themselves alone. It is owing
to Providence that men exist, and are possessed of cer
tain powers ; but, that they use them improperly is ow
ing to themselves, since God gave them liberty of will ;
and therefore their sins are not chargeable upon him.
This view of the subject, which is adopted by many
modern Divines, is as ancient at least as the days of
Origen. God, he says, has made us living creatures,
and furnished us with the power of moving our mem
bers, our hands and our feet. We ought not however,
to say, that we have from God the specific motion to
strike or kill another, or to take away his property ;
but only that we have received the general principle
of motion, which we use to good or bad purposes, as
we please. In like manner, we have received from
God the general power of willing and acting, as we are
living; creatures ; but it depends upon ourselves alone
to will and to do good or evil.
It is an objection against this opinion, that it is in
consistent with what has been already proved respect
ing the absolute dependence of all creatures upon the
Creator. It asserts, indeed, their dependence upon
him for their being and faculties; but it plainly ex
empts their actions from his control. The matter is
explained in a different manner by Calvinistic Divines,
who maintain, in common with many of the School
men, a Divine concourse, by which they mean, not
only that God assists his creatures, but also that he
excites as well as enables them to act. It is distin
guished into prasvius vel prasdeterminens, previous or
predetermining, and simultaneus vel concomitans concur
sus, simultaneous or concomitant concourse. The for
mer is that act of God, by which he influences causes
and principles ; excites his rational creatures, of whom
we are now speaking, moves them to act, and to do
one thing rather than another. It is sometimes called
praxursus,* which seems to be a more proper term for
expressing the idea than concursus. The latter is the
continued influence of the Deity upon them, by which
they are enabled to perform the action to which they
have been excited; and this continued influence is
maintained, to preserve the dependence of creatures
upon the First Cause. If, like a ball which, being

Precursion; antecedent act or influence.
2 D

15

impelled in a particular direction, moves without re
ceiving any new impulse from the hand, they proceed
to perform the action without his continued agency
upon them, the effect could be attributed to God only
in part, and remotely, and consequently he would not
be its immediate and principal cause. The chief diffi
culty is in relation to the former concursus prasdeter
minens ,-* and accordingly, even Calvinists have been
divided in their sentiments, some admitting previous
concourse only to good works, and simultaneous con
course in reference to works of a different character;
while others admit previous concourse in works of
every kind, that the doctrine of Providence may be
properly explained.
The difficulty which must here present itself to
every person of reflection, is, that this previous con
course seems to make God the author of sin; for if a
rational creature performs a sinful action, and performs
it in consequence of a divine influence upon him, by
which he was excited to it, the action may be fairly
traced back to God as the prime mover, and its guilt
must be charged upon him. Causa causas est etiam
causa causaii;] the cause of a cause, say the School
men, is also the cause of its effect. To remove this
difficulty, it has been said, that although the divine
prascursus extends to bad as well as to good actions, it
does not make Gcd the author of sin, because the pre
vious concourse relates to actions considered materially
and entitativcly, but not morally ; — such is the language
of the schools ; — that is, it relates to the substance of
the act, but not to its pravity. It is not new to view
an action in two different lights, physically and morally ;
nor that the same action should have two different
causes. The soul, for example, moves the body, by
acting, we may presume, upon the brain. If a.parti-
cular person be lame, his halting gait is not owing to
the action of the soul upon the brain, and through the
nerves upon the muscles, but to the natural or acci
dental defect in his limb. If a man play upon a musi
cal instrument, the impulse which he gives to the
strings is the cause of the sound, but not of the discord
which is produced by their not being properly stretched.
If a magistrate orders a criminal to be executed, he is
the cause of his death, but not of the malevolence
which the man may feel, who is employed in carrying
the sentence of the law into effect. It is no objection,
that as pravity is necessarily and inseparably annexed
to the action, he who is the cause of tbe action, seems
to be the cause of its pravity, because the will of the
creature is no otherwise the moral cause of the evil,
than as it is the material cause of the action, with
which moral evil is necessarily connected. But this
statement of the concern of the will in moral evil is
false, for the will, as a physical agent, is the physical
cause of the action, but as a moral agent, is the cause
of its sinfulness, not simply by performing the action,
but by performing such an action as is contrary to the
law to which the person is subject. The cause that
moral evil is ascribed to a man's will, is not, that as a
physical agent it performs a physical action, but that
as a moral agent it performs the action forbidden by
the law, which the man is bound to obey. The moral
evil does not arise from the action considered as n
natural action, but from the defect or corruption of the
will. Two things ought to be carefully distinguished, an
action and its quality. The action is from God : its
quality, if at least it be evil, is from man. To render
the point still clearer, Theologians have maintained
that actions, abstractly considered, are neither good
nor bad, but become such according to circumstances ;
volitions are mere natural acts of an intelligent being,
* Predetermining concourse. . ,
t The cause of a cause is also the cause of the thing caused

226

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

and are m themselves indifferent; unless we should
say that they are good in the metaphysical sense of the
term, according to which, goodness is predicated of
simple existence, and the modes of existence. In this
view, the agency of God in causing volitions and ac
tions subsequent to them, is not mere inconsistent with
the purity cf his nature than his agency in causing the
motions and modifications of matter. In both cases
something is produced ; but as it is invested with no
quality, but is considered as a simple existence, it is
not the proper object of a moral judgment. I know-
not how far you have apprehended these distinctions,
nor what satisfaction they have communicated to your
minds on this intricate and perplexing subject. The
design of them is to maintain on the one hand, the de
pendence of creatures upon their Maker, and, on the
other, to vindicate him from the suspicion of being the
Author of sin. It is certain that, when discussing
this subject, we walk in a very narrow and a very ob
scure path, and are in constant danger of stepping
aside to the right hand or to the left. Whether it be
possible to pursue it without deviating, is questionable ;
and those who have made the trial with the most
humility, will be the least disposed to boast of their
success. A little acuteness is sufficient to invent distinctions,
by which a difficulty may be evaded, and an opponent
may be silenced, if not convinced ; but it is not so easy
on a subject so obscure and embarrassed, to give full
satisfaction to a dispassionate, inquiring, and reflecting
mind. A man may surely be pardoned, or at least not
severely censured, if, after having perused the argu
ments of Scholastic Divines, he should acknowledge
himself to be at a loss to understand how God, who is
infinitely holy, can by an immediate influence excite
rational creatures to actions, which, whatever they may
be in themselves, are and must be sinful as performed
by them who are corrupted in all their faculties. He
may be excused also, if he should be tempted to think.
that a physical act, abstracted from all circumstances,
which has been barbarously called the substrate matter
of sin, is a metaphysical conceit, an airy nothing with
out a local habitation. He may be wrong in this opin
ion ; but the subject is so abstruse, and so subtile,
that his mistake is entitled to indulgence. An inten
tion to take away life, it is said, is indifferent in itself,
and is good or bad according to circumstances. God
therefore may excite this intention, without doing any
thing impure or unjust. But I would ask, is it a sim
ple intention to take away life, without the specifica
tion of an object, which is excited in the mind of a
murderer? Does such an abstract intention exist in
rerum natura?* And if it did exist, would it be inno-
.cent? A private man can never innocently form tbe
general design to take away life, nor indeed can any
man, either private or public. The general intention
to take away life is necessarily criminal ; it is an inten
tion to do what, abstractly considered, no creature has
a right to do ; it becomes lawful only when the object
is specified, and is in particular circumstances. Here,
I presume, is a case, and others might be mentioned,
which demonstrates the falsity of the maxim, that, ac
tions and volitions are indifferent in themselves, and
become good or bad by their circumstances. I should
like to hear, from some person who is master of the
subject, how God could, without being the author of
sin, excite a man to blaspheme his name. Some of the
distinctions which would be resorted to on this occa
sion, may be conceived ; but it would be a hard task
to digest them.
My design in these observations is, not to contro
vert the doctrine of Calvinistic Divines, but to con
vince you, that this is a subject too high for our facul-
* In the nature of things.

ties. We know, that God is concerned in all the ac
tions cf his creatures; that nothing takes place with
out his permission; that men are dependent upon him,
and cannot move, or breathe, or think without his as
sistance. But the exact limit between the actions of
the Creator and the actions of his rational creatures,
we cannot define. Let us be content with what we
know, and make a practical improvement of it. Letus
adore that mighty Being who rules over all. Let us
implore his direction and aid; and Ictus remember
that, whatever theories speculative men may adopt,
conscience and Scripture, and reason declare, that we
are accountable creatures ; and that he who is the con
stant witness of our conduct, will hereafter sit in judg
ment upon us and reward or punish us according to
our works.

LECTURE XLIII.
ON PROVIDENCE.

Exam

lination of theLf>n£uage ofScripture respectingthe Agen
cy of God in Siuful Actions — God's Peculiar or Gracious
Providence-sidered.

acious
Objections to the Doctrine of Providence con-

In the two preceding lectures, I laid before you the
proofs of a Providence, and its objects. In general
it is the divine government of all created things ; but it
was cbvicusly proper to consider it chiefly in relation
to ourselves. After shewing that its care extends to
all the events and circumstances of cur life, I entered
more fully into the inquir)r, how far it is concerned in
human actions. With respect to good actions, there
can be no hesitation in admitting, that it both assists
and excites us ; but there is great difficulty in settling
the extent of its influence in respect to such as are sin
ful. I stated to you the opinion of Calvinistic divines
on this intricate subject, and pointed cut the distinc
tions, by which they endeavoured to prove, that, while
God excites to actions which are sinful, and assists in
the performance of them, he is not the author of sin.
Objections, as I hinted, maybe brought against those
distinctions; but they have been deemed satisfactory
by many persons of judgment, and learning, or at
least they have been proposed as the best which occur
red to them, and as furnishing the only solution cf the
difficulty. Let us not be surprised, that we cannot throw such
light upon this and many other points, as shall dispel
every shade of obscurity. Perfect knowledge is not
given to man, the range of whose faculties is very con
fined, and who often encounters moral as well as phy
sical impediments in the investigation of truth. It
seems to have been the will of bis Creator, that he
should be furnished with as much knowledge as should
suffice to direct him in the path of duty, and in the way
to eternal life ; but not with the means of gratifying
his Curiosity, and disclosing all the arcana of the uni
verse. But he is not content with this (as he is apt
to think) scanty allotment. The desire which led to
so fatal an issue in the case of our first parents, is still
prevalent, and operates with great power on their des
cendants — the desire " to be as Gods, knowing good
and evil." There is no subject which we do not wish
to comprehend, and we are unhappy and restless, as
long as there is any one thing in nature or in grace,
which we are unable to explain. There is no doubt
that, in many instances, this impatience has led not a
few persons to push their speculations too far, forget
ting their incompetence, and ceasing to regard with be
coming reverence the sacred barriers which the will of
God has opposed to their progress.
There are two ways in which we may go wrong ;
we may assume false principles as the foundation of

PROVIDENCE.

227

out argument, and we may reason unfairly from true
principles. In the present case, the ground on which
we proceed seems to be good — that, as creatures are ab
solutely dependent upon God, tbey cannot think, and
will, and move, without him ; but, as we are unable
to define with exactness the mode and degree of his
operations upon them, we are not sure of all the con
sequences which we may draw from the principle.
There is a danger of ascribing too much or too little to
creatures ; of representing them, en the one hand, as
independent of God, and sovereign lords of their ac
tions, or, on the other, of turning them into machines,
which have as little concern in their own movements
as a clock or a steam engine, and consequently of lay
ing all the responsibility upon God. None of us will
pretend to tell how God acts upon inanimate matter,
so as to move it according to the laws of gravitation
and attraction ; and none of us should pretend to tell
how he acts upon spiritual beings. It would be wise
to confess our ignorance, and to rest in the general ac
knowledgment that be is the First Cause, without en
tering into a minute explanation.
I now proceed to consider some passages of Scrip
ture, in which the agency of God in sinful actions is
mentioned. I begin with an expression which is used on several
occasions, particularly by the Apostle Paul, who says
concerning the vessels of wrath, that " whom he will,
God bardeneth ;"* and by Moses, who informs us
more than once, " that the Lord hardened the heart of
Pharaoh." There is something awful and startling in
these words, and they seem to import an agency on the
part of God, which is at variance with his acknowl
edged holiness, and justice, and goodness. With re
spect to Pharaoh, we may remark, that the command to
let the Israelites go, was one with which he could not
be supposed to be ready to comply, because it inter
fered with the sovereign authority which he claimed
in his own dominions, would deprive him of a great
proportion ofhis subjects, whose labours were profita
ble to the state, and was delivered by Moses, a man
whom he did not know, in the name of Jehovah, whom
he did not acknowledge as God ; that when the com
mission of Moses was confirmed by miracles, they
were at first such as were imitated by the Egyptian
magicians, and therefore seemed to indicate no superi
or power, to which he was bound to submit, or of which
he had reason to be afraid ; that when other miracles
were wrought which exceeded the power of the magi
cians, their effects were soon removed, so that Pharaoh
would think that the danger was past, and probably
flatter himself that each judgment would be the last ;
that when he gave his consent that the people should
go into the wilderness to sacrifice to their God, Moses
rejected the grant, unless they were permitted to take
their flocks and herds along with them ; that the de
struction of the first-born, by which he was compelled
to yield, must have left a strong feeling of resentment
and revenge in his bosom ; and, finally, that the situa
tion of the Israelites, who were entangled in the wil
derness, having the sea in front, and the mountains on
either hand, appeared to present a favourable opportu
nity of punishing them for all the calamities which
tbey had brought upon his country, and of retaining
them under his yoke. All these events were ordered
by the Providence of God ; but, in not one of them did
he exert any direct or immediate influence upon the
mind of Pharaoh, either to infuse wickedness into it,
or to confirm his proud and rebellious disposition.
Hence it is plain, that when God is said to have har
dened his heart, the expression must be understood
in a qualified sense. He hardened it, not by any posi
tive act, but by a series of dispensations, from which,
* Rom. ix. 18.

being previously corrupt, it took occasion to persist in
disobeying his commands. God placed him in certain
circumstances, and left him to act according to his
natural inclinations.
In a similar manner we must explain the expression
when it is used concerning other sinners. God dec-s
not create wicked dispositions in their hearts, but he
does not restrain by his Providence or his grace,
those which already exist. Ke does not keep them
out of the way of temptation ; but, as they go en heed
lessly, he permits them to encounter and to fall over
stumbling-blocks. He dees not hinder Satan, and
other men like themselves, from laying snares fcr
them, and soliciting them to sin. He withholds his
grace, which would have converted them, but which
he was under no obligation to communicate ; and he
even removes the checks which he had put upon them,
because they submitted to them with impatience and
murmuring, and discovered an eager desire to get rid
of them. The consequence is, that their hearts are
hardened, that their wickedness increases, and grows
into a confirmed habit ; but it is evident that the har
dening of their hearts is their own work, and is
ascribed to Gcd only indirectly. He does not impel
them to commit sin nor would his dispensations of
themselves lead them to it ; that is, unless there were
a previous inclination or tendency to it. He does not
prevent them from committing sin ; but he cannot on
this account be called the author of it, unless it could'
be proved that he is under an obligation to impart ef
fectual grace to all men, without distinction.
In like manner, we must explain those passages in
which God is said to blind the eyes, or the minds
of men. What has been already said, is obviously
applicable to them ; and indeed although the expres
sions are different, the subject to which they relate
is the same. The same effect- is pointed cut by
the hardening of the heart; the blinding of tbe
eyes ; the giving of men over to a reprobate mind ;
the delivering of them" up to their cwn lusts, to walk in
their own counsels. Nothing more is intended, than
that God withholds his grace from them, leaves
them under the power of corrupt inclinations, and does
not prevent them from being exposed to temptation.
With respect to the blinding of the mind, it is worthy
of attention, that while at one time it is represented as
the act of God, it is attributed atanother to the agency
of Satan. " The god of this world," says Paul,
"hath blinded the minds cf them which believe
not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ,
who is the image of God, should shine into them."*
Now, as both representations must be true, and God
and Satan must both be concerned in the effect, it
seems to be the proper way of reconciling them, to sup
pose, that while God withholds his Spirit, who would
illuminate their minds, he permits Satan to use his arts
to deceive them. Although we are ignorant of the
mode in which Satan acts upon the mind, yet we are
certain, from the testimony of Scripture, that he pos
sesses the means of strengthening its prejudices, and
stirring up its passions in opposition to the truth.
But there is nothing positive in the part which God
takes in this matter, except that his Providence may
so order the circumstances of sinners, that, being alrea
dy averse to spiritual things, they shall hence find an
occasion of being confirmed in their dislike. He
does not blind them by weakening or confounding their
understandings, or by suggesting objections against
the gospel ; these come from themselves, or from the
secret insinuations of the spirit of error and falsehood.
When God is said to tempt man, there is no dif
ficulty, because tbe word may be used in a good, or
in a bad sense. It is used in a good sense, when the

* 2 Cor. iv. 4.

228

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

scripture says, that " God did tempt Abraham ;"*
for the meaning is, that by commanding him to offer
in sacrifice his only son, upon whose life tbe perform
ance of the promises depended, he made trial of his
faith, and gave him an opportunity of manifesting it,
to the glory of Divine grace and his own honour, as
well as for an example to succeeding generations. It
is used in a bad sense when it expresses the methods
employed to entice men to sin ; and to apply it to God
in this sense, would be blasphemy : " Let no man
say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for
God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he
any man."f
What shall we make of the following words? "If
the prophet be deceived, when he hath spoken a thing,
I the Lord have deceived that prophet.":): After the
remarks already made, we cannot suppose that, strong
as this language is, it imports that God had actually
deceived him; but it must be understood to mean, that,
if the idolatrous Jews, who are mentioned in the con
text, had consulted a person calling himself a prophet,
and he, fancying himself to be what he pretended, and
imposed upon by his own imagination, had delivered a
prediction which proved to be false, God was to be con
sidered as having a righteous hand in this transaction,
and making use of tbe presumption of this man to
punish his rebellious people. God had deceived him,
because he had permitted him to be the dupe of his
own pretensions, and refused to impart to him a true
revelation, as he had formerly done to Balaam for a
particular purpose.
But we hear similar language employed by a true
prophet with respect to himself: " O Lord," said
Jeremiah, " thou hast deceived me, and I was deeeiv-
ed."|| To evade the difficulty, the words have been
rendered, "Thou hast allured me, and I was allured."
' It was thou who didst persuade me to undertake the
prophetical office ; it was by thy powerful influence up
on my mind, that my reluctance was overcome, and I
consented to engage in it, notwithstanding the opposi
tion and danger which I foresaw as the consequence of
doing my duty.' Without changing the translation,
the words may be explained hypothetically. ' If I have
been deceived, as my enemies allege, who do not ac
knowledge me to be a true prophet, I have been de
ceived by thee, by whom I was called to the office.'
But the latter being impossible, the former was not
true ; and consequently, the charges against Jeremiah
as if he bad spoken lies, terminated upon God who
had sent him. If neither of these views of the words
should be deemed satisfactory, we may set them down
to the account of human infirmity. Perhaps they were
uttered by Jeremiah, when his mind was ruffled by
the contradiction and reproaches of his countrymen ;
and if this is the true state of the case, whatever is
their meaning, he alone is answerable for it. Tbey
are a rash and unfounded charge against God, similar
to that which was made by that peevish and irritable
prophet Jonah, who presumed to say, in answer to the
question of his Maker, " Doest thou well to be an
gry? — I do well to be angry, even unto death. "§
It is easy to apply these observations to other pas
sages which speak of the agency of God in the sinful
actions of men, as when he threatened " to take Da
vid's wives, and give them to his neighbour, who
should lie with them in the sight of the sun,"if and
when he is said to have " bidden Shimei curse him,"**
" to have put a lying spirit into the mouths of Ahab's
prophets," ")")" and " to have turned the hearts of the
Egyptians to hate his people, and to deal subtilely
with his servants.":)::): Some allowance should be

» Gen. xxii. 1.
|| Jer. xx. 7.
«* 2 Sam. xvi. 11.

t James i. 13. J Ezek. xiv. 9.
{ Jonah iv. 4, 9. T2Sam.xii.il.
ft 1 Kings xxii. 23. }f Ps. cv. 25.

made for the oriental style, which admits a boldness
of expression, not so suitable to the more correct and
philosophical languages of the west. When trans
ferred into our language without qualification, it con
veys ideas different from those which were intended
by the original writers. Hence, I cannot but think
that those Divines have greatly erred, who imagined
that Scripture authorized them to make use- of the
strongest and harshest terms in speaking of this mys
terious subject. It would have been wise, since
nothing is more certain than that God is not the author
of sin, to have carefully avoided every term which
seemed to lead to this impious conclusion. All the
passages which have been quoted, and others of a
similar nature, may be explained by admitting, that
God permits sin, and upholds sinful creatures in the
exercise of their faculties. This is surely safer, and
more consonant to our conceptions of his character,
than to say with Calvin, that the devil and wicked
men act by his command, and that they are so com
pletely in his pewer, that he compels them to act.
I have considered the objects of Providence, and
have shewn that it extends its care to all created
beings, and in particular, is concerned in the actions
of intelligent creatures. Before leaving the subject,
it will be proper to say a few words with respect to
what has been called God's peculiar, or more accu
rately perhaps, his gracious providence, the objects of
which are his own people. It may be observed in
general, that it implies a difference, not so much in its
acts towards them, as in its design. It is not mirac
ulous ; it does not suspend the laws of nature in favour
of its objects, although it occasionally did so in former
times ; it does not consist in visible interpositions. I
acknowledge that remarkable things do sometimes
take place in the experience of the righteous, which
fully satisfy them that they have been wrought by the
hands of their heavenly Father; but still they are not
deviations from the laws of nature, so far as we are
acquainted with them. I make this limitation, be
cause, although we have ascertainod the laws by
which the material system is governed, we are, in »
great measure, ignorant of the laws of the spiritual
world. Hence our views of Providence are imperfect,
because many of its operations are carried on, not only
by the instrumentality of the thoughts and volitions of
men, but also by the agency of invisible beings. To
them the care of tbe righteous is entrusted, and they
are^ said " to minister to them," " to encamp about
them," "to bear them up in their hands, lest they
should dash their foot against a stone." Yet, when
we look at the persons who are thus favoured, we see
that they are placed in tbe same external circum
stances with other men, and that similar events occur
in the course of their and other men's lives. They are
rich or poor ; they are sick or in health ; they meet
with successes and disappointments ; they have their
sorrows and their comforts ; but these things are order
ed by unerring wisdom, and are rendered subservient
to their most important interests. They mortify theil
sinful inclinations, exercise their graces, excite them,
to duty, and train them up in a course of progressive
holiness, to eternal life. " We know that all things
work together for good to them that love God ; to them
who are the called according to his purpose."* In short,
this department of Providence is a uniform dispensa
tion of love. The glory of God in the salvation of his
people is its ultimate end, to which, the evils of lifeas
well as its good things, the opposition of adversaries
as well as the co-operation of friends, contribute by a
mysterious process. It might be illustrated by an ap
peal to the Scriptures, which are a history of Provi
dence in relation to the world at large, but particularly

* Rom. viii. 28.

PROVIDENCE.

229

of its procedure towards the Church and its gen
uine members. " All the saints are in the hand
of God,'1 and " he keeps them as the apple of his eye."
I proceed, in the last place, to take notice of the
objections against the doctrine of Providence. It is
not surprising that, in a mind disposed to cavil, ob
jections should occur, as the subject is manifestly too
extensive and complicated to be fully understood.
We may see a part of the scheme, but cannot compre
hend the whole. Now, as it may happen with respect
to the plans of men, of which we have an imperfect
jdea on account of their intricacy and extent, that they
shall appear to us defective or confused, although they
have been arranged with consummate wisdom ; much
more may we be tempted to draw this conclusion
concerning the mighty plan, which embraces the affairs
of the visible and the invisible world, and reaches from
the beginning to the end of time. " Lo, these are parts
of his ways ; but how little a portion is heard of him !
but the thunder of his power who can understand?"*
There are difficulties in many subjects, which are not
considered as sufficient to make us doubt or disbelieve
if the evidence in their favour preponderates. It
would not be consistent with the character of rational
creatures to give our assent without evidence ; but we
must often be content with partial evidence, by which
I mean, evidence that may be justly considered as
amounting to a proof, although it does not fully remove
every objection. In such a case, instead of setting the
evidence aside on account of the difficulties, we should
make the difficulties yield to the evidence. In this
manner we proceed in many of the most important
affairs of life ; , and there is no reason why we should
not pursue the same method in matters of religion.
Some of the most formidable objections against the
doctrine of Providence, have been anticipated ; namely,
those which are founded on the existence of moral evil,
the agency of God in the sinful actions of men, and its
supposed incompatibility with human liberty. Of these
I have attempted to give a solution, and shall not, there
fore, consider them again. Let us direct our attention
to other objections.
The first objection which I shall mention, would
not occur to any person who entertained a worthy idea
of God, but has been advanced both in ancient and
in modern times. It is, that the doctrine of Providence
supposes God to have his attention occupied and dis
tracted with a multitude of cares ; of which some are
in danger of being neglected, and all are inconsistent
with the enjoyment of undisturbed felicity. This
was the great argument of the Epicureans ; and it
may still seem to have force, to those who apply the
standard of humanity to tbe Divine nature. Those
who are affected by this objection, must be persons of
a very shallow understanding. With regard to the
multiplicity of objects about which Providence is con
versant, we may reason from analogy. We find that
the human mind is capable of attending to a considera
ble number at once, or in quick succession, and
of managing different concerns, although they are of a
complicated nature. If we should suppose its powers
to be greatly enlarged, to be raised, for example, to an
equality with those of angels, we could conceive its
sphere of observation and activity to be extended,
without in any degree increasing its labour. Now, if
we suppose an infinite understanding, which reason
and Scripture attribute to the Deity, it must be
capable, not only of attending to all the affairs of
the world and the universe, but of attending to them
without an effort ; for the labour which accompanies
the exercise of man's intellectual faculties, is the con
sequence of their imperfection. We must inquire,
and compare, and judge; we must pass from one

* Job. xxvi. 14.

subject to another; and in this way we feel fatigued
whether the feeling arises from mind itself, or from
the influence of the body upon it. The knowledge
of God being infinite, embraces all things which exist
however obscure and minute ; and being intuitive, is
as easy to him as to man is a glance of his eye.
All created things are before him; they are naked
and open in their essences, their properties, their op
erations, their thoughts and designs. It costs a man
no labour, when the sun is shining, to look at
the objects on the table at which he is sitting ; it
costs no more labour to God to know all the creatures
and all the events in the universe, because he is inti
mately present with them all. If it be objected, that
Providence implies not only the knowledge, but the
care of all things, I answer, that this care is net
burdensome to the Deity, because his power is al
mighty, as his understanding is unlimited. There can
be no resistance to almighty power : and its purposes
are accomplished without exertion. This is manifest
from the idea of infinite power, and is confirmed by
the. Scriptures, which represent him as performing
all his works by his word, that is, with tbe same
ease with which we pronounce a word. " The Crea
tor of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither
is weary."* Hear how even a heathen philoso
pher, Aristotle, has expressed himself on the subject.
" What a pilot is to a ship, a charioteer to a chariot,
a chief musician to a chorus, the law to a city, a
general to an army ; all this is God to the universe ;
but with this difference, that to those persons the man
agement of their respective departments is toilsome
and painful, while it costs God neither labour nor pain
to govern the universe."
In the second place, it has been objected, that the
doctrine of Providence degrades the majesty of God,
by representing him as extending his attention and
care to objects altogether unworthy of him ; to creatures
the most insignificant, to a fly, a mite and an animal
cule, which the human eye cannot perceive without
the assistance of a microscope. It is a fact, however,
that such creatures exist; and it will be acknowledged
by every Theist, that they exist by the will of the
Creator. If, then, it was worthy of God to give them
being, how is it unworthy of him to uphold them ?
We cannot assign the reason why such creatures were
made, because we are ignorant of the purpose whicn
they serve ; but the simple fact of their existence is a
proof, that there was a sufficient reason why God ex
erted his power in their production. The objection,
therefore, against Providence, founded on their appa
rent insignificance, arises from the most, stupid in
attention ; for a moment's reflection would convince
any ordinary understanding, that the objection, if
made at all, should be made not against the care, but
against the existence of such creatures ; and that, after
they have been brought into being, there is not the
shadow of an argument from the dignity of the Divine
nature, against the continuance of their life. To a
man of piety, such creatures would rather furnish
matter of admiration and praise. He would extol
that Being who has been said to be " maximus
in minimis," and whose power does certainly astonish
us in the least, as in the greatest of his works. In a
fly or a mite, or an animalcule, there are muscles, and
nerves, and vessels for circulating the blood, and
organs of digestion, and organs of sense ; and these
are assembled in a point indiscernible to the keenest
human eye. If meditation on these wonders of Divine
skill awaken devout sentiments in any bosom, such
creatures have not been made in vain; and what a sub
lime idea does it give us of the goodness of God,
to think that it communicates itself, not only to the

* Isa. xl. 28.

230

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

3 I ?! ,°StS' t0 the rational ^habitants of our globe,
and to the lower animals, which daily fall under our
observation ; but to myriads of living particles, nestling
on a leaf, or swimming in a drop of wateT, or bur
rowing m a grain of sand! Cold and impious is
the heart of that man, in whose eyes it does not exalt
the Deity, to conceive of him as the bountiful Parent
jnDUmeraWe or<iei"s of creatures ; as the Guardian
and Benefactor of the meanest of his offspring ; as dif
fusing his beneficence over the whole extent" of crea
tion, and making the extremities of being teem with
life and enjoyment ! " The eyes of all wait upon thee,
and thou givest them their meat in due season. Thou
openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every
living thing."*
In the third place, it is objected against the doctrine
of Providence, that there are many facts which appear
to be inconsistent with the wisdom and benevolence of
an alrnighty Ruler of the world, namely, all the physi
cal evils which impair the beauty and happiness of the
creation ; tbe barrenness of many places of the earth,
the profusion of weeds and noxious plants wbich
it yields, the excesses of heat and cold, of moisture
and drought, by which its valuable fruits are destroy
ed ; to which may be added, all the other calamities to
which mankind are exposed. It is a common answer
to this objection, that the evils complained of, or some
of them at least, are the consequences of general laws ;
and that, although when viewed by themselves, they
may seem to impeach the goodness and wisdom of the
Deity, yet they cease to appear in this light, when
considered as the necessary result of laws, which
are the foundation of the regularity of nature, and a
source of innumerable blessings to men. This answer,
I do not consider as at all satisfactory ; for it supposes,
that those evils are necessary attendants of the system ;
that they could not have been avoided; and that, al
though not the objects of the primary intention of the
Deity, they were contemplated by him, and admitted
in tbe formation of his plan. It would seem, that tbey
could not havebeen excluded ; that they were inseparable
from the plan which he adopted : and that they were
chosen on account of the greater good with which they
would be associated. They are not properly a part of
the plan, but an imperfection adhering to it, which could
have been avoided only by a different arrangement.
They arise from what is good, but in themselves they
are pure evils ; and being, as we may say, accidental,
they promote no particular design, and constitute no
part of the moral administration of God. — This answer
to the objection leaves it in all its force ; for it accounts
for the existence of physical evil in a way which does
not, in the least degree, dispel our doubts of the wis
dom and benevolence of the Creator. Where is his
wisdom, if he could not have contrived a system of
laws, from which no such consequences should have
ensued ? And where is his goodness, if, being able to
contrive such a system, he did not prefer it? The
answer certainly exhibits God too much in the light of a
human Artist, who is limited in his means, and

gees, it does not satisfy our minds, but leaves a sus
picion of the imperfection of the divine wisdom or
goodness, as if the one could not attain its end with
out tbe instrumentality of evil, or tbe otheT preferred
it without necessity. There is a radical error in this
method of vindicating Providence. It proceeds upon
inattention to the moral character of our species.
Those who adopt it, seem to think, that they are called
upon to account, in a manner consistent with the good
ness of the Deity, for the existence of real or apparent
evil, in a world where unmixed happiness might be
looked for; that is, in a world of innocent beings.
How different is the actual state of mankind, our own
experience will inform us. This world is a rebellious
province, and is there any reason to be surprised, that
there should be some tokens of the displeasure of its
Sovereign ? The existence of evil is so far from
being inconsistent with his goodness, that it tends to
illustrate it ; since we find there is still goodness exer
cised with much liberality to creatures, who being sin
ful, are altogether unworthy of it. But we should re
member, that wisdom and goodness are not his only
attributes. He is just, and as the Ruler of the world,
might display his justice in the punishment of offen
ders, that the authority ofhis law may be maintained.
Hence it follows, that the evils which are found in the
world, instead of disprovingthe doctrine of Providence,
confirm it ; in the same manner as the penalties inflict
ed upon criminals in any part of a kingdom, prove
that there the Sovereign exercises his authority. Con
sider mankind as a rebellious race, and the earth as
lying under the curse of the Creator for their sake, and
the objection will appear lighter than vanity. Those
facts and occurrences, which are supposed to imply a
want of benevolence, will instantly be seen to be in
exact accordance with moral rectitude ; after all this
deduction, there will remain abundant evidence, that
" the tender mercies of the Lord are overall his works."
The last objection which I shall mention, is founded
on the afflictions of the righteous, and the prosperity of
the wicked. As it is a fact, that vice often triumphs,
while virtue is depressed, that the guilty escape
with impunity, while the innocent are treated as if
they were guilty ; a doubt may arise as it has actually
arisen, whether God exercises a moral government
over mankind. " How doth God know ? and is there
knowledge in the Most High?"* "I have often,"
said a heathen, " been at a loss to determine, whether
God or chance presides over tbe lot of men, since the
good fall into misfortunes, which overwhelm them ; and
persons of an opposite character enjoy in their families
a brilliant prosperity, contrary to all expectation. Oil
the same ground, arguments and insinuations have
been thrown out in modern times, to obscure the evi
dence, and subvert the authority cf religion. With re
gard to the righteous, I may say that they are imperfect
beings, chargeable with many failings and transgres
sions, which render them worthy of correction. Pure
virtue, if it existed upon earth, might expect to have a
portion of pure felicity assigned to it ; but mixed vir-

has no choice but to employ them, notwithstanding- tue has no reason to complain, although it should be

the inconveniences with which they are accompanied.
Another method of repelling the objection, is to turn
round upon the objectors, and deny that those are
properly evils, or at least to shew, that they are ulti
mately productive of good. Plausible things may be
advanced in support of this theory. It may be proved,
that in some instances evil leads to good ; that volcanic

presented with a cup containing bitter as well as sweet
ingredients. I believe that no good man will, in an
hour of calm and solemn reflection, make his own con
dition, however hard it may be, an argument against
Providence, because he will readily acknowledge that
he is less than the least of God's mercies, and deserves
''(the evil which has befallen him. I may say further,

eruptions, for example, prevent earthquakes ; tempests that happiness is not to be judged of solely or princi-
purify the atmosphere ; the sterility of the soil and the pally by external circums ances ; for hat although
uncertainty of the seasons excite industry and qumken these, if disagreeable, will necessar Iv cause a deduc-
ingenuity. But it is only to a limited extent that tion, yet it may be compensated by internal Ltisfac-
this explanation can be earned ; and even as far as it tion, flowing from a sense of thedivh, i favour a„ [the

* Ps. cxlv. 15, 16.

* Ps. Ixxiii. 11.

PROVIDENCE.

231

¦hope of future rest and joy. While the world is pity
ing an individual, and pronouncing that he is hardly
dealt with, he may be elevated above a sense of sor
row, by the strong consolations of religion. Lastly,
I may say, that the qfflictions of the righteous are so
far from disproving the care and goodness of Provi
dence, that they are the surest evidences of its love ;
because their express design is to purify them from
the stain of sin ; to prepare them for the reception of
blessings to be afterwards bestowed in the present
life, and to train them up, by salutary discipline, for a
state of perfection. "When you see the virtuous,"
says Seneca, " groaning with pain, toiling with the
sweat of their brows, and struggling with adversity,
consider, that God acts from the same principle as we
do, when we wish that our children should be modest
and discreet, while we leave vile slaves to themselves.
The interest which he takes in a good man does not
permit that he should live in delights ; he tries him,
and hardens him for labour, and thus prepares him for
himself." The prosperity of the wicked may be accounted for
in various ways. In some instances, God may have a
merciful design; for although they often " despise the
riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suf
fering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads to
repentance,"* yet his grace, concurring with his ex
ternal dispensations, may excite them to consider and
glorify their Divine Benefactor, and to consecrate
themselves and tbeir possessions to his service. At
other times, he may give them prosperity, not on their
own account, but for the sake of those who are con
nected with them, making use of them as channels by
which his bounty is communicated to tbeir families,
their dependants, their neighbourhood, and their coun
try. Once more, under the specious appearance of
prosperity, the displeasure of God against them may
be concealed. While all things are succeeding accord
ing to their wish, means and opportunities are afforded
of indulging their unholy desires; and, becoming se
cure and careless, they are prepared for the destruction
Which will finally overtake them. The tendency of
prosperity is to estrange the human heart more and
more from God, and to induce an insensibility to the
concerns of eternity ; and in this view it is not a bless
ing, but a curse. Asaph was perplexed with tbe diffi
culty which the external condition of the wicked pre
sents, but he was relieved by this consideration: —
" Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the
world ; tbey increase in riches. When I thought to
know this, it was too painful for me, until I went into
the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.
Surely thou didst set them on slippery places ; thou
castedst them down into destruction. How are they
brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are
utterly consumed with terrors. As a dream when one
awaketb, so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt
despise their image."j-
An equal dispensation appears necessary to the ob
jectors, to establish the doctrine of an over-rulino- Pro
vidence. Let us consider what is meant by an equal
dispensation. It is an exact distribution of rewards
and punishments in the present state, an allotment of
temporal good and evil to men, according to their de
sert; but, although such a dispensation is plausible in
theory, and it may be imagined that it could be easily
realized, when we enter into detail we shall find, that
it is attended with insuperable difficulties. According
to this plan, it would be necessary that good men
should enjoy uninterrupted prosperity, and consequent
ly, that all the troubles and uneasinesses which arise
from a thousand causes, should be warded off; that no
disease should overtake them; that no trial should

* Rom. ii. 4.

f Ps. lxxiii. 12, 16—20.

befal them, in their persons, or tbeir families, or their
friends ; that their lawful schemes should always suc
ceed, or that they should be prevented from thinking
of schemes with which Providence would not concur;
in short, that all nature should minister to them, and
no part of it should ever interfere with their designs,
or give them any disturbance. It would be necessary'
on the other hand, that a process exactly the reverse
should take place with respect to the wicked; that all
precautions for the preservation of their health should
be unavailing; that all the exertions of their industry
should prove abortive ; that every thing which they
touched should be a sting, and every thing which they
tasted should be bitter. I need not say that this plan
would require a complete change cf the laws of nature,
or such frequent alterations of them, that they would
no longer serve as a guide to human conduct.
An equal dispensation, which some men demand,
could not take place but under a totally different sys
tem, and if now introduced, would involve all things
in inextricable confusion. It will appear possible only
to the most thoughtless of mankind. If the'head of a
family were an irreligious man, this scheme would
require that he should be immediately punished ; but
observe, that he could not be punished alone. Whe
ther his substance was wasted by a series of calamities,
or he was cut off from the land of the living, his chil
dren would suffer by the loss of their natural guardian,
or of the means of their subsistence; and the equality
of the dispensation would be instantly destroyed. The
same thing would happen if the children were wicked
and the parent were pious ; for every stroke which
lighted upon them would fall upon him, and the inno
cent would be involved in the same condemnation with
the guilty. Such is the intermixture of mankind, by a
variety of relations, that the separate treatment of each
individual according to his desert, is at present impos
sible. This is assigned by our Lord as the reason why
bad men are permitted to mingle with the good, and
to hold their place in society, contrary to what it might
seem to us perfect justice demands: — "Wilt thou,"
said the servants to their master, when they had dis
covered tares among the wheat, " wilt thou, that we
go and gather them up ? But he said, Nay, lest while
ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat
with them. Let both grow together until the har
vest."* Let it not be supposed, that, when we speak of Di
vine Providence, we mean by it a perfect moral admin
istration. We see only its commencement, and must
wait for its full development at the proper season. Its
subjects are at present in a state of trial : by which I
mean, that they are placed in circumstances which
present them with opportunities of doing good or evil,
and although they may be treated in part according to
their conduct, yet the full retribution will not take place
till their course is finished. We have seen that there
are wise and necessary reasons why it is delayed.
Hence the appearances of injustice, which have dis
tressed good men, and furnished the bad with an argu
ment against Providence, ought to give us no disturb
ance. Amidst the darkness which surrounds us, we see
enough to convince us that there is a Supreme Gov
ernor, and that he loves righteousness and hates ini
quity ; and we are assured, that ere long his judgment
will be openly revealed. There is sufficient evidence
that Heaven is on the side of virtue, notwithstanding
its trials, and against vice, notwithstanding its occa
sional success ; and we are authorized to believe that
virtue will ultimately triumph, and that vice will be
expelled from tbe kingdom of God. " He cometh to
judge the earth: He shall judge the world in righte
ousness, and the people with his truth."")" 

* Matt. xiii. 28— 30-

f Ps. xcvl. 13

232

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

LECTURE XLIV.
ON THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.
Fallibility of Adam in his State of Innocence— His subjection
to the Law of God— Command respecting the Tree of the
Knowledge of Good and Evil— Penalty attached to it-
Adam s Temptation, and Breach of the Command— Imme-
aiate consequences to our First Parents.
We have seen that, having finished all his other
Works upon earth, God made man to be the lord of the
inferior creatures.* His body was formed of the dust
of the ground, and was animated by an intelligent and
immortal spirit. It has appeared that, besides the gift
of reason, by which he was distinguished from the
other inhabitants of the earth, he was endowed with
original righteousness, which properly constituted the
image of God with which he was adorned, and fitted
him for fulfilling the end of his creation, by glorifying
the Author of his being. The happiness which be
enjoyed was suitable to his compound nature, which
derived pure pleasure from the external objects with
which he was surrounded, and still higher satisfaction
from conscious rectitude, and a sense of the Divine
favour. Placed in the fairest spot of the earth, where
his eye, his ear, and all his senses were delighted, he
held high communion with his Maker, and while he
poured out his soul in adoration and thanksgiving, re
joiced in the communications ofhis love.
But this happy state was not of long continuance.
We have no reason to think, that man sinned on tbe
day of his creation ; but we have as little reason to be
lieve, that he retained his innocence for years. " Tbe
gold soon became dim: the fine gold was speedily
changed." There was only a short interval, when the
favourite of heaven incurred its displeasure, and the
beauty of holiness in which he was arrayed, was suc
ceeded by the most revolting deformity. Into this
melancholy and disastrous event we are now to in
quire; and while we are speaking of the sin of the first
man and its lamentable consequences, let us remember,
how deeply interesting the subject is to ourselves, who
are his descendants, and derive from him not only our
nature, but all the guilt and pollution which are now
associated with it.
Although man was perfectly holy, yet he was falli
ble, as every creature necessarily is. I do not say that
every creature must actually fall; but that the nature
of a created being is such, that a change from good to
evil, from virtue to vice, and consequently, from hap
piness to misery, is by no means impossible. This
does not imply any imperfection in the work of God.
Immutability is an attribute of his own nature, which
cannot be communicated. He could indeed afford such
assistance to his intelligent creatures that no tempta
tion should overcome them, and give perpetual stabil
ity to their habits of holiness ; but still it would be
true, that considered in themselves they were subject
to change. Mutability is inseparable from the idea
of a created free agent. Freedom of will implies the
power of choice ; that is, it implies, that of two objects
presented to him, a person may choose the one or the
other. If he can choose the one, but cannot choose
the other ; if he is restrained by the law of his nature
from acting, except in one particular way ; he is not
free, in the sense in which the term is commonly used.
He is a creature totally different from men and angels,
because he does not possess that liberty with which
they are endowed. We have no reason to think, that
this liberty will cease even in a state of perfection,
with which it is not more inconsistent than it was with
the innocence of paradise ; for, although the will of the

# Lecture XL.

saints will be invariably determined to good, the deter
mination will not be the effect of physical force, by
wbich choice is taken away ; but of the clear convic
tions of their minds, and the purity of their whole na
ture. They will still be as free as ever, because they
will be what they are with their own full consent. If
they cannot sin, the reason is, that they will not.
From these observations, it appears, that although the
fall of man did not necessarily result from his original
constitution, yet it was the consequence of it. His
will being free, he might refuse good and choose evil.
If it should be asked, Why did God bestow upon
man a power, by the abuse of which his own authority
might be insulted, and the happiness of the universe
might be impaired ? it may be remarked, that this is the
amount of the question, Why did God make a creature
capable of being the subject of law, and of obtaining a
reward? Had man not possessed liberty of choice, he
could not have yielded moral obedience. He might
have been so constructed, as to go through the forms
of duty, as the index of a clock points out successively
the hours on the dial-plate; but there would havebeen
no virtue in his movements; and he would have glori
fied God only as he is glorified by fire and hail, snow
and vapour, and stormy winds, which fulfil his word.
As the heavens and the earth exhibited innumerable
examples of this kind of obedience, this conformity to
his will in wbich intelligence had no share, it was
necessary to the perfection of his work, that a creature
should be raised up, who, knowing his Maker, and
approving of his will, might execute his commands
from design, and under the influence of gratitude and
love. It was necessary to complete the scene, that a
being should be introduced, to exemplify the moral as
well as the physical dependence of the creature upon
its Maker, and to honour him not only as the First
Cause, but as the righteous Governor of bis works.
It is evident that this design could be accomplished
only by means of a creature endowed with intelligence
and choice.
But why, it may be asked again, did not God guard
against the fatal consequences of liberty, by fortifying
the mind of man against temptation, in the same man
ner as the saints, according to the doctrine of Calvin-
ists, are preserved by his secret power from total and
final apostasy ? What is this but to ask, why he has
permitted sin? a question which may be proposed
with a view to perplex, but not in the hope of a satisfac
tory answer, as it has baffled the ingenuity of the wise
and learned, in all ages of the world. If any person
should think, that it was inconsistent with the good
ness of God not to afford such assistance to man as
should secure him against danger, he must proceed a
step farther, and maintain that it was inconsistent with
his goodness, to invest man with a power, the abuse
of which might involve him in misery. It would folr
low, that it was unworthy of God to make such a
creature as man ; and that he, whom we have been ac
customed to consider as the head and crown of this
lower world, was the only part of it which impeached
the wisdom and benevolence of its Author. To in
quiries of this nature we are not competent; and as an
attempt to explore the counsels of the Almighty, which
he has not revealed, is manifestly impious, so, it is
calculated to have an unhappy influence on our minds,
and to lead us on from presumption to infidelity and
atheism. It is certain, that God endowed man with
freedom of will ; it is certain that in the exercise of
this freedom, man lost his innocence and happiness;
it is certain that God was holy and righteous in this,
as in all his other dispensations. Here let us rest, and
patiently wait, till in another state our doubts shall be
solved. Man having been created a free agent, was the proper
subject of command, and accordingly was placed under

THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

tbe law of his Creator, the knowledge of which was
immediately infused into his mind. This law was
virtually the same with that which was afterwards
engraven upon two tables of stone, and is in every age
the standard of duty. To all the precepts of the law,
he was bound to yield obedience; and as we have
already seen, he was furnished with sufficient powers
for complying with the will of his Maker. It pleased
God, however, to sum up his obedience in one point;
without loosening the obligation of the other precepts,
to fix his attention upon one positive injunction, that
the strength and steadiness of his moral principles
might be tried, and it might be ascertained, whether
he was influenced by pure regard to his naked author
ity. The fact is thus related by Moses: "And the
Loid God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree
of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat
of it ; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt
surely die."*
' It has been said, that it was unworthy of God to
interpose bis authority in a matter so trifling, and that
it is incredible that he would have exposed our first
parent to the hazard of ruining himself and his poster
ity by eating an apple. Whether, according to the
celebrated maxim, ridicule be the test of truth or not,
the state of mind which it implies, is not the most
favourable for the calm investigation of it ; and it is
certain that, by a little artifice, the gravest subject may
be exhibited in a ludicrous light. It will not be denied,
that God had a right to prohibit the use of the tree of
knowledge, as he was the sole proprietor of all the
trees in the garden. It is manifest, that the prohibi
tion did not proceed from malevolence, or an intention
to impair the happiness of man ; because, with this
single reservation, he was at liberty to appropriate the
rich variety of fruit with which paradise was stored.
It is certain that, situated as he was, no command
could be easier, as it properly implied no sacrifice, no
painful privation, but simple abstinence from one out
of many things; for who would deem it a hardship,
while he was sitting at a table covered with all kinds
of delicate and substantial food, to be told, that there
was one and only one which he was forbidden to taste ?
It is farther evident, that no reason could be assigned,
why Adam should not eat the fruit of the tree of know
ledge, but the divine prohibition. The fruit was as
good for food as that of any other tree, and as pleasant
to the eye ; and there was nothing sacred in it, which
would have been profaned by human touch. Hence
you will perceive that, if God had an intention to make
trial of the dispositions of this newly formed subject,
he could not have chosen a more proper method ; as it
indicated nothing like a harsh or tyrannical exercise
of authority, and was admirably fitted to ascertain whe
ther his simple command would be to him instead of
all other reasons for obedience. It is not a proper rial
of reverence for a superior, when the action which he
prescribes is recommended by other considerations.
It is when it stands upon the sole foundation of his
authority; when, having no intrinsic goodness, it be
comes good only by his positive injunction; when the
sole inducement to perform it is his command ; it is
in these circumstances, that it is known whether we
duly feel and recognise our moral dependence upon
him. The morality of an action does not depend upon
its abstract nature, but upon its relation to the law of
God. Men seem often to judge of actions, as they
judge of material substances, by their bulk. What is
great in itself or in its consequences, they will admit
to be a sin ; but what appears little, they pronounce to
be a slight fault, or no fault at all. Had Adam, it has
been remarked, been possessed of preternatural power,

2 E

* Gen. ii. 16. 17.

233
and wantonly and wickedly exerted it in blasting the
beauty of paradise, and turning it into a scene of deso
lation, they would have granted that he was guilty
of a great and daring offence, for which a curse was
justly pronounced upon him. But they can see no
harm in so trifling a matter as the eating of a little
fruit. _ Nothing however is more fallacious than such
reasoning; the essence of sin is the transgression of a
law; and whether that law forbids you to commit mur
der, or to move your finger, it is equally transgressed
when you violate the precept. Whatever the act of
disobedience is, it is rebellion against the law-giver;
it is a renunciation of his authority ; it dissolves that
moral dependence upon him, which is founded on the
nature of things, and is necessary to maintain the order
and happiness of the universe. The injunction there
fore to abstain from the tree of knowledge, was a
proper trial of the obedience of our first parent; and
the violation of it deserved the dreadful punishment
which was denounced and executed. He was put to
the test, whether the will of God was sacred in his
eyes ; and he was punished because he gave the pre
ference to his own.
The command, not to eat of the fruit of the tree of
knowledge, was accompanied with a penalty, to be
inflicted in case of transgression : " In the day that
thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." Into the
extent of this penalty, I shall afterwards inquire ; and
at present shall only observe, that while he was obvi
ously threatened with the loss of the present life by
the separation of his soul from his body, he was far
ther exposed to the deprivation of the divine favour,
and the everlasting misery consequent upon it. Al
though a promise was not expressly made, yet it was
implied in the threatening. If death would be the
punishment of transgression, life would be the reward
of obedience ; tbe continuance not only of his animal
life without end, but of all the happiness which he
enjoyed in fellowship with his Maker, with such aug
mentations as his Maker might be pleased to confer
in the exercise of his bounty, and in adaptation to the
progressive and expanding faculties of his mind. In
this transaction, there are all the constituents of a cov
enant. There were two parties, God and man ; there
was a condition prescribed, which man, as he was in
duty bound, engaged to perform; there was a penalty,
which would be incurred in case of failure ; and there
was a reward, to which he would be entitled by the
fulfilment of the terms. It is worthy of attention, that
although, through the sin of man, the consequences
of this transaction have been fatal, considered in itself
it was a proof of the goodness of God. Its immediate
aim was to insure the happiness of our whole race, in
a compendious way, by suspending it upon the obe
dience of out common progenitor, to whom the condi
tion prescribed was perfectly easy, and no inducement
was wanting to excite him to fulfil it. Besides, it put
it in his power to acquire a right to immortal felicity,
to which he could have possessed no claim, on the
ground of the value or the extent of his services.
Whatever obedience he was able to perform, he owed
it to God, from whom he had received all his powers,
physical and moral. Merit on the part of a creature,
towards the Author of his being, and of all his privi
leges and blessings, is impossible ; the idea of it is
manifestly absurd. But, in consequence of the pro
mise of God, that, if our first parent should obey his
command, he would reward him, an opportunity was
furnished of establishing a claim upon his faithfulness,
for his own felicity and that ofhis descendants. This
convention between God and man, is sometimes called
the Covenant of Life, because life or happiness was the
subject of the promise ; and more frequently the Cov
enant of Works, because works or obedience was tbe
condition of it. Of this covenant, the tree of life,

234

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

which also grew in the garden, may be considered as
a seal. It probably received its name, not because
there was some mysterious virtue in its fruit to render
the body immortal ; but because, if Adam had obeyed
the voice of his Maker, he would have been allowed
to eat of it, as a pledge or earnest of the eternal life to
which he had now obtained a right. I take this op
portunity of stating, with respect to the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, that it was probably so
called, because, as is often said, man should eventually
know good and evil by its means; good by the loss of
it, and evil by painful experience : or rather because,
if he abstained from violating it, he should know good,
or continue to enjoy it ; but otherwise, he should actu
ally feel the evil of the threatening.
But, although the law given to man was easy, it
was soon broken. The event is related by Moses:
" Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast
of the field which the Lord God had made. And he
said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall
not eat of every tree of the garden ? And the woman
said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the
trees of the garden : But. of the fruit cf the tree which
is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall
not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And
the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely
die : For God doth know, that in the day ye eat there
of, then your eyes shall be opened ; and ye shall be as
gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman
saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was
pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make
one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat ;
and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did
eat."* Some consider this passage as an allegorical
representation of the origin of moral evil. It is un
necessary to inquire how they explain it, as they have
nothing to guide them but their own fancies ; and some
give one account of it, and others another. There
seems to be no reason for deviating from the literal
sense, (which is favoured by other passages of Scrip
ture), notwithstanding some difficulties which occur in
the narrative. The chief difficulty consists in what is
said of the serpent. There is no doubt that the animal
known by that name, was employed in the temptation
of our first parents ; but it may seem incredible that it
should have uttered articulate sounds, as it was desti
tute of reason, and the gift of speech is known to be
the peculiar attribute of man. The only solution of
the difficulty is to suppose, that tbe invisible agent in
the temptation, of whom we shall immediately speak,
was permitted to cause such vibrations of the air, by
means of the organs of the serpent, or in its mouth, as
made the woman hear the words already recited. The
Serpent had no knowledge of what was spoken, and
attached no meaning to the words which it uttered ;
they were properly the words of the superior being,
who used it as his instrument. No man should say
that the thing was impossible, unless he can prove that
it was impossible for a superior being, with divine
permission, so to move the air, that it'should convey
such sounds to the ear as he pleased ; and every doubt
should be superseded by the authority of Moses.
I have referred to an invisible agent, because it is
certain that the serpent itself could not have spoken
and reasoned ; and the Scripture signifies, that the fall
of our first parents was owing to the solicitations of a
spiritual being. It calls the Devil, the old serpent, f
in allusion to this transaction ; and because, by his de
ceitful arts, he brought death into the world, it. says,
" He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode
not in the truth. "X The author of the temptation was
that spirit, who is the leader and prince of the apostate
angels. Limited as is our information respecting that
* Gen. iii. 1 — 6. f Rev. xii. 9. f John viii. 44.

order of creatures, we know that some of them rebel.
led against God ; that for their sin, they were cast
down into hell ; but that, although reserved in chains
to the judgment of the great day, they are not constant
ly confined to their prison, but are permitted to visit
the earth. This liberty had been granted to their chief
soon after the creation ; and he employed it in carrying
on his hostile designs against God, upon whom he
wished to avenge himself for the punishment which
he had justly inflicted upon him. While this was his
principal motive, we may conceive him also to have
been actuated by envy towards man, who enjoyed
the favour of his Maker; and whose happiness in
paradise was an image of the heavenly bliss from
which he had himself been excluded. If he should
succeed in seducing man from his allegiance, he
would involve him in the same misery with him
self; an event which would be gratifying to the malig
nity of his nature; and, at the same time, he would
defeat the purpose ofhis Creator, whom he hated, and
the obscuration of whose glory would be his highest
triumph. Thus impelled by the darkest and fiercest
principles of his nature, he was impatient to accomplish
his design ; and soon after cur first parents had begun
to taste the sweets of existence, he attempted, with
too much success, to ensnare them.
The prohibition respecting the tree of knowledge,
furnished the occasion of the temptation ; and its name
supplied him with an argument to enforce it. He
boldly affirmed, that the eating of its fruit, instead of
subjecting them to death, as they feared, would exalt
them in the scale of intelligence ; and that they should
become as gods, or beings of a superior order, knowing
good and evil. Remark the consummate art of the de
ceiver. Had he addressed himself to the animal part
of their nature ; had he held out the allurement of sen
sual pleasure ; had he appealed only to the beauty and
delicious taste of the fruit, his proposal would have
been immediately rejected. Still untainted with sin,
they were not to be drawn aside from the path of rec
titude, by those low and paltry gratifications, which
exert so powerful an influence upon their degraded
children. He adapted the temptation to the nobler
part of their nature ; and held out the specious but de
ceitful promise of such an augmentation of wisdom,
as should elevate them above their present condition,
and render them worthy to associate with the inhabi
tants of the celestial regions.
It is difficult to conceive how they could be imposed
upon by the words of the seTpent, between which and
the words of God there was an express contradiction.
We may be apt to think that were a person of the
highest reputation, or even an angel from heaven, to
affirm that any thing which God had told us was not
true, we would not give credit to him. How then is
it possible, that they, who were so much superior to
us in intellectual and moral endowments, should be
persuaded that their Creator had deceived them ? The
question is an important one, and it is not easy to re
turn a satisfactory answer to it. It is no light task to
explain by what process sin found access into a holy
soul. Man was endowed, not only with the knowledge
of his duty and a fixed inclination to it, but alsi
with various appetites, affections, and desires, which
were constituent principles of his nature. These
having been given to him by his Maker, were in
nocent in themselves, and might be innocently grat
ified ; and as long as they were subject to his supe
rior principles, and regulated by them, he was per
fect according to the state in which he was placed.
But, although it was the office of the moral principle
to superintend and direct them, their excitement might
anticipate its interference, and be suddenly caused °by
the presence of the proper objects ; whatever seemed

THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

235

good was naturally fitted to awaken desire, and what
ever seemed evil, naturally to awaken aversion. It
follows, that, if conscience was hindered by any means
from doing its duty, if an appetite or a desire was per
mitted for a moment to exist without thepropercheck,
the harmony of the soul would be immediately disturb
ed ; and the desire or appetite having acquired new
strength, would press forward to its gratification with
out waiting for the approbation of conscience. Let us
apply these observations to the case before us. In
man in a state of innocence, the desire of knowledge
must have existed, because, being a finite creature, he
was capable of endless improvement in wisdom : all
that was necessary was, that the gratification of this
desire should be sought only by such means as his
Creator might approve. In this state of mind, the
prospect of acquiring knowledge would naturally ex
cite the desire ; and at this critical moment, the exer
cise of virtue consisted in subjecting it to moral re
straint. To permit the desire to continue, without
due consideration of the means, was a fault ; and be
sides, gave it time to gather such force as might
impel to immediate indulgence. In this way, we
may account for the sin of our first parents. The affir
mation of tbe serpent, that the eating of the forbidden
fruit would be followed by a great increase of knowl
edge, awakened their desire ; while they were reflect
ing upon his words, the moral principle was thrown
off its guard ; the desire became urgent, and fixed their
attention solely upon its object ; which at length so fas
cinated them, that they lost all power of resistance,
and yielded to the temptation. The desire perverted
their judgment, as it still does in the case of tbeir de-
cendants, who come to believe according to their wish
es, and call evil good and good evil.
From this account, it appears that our first parents
were guilty of sin in their hearts, before they commit
ted it with their hands ; and that the eating of the for
bidden fruit was only the outward expression of the
vitiated state of their minds. The desire of knowledge
by unlawful means, being indulged, disordered their
whole moral constitution ; and they had already rebel
led against God, before they openly violated his law.
" Lust," or desire, " when it hath conceived, bringeth
forth sin ; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth
death."* Although this account of the origin of moral evil
should not be deemed satisfactory, it is certain that our
first parents did break the commandment of God.
That the fault was entirely their own, and that God
was in no sense the Author of their sin, will appear
from the following observations, which are chiefly a
repetition of what has been formerly stated.
First, God created man perfectly holy, with no de
fect, no weakness, no tendency to sin. Every power
was conferred upon him which was necessary to enable
him to maintain the rank, and to perform the duty as
signed to him.
Secondly, God set before him the fittest motives to
secure his obedience. He promised as its reward,
eternal happiness to himself and his offspring ; he
denounced death as the penalty of sin. The trial
which he prescribed to him, was perfectly easy. The
restraint imposed upon him, could hardly be consid
ered as any restraint at all, surrounded as he was
with the choice and abundant productions of paradise.
Thirdly, God did not withdraw, in the moment of
danger, the ability with which he had furnished man
for his duty. His holiness was unimpaired ; his fac
ulties were continued in their full vigour; no means
were employed to darken his understanding, and to
seduce his affections, except by the tempter. God was
still present with him, to afford him assistance, if

it was needed, and he should ask it ; he did not aban
don him till he actually sinned.
If we attend to these observations, we shall perceive
that the fall of man was entirely owing to himself.
That God could have so strengthened him, that he
should have been invincible, is certain; but, as he had
already imparted to him sufficient strength, there is
not the slightest ground for thinking, that he was
bound to give him more. Had Adam exerted the
power which he possessed, be would have stood.
God had done all foT him, which either justice or good
ness required him to do ; the failure was wholly on his
part. His fall was the consequence, not of want of
ability, but of an adventitious state of mind, which
hindered him from exerting it.
I shall not take up your time with an attempt to
shew, that by this single act, man transgressed all the
precepts of the law, but shall leave this exercise of
ingenuity to those who can find entertainment in it,
and think that it will serve some valuable purpose. I
would remind you, however, of the words of the
Apostle James, that he who " offends in one point, is
guilty of all." His meaning is, not that he is guilty
of a formal breach of every commandment, but that he
virtually subverts the whole law, by rebelling against
the authority upon which it is founded. The words
are obviously applicable to the first sin. It was the
revolt of man from his Creator. It was an explicit
declaration, that he would no longer be subject to him,
that his own will was his law, and that instead of sub
mitting to divine guidance and control, he would walk
according to the sight of his eyes, and the desires of
his heart. It was an avowed insurrection against the
supremacy of God, and an attempt to establish a sepa
rate and independent dominion upon earth ; to wrest
the sceptre from the hands of the Almighty, and com
mit it to the erring reason and wayward passions of
his creatures. Trifling, therefore, as the act may seem
to the thoughtless and profane, it implied all the guilt
of the most daring impiety, and merited the dreadful
punishment which ensued.
The immediate consequences of the fall, in relation
to our first parents, are detailed in the narrative of
Moses. First, " their eyes were opened, and they
knew that they were naked."* The fact, that their
bodies were without covering, they knew before; and
the opening of their eyes, and their knowing that they
were naked, mustmean something different. The re
sult of eating the forbidden fruit was not the acquisi
tion of supernatural wisdom, as they fondly hoped;
but a discovery that they had reduced themselves to a
wretched and unprotected condition, being divested of
original righteousness, and exposed to the wrath of
their Maker. Hence they covered themselves with
fig-leaves, and hid themselves among the trees of the
garden, that he might not find them out. That Moses
does not mean bodily nakedness, may be inferred from
the words of Adam, who says not, ' I was ashamed,'
but " I was afraid, because I was naked." The naked
ness which gave rise to fear, must have been the
nakedness of the soul. Our first parents were con
scious of guilt, and wished to avoid a meeting with
their Judge — Secondly, they were summoned into his
presence, and the sentence was pronounced upon them,
by which they were subjected to all the miseries of
life, and finally to death : " Dust thou art, and unto
dust shalt thou return.")- Lastly, they were expelled
from paradise, a place too sacred and delightful to be
the abode of the guilty; and sent into the wide world,
now cursed for their sake, in which toil and trouble
awaited them: "And the Lord God said, Behold, the
man is become as one of us, to know good and evil :
and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of

* James i. 15.

* Gen. iii. 7.

f lb. iii. 19.

236

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the tree of life, and eat, and live forever; Therefore
the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he
drove out the man : and he placed at the east of the
garden of Eden, cherubims, and a flaming sword
which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree
of life."*
God seemed to threaten Adam with immediate death
as the punishment of sin : " In the day that thou eatest
thereof, thou shalt surely die."f As he did not die on
that day, we must conclude, either that the execution
was delayed in the exercise of Divine patience, or that
tbe apparent was not the real meaning of the sentence.
It may import, that as soon as he transgressed, he
should become mortal ; and in this sense he did imme
diately die. He was dead inlaw; the seeds of mor
tality were sown in his constitution; a change took
place in his body preparatory to its ultimate dissolu
tion. It was now subject to internal disorders, and
external injuries ; it was exposed to the wasting influ
ence of the elements; it was doomed to decline in
vigour and activity, to feel the infirmities of old age,
and at last to sink into the grave. At the same time,
his mind was disturbed with fear hitherto unknown;
and the awful prospect of the termination of his earthly
career aggravated the other evils which he suffered,
and embittered his remaining pleasures. He lost all
hope of the happiness, which would nave been the
reward of his obedience, and would have consisted
in the enjoyment of endless life and felicity. His
right to it depended upon his fulfilling the terms of
the covenant; and as he failed to fulfil them, he had
no claim to the promise. That noble prize, which
would have blessed him and his posterity through the
ages of eternity, was for ever forfeited. He fell under
the curse ; and being unable to extricate himself from
its power, he was still less capable of regaining, by
his utmost exertions, the immense reward which, hav
ing been once rejected, would not be offered again.
He was ejected from paradise, that he might not, with
presumptuous hand, pluck the fruit of the tree of life,
the symbol and seal of immortality. In the day of his
transgression, he underwent spiritual death. His sin
shed its baneful influence over his soul, and, in a mo
ment, turned its beauty into deformity. Such was the
constitution under which he was placed, and such was
the nature of things, that the image of God must either
be preserved entire, or be totally lost. The moment
that the principle of rebellion was admitted, the prin
ciple of obedience was expelled ; as soon as he began
to love earthly things, the love of God was extin
guished. When the tie was broken which connected
him with his Maker, from whom those influences pro
ceeded, which inspired and sustained his moral excel
lence, his holy dispositions withered and died, like the
verdure of a tree plucked up by the roots. Nothing
remained but his natural faculties, weakened and cor
rupted ; a darkened understanding, a wayward will,
sensual appetites, and irregular affections. The change
was sudden, but it was complete. Human nature was
essentially the same, but it was divested of its bright
est ornaments. All its glory was gone, and it was
now poor, miserable, and disgusting; an object from
which he, who had lately pronounced it to be good,
turned away his eyes with abhorrence.
Such were the effects of the fall of our first parents,
but they did not terminate upon them. Adam, as we
shall see in our next lecture, was the federal head of
the human race ; and as his obedience would have en
sured the happiness of all his descendants, so his trans
gression involved them all in guilt and perdition. The
fountain being polluted, the stream which flows from
it is impure ; the tree being corrupt, the fruit which it

* Gen. iii. 22—24.

f lb. ii. 17.

bears is also corrupt. It is owing to bis sin that death
has ever since been making havoc of mankind, and
sweeping one generation after another into the giave ;
it is owing to his sin that holiness has been ban
ished from the earth, and crimes and miseries have
been multiplied from age to age; it is owing to bis sin
that myriads of beings, capable of immortal felicity
and endless improvement, have been lost, and are
doomed to spend an interminable existence in sorrow
and despair : " By one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned."* — Some of the topicswhich
have now been slightly sketched, will be resumed and
illustrated at greater length in the subsequent lectures.

LECTURE XLV.
ON THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.
Covenant of Works — Definition of a Covenant — Scriptural
E\ idence of the Covenant between God and our First Parent
—The Parties to it, God and Adam — Adam as the Federal
Head of the Human Race — The Condition of the Covenant,
Obedience — Its extent.
In the preceding Lecture, I made some observations
upon the test of obedience which was prescribed to
our first parent, when he was forbidden to eat of the
fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; from
which it appeared, that the transaction between him
and his Maker was of a federal nature. But the sub
ject holds such an important place in religion, and in
systems of Theology, that it must not be slightly pas
sed over, and I purpose, therefore, to devote this lecture
to a more ample illustration of it.
A covenant is often defined to be an agreement be
tween two parties upon certain terms, and compre
hends a promise made by the one to the other,
accompanied with a condition which the other ac
cepts, and upon the performance of which he becomes
entitled to the promise. Some add a penalty, if either
of the parties be fallible ; but it is not essential, and
may be omitted, as it is in those covenants between
man and man, in which the only consequence of
a failure on the part of the person, who had en
gaged to perform a particular service, is, that he lose9
the stipulated reward ; but this cannot properly be
denominated a penalty. In the case before us, how
ever, a penalty was subjoined ; because, man being
under the highest obligations to obey the will of his
Creator, justice would not permit him, in the event of
transgression, to escape with impunity.
The Covenant of Works has been defined to be, a
convention between God and man concerning the
method of obtaining eternal happiness, accompanied
with a threatening of death in the case of disobe
dience ; or the covenant which God made with Adam
as the representative of his posterity, and in which he
promised eternal life upon the condition of obedience,
not only to the moral law written on his heart, but to
the positive precept respecting the tree of knowledge.
It is called the Covenant of Nature, because it was
entered into with man while he was in his natural
state, which was a state of innocence. It is called
the Covenant of Life, because life was promised; but
improperly, I apprehend, since this designation does
not express its peculiar character, and points out no dis
tinction between it and the Covenant of Grace, the same
blessing being promised in both. It is more commonly
called the Covenant of Works, and this denomination is
evidently appropriate ; shewing us at once what is its
nature, and in what respect it differs from the other
* Rom. v. 12.

THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

237

covenant, which bestows its reward not upon him who
works, but upon him who believes.
It has been objected, that there is no mention of a
covenant of works either in Genesis, or in any
other passage of Scripture. Whether this be strictly
true, we shall afterwards see ; but in the meantime,
we observe that, although the words should not
be used,! yet, if the thing intended by them is vir
tually taught, there is no good reason against a phrase,
by which it is conveniently and intelligibly expressed.
It is necessary for clearness and expedition, to adopt
compendious modes of speech which are under
stood by all parties. We read the Scriptures, not
merely to team the words, but to collect the sense ;
and when we clothe it in a different dress, if it
is faithfully represented, although the words are hu
man, the sentiment is divine. It is objected, that
the transaction with Adam could not be federal ; be
cause, in a covenant, it is required that both parties
should be free and independent, having power to give,
or to withhold their consent ; but that Adam, being a
creature, had no choice, and was bound to acquiesce
in the will of his Creator. Hence it has been
thought, that it ought to be considered rather as a
law than as a covenant. It is acknowledged that the
qualification mentioned is necessary in a human cov
enant, or that the parties should be sui juris,* and
stipulate with perfect liberty ; and that a condition im
posed upon a person against his will would not be
obligatory in law. But, although Adam was not at
liberty to accept or reject as he might please, yet be
freely gave his consent, as we may presume from the
state of his mind, wbich recognized no law but the
command of his Maker ; and he came under a vol
untary engagement to yield obedience to the pre
cept enjoined, and to obey for the specific purpose
of obtaining the reward, and avoiding the penalty.
The transaction was federal on the part of God, as
he proposed a condition, sanctioned with a promise
and a threatening ; and on the part of Adam, as he
pledged himself to fulfil the condition.
I formerly stated, that in this transaction there
are found all the parts of a covenant. There were
two parties, God and Adam. We shall afterwards
have an opportunity to shew, in what light both should
be considered. There was a condition, consisting in
obedience to the positive precept, which God was
pleased to issue for the trial of man's fidelity. There
was a threatening, although there have been different
opinions respecting its import, or in what extent
tbe term death, should be understood. There was a
promise, not distinctly expressed, but implied in the
threatening ; for, if death was to be the consequence of
sin, it clearly follows, that life was to be the reward
of obedience. We cannot suppose, that a Being who
delights in the happiness of his creatures would have
placed man in such disadvantageous circumstances,
that, while his transgression of the law would sub
ject him to the greatest evil, no positive benefit would
result from the most exact performance of his duty.
He loves righteousness as much as he hates iniquity ;
and although there can be no merit in the best exercise
of those faculties which are his free gifts, and are
sustained by the continual care of his Providence,
yet it would not have been consistent with his in
finite goodness to have required man to serve him
for nought. I may add, that our Saviour seems to re
fer to the original promise, when he says, " If thou
wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ;"f inti
mating that there was a reward, according to the divine
constitution, as well as a penalty. It is supposed al
so, in the reasonings concerning the impossibility of
justification by works in consequence of human guilt

* Independent or free.

f Matt. xii. 17.

and depravity, that it is owing to bis inability to fulfil
the terms, that man cannot obtain eternal happiness bv
the law. * }
From these observations it appears, that we are
warranted to maintain, that there was a federal trans
action between God and our first parent, and that
from its nature, it is fitly designated the covenant of
works. We may even allege, for tbe use of such
language, the authority of Scripture. In Hosea vi.
7, we read, " But they like men have transgressed
the covenant; there have they dealt treacherously
against me." On consulting the original, we find this
to be the literal version, " they, D1SO like Adam, have
transgressed the covenant." The same Hebrew phrase
occurs in Job xxxi. 33. "If I covered my transgression,
DtfO like Adam, by biding mine iniquity in my bo
som ;" and in Psalm lxxxii. 6, 7, " I have said ye are
Gods, and all of you children of the Most High ; but
ye shall die like men," D"liO like Adam. The com
parison in these two last is natural and impressive.
The descendants of the first man imitate him in at
tempting to deny or palliate their sin ; and the mortali
ty to which he was subjected has descended to them
as their inheritance : the most exalted station furnishes
no exception : the monarch dies like him, as well
as the beggar. The resemblance is equally striking
in the first passage, and there appears no reason against
considering it as referring to the conduct of Adam,
in violating his fidelity to his Maker. This is called
the "transgression of the covenant," which obviously
teaches, that a covenant was made with him. Al
though the term is not used, the thing is intended by
the Apostle, when he makes mention of the law of
works, and the law of faith. The former is the law,
which promised life upon the condition of works ; and
what is this but a covenant? as tbe latter is the cov
enant of grace revealed in the Gospel, which freely
promises it to believers. But the word is supposed
to occur in that well known passage of the Epistle to
the Galatian3, where it is said, " These are the two
covenants.'* The meaning, however, is so doubtful,
that the propriety of founding an argument upon it is
questionable. The law from Sinai had some appear
ance of being a republication of the covenant of works,
preparatory to the ceremonial institution, whieh pre
figured the great atonement for sin ; but to suppose,
as seme have done, that tbe Israelites in tbeir national
capacity are under that covenant, would exclude them
from being the church, which can subsist only under
a dispensation of the covenant of grace. When
tbe Apostle says, that the law frcm Sinai " gendered
to bondage," he may speak of it according to the ideas
of the carnal Jews, who looked upon it as a covenant
of works, by obedience to which they were to ob
tain righteousness and life; or he may refer to
the terrors with which it was accompanied, to the
minuteness and multiplicity of its precepts, which
there was every moment a danger of transgressing,
and to its partial revelation of grace, the way into the
holiest of all being not yet made manifest. In this
uncertainty, we cannot safely appeal to this passage
as a decisive authority for calling the transaction
with our first parent, a covenant. There wrculd be
still greater impropriety in quoting tbe Epistle to tbe
Hebrews,f in which mention is made of two cove
nants, the old and the new. It would betray great
ignorance, indeed, to suppose the one to be the cov
enant of works, and the other the. covenant of grace.
The term, covenant, is used in a variety of sen
ses, and in the present case, signifies a dispensation
of religion. The old covenant is the dispensation
of Moses, the dispensation of types and figures ;
the new covenant is the dispensation of the Oospel.

* Gal. iv. 24.

| Heb.

233

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

" The law was given by Moses ; but grace and truth
came by Jesus Christ."*
In every covenant, there must be parties, and here
we have two, God and Adam. God prescribed the
condition, and connected with it a promise and a threat
ening, and Adam, with due submission and thankful
ness, consented.
God must be considered, in the first place, as
the Creator and Sovereign Lord, possessed of a right
to require the service of his creature, in whatever
way and form his wisdom might determine. His
authority was unlimited ; unlimited, I mean in respect
of Adam, who was at the absolute disposal of the
Author of his being, and had no independent rights
which his Maker was bound to respect. God could
do any thing to him personally, and with a view to
his posterity, which was consistent with his own per
fections. He is a law to himself, that is, he is un
controlled by any external cause, and acts according
to his own will ; but his will is not arbitrary ; it is
always in harmony with all the attributes of his
nature. What he required from Adam was due to
him, in consequence of the relation of the creature to
the Creator ; for it is evident, that he who is endowed
with intellectual and moral powers by another, is
under the strongest obligation to employ them ac
cording to the pleasure of the giver. The particular
mode in which obedience was enjoined, is not liable
to objection, as we formerly shewed. If it appeared to
Divine wisdom to be a proper test, it is enough ; and it
is also manifest to us, that it was well adapted to
answer the design. It made obedience hinge upon
the authority of God alone, independently of any per
ception of fitness in the command itself; and this is its
true foundation. The duty prescribed presented no
formidable difficulty, but was remarkable for its easi
ness, and it was attended with no particular temptation
to transgress. No person who considers the circum
stances, can for a moment imagine that, in proposing
this trial, there was a tyrannical exercise of authority,
or any design unfriendly to the interests of men. God
did what he had a right to do; but he imposed no
burden which Adam was unable to bear.
In the second place, We must consider God as wil
ling to communicate happiness to man. This appears
from the nature of the transaction. A trial was made
of his obedience ; but the ultimate design, in subordi
nation to the Divine glory, was his establishment
in a state of innocence and enjoyment. God could
have made him happy without entering into covenant
with him ; but, by adopting this plan, it was put in his
power to secure his happiness, by acquiring a right to
it; a right founded upon stipulation, or upon the
promise. There is not a greater mistake than to ima
gine, that the actions of creatures are intrinsically
meritorious. They are not profitable to God ; they are
not gratuitous ; they were previously due, are perform
ed by power which God has freely bestowed, and con
sequently, give no claim to a reward. The highest
creature, after ages of affectionate and universal obe
dience, has not laid his Creator under any obligation.
If no covenant had been made, although Adam had
gone through a long course of obedience without a
single failure, he would have had no title to a recom-
pence, and no injustice would have been done to him if
he had been annihilated. I do not say, if he had been
subjected to sufferings ; because, according to our ideas
of equity, punishment should be inflicted upon the guil
ty alone ; but merit being impossible, and no promise
having been given, it would not have been unjust to
have reduced him to a state of nonentity. It is, there
fore, a proof of the goodness of God, that, by ma
king a covenant with our first parent, he gave him
* John i. 17

an opportunity to secure a blessed and immortal life,
and to secure it to his posterity as well as to himself.
It is no objection, that the issue has been different,
unless it can be shewn, that the failure of the plan was
owing to its inadaptation to the nature and circum
stances of man. But there is no ground for such a
charge. The condition was easy ; Adam was possess
ed of intellectual and moral powers, in full vigour and
activity, and had the most powerful motive to obedi
ence in the consideration, that the everlasting well-be
ing of himself and all his descendants, depended upon
his conduct.
Candour requires me to add, that we are not compe
tent fully to assign the reasons of this dispensation.
After the most mature consideration of the subject, it
appears mysterious that God should have placed our
first parent in such circumstances, that while he might
insure, he might forfeit, his own happiness and that of
millions of beings who were to spring from his loins.
We cannot tell why he adopted this plan with us and not
with the angels, each of whom was left to stand or fall
for himself. We know that the result has been anothei
dispensation, by which the highest glory has redounded
to God, and a part of Ihe human race will be redeemed
from sin and suffering ; but we cannot venture to af
firm, that the first covenant was intended to pave the
way for the second, without being liable to be charg
ed with believing, that God did not design the happi
ness of man by the first covenant, and, consequently,
that there was no goodness in making it; and that, in
opposition to a law which he has prescribed to us, he
did evil that good might come. Instead of speculating
upon such high matters, and pretending to explain
them by reasoning which does not satisfy the mind,
we should endeavour to repress our doubts, and calm
our murmurings, by the reflection that such was the
will of God, and his will is right. " How unsearcha
ble are his judgments, and his ways past finding
out!"* I have been unavoidably led to anticipate some things,
which properly belong to the next branch of the sub
ject, under which we are to speak of man as the other
party in the covenant, and to inquire in what light he
should be viewed.
First, He must be considered as a subject of the Di
vine government, having no right to appoint his own
service, and no choice respecting the mode of being
made happy, and bound to acquiesce in the will of his
Maker. The proposal of terms, demanded his unhesi
tating acceptance. This was his duty ; he was free
from constraint, but not from moral obligation. In
this sense the covenant may be called a law, because it „
was accompanied with authority which could not be
declined without open rebellion.
In the second place, We must consider him as not
only bound to give his consent, but as willing, in con
sequence of the rectitude of his nature, and from this
rectitude, possessed of the requisite ability for the ful
filment of the condition. He did not enter into the
covenant by compulsion, but with perfect freedom, be
cause, whatever seemed right to his Creator, seemed
right also to him ; and he entertained no doubt, that as
the constitution was agreeable to justice, so it was
calculated to advance the interests of himself and his
posterity. He accepted the terms with joy, and was
thankful to God, who dealt with him, not as an abso
lute Sovereign, but as a Benefactor and a Friend. That
he was a proper person to be a party in this transac
tion, will, I presume, be readily acknowledged. None
of his posterity would have been better qualified. He
did not, indeed, enjoy the advantage of experience;
but the want of it was more than compensated by
the perfect knowledge of his duty, and the perfect har-

* Rom. xi. 33.

THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

239

moiiy which subsisted between his will and affections,
and the dictates of conscience. There was no ignor
ance or infirmity exposing him to the hazard of being
misled or overcome, but. his mind was full of light,
and his heart of love.
But the character in which he ought to be chiefly
considered, is that of a representative, or federal head,
of those who were to spring from his loins. His be
ing a federal head, is very different from his being a
natural head. He was the natural head of the human
race, as the first man, from whom all other men were
to proceed, according to the law of generation ; but this
relation is not the ground on which his actions were
imputable to his posterity. I am disposed to think
that the reasonings of some Theologians on this sub
ject are inaccurate, while they account for the present
state of human nature upon the simple principle of
transmission ; maintaining, that as a tree propagates its
kind, or produces a tree like itself, so Adam conveyed
his own dispositions to his offspring. This is to ac
count for a moral phenomenon by a physical law.
Difficulties meet us in the doctrine of representation ;
but if it be admitted to be true, then imputation is seen
to be consonant to justice. It is impossible, I think,
to reconcile with justice the idea, that all men are in
volved in sin merely bocause their first father happen
ed to be a sinner, just as children frequently exhibit
the features of their parents. We cannot conceive that,
in this case, any demerit could attach to his descen
dants, or that the,}' could be punished except by arbi
trary will. It appears more agreeable to reason to con
ceive that, if Adam had been only our. natural head, he
would have communicated the same nature to us
which he received from his Creator, whatever might
have befallen himself; because, on this supposition,
we should have had no concern in his sin, any more
than we are chargeable with the sins of our immediate
parents. In the natural world, a corrupt tree may
bring forth corrupt fruit, the scion may have all the
bad qualities of the parent stock ; but in the moral
world, individuals are originally independent, and
stand or fall with one another only in consequence of
some new constitution, which has given them a legal
and moral identity. We say, therefore, that Adam
was not only the natural, but the federal, head of his
children. Here we encounter opposition. That Adam was the
tbe federal head of his posterity, is denied by Pela
gians and Socinians, who maintain that he acted for
himself alone, and that the effects of his fall terminated
upon himself. Arminians admit that the whole human
race is injured by the first sin, but at the same time con
trovert the proposition, that Adam ^as their proper rep
resentative. All are expelled from paradise as well as
Adam and Eve ; women bring forth children with pain ;
men earn their bread by the sweat of their brows, and all
are subjected to death. But death is not properly a pun
ishment, for it cannot be that the innocent should be
punished for the sin of anotheT ; it is a natural necessity
of dying, derived from Adam, on whom this penalty
was denounced. He could not procreate children, in
respect of their condition, happier than himself. They
are unavoidably exposed to the same evils, as a father
who was once rich, and has been deprived of his proper
ty for his crimes, begets children who are poor, but
who, if he had not sinned, would have inherited his
wealth ; not that the children suffer the punishment of
their fathers, but experience the operation of a law of
nature, according to which a person cannot transmit to
others, good things which he does not himself pos
sess. These are their views, as stated by Limborch,*
who further maintains, that Adam can be considered
a3 the representative of his posterity, only in the same
* Liinborchii Theol. Christ, lib. iii. cap. 3.

sense in which this may be affirmed of any head of a
family, any progenitor of a race ; and expressly denies
that a covenant was made with him in our name.
Here the objections against considering Adam simply
as our natural head, which were formerly mentioned
ought to be recollected. These men are willinp- to
admit that, in^ consequence of the fall of our first
parent, we are subjected to many temporal evils, and
even that men are born less pure than he was, and
with a certain inclination to sin ; but they see an insu
perable difficulty in the idea that he was the represen
tative of his descendants, for how could he be such
without their consent? It may be truly said that they
strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel; for surely it is
less repugnant to reason and justice, that we should
suffer through Adam, because we were legally con
nected with him, and he acted in our name, than
that we should suffer solely because we derive our
being from him by generation, although we had no
concern in his sin. In the one case, although we may
not fully understand the principle on which he was
constituted our representative, we perceive a legal
ground on which guilt is imputed to us ; but in the
other, we cannot discover any just cause that any share
of the fatal effects of his transgression should fall to our
lot. It strengthens the argument, that, according to
Arminians, not our physical but cur moral state is de
teriorated, for we are born less pure ; which, if it has any
meaning, must signify that we are at least in some de
gree polluted ; and we have a natural inclination to sin,
which, in spite of all evasions, must be itself sinful. In
plain language, we have become depraved and misera
ble, without any good reason ; our present state is not
our crime, but our misfortune. They exclaim against
our doctrine, as making God the author of sin, but
the odious consequence flows more directly frcm
their own. To pretend that, although death and other
temporal evils have come upon us through the sin of
Adam, yet these are not to be regarded as a 'pun
ishment, is neither more nor less than to say, — ' They
must not be called a punishment, because this would
not agree with our system. If we should concede that
they are a punishment, we should be compelled to
admit that the sin of the first man is imputed to his
posterity, and that he was their federal head. We
deny, therefore, that the labours and sorrows of the
present life, the loss of such joys as are left to us
at its close, and the dreadful agonies and terrors with
which death is often attended, have the nature of a
penalty.' In the same manner, a man may call black
white, and bitter sweet, because it will serve his
purpose; but he would be the veriest simpleton who
should believe him. If our antagonists will change
the meaning of words, they cannot alter the nature of
things. Pain and death are evils, and when inflicted
by the hand of a just God, must be punishments ;
for although the innocent may be harassed and de
stroyed by the arbitrary exercise of human power,
none but the guilty suffer under His administration.
These observations will assist us in establishing the
point under consideration. That Adam was the fed
eral head of his posterity, we may confidently infer
from the fact, that the effects of his sin extend to all
his offspring without exception. It has been said, in
deed, that in the record of the transaction, no mention
is made of his posterity, and the words of the threaten
ing are addressed exclusively to him. But thereis
little force in this objection. If we attend to the his
tory of our first parents in paradise, we shall find, that
several things were said to them, in which, although
there is no explicit reference to their posterity, they
are evidently comprehended. When God said, "Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, * m>
* Gun. i- 28.

240

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

person supposes that tbe command, or Tather the pro
mise in the form of an injunction, was restricted to
Adam and Eve, it being acknowledged on all hands,
that it respected their descendants, and that the pro
pagation of the human species ever since is the conse
quence of it. The words, " Behold I have given you
the herb bearing seed, which is upon the face- of all
the earth, and every tree on the which is the fruit of a
tree yielding seed, to you it shall be for meat,"* were
not spoken to them alone, but were a gift of tbe pro
ductions of the soil to their successors in all ages. To
come more closely to the subject, the threatening, " In
the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die,"")
was addressed in the first instance to Adam alone, but
certainly was not intended to be limited to him, as is
evident from its execution upon his children. Hence
the sentence pronounced upon Adam, "Dust thou art,
and unto dust shalt thou return,":): must be viewed as
a sentence upon all who, in virtue of it, suffer death
and dissolution in the grave. Again, no person will
say, that the curse respected the original transgressor
alone, although there is not a hint that it would light
upon others. Every man who looks upon our fields,
and observes the labour which is necessary to cultivate
them ; every man who toils from morning to night in
order to procure subsistence for himself and his family,
will be compelled by painful experience to acknow
ledge, that the denunciation retains its force in this
distant age of the world. " Cursed is tbe ground for
thy sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days
of thy life. — In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat
bread, till thou return to the ground."||
These observations may fully satisfy us, that it is
not a valid objection against the representative charac
ter of Adam, that he was addressed as an individual,
and no direct notice is taken of his descendants. The
extension of the effects of his fall to those who have
sprung from him, in the long succession of almost six
thousand years, is a proof which cannot be fairly re
sisted, that he did not fall alone. Upon any other
hypothesis, we cannot make sense of such declarations
as the following, and we have seen how contrary to
sound reason and Scripture are the attempts to explain
them away. " By one man's disobedience many were
made sinners."§ " By the offence of one, judgment
came upon all men to condemnation."^ " By one man
sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so
death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."**
" In Adam all died."tf When mention is made of the
first and second Adam, and the one is called the figure
of the other, there must be a resemblance between
them; and in what does it consist? In every respect
but one, they are dissimilar. "The first man was of
the earth, earthy ; the second man is the Lord from
heaven."^:^> The first man entailed guilt and death as
the fatal inheritance of his children; the Second Man
communicates righteousness and life. The contrast is
stated at considerable length by Paul, in the fifth chap
ter of the Epistle to the Romans. But the fiist Adam
was a figure of the second, if he was a public person,
a federal head. On this supposition we perceive the
resemblance ; but it fails if there was no covenant with
our great progenitor, and the words of Scripture con
vey a false idea. Jesus Christ, who was the Surety
of sinners, might be with propriety called the Second
Adam, if the first Adam was the representative ofhis
seed; but if there is no legal relation between him and
them, the appellation is not founded on truth.
I have endeavoured to prove the fact, but I do not
pretend fully to explain it. President Edwards, in his
book on Original Sin, which is an admirable work,

* Gen. i. 29.
"|| Gen. iii. 17, 19.
** Rom. v. 12.

t lb. ii. 17.
} Rom. v. 19.
ft 1 Cor. xv. 22.

t lb. iii. 19.
T lb. 18.
XX lb. 47.

and one of the ablest and most triumphant refutations
of error which is to be found in our language, in an
swering the objection, that to deal with Adam and his
posterity as one, was to act contrarily to truth, because
they were not one but distinct, enters into a long dis
sertation upon the subject of identity. He shows that
the identity of creatures is not an absolute, indepen
dent identity, like that of the Creator, who is the same
yesterday, and tc-day, and for ever, but a dependent
identity "founded on an arbitrary constitution. It is
owing to this constitution, that an old tree is the same
with the seedling which sprung from the soil some
hundred years before, and that the human body, which
undergoes innumerable changes, is the same in old
age and in infancy. To the same cause we must at
tribute the identity of all created beings, for they do
not exist now, because they existed tbe last moment,
as if nature went on in its course mechanically, or by
its intrinsic power; but their preservation is equivalent
to a continued creation. In the same way we explain
the identity of the soul, and its uninterrupted consci
ousness; it being impossible to assign any satisfac
tory reason, why a man is conscious that he is the
being that be was forty years ago, but the divine con
stitution. The conclusion which he draws from these
premises is, that the objection, which maintains that
to consider Adam and his posterity as one was con
trary to truth, is built upon a false hypothesis; because
it is a divine constitution, which makes truth in all
matters of identity. But, with the leave of this great
man, the cases are not analogous. In the case of
created beings in general, identity is their continued
existence ; but in the case before us, it is the conjunc
tion of separate beings by a legal union, which affects
their moral state and final destiny. It is evidently a
different thing to prolong the existence of a creature,
and give it a consciousness of being the same at suc
cessive periods, from the connecting of many individ
uals together, so as to identify their actions and in
terests. The one is a physical, and the ether a moral
union, and therefore the one does not serve in any de
gree to illustrate the other. The difficulty remains r.s
it was. The question is not about the power, but
about the justice of God, not what he could do, but
what it was consistent with his chaTacteT to do ; ard
the result of this metaphysical inquiry into identity ..s
to prove, what we understood as well before, thit
the oneness of Adam and his posterity was foundfil
on the will of God. What we wish to know is, ho v
this constitution can be reconciled with bis righteous
ness and goodness; but it throws no light upon this
subject to inform us, that the power wbich established
identity in natural ,.things, so associated Adam and his
seed that they were to stand or to fall together. When
we are asking, whether it was right in God to do so,
we cannot be satisfied by being told that he was able
to do it. It is undoubtedly enough that God has willed
any thing, because it is certain, that he never wills
what is unwise or unjust; but when our reasonings
end in this point, we have unquestionably failed, if we
set out with a professed design to solve the objections
of infidelity, and to settle the wavering judgment en
the basis of conviction.
The condition of the covenant was obedience to the
law under which man was placed, and it is called the
condition, because his right to the enjoyment of life
was suspended upon it. The only precept mentioned
in the narrative of Moses, is that which relates to the
tree of knowledge. If be abstained from its fruit he
should live, if he tasted it he should die. But if we
consider, that the positive precept was given merely
to make trial of Adam, we shall be convinced that his
obedience was not limited to it, or, in other words,
that it was not the only duty enjoined upon him. The
moral law was not suspended, and this new precept

THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

241

substituted in its room, so that, in all other respects,
he was for a time at liberty to do what he pleased.
That law is immutable in its obligations, being found
ed on the nature and relations of God and man; and it
is impossible, therefore, that a creature should, by any
dispensation, be exempted from its authority for a sin-
fle moment. It was written upon the heart of man at
is creation, and remained there under this new arrange
ment, in characters as distinct and impressive as ever.
But the precept concerning the tree of knowledge was
properly the condition, because it was by it that man's
respect to the authority which had enacted the whole
law was to be tried. I shall not repeat what was for
merly said concerning its fitness to answer tbe design.
Adam was considered as a subject of the Divine gov
ernment, and as a holy creature capable of performing
any duty which his Maker should be pleased to enjoin.
He possessed in full vigour the principle of obedience,
and would not feel any duty to be burdensome, and
still less one so easy in performance.
It has been asked, Would the covenant have been
broken by the transgression cf any other precept of the
law ? We must answer in the affirmative, if the design
of the- positive precept was, to make trial of the obedi
ence of Adam, for he would have been equally unwor
thy of happiness, and deserving of punishment if he
had renounced the authority of God in any other in
stance. The alienation of his heart from God would
have been the same. The positive precept was not
more sacred than the other precepts of the law. There
is no sufficient ground for a positive affirmation ; but
it is possible, that this was the only precept in respect
of which Adam w-as in danger of failing. As it was
the proposed test of his obedience, it might be that
here only he was left to himself. It is easy to con
ceive the Divine power to have guarded him against
transgressing in any other matter. There is no ab
surdity in supposing that, while he was vulnerable in
this point, he was defended every where else, against
the assaults of the enemy; and that in this manner it
was secured, that the precept relative to the tree of
knowledge should prove, what it seems to have been
intended to be, the only test of his allegiance to his
Creator. This was tbe only particular about which
there might arise a contest of his will with the will
of God. I merely throw out this hint for considera
tion ; but, if there is any truth in it, we get rid of tbe
curious but useless inquiry, What would have been
the consequence, if Adam had religiously abstained
from tbe forbidden fruit, but had committed some other
transgression? In some systems, the condition of the covenant is
said to have been perfect, personal, and perpetual obe
dience ; but this statement is far from being accurate.
I do not deny, that it required perfect obedience in the
sense already explained. The whole law was concen
trated in a single positive precept, which put to the
proof the principle upon wbich all obedience depends,
profound submission to the authority of the Lawgiver;
but if perfect is here used to signify universal in ex
tent, as well as pure in motive, the obedience prescri
bed in the covenant was only perfect constructively.
Adam had not to go through a course of all the duties,
but to evince that he was ready to perform them as
opportunity should occur, by attending to this partic
ular duty. I grant also, that the obedience was per
sonal, or, in other words, was to be performed by
himself; but as no doubt ever did, or ever could, arise
in any mind upon this point, it was altogether unne
cessary to mention it. This is a truism ; we cannot
controvert it, but we deem it unworthy of notice, be
cause it does not convey one particle of information.
No person ever dreamed that Adam might have em
ployed a substitute, or that he might have performed
one part, and committed what remained to another. It
2F 16

is superfluous to say, that the condition was personal
obedience. I deny also that it was perpetual obedi
ence. The period of probation was not to be com
mensurate with his existence, nor indefinitely extended ;
there was a time fixed when the trial would end, and
the reward would be conferred. To say that the obe
dience was to be perpetual, is contrary to the nature
of a covenant, for in every transaction of this kind it ia
implied, that, when the stipulated service is finished,
the promise will be fulfilled. But, when the term
perpetual comes to be explained, we find that it does
not signify perpetual, but temporary, and is employed
to teach us that Adam was to continue to obey till the
trial was ended. But why is a word used, which
suggests an idea contrary to truth, and different from
what the speaker or writer intended? Why should
that be called perpetual, which would have probably
terminated in a few days or weeks? Besides, if the
meaning is, that man was bound to obey during the
term prescribed, this notion is implied in the word
perfect, for that obedience only is perfect which is
sustained as long as the obligation to perform it lasts.
Here then, we have an instance of repetition, under
the name of distinction.
I have dwelt longer upon this account of the condi
tion of the covenant than was perhaps necessary, be
cause it is frequently met with, and may be adopted
without examination. The words perfect, personal,
and perpetual, have been sounded in our ears from
our infancy, and we may repeat them without stopping
to inquire, whether they have been selected with judg
ment, and give a true representation of the case.
Obedience was previously due by our first parent to
his Maker, upon whom he was physically and morally
dependent. It is implied in the just conception of a
creature, that, as he holds life and all his faculties
from his Creator, he is bound to live for him alone ;
and that, after having done all that is possible with his
powers and in his circumstances, he is an unprofitable
servant. His Creator has gained nothing by his ser
vices, and consequently owes him no recompence.
Hence it appears that, in the actions of a perfecj
human being, there could be no intrinsic merit ; that
no claim could be founded on the real value of the ac
tions; that there was no proportion between their
worth and a reward, which it behoved justice to re
cognise. They therefore greatly err, who maintain,
that the obedience of Adam would on its own account
have entitled him to happiness. The merit of condig-
nity, as it has been called, exists only in the dreams
of Papists, and men like them, who forget that God
cannot become a debtor to his creatures, but in conse
quence of his free and gracious engagement. But
there may be such a thing as pactional or conventional
merit, that is, merit arising not from the natural worth
of the actions of creatures, but from a voluntary stipu
lation, by which God, independent and all-sufficient,
has agreed to consider their obedience as a reason why
he should bestow new benefits upon them. This was
the only merit of which Adam was capable. God put
it in his power to acquire a conventional right, to life.
If he had performed the condition, he might have
claimed it, not with the boldness which one man may
use in demanding tbe fulfilment of a bargain, by an
other, because he has law and justice on his side, but
with an humble sense that in himself he deserved no
thing, yet with full confidence in the Divine faithful
ness and goodness. There would have been no ground
for self-gratulation or exultation ; but there would have
been ground for admiring and praising the liberality
of his Maker, who had bestowed an immense reward
for services which he might have exacted without
making any return ; and here we should remember and
apply the words cf the Apostle, "If Abraham were
justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not

242

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

before God."* In his presence, they who never
sinned, as well as they who have been redeemed by
grace, must cast down their crowns, and acknowledge
that they have nothing but what they have received.
The obedience of Adam would have been considered
as virtually the obedience ofhis posterity, for he would
have performed it, not in a private, but in a public
capacity. I do not mean, that God would have viewed
his posterity as having actually obeyed, any more than
that, when he justifies believers in Christ, he views
them as having personally fulfilled the righteousness
of the law. But what had been done by the common
representative of the human race, would have been
reckoned or imputed to them ; so that, by the same act,
their happiness and his would have been secured. If
God had said to him, " Live, for thou hast faithfully
obeyed my command," he would have said at the
same time, " All thy descendants shall live." They
would have como into existence pure and happy, and
would have continued in this state without danger, or
the possibility of a change. But, let it not be sup
posed, that they would have been released from an
obligation to personal obedience. Adam himself would
not have been released from it. All men would have
been bound to fulfil the will of God throughout their
whole duration ; but obedience would not have been
tbe condition on which their hopes were suspended.
It would have been the willing and affectionate recog
nition ofhis authority, and an expression of their gra
titude for his infinite goodness, in giving them exis
tence, and making it blessed.

LECTURE XLVI.
ON THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.
Penalty of the Covenant of Works, Death, Temporal, Spiritual,
and Eternal — Promise of the Covenant — Seals of the Cov
enant.
* Having considered the parties in the covenant, and
the condition, I should proceed to the promise, which
is next in the natural order, and is the only part re
maining to complete a federal transaction. A penalty,
1 formerly remarked, is"not essential, as covenants may
be conceived, and are sometimes made, the violation
of which terminates simply in their abrogation; but in
the present case, it arose from the nature of things, it
¦being. impossible that, if man transgressed the law of
his Creator, and a law which he had come under a
voluntary obligation to obey, he should be permitted
to escape with impunity. As the promise is not men
tioned in the original transaction, and is inferred from
the penalty, it will be proper to begin with the latter:
¦"In -th« day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely
die." The literal sense of this denunciation is so obvious,
•that one should have thought it impossible that there
:COuld be any dispute about it ; but the perverseness of
man has endeavoured to perplex every principle of re
ligion, and has controverted, not only points which are
obscure and mysterious, but the plainest declarations.
If words can have a definite meaning, these import
that the death of the body was to be the penalty of
transgression; but this has been denied. Pelagius,
who rejected the doctrine of original sin, and held that
the fall of Adam affected himself alone, found it neces
sary to reconcile the prevalence of death among his
descendants with his system; and hence he maintained,
that even to Adam, death was not a punishment, but a
natural effect resulting fiom his constitution. In other
* Rom. iv. t

words, he was mortal from the beginning. He is re
presented by his contemporaries as having said that
Adam would have died, whether he had sinned or had
not sinned, and that he died by a necessity of nature.
Socinians, who have introduced almost every heresy
into their creed, have adopted this opinion of Pelagius;
" All die by Adam," says the founder of the sect, " be
cause he was mortal; and for this reason, those who
are born of him must also be mortal. The first man
was taken from the earth, and was therefore earthy.
This happened before the fall, and, therefore, before
the fall his body was, by its own nature, liable to dis
solution. Before he sinned, he had a body corruptible,
vile, and infirm." Human impudence cannot well go
farther than, in this boULand undisguised manner, to
contradict the express declaration of Scripture. When
a person ventures to deny what is self-evident, we are
at a loss how to proceed; whether to reply to him, or
to treat him with silent contempt. It may be suffi
cient, in the present case, to repeat the words of God
to Adam, without quoting other passages in confirma
tion of their meaning : " In the day thou eatest thereof,
thou shalt surely die." Can any thing be plainer,
than that, if he did not eat, he should not die ? Can
we suppose, that God threatened as a consequence of
transgression, what would take place in the course
of nature ? that Adam was deterred from disobedience,
by the annunciation of an event which would befal
him, although he performed his duty? If men will
make themselves ridiculous, by venting opinions stamp
ed with folly and absurdity, let them beware of expos
ing their Maker to contempt.
Arminians admit, that temporal death was, in a cer
tain sense, the consequence of sin; when Adam fell,
he was laid under the necessity of dying. They hold,
however, that his body was naturally frail and mortal ;
but that he would have continued to live, if he had
obeyed his Creator. They choose to say, that we
were laid under the necessity of dying, to intimate
that he was not made mortal by sin, having been so
from the beginning ; but that after he sinned, death,
which he would have escaped, if he had acted a dutiful
part, was unavoidable. Upon this hypothesis, death
cannot be strictly called a penalty, or new e"ril which
owed its existence to sin, for Adam was naturally sub
ject to it; but it assumed the form of a penalty, by
being denounced as what would certainly take place,
in case of disobedience. In a word, this is a proper
commentary upon the threatening. ' Thou art mortal
by thy original constitution. I will prolong thy life,
if thou retain thy integrity ; but if thou transgress, the
law of thy nature will be permitted to operate, and
thou shalt return to the dust from whence thou wast
taken.' It is sufficient to say, that for this opinion
there is not the slightest foundation in Scripture; that
it is contrary to the natural import of the threatening,
which suggests, that the evil denounced was a thing
to which man was not previously liable ; and that it
differs from tbe sentiments which have been enter
tained by christians in general, and by the Jews, if
we may judge from the words of one of their ancient
books : " God created man to be immortal, and made
him to be an image of his own eternity. Neverthe
less, through envy of the devil, came death into the
world."* Dr. Taylor of Norwich, (who is an oracle among
Divines of a certain description,) has taken the liberty
not only to wrest the Scriptures, but most manfully to
contradict himself, so that his sentiments on this sub
ject are a mass of confusion. He tells us, that "the
sentence of death, of a general mortality, was pro
nounced upon mankind, in consequence of Adam's
first transgression ;" that they are " made subject to

» Wisd. ii. 23, 24.

THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

243

death, by the judicial act of God ;"* and yet he main
tains that, in Scripture, " nothing is said to be imputed,
reckoned, or accounted to any person for righteousness
or condemnation, but the proper act or deed of that per
son."')' He affirms and denies : tells us that we are
adjudged to death for the sin of Adam, and tells us
again, that we could not be adjudged to it, but for our
personal sin. The truth is, that he did not believe
original sin, but was led into this labyrinth by his in
sidious design to retain the phraseology of Scripture,
while he explained away the meaning. That he did
not consider death as the penalty of sin, is evident from
his maintaining that it is a great benefit, and is intend
ed to be such, as it increases the vanity of earthly
things, and tends to excite sober reflection, to induce
us to be moderate in gratifying the appetites of the
body, and to mortify pride and ambition. Thus, by
his magic touch, the curse is changed into a blessing ;
and certainly, if, as Dr. Taylor believed, we are not
bom guilty and polluted, it is necessary to account for
the strange fact, that we are apparently treated as
criminals ; and, since it is not very easy to do so in a
satisfactory manner, to put on a bold face, and say,
that it is quite a mistake to suppose that death is an
evil, for it is designed solely for our good. It has
been very properly asked, if this be the case, how
does it come to pass that infants die, who can derive
none of the alleged advantages from their mortality?
It is rather a puzzling question, which we shall leave
the admirers of this Theologian to answer as they best
can. I have already taken notice of the opinion, that
death befalls the posterity of Adam, as a natural in
heritance, or that their mortality is not properly the
punishment of his sin, but the consequence of his mor
tality ; and I shall not repeat the observations formerly
made.
, Temporal death is the dissolution of the union which
subsists between the body and the soul. When the
soul forsakes the body, the breath goes out; the cir
culation of the blood ceases, with all the vital functions,
1 and it becomes as inactive and insensible, as any piece
of unorganized matter. Putrefaction commences, and
in process of time, its firmest parts, even the bones,
are reduced to their original elements.
He who appoints the end, provides the means by
which it will be accomplished. Death is not, in or
dinary cases, the sudden rupture of the tie which binds
together the two constituent parts of our nature. It is
effected by a variety of causes, which, in a longer or
| shorter time, and with greater or less violence, impair
[ the strength, and derange the contexture of the body,
so that it ceases to be a fit habitation for the soul. As
these causes are not accidental, but operate under the
direction of Providence, which has fixed the manner
and time of our death, as well as our death itself, they
must be considered as included in the original sen
tence. Nothing, indeed, was mentioned in the threat
ening but death ; but when God explained the import
of the term, in his address to our first parents after the
fall, he denounced sorrow, and toil, and a long train
of outward troubles, to be closed by their return to the
dust. The afflictions to which adults are subject may be
viewed as the punishment of their personal transgres
sions, and are thus represented in the Scriptures ; but
tbe diseases and sufferings of infants cannot be ac
counted for in this way, as they are not capable of ac
tual sin, and they must be the effect of their connexion
with Adam. The body is affected by the elements ;
by vicissitudes of cold and heat ; by the air which it
breathes ; by the rain and dew of heaven ; by exhala
tions from the earth and the waters, which cause sick
ness, pain, debility, and decay. It is injured and worn
* Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin, Part I. f Ib'd. P- ii-

out by the toil which is necessary to procure a sub
sistence ; for the earth, cursed for our sake, sponta
neously brings forth briers and thorns, but demands
severe and patient labour as the price of its valuable
fruits. The accidents which prove fatal to life could
not be easily enumerated ; the diseases of various
names, which assail us by day and by night, form a
long and melancholy list; and the dreadful visitations
of earthquake, famine, and pestilence, which lay waste
cities and provinces, are means by which the Almighty
avenges the violation of his law. We may add to
these evils, the anxiety, the fear, the disappointment,
the regret, the foreboding apprehensions, which haunt
the mind, and, in consequence of the intimate connex
ion between the soul and body, make the latter pine
away, and sink into an untimely grave. When death
entered into the world, these evils accompanied it.
They are not distinct penalties, but ramifications of the
one penalty incurred by the breach of the covenant.
Man is dying from the moment of his birth ; and as
many of the human race are cut off almost as soon as
they see the light, so it is but a sickly life which is
allotted to those whose time is prolonged; a life al
ways precarious, and which, being attended with pain
and infirmity, reminds them that it will not last long,
and that they are hastening to the house appointed for
all living.
That temporal death is a penal evil, will be mani
fest from an attentive consideration of its nature. The
death of a man is not like that of a vegetable, which,
not having consciousness, does not enjoy existence;
nor like that of the lower animals, which, although
sentient beings, having little recollection of the past,
and no knowledge of the future, feel neither regret nor
fear, and suffer merely the pain which terminates their
life. Death is to us the loss of a possession which
we highly value, and eagerly wish to retain, and the
surrender of which is often attended with acute men
tal distress. Let us think of the situation of our first
parent, and endeavour to enter into his ideas and feel
ings, and we shall perceive how dreadful an evil it is.
He had received from the hand of his Creator, along
with existence, so many blessings that nothing was
wanting to his happiness; and looking forward, he
was gladdened by the prospect of endless ages of feli
city, when suddenly his hopes vanished, and there
opened to his view a short and troubled course, which
would terminate in the abode of darkness and corrup
tion. He must have trembled while the sentence was
sounding in his ears, and for a time have been over
whelmed with despair. To his posterity, life does not
present the same attractions ; but, fallen as is the
value of the gift, it is still highly prized. "All that
a man hath will he give for his life." To preserve it,
is our constant care ; we submit to incessant labour,
in order to procure the means of supporting it; we
summon others to assist us in repairing the injuries
which it has sustained, and guarding it against danger ;
the very thought of dissolution alarms us, and is ad
mitted into the mind with reluctance, ?ind sometimes
we turn pale, and shudder at its name. We recoil
from suffering; but what would not a man undergo,
rather than part with his life? We confess, then, that
death is an evil ; our feelings bear testimony to the
truth, that it is a punishment of an awful kind. To
be arrested in the midst of our career ; to be separated
for ever from those whom we love ; to close our eyes
for the last time upon the light of the sun; to give up
our joys and hopes with our parting sigh ; this is tne
doom of man that is born of a woman ; this is the sad
inheritance which our great progenitor has bequeathed
to us. Every circumstance bespeaks the wrath ol
God against the work of his bands. He destroys it as
if it were loathsome in his sight. This is not tbe
chastisement of a Father, but the vengeance of a Judge.

244

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

In this light we cannot but view temporal death,
when considered simply as the extinction of the present
life. But if we take into the account its consequences ;
if we reflect that the soul is not extinguished when the
body dies, and after its separation is disposed of in
some other state of being; and that he who goes out
of this world under the curse, can have no reasonable
expectation that his condition will be improved in
the next : temporal death will be found a much more
formidable evil than it appears to our senses. When
a criminal has endured a capital punishment, he is
beyond the operation cf human laws, but the authority
of the divine law is commensurate with our being;
and if the death of the body has not atoned for trans
gression, omniscient and omnipresent justice will still
proceed against its victims.
" In the day thou eatest thereof, tbou shalt surely
die." The Hebrew expression is, "In dying thou
shalt die." There is no peculiar emphasis in it, as
some have imagined, but it is a common idiom of the
lann-uao'e, which conveys nothing more than the Eng
lish phrase, " thou shalt die." It seems to denounce
the immediate execution of the threatening ; but, as
Adam was permitted to live after the fall, it is prob
able that, although this would be the meaning in our
language, it denoted in Hebrew merely the cer
tainty of the event. We may say, that in that day
he became dead in law, as a criminal is after sentence
has been pronounced upon him ; that he then became
mortal, his constitution being changed, and tbe seed
sown in it which would ripen into death. It is
frequently added, that he died spiritually ; and wheth
er this is the proper import of the word or not, it is a
truth which I shall proceed to illustrate.
Spiritual death consists in the loss of the favour and
image of God, or is the moral change by which Adam
was deprived of the holy principles with which he was
endowed, and became incapable of loving and serving
his Creator. There can be no doubt that such death
was the effect of the fall, and it may therefore be in
cluded in the threatening.
Pelagius and his followers were of a different opin
ion. As he denied that the sin of Adam affected
any but himself, so he seems to have thought that
the injury which he sustained by it was slight, and
that he retained his original power of doing good if
he chose to exert it. Arminians may not speak in
the same unqualified terms, but they do not admit that
the effect of the fall was a total loss of what we
call original righteousness. Even in his primitive
state, man was not adorned, according to them, with
the image of God, in the sense at least in which
we understand it ; for it chiefly consisted in his
dominion over the other creatures, although it is
granted that, at the same time, he was possessed
of a considerable share of knowledge, and there was
no disorder among his faculties. But, although his
. state was rendered worse, his nature was not thorough
ly vitiated. He fell from a state of innocence and
integrity, and his appetite "was now more inclined to
evil than before ; but he did not fall into a state of
moral impotence, or lose entirely his power to do
good. It is inconceivable that one sinful act should
have had the effect to cause a complete change of
his dispositions. If you object, that spiritual death
was comprehended in the punishment of Adam, they
will grant that this is sometimes the meaning of
death in the Scriptures ; but they deny that it is to
be so understood in the original threatening, which
inferred nothing but a return to the dust. But,
granting spiritual death to be included, tbey maintain
that it ought not to be considered as implying the
total loss of spiritual power. The metaphor ought not
to be pressed too far ; it is enough that there is seme
analogy between the state of the soul, and the state

of the body after it has ceased to live ; and if men
do not perform good works, they may be said to
be dead, without any inquiry whether they possess
a power to perform them or not. Dr. Taylor says in his
observations on the first three chapters of Genesis,
"The threatening to man in case of transgression was,
that he should surely die. Death was to be the
consequence of his disobedience. Death is the losing
of life. Death is opposed to life, and must be under
stood according to the nature of that life to which
it is opposed. Now, the death here threatened can,
with any certainty, be opposed only to the life God
gave Adam when he created him. Any thing besides
this must be pure conjecture without solid founda
tion."* But, peremptory as the conclusion is, it is neither
self-evident, nor can it be easily proved. If the death
threatened was opposed to the life which Adam
enjoyed, it must signify, not only the simple termina
tion of his temporal existence, but the forfeiture of all
the privileges -attending it, among which the favour
and image of God will be admitted to hold tbe prin
cipal place. Although it was only one sin which
was committed, yet it dissolved tbe moral union be
tween man and his Maker ; and we cannot conceive
him to have retained the moral excellence of his na
ture after this separation, any more than a branch re
tains life after it has been cut off from the tree, or a limb
from the body. The history, concise as it is, gives in
dication of an unhappy change. Our first parents trem
bled at the voice of God, endeavoured to conceal them
selves from him, and came intohispreser.ee with reluc
tance ; thus betraying consciousness of guilt andaliena-
tion of heart. Perhaps there is force in the remark
which has been made upon the difference of the lan
guage respecting Adam himself and his son. Adam
was created in the image of God, but he begat a son in
his own image. His own soul was pure at first, like
Him who made it; but the soul of Seth was taintel
with the impurity of his fallen parent. A state of sin
is frequently represented under the image of death :
" Let the dead bury their dead."-)- " Thou hast a
name that thou livest, and art dead.":): "She who
liveth in pleasure, is dead while she liveth."|| It is still
more to our purpose, that the natural state of all mankind
is expressed by the same metaphor, the state, I mean,
in wbich they are prior to conversion : " You hath he
quickened, which were dead in trespasses and sins."§
This is the state, not only of the Gentiles, but of tl e
Jews, as the context shews ; and as no reascn can te
given for its universality but original sin, and as this
was tbe effect of man's apostasy from God, it may be
justly considered as included in the threatening of
death ; a term which is used in the sacred writings
with great latitude of meaning.
The soul of Adam, which was the subject of this
death, retained its natural powers. He did not lose
all knowledge, nor become incapable of volition, nor
did the operations of conscience entirely cease. He
was still an intelligent, and, in a certain sense, amoral
agent ; but his internal frame was deranged, and he
could neither think nor will, neither love nor hate, in
conformity to the law of righteousness. When the
body dies, it becomes as inactive and unfeeling as a
piece of unorganized matter. The effect is not the
same in the case of spiritual death, because vitality
is essential to the soul, but its operations are all un
holy ; and consequently, it no more fulfils the purpose
of its being than the dead body, which retains the
organs of sense, but perceives nothing, and tbe in
struments of motion, but is still as a stone. Such
was the effect of sin upon Adam and his descendants.
* Scrip. Doctrine of Original Sin, p. i. f Matt. viii. 22.
t Rev. iii. 1. || 1 Tim. t. 6. j Eph. ii. 1

THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

245

It could not dissolve our relation to God as our Crea
tor, nor exempt us from his authority ; but it forfeited
his favour, and suspended the intercourse by which
only the moral excellence with which he had adorned
the soul could be preserved. The Divine Spirit, the
.Author of holiness under all dispensations, the Soul, if
I may speak so, of the soul withdrew, and left guilty
man not merely in puris naturalibus, as the School
men say, but in the debasement and wretchedness
which he had entailed upon himself by his voluntary
act. The soul was the habitation of the Spirit ; but
he abandoned it in just displeasure at the profanation
which it had undergone.
"That he hath withdrawn himself, and left this his
temple desolate," says Mr. Howe, " we have many
plain and sad proofs before us. The stately ruins are
visible to every eye, that bear in their front, yet ex
tant, this doleful inscription, Here God once dwelt.
Enough appears of the admirable frame and structure
of tbe soul of man, to shew the Divine presence did
once reside in it; more than enough of vicious deform
ity to proclaim, he is now retired and gone. The
lamps are extinct; the altar overturned. The light
and love are now vanished, which did the one shine
with so heavenly brightness, and the other burn with
so pious fervour. The golden candlestick is displaced,
and thrown away as a useless thing, to make room for
the throne of the prince of darkness. The sacred in
cense, which sent rolling up in clouds its rich per
fumes, is exchanged for a poisonous hellish vapour,
and here is, instead of a sweet savour, a stench. The
comely order of this house is turned all into confusion ;
¦/' the beauties of holiness'/ into noisome impurities. —
The noble powers which were designed and dedicated
to divine contemplation and delight, are alienated to
the service of the most despicable idols, and employed
unto vilest intuitions and embraces ; to behold and ad
mire lying vanities, to indulge and cherish lust and
wickedness. What have not the enemies done wicked
ly in the sanctuary ? How have they broken down
the carved works thereof, and that too with axes and
hammers ! — Look upon the fragments of that curious
sculpture which once adorned the palace of the great
King ; the relics of common notions, the lively prints
of some undefaced truths, the fair ideas of things, the
yet legible precepts that relate to practice. Behold !
with what accuracy the broken pieces show these to
have been engraven by the finger of God, and how
they now lie torn and scattered, one in this dark cor
ner, another in that, buried in heaps of dirt and rub
bish. There is not now a system or entire table of
coherent truths to be found, or a frame of holiness, but
some shivered parcels  You come, amidst all this
confusion, as into the ruined palace of some great
prince, in which you see, here the fragments of a noble
pillar, there the shattered pieces of some curious
imagery, and all lying neglected and useless. He
that invites you to take a view of the soul of man,
gives you but such another prospect, and doth but say
to you, Behold the desolation, all things rude and
waste. So that, should there be any pretence to the
Divine presence, it might be said, If God be here,
why is it thus ? The faded glory, the darkness, the
disorder, the impurity, the decayed state, in all re
spects, of this temple, too plainly shew the great In
habitant is gone."*
In the last place, Eternal death was included in the
penalty of the first covenant. This is denied, and it
is maintained that nothing was threatened but the
separation of the soul from the body, which would be
the result of a train of previous miseries. This is
evident, it is said, from the explanation of the sentence
which God gave after the transgression of Adam, as-
* Howe's Living Temple, Part ii. chap. iv.

signing it as his punishment that he should return to
the dust, and making no mention of spiritual death
and the torments of hell, but solely of toil, and sorrowj
and pain. It is certain, however, that the term, death'
is often used in a figurative sense, to express the moral
state of the soul, as we have already proved by seve
ral passages : and it is not less certain, that it signifies
also the miserable state of the whole man in the world
to come. This is acknowledged by those who will
not admit that it bears this meaning in the present
case ; and, indeed, it is impossible for any person who
has perused the Scriptures with attention, to be of a
different opinion. When cur Lord says, "He that
believeth in me shall never die ;" " This is the bread
which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat
thereof, and net die ;"* he evidently refers not to tem
poral, but to eternal death. In the same sense, dying
and death must be understood in many other passages.
The words of Paul are worthy of particular attention:
"The wages of sin is death; but the gift. of God is
eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord."f It is
so manifest that here, death signifies something more
than the separation of the soul from the body, that we
shall scarcely meet with contradiction. The death is
commensurate with the life ; the gift of God is opposed
to the loss which we have sustained by disobedience.
Let it be observed, that death is the wages of sin, the '
recompence which it merits. Eternal death, therefore,
must have been included in the punishment of Adam,
for God would surely award to him what was his due.
As he would not punish him more, so he would not
punish him less, than his iniquity deserved, because
he is strictly just. It is therefore absurd to suppose,
that only temporal death was threatened; it is to sup
pose that the first sin was too slight to be treated with
greater severity; and if so, it will follow that for no
other sin the offender can be adjudged to final perdi
tion. Eternal death is called the second death, to
intimate, I presume, that it is connected with the first,
and that the one succeeds the other, in execution of
the same sentence. An argument may be drawn from
the contrast which is stated between Adam and Christ,
in the fifth chapter of the Romans. The condemna
tion which has come upon us by the former, is op
posed to the justification which we obtain by the latter.
But justification is a deliverance from eternal death,
and implies not only the remission cf sin, but a title
to heavenly blessedness; whence it is called the "jus
tification of life.":): The death threatened in the law,
and the life promised in the gospel, are contraries, but
from the one we may form a judgment of the other.
If the life which we derive from the Second Adam is
eternal, such must be the death entailed upon us by
the first.
Eternal death is not the annihilation of man, but
supposes him to be in a state of sensibility, because it
is a positive punishment. It is, if I may speak so, a
living death. "These shall have their part in the lake
which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the
second death."|| It is indeed called everlasting de
struction, but it is the destruction of happiness, not of
the persons who are capable of enjoying it. It will
be inflicted upon the whole man ; and hence our Lord
admonishes us to fear him "who is able to destroy
both soul and body in hell."§ The soul will be pun
ished by means of the body, and will also undergo
sufferings peculiar to itself. Separated from the Source
of good, it will be tossed with incessant restlessness,
and feel the torment of desires which it is impossible
to satisfy. It will be agonized by a sense ot the Di
vine displeasure, by tbe upbraidings of conscience, ana
by the terrors of despair. *¦""" *™* state of derel"

From this state •

* John xi. 26, vi. 50.
II Rev. xxi. 8.

f Rom. vi. 23.
J Matt. x. 28.

X Rom.

,18.

246

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

tion and absolute wretchedness there is no relief, no
prospect of escape. Hope, which comes to all in this
life, never comes to those whp have failed in the trial.
No new opportunity will be given to correct the fatal
error. Such, according to the covenant, was the doom
of the first transgressor; and not of himself alone, but
of his posterity who were connected with him as their
federal, as well as their natural head. And our ruin
would have been complete and irreparable, if God had
not, in his infinite mercy, made a new covenant with
us, in another Man who is the Lord from heaven, that
as in Adam all died, so in Christ might all be made
alive. The final loss of a being destined to live for ever,
and capable of perpetual improvement and felicity, is
an awful thought. It is totally different from the
wreck of a globe, for, when matter is deranged and
scattered, there is no suffering ; every dreadful idea
is associated with it. It is more awful to think of
the ruin of a whole order of beings, and still more so,
to reflect that it is the effect of one sin, of the fault
of one individual, in whose fall millions are involved.
He who can contemplate this catastrophe without sol
emn impressions, is destitute of moral sensibility ; and
he who does not feel himself overpowered and embar
rassed, has a mind peculiarly constituted. If be sees
no difficulty, or imagines that he can solve every dif
ficulty, he is blind and self-conceited. No part of the
Divine dispensations is more mysterious, and calls
more loudly for humble submission of mind. In com
parison of it, some other points at which reason star
tles are plain. After having used every endeavour to
satisfy ourselves, we shall find it wise and necessary
to repress our inquiries and doubts by such questions
as these, " Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest
against God ? Shall the thing formed say to him that
formed it, Why hast thou made me thus ?" " Is
there unrighteousness with God ? God forbid."*
I proceed to consider the promise of the covenant,
which is not explicitly mentioned, but may be deduced
from the threatening, upon the principle that, although
we cannot appeal to justice for a reward, because no
creature can merit any thing from the Creator, we may
infer from the Divine benevolence, that obedience
would have procured the good opposed to the evil
which has been incurred by disobedience. But So
cinians tell us, that God promised nothing to man,
neither temporal nor eternal life, and that all promises
relating to spiritual and heavenly blessings, are pecu
liar to the new covenant. Arminians, as their senti
ments are stated by Limborch,")- believe, that man
would not have died, if he had not sinned ; and further,
that it is credible, that when his obedience was suffi
ciently ascertained, God would have translated him
to heaven ; but that no promise of this kind was
made, and the benefit would have been bestowed out
of mere favour. It is strange to think how perversely
these men act, and how they turn all things upside
down. While they labour to prove that, under the new
covenant, eternal life is to a certain extent obtained by
works, they are as anxious to persuade us that, under
the old covenant, it was owing solely to grace. They
know neither what tbey say, nor whereof they affirm,
and are blind leaders of the blind.
It is granted, then, by some of our opponents, that
if Adam had not sinned, he could not have died ; obe
dience would have ensured the perpetual enjoyment of
life. We do not say that he would have strictly de
served this recompence ; but as his Maker gave him
reason to hope for it, by denouncing death only as the
punishment of disobedience, it would have been due to
him according to the terms of the convention. All his
descendants would have been immortal as himself;
* Rom. ix. 20, and 14. f Theol. Christ, lib. iii. cap. 2.

and as paradise could not have contained them, nor tbe
world itself, it is. probable that they would have been
removed to another state in their order, where they
would have led a life more refined, and more like that
of the angels.
It is certain that he would have retained the image
of God, in which, as we formerly proved, he was
created. There was a possibility of losing it during
the course of his trial ; but when that was finished.
there would have been no farther risk.. His holy dis
positions would have not only been strengthened by
the trial, and have grown into habits, but they would
have been confirmed by the power of God, as the
angels are, who were once in a state of probation, and
fallible as experience proved, but are now established
in purity and blessedness. Some men object to the
idea of Divine influence certainly determining the will,
as inconsistent with its freedom ; but their notions are
absurd, because it follows from their principles, that
no creature can ever arrive at an immutable state, and
that the saints and angels may change, and experience
a reverse in their circumstances, unless they are con
verted into machines. The same power which has
rendered their holiness permanent, would have secured
Adam and his posterity from liableness to sin. The
life of purity and peace and communion with his Crea
tor, which he enjoyed before his trial, would have been
continued to him for ever. There would have been no
darkness in his understanding, no disorder in his affec
tions, no sorrow, no fear, no regret for the past, no
anxiety about the future. The soul would have en
joyed perpetual sunshine, the body would have never
suffered infirmity and decay, and nature around him
would have bloomed with unfading beauty. He would
have eaten the fruit of the tree of life, and been im
mortal. In a word, the great promise of tbe first cov
enant was eternal life, as it is of the second. This is
evident from those passages of Scripture in which the
terms of the first covenant are repeated. " The man
that doeth those things shall live by them." " What
good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life ?
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."*
This is not a new promise, for God has never entered
into any new stipulation to reward man, on the ground
ofhis obedience; it is the promise which was made
from the beginning, and shews us what Adam was
taught to expect, if he should obey the law of his
Maker. It remains to speak of the seals of the covenant. A
seal has been defined to be the visible sign of invisi
ble grace, and may be more generally described as an
institution of which it is the design, to signify the
blessings promised in the covenant, and to give an as
surance of them to those by whom its terms have been
fulfilled. Seals are posterior, in the order of nature,
to the making of the covenant ; and although, from
the first, they may serve as motives and encourage
ments, the use of them is conceded to none but those
who have obtained an actual claim to the promise.
Some have maintained that there were four seals or
sacraments of the covenant of works, paradisel the
Sabbath, the tree of knowledge, and the tree of life;
but the common opinion is, that only the two latter
sustained this character. I hope to convince you, that
neither of these statements is correct.
Paradise has been pronounced to be a seal of the
covenant. It was a garden of delights, adorned by the
hand of God, and was a fit emblem of a still more
glorious habitation, where Adam should contemplate
the unveiled glory of his Creator, and be made su
premely happy in the immediate fruition of his love.
It is acknowledged that heaven is called paradise more
than once in the New Testament ; but it does not fol-
* Rom. x. S. Matt. xix. 16, 17.

THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

low that tbe earthly paradise was originally a type of
it. It is more reasonable to think, that the one has
been made the image of the other since the fall, to in
timate that, by redemption, we are put in possession
of all the felicity which man enjoyed in his primitive
state. " A greater man has restored us, and regained
the blissful seat," from which we were expelled. It
is, I think, a conclusive argument against paradise
being a seal, that Adam was placed in it immediately
after his creation, and dwelt in it during the time of
his trial. But this is contrary to the nature and de
sign of a seal, which is not administered till the terms
of the covenant be fulfilled. No man will say that a
person may be baptised and admitted to the Holy Sup
per before he has believed ; it is acknowledged that
faith must precede. It is equally preposterous to sup
pose that, if paradise was an emblem and a pledge of
the abode of man in a higher world, he was allowed
to enter it, while it was yet uncertain whether he
would perform tbe obedience, on which his title to the
promise was suspended.
The Sabbath has been represented as another seal
of the covenant. To Adam, it has been said, it was a
symbol that when he had finished his labour upon
earth, he should be translated into a place far more
lovely than paradise, and should enjoy a rest much
more delightful. When at certain seasons he sus
pended his daily employments, and gave himself
wholly to the service of his Maker, was not this an
earnest and a prelibation of the time when, freed from
all care of this animal life, he should hold immediate
communion with God, mingling with the choirs of
angels, and engaging in their exercises ? The same
objection may be urged against this seal as against the
former, that the use of it was permitted to Adam, and
enjoined upon him, before his trial commenced. The
first Sabbath immediately followed the day of his
creation. It is a conjecture destitute of all probability
that he fell on that day. The narrative of Moses con
tradicts it, according to which the Sabbath was past
before the covenant was made ; and a review of the
events of the sixth day will convince us, that there
was neither time nor opportunity for the temptation.
Adam thus spent one Sabbath, and for ought we know,
many Sabbaths in paradise. He repeatedly enjoyed
this sacred rest during his probation, which could not,
for the reason alleged, be a seal of the covenant. Can
we suppose, that God would confirm a promise to him
to which he had not yet established his claim, and all
interest in which he afterwards forfeited ?
By Divines in this country, these two seals are
generally discarded. But many of them assign this
place to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
if possible, I think, with still greater impropriety.
We need not spend time in inquiring into the reason
of its name. It may have been so called, because
God would by its means put man to the proof, whether
he would retain the moral goodness with which he
had endowed him, or would become evil by the abuse
of his liberty. Thus, he is said to have tried Heze
kiah, that he might know what was in his heart.* It
may have been so called, because, by abstaining from
its fruit, Adam would come to the possession of the
highest good, but, by eating it, would involve himself
in the greatest evil. It is only in this last view that
it can be considered as a seal, being thus significant
of the consequences of obedience and disobedience ;
but it is worthy of observation that, contrary to the
design of other seals, it confirmed the threatening as
much as the promise. Except in this case, seals are
always understood to be appended to the promise ;
and the common relation of the tree of knowledge to
both the promise and the threatening, may justly
* 2 Chron. xxxii. 31.

247
make us doubt whether it was really sucb. To assign
this use to it is to confound two things, which in al»
other covenants, are perfectly distinct, the condition
and the seal. Here the same thing serves both pur
poses. That which tried man's obedience is made
the seal of the reward of his obedience. But, while
the trial was going on, it could seal nothing to him,
because it was uncertain what would be the issue ¦
and if the trial bad ended happily, it does not appear
that the tree of knowledge would have been of any
further service. It is much more simple and rational
to consider it merely as the subject of the condition
of the covenant, and not to invest it with two contra
dictory characters ; and besides, it should be remem
bered, that the only ground for supposing it to be a
seal, is a particular interpretation of its name, which
is matter of conjecture, and for which another may be
substituted with equal probability.
Lastly, The tree of life has been considered as a
seal of the covenant, and in this opinion I concur. I
believe it was a seal, and the only one which God was
pleased to appoint. I reason in the first place from its
name. It was called the tree of life, to signify, I ap
prehend, that it was a symbol of the life promised to
obedience. This interpretation is justified by the fig
urative use of the name, in reference to the happiness
of the world to come. "To him that overcometh will
I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst
of the paradise of God."* We know that this para
dise is heaven, in which there is literally no tree of
this or any other description ; and therefore, as it de
notes eternal life in this application, we are authorised
to conclude, that it was a symbolical representation
of it in the earthly paradise. The idea that it is called
the tree of life, because it possessed a virtue to render
the body immortal, is absurd, and much resembles a
Jewish or Mahometan fable. Can any one tell what
he means, by, ascribing sucb virtue to it? Has he
studied in the school of the alchemists, who amused
themselves and the world so long, with the hope of
discovering the elixir of life ? Is it conceivable that
immortality could be imparted by the physical process
of swallowing and digesting a material substance ? I
reason, in the second place, from the words of God :
" Behold the man is become as one of us, to know
good and evil : And now, lest he put forth his hand,
and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for
ever,"f he must be expelled from ihe garden; for these,
or words to this purpose, must be supplied to com
plete the sense, the passage being elliptical. The
words have been supposed to have been spoken in
irony, and certainly God might have treated with de
rision man's impious attempt to rise to an equality
with him ; or they are merely a statement of what was
his design, or what was his hope in which he had
miserably foiled. But, whatever is the import of the
words, " Behold the man is become as one of us to
know good and evil," the meaning of those which
follow is easily perceived. Adam, whose understand
ing was darkened, as his affections were corrupted by
sin, might entertain tbe notion which has been embraced
by some of his posterity, that the fruit of the tree of
life would make him immortal, and in this foolish ex
pectation might stretch out his rash hand and seize it.
To prevent this act, he was driven out of the garden.
This was done, not merely that he might not delude
himself with this false hope, but that he might not
profanely appropriate what did not belong t0 hlm--T
There was no reason why a precaution should be used
against his eating the fruit of this more than ot any
other tree, if it had not been a seal ; but if it stood in
this relation to the covenant, Adam had no right to it,
and it was fitting that he should be forcibly hindered

* Rev. ii. 7.

)• Gen. iii- 22.

248

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

from taking the symbol of eternal life, both for the
glory of God, whose sacred institution was not to be
profaned, and that he might be made sensible of the
full extent of his misery. The pledge of eternal life
was denied him, that he might feel how dreadful was
the loss which he had incurred by transgression.
From, these arguments it will appear, that we are
authorised to regard the tree of life as the seal of the
covenant. I trust that you are also satisfied, that the
other seals which have been mentioned are imaginary.
This illustration has extended much farther than I had
anticipated, but I have still some observations to make
upon the covenant and its consequences.

LECTURE XLVII.
ON THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.
Covenant of Works, continued— How far it still subsists— Ef
fects of Adam's breach of it upon his Posterity— The impu
tation ofhis Guilt, and Original Sin — Proofs of these Doc
trines, from Scripture and Experience.
After the account which has been given of the
covenant of works, it remains to inquire whether it
still subsists, or has been disannulled by the violation
of its terms. I apprehend that the ideas of some on
this subject are inaccurate, or at least that they use
language which is not consistent with truth. I do not
mean those who, from ignorance of the true design of
redemption, imagine that God has made a new cove
nant of works with us, which, on account ,of its miti
gated terms, they are pleased to call a covenant of
grace, but Divines sound in the faith, who firmly
maintain that our own works are in no sense the cause
of our salvation, but yet speak as if the first covenant
still continued, offering eternal life upon condition
of obedience, and object to the idea of its being anti
quated or abrogated.
I observe, in the first place, That the law of the
covenant, as we may justly call the moral law, of
subjection to which the command respecting the
tree of knowledge was a test — that the law retains
all its authority. Man might renounce his allegiance
to God, but he could not withdraw from his dominion,
which is founded in the nature of things, and under
goes no alteration, whatever changes may take place
in the circumstances of his subjects. A rebel does not
cease to owe obedience to his lawful prince, or it
would follow, that he was punishable only for his re
volt, but not for the crimes which he might subse
quently commit. It has been said, that God could not
claim obedience from man, because he was no longer
in covenant with him ; of which objection this is the
import, that Adam was not bound to obey his Creator
but by voluntary consent, or was not bound to obey
him without the stipulation of a reward. It is
hardly possible to conceive an opinion more clearly
stamped with the characters of folly and impiety. As
for the assertion, that God could not justly require
obedience from man after he had become incapable of
performing it, it will deserve attention, only when it
is proved, that his sin was not voluntary, and that it
was not himself, but his Maker, that put him in a
state of moral inability.
I observe, in the second place, That tbe penalty of
the covenant is in force against all who are under it.
It began immediately to be executad upon Adam, who
lost the image and favour of God, became subject to
pain and sorrow, and was liable to death : and it has
been executed upon the successive generations of his
posterity. God did not revoke the penalty, or substi
tute a milder punishment, when he introduced the new
dispensation ; he only provided the moans by which

man might be delivered from the original sanction.
There was now a possibility of escaping the conse
quences of sin, if they would cordially accept the
proffered salvation ; but, in the mean time, they re
mained in a state of condemnation, the heirs of all the
misery which their first parents had entailed upon
them. "Cursed is everyone that continueth not in
all things written in the book of the law to do them,"*
is the sentence pronounced upon the descendants of
Adam. I observe, in the third place, That the covenant it
self is abolished, by which I mean .that, although it
still demands obedience to its precepts, and executes
its penalty upon transgressors, it does not promise
life to the obedient. There is now no federal transac
tion between God and man, according to which he en
gages to give life to the keepers cf the law. It is in
deed often said, that, if men could fulfil the demands
of tbe law, they would be entitled to happiness; but
this is a mistake. The constitution upon which alone
man's title could be founded was disannulled, and has
not been re-established. That it was disannulled will
be perfectly evident, if you reflect upon the nature of
a covenant. It is an agreement between two parties
upon certain terms. If the terms are not fulfilled, the
agreement is dissolved, and the penalty, if one was
proposed, takes effect. The promisee cannot come
forward at some future time, and say to the promiser,
I will now do what was prescribed. The latter is no
longer bound by his promise, may reject the offered
service, because the season when he wanted it is gone
by, and has a right to exact the penalty. In conse
quence of the sin of Adam, the agreement which his
Creator had made with him came to an end. He had
violated the condition, lost all claim to the promise,
and fallen under the penalty. There was no clause in
the covenant providing him with an opportunity to re
trieve his fault, and still holding out the hope of the
reward after he had failed. His eternal interests were
suspended upon one trial, and if it terminated fatally,
his doom was fixed for ever. You will observe that,
if what has been now said is true in respect of Adam,
it is true -also in respect of his posterity, who were
identified with him, and placed in the same circum
stances by the covenant. It cannot be, therefore, that
a promise of life is still made to them upon condition
of obedience, for no such promise was made to hira
after the fall. His hope was founded upon a new
promise, a promise of mercy through the seed of the
woman, and God gives no other hope to his posterity.
Let it not be imagined, that there is a proposal of two
ways of obtaining happiness in the world to come, the
one by the works of the law, and the other by faith.
Men may dream of the former, but they only dream,
for, besides the utter impossibility of the thing, God
has never come under a new obligation to reward their
obedience. The covenant of works is superseded by •
the covenant of grace, and the promise of life belongs
to that covenant alone. It is an error, therefore, to
represent men in a natural state, as under the covenant
of works, when it is meant that they are required to per
form perfect obedience as the condition of life. Perfect
obedience is demanded from them, but not as the con
dition of life ; for never since the fall did God promise
life upon such terms. The first covenant, as a cove
nant, no longer exists. Nothing remains of it but the
precept and the penalty ; the promise is cancelled.
It may be alleged that this doctrine is not in accor
dance with Scripture, in some passages of which the
original tenor of the covenant is expressed. " The
man that doeth those things shall live by them." j"
" If thou wilt enter into life, keep the command
ments.":): But does any person seriously think, that

» Gal. iii. 10.

t Rom. x. 5.

t Matt. xix. 17.

THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

this is a re-enactment of the covenant ? Did God in
tend to teach the Israelites, or our Saviour the young
man who was inquiring the way to heaven, that future
happiness was still promised to human obedience ?
No ; the design in both cases was to convince the
self-righteous of the impracticable nature of the task
which they had undertaken ; to shew them that there
was an insurmountable obstacle to the attainment of
their hopes ; to remind them that, according to their
own plan, there was required an obedience too pure
and extensive to be performed by such power as man
possesses in his fallen state. Such passages do not
import that there is still a constitution by which obe
dience and life are connected, but proceeding accord
ing to men's own notions of the matter, they demon
strate the folly of their expectations, from the uncon
querable difficulty of the enterprise.
Let us now inquire what are tbe consequences of the
first sin to the posterity of Adam. If it were true, as
Pelagians maintain, that he was not the representa
tive of his children, and that God dealt with him as
an individual, it would also be true that none was af
fected by his sin but himself; but if a covenant was
made with him, the consequences are necessarily the
same to him and his descendants. It follows from the
nature of a federal transaction, that the interests of
both were identified, so that the evil which he incurred
ia transmitted to them as their inheritance. There is
no possibility of getting rid of this conclusion, but by
refuting the arguments produced to prove that the
t:ansaction with Adam was of a federal nature.
We say then, in the first place, That by his sin his
posterity became liable to the punishment denounced
against himself. They became guilty through his
guilt, which is imputed to them, or placed to their ac
count, so that they are treated as if they had person
ally broken the covenant. I do not see in what other
ssnse we can understand the words of the Apostle,
" By one man's disobedience many were made " or
constituted " sinners."* It is not satisfactory to say,
that they are treated as sinners although they are not
really such, because the question naturally follows,
How can they be justly treated as sinners, if they
are not guilty? and the question is unanswerable.
" The judgment was by one," or by one offence, " to
condemnation.")- We have, in these words, an act
of judgrnent ascribed to God, who always judges ac
cording to truth ; the ground upon which it proceeded,
the one offence, the deed of one man ; arid the sen
tence expressed in the term, condemnation. Now, as
it appears from the context that the subjects of this
sentence are men universally, it was plainly the doc
trine of Paul, that all men are punished according to
Divine justice for the transgression of Adam. There
is no mention of their personal sins, with whatever
demerit they are attended, but of one sin committed
before they were born, by him whose children they
are. He expresses the same mournful truth by say
ing again, " Through the offence of one many are
dead.":): And here we must recur again to a fact,
which formerly engaged our attention, the prevalence
of temporal death. That man was mortal in his prim
itive state, is so gross a falsehood, that it scarcely de
serves a serious refutation. We have seen the absur
dity of pretending that death is sent as a favour, and
that, although our death is tbe consequence of the sin
of Adam, it is not to be considered as properly a pun
ishment. These are all contrivances by which some
men, who have previously adopted a system, endeav
our to make the Scripture give countenance to it, and
do not scruple, when they are pushed, openly to give
it the lie. It is the doctrine of Paul, that death has
come upon us by the sin of Adam, not accidentally or

Rom. v. 19.
2G

f lb. 16.

X lb. 15.

249
naturally, but by the operation of law : " By one man
sin entered into the World, and death by sin ; and so
death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ;"*
kj>' 'a, ¦ttuvtis ifLugrov. The expression, ecp' <a,, has been
explained in two different ways. If we render it
"in whom," as some critics contend, the Apostle
teaches, that as death came by the sin of Adam, so all
other men die because they sinned in him. If we
translate it, " because all have sinned," then the Apos
tle affirms that all die, because all are sinners. But
this cannot be true, if the imputation of Adam's guilt
be denied, for thousands of the human race die in in
fancy, before they are capable of committing actual
sin. The Apostle brings infants under our notice in a
following verse : " Nevertheless, death reigned from
Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned
after the similitude of Adam's transgression."! Some
understand by these, adults who, during the interval
between Adam and Moses, could not sin as Adam did,
because they were not subject to a law which forbade
sin under the penalty of death; and, therefore, they
admit that they must have died for his sin. But was
there ever a time when men were without law to God,
or his law did not denounce death upon transgressors ?
No, this was the penalty of sin under all dispensa
tions. It is more consonant to scripture and common
sense, to understand by those " who had not sinned
after the similitude of Adam's transgression," infants,
of whom this description is very properly given, be
cause they could not be guilty of actual sin. Yet,
they died as well as adults ; and how can we account
for the fact but upon the supposition that, some how
or other, they were sinners in the sight of God ? They
are among the "all men" upon whom death has
passed, and it must be true that they, as well as
adults, have sinned. The death of infants is utterly
inexplicable, but upon the principle of original sin.
As they die in the common course of events, so they
have been involved in those terrible judgments which
are monuments of the power and wrath of the Al
mighty. The children of Sodom and Gomorrha per
ished with their wicked fathers and mothers ; and this
indiscriminate destruction took place after Abraham
had said to the Most High, " That be far from thee,
to slay the righteous with the wicked ; and that the
righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from
thee ; shall not the Judge of all the earth do right V'X
and the Lord had assured him that he would make a
distinction. Here was a case in which evil was not
to fall promiscuously upon a people, but they alone
were to suffer, who were found worthy of punish
ment: yet here children were destroyed with their
parents. Let it not be said that they could not escape,
when the fire fell from heaven upon their habitations.
Besides that there are no limits to the power of God,
he could have saved them as he saved Lot and his
family, by the ministry of angels ; yet the angels did
not carry away a single infant, but left them all be
hind. It is therefore certain that they were not right
eous, and that, although free from the enormous crimes
of the adults, they were chargeable with some sin,
and what could that be but the sin of our nature ? It
maybe said that God could compensate the sufferings
of those innocents in the world to come. This is
nothing to the purpose, as the same thing might have
been said of Lot, and any other righteous person who
happened to be in the city. On this principle there
was no better reason for delivering him than for de
livering them. But God had declared that he would
not slay the righteous with the wicked ; he did slay
the children, and the inference is plain, that the chil
dren were guilty. , , .
1 shall appeal to another passage, in proof ol the lm-

* Rom. ,. 12.

f lb. 14.

X Gen. xviii. 25.

250

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

putation of guilt to the posterity of Adam, and their
obnoxiousness to punishment. Speaking of the chil
dren of disobedience in whom the evil spirit works, the
apostle adds, " Among whom also we all had our con
versation in times past, in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling
the desires of the flesh and of the mind ; and were by
nature the children of wrath, even as others."* It is
observable, that, while he addresses in the first instance
the Ephesians, who were Gentiles, he afterwards in
cludes himself and his compatriots the Jews in this ac
count, shewing that he is describing the moral state of
the whole human race. It is an assertion contrary to
evidence, that he is speaking of the Gentiles alone : for
why did he change the person, if the subject of discourse
was the same ? Would it not be absurd in a man
who was talking to an assembly of the poor or the dis
eased about their case, suddenly to change his style,
and include himself in the number, while he was rich
and in good health ? It is vain, therefore, to pretend
that the words, " and were by nature children of wrath,"
are refeTrible only to the Gentiles. Whatever they sig
nify, they are descriptive of the natural state of all
unconverted men. It has been contended that the
phrase, " by nature," simply means, really or truly, and
that men are really children of wrath, in consequence of
their wicked practices. In this manner, the argument
for original sin from this passage is evaded. Undoubt
edly this is not the obvious sense of the expres
sion, the sense suggested by the use of it on other
occasions, and arising from the understood import of the
term, nature. What any thing is by nature, it is by
its original constitution. This quality is coeval with it.
We oppose what is natural to what is acquired. If,
then, tbe apostle meant that tbe Ephesians and others
were children of wrath by practice, had incurred the
anger of God by their personal sins,itmustbe acknowl
edged that he did not adopt the most luminous mode of
conveying his meaning. The word " nature" was un
happily chosen, being calculated, as no explanation of
it is subjoined, to give a false idea of the moral condi
tion of men ; and, accordingly, it has led to the conclu
sion, that they are objects of the Divine disapproba
tion when they come into the world. It is alleged,
however, that this interpretation of the word is not
without the authority of the apostle himself; and a
passage is produced, in which it is said that nature un
questionably signifies practice or custom : " Doth not
even nature itself — clvth i cpvo-i; — teach you, that, if a
man have long hair, it is a shame unto him ?"f What
else can <f vo-ic here signify but custom ? Although, how
ever, cpvo-ic should mean custom in one solitary instance,
this would not be a good reason for so explaining it
in other instances, where the connexion did not necessa
rily require it. It is not sound criticism to say, A word
occurs once in an unusual sense, and therefore we may
give it the same sense when it occurs again. But
there is no cause for departing from the common ac
ceptation in the passage before us, " The emphasis
used, cwTit i averts, nature itself, shews," says Mr. Ed
wards, " that the apostle does not mean custom, but na
ture in the proper sense. It is true it was long custom
that made having the head covered a token of subjec
tion, and a feminine habit or appearance, as it is custom
that makes any outward action or word a sign or signi
fication of any thing; but nature itself, nature in its
proper sense, teaches that it is a shame for a man to
appear with the established signs of the female sex.
Nature itself shews it to be a shame for a father to bow
down or kneel to his own child or servant, because bow
ing down is, by custom, an established token of sub
jection and submission.":): To express his idea more
clearly and concisely, as custom had made long hair
Eph. ii. 3. f 1 Cor. xi. 14.
\ Edwards on Original Sin, Part ii. Chap. 3. J 3.

a part of a woman's dress, nature itself taught that it
was a shame for a man to wear it, because, by doing1
so, he confounded the visible distinction between the
sexes. The result of this discussion is, that nature is
to be understood literally, when we are said to be "by
nature children of wrath," and the meaning is, that wa
are born in a state of condemnation.
Thus I have proved the first proposition, that in con
sequence of the sin of Adam, his posterity are obnoxious
to the penalty.
I observe, in the second place, That in consequence
of his sin, they come into the world in a state of
depravity. Pelagius and his followers maintained that,
notwithstanding what had happened to Adam, the
power of free will remains entire, and that, independent
ly of Divine grace, man is capable of beginning, carry
ing on, and consummating good works ; that God gives
us the ability, but that we can exert it without farther
assistance. Socinus treated the idea of innate depravi
ty as a fable and a dream. The sin of Adam was so
far from corrupting his posterity, that it did not destroy
the image of God in himself, and it remains entire in
all other men. Arminians admit that we are born less
pure than Adam was, and that we have a greater incli
nation to sin, which is apt to be excited even by a
light occasion ; but as far as this inclination, or concu
piscence as it is called, is from nature, and not con
tracted by vicious custom, it is not properly sin. It is
merely the natural appetite or desire of having what is
agreeable, and avoiding what is disagreeable ; which,
as long as the will does not consent to it, is not sinful,
but furnishes matter for tbe exercise of virtue. Virtue
is discovered by conquering the desire of the flesh ; but
there would be no place for it, if the flesh spontaneous
ly desired nothing but what reason approved. Papists
hold the same opinion concerning concupiscence, be
cause, finding that it remains in all men, they are under
the necessity of denying that it is sin, to uphold the
doctrine of their Church, that original sin is completely
taken away in baptism. And thus both combine to
set aside the argument for original sin, founded on this
tendency, this proneness to evil, which is one of the
strongest proofs that our nature is tainted. Yet it is of
this proneness to evil, this inflammability of our nature
which every spark is in danger of kindling, that Paul
speaks in the seventh chapter of tbe Epistle to the
Romans: "I had not known sin, but by the law:
for I had not known desire, except the law had said,
Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by
the commandment, wrought in me all manner of de
sire" or " concupiscence. For without the law sin
was dead."* Here he expressly calls concupiscence
sin, and represents it as flowing from a sinful prin
ciple in the heart; but it seems that, before his
conversion, he was as blind as Arminians and Pa
pists, and never suspected it to be sin, till he be
came better acquainted with the law, and found the
desire to be so importunate and imperious, that the
more it was forbidden, it was the more violent in its
operation. The doctrine of our Church is thus stated in the
Confession of Faith : " By this sin," of our first pa
rents, " they fell from their original righteousness, and
communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and
wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul
and body. They being the root of all mankind, the
guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death
in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their pos
terity, descending from them by ordinary generation."!
Again, in the chapter on free will, it says, "Man,
by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all
ability to any spiritual good accompanying salvation;
so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that

* Rom. vii. 7. 8.

\ Conf. c. vi. } 2, and 3.

THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

251

good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength,
to convert himself or to prepare himself thereunto."*
A difficulty meets us at the outset. If, as we say,
the soul of man is depraved from the commencement,
what shall we say ? Does God create it sinful ? Does
he infuse depraved principles at its first formation ?
Then he must be the author of sin ? or is it pure when
it comes from his hands ? and is it contaminated by its
connexion with the body ? Then we may ask, How
can there be moral contagion in a piece of matter ?
or how can the union of a spirit to it, cause the pol
lution of that spirit ? These are questions which can
not be answered. They are curious, but not useful.
They may perplex us ; but a solution of them is not
necessary to the proof of tbe doctrine, which rests
upon arguments supplied by both Scripture and ex
perience. Let us begin with Scripture. Our first proof shall
be taken from an early period of the history of mankind.
It is said before the flood, " And God saw that the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually."! Lest we should think that
the description is applicable only to tbe corrupt genera
tion which then lived, and may be regarded as a
singular one, since tbe Divine patience would no longer
bear it, God said again after the flood, " The imagination
of man's heart is evil from his youth ;"+ intima
ting that, notwithstanding this awful testimony against
sin, it would still abound in tbe world ; for it was like
a stream which, having suffered a temporary check from
some external cause, will continue to flow, because it
has a permanent source. The word rendered imagina
tion, signifies a figment, or formation; and, in its pre
sent use, denotes a device or contrivance of the mind.
" The imagination of man's heart" is expressive of the
operation of his faculties, intellectual and moral. All
his thoughts, all his desires, all his purposes are evil,
expressly or by implication ; because the subject of
them is avowedly sinful, or because they do not pro
ceed from a holy principle, and are not directed to a
proper end. The words are pleonastic, since to say,
that " every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is
evil,"*was sufficient ; but, as if with a design to exclude
the possibility of evasion, and to exhibit the truth in the
most emphatic manner, It is added, that they are " only
evil," evil without any mixture of good, and they are
evil " continually," or all the day. It is not occasion
ally that the human soul is thus under the influence of
depravity ; but this is its habitual state. It seems im
possible to construct a sentence, which should more
distinctly express its total corruption. Now, there
must be some cause of this constant and universal ef
fect ; and the sacred historian refers it to our nature it
self, when he affirms that the imagination of man's
heart is evil " from his youth." The word translated
" youth," is not only used to denote the period of life
commonly so called, but comprehends infancy also, and,
in the presenfrcase, must be thus understood ; for we
cannbt account for it, that man should be sinful from
his youth, unless the seeds of evil exist in his constitu
tion, unless he be sinful from the commencement of his
being. Such a description would not have been given,
if we came into the world perfectly pure, or with mere
ly a tendency to evil, which might be checked in innu
merable cases by education, and a variety of circum
stances. The tree must be corrupted to the core,
which produced corrupt fruit at first, and continues to
produce it as long as it stands. There is not a saving
clause in this description, not a word introduced in fa
vour of human nature ; but it is portrayed as an unmixed
mass of corruption.
Let us next attend to the words of David in the fifty-

first Psalm, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and
in sin did my mother conceive me."* The occasion
of composing it, was his conduct in the matter of
Uriah, wbich, when tbe time of reflection came, ap
peared to him in the most odious light, and gave rise
to deep contrition, humble confession, and earnest
prayer. But it was not this sin alone by which he
was affected. The sins of his past life presented
themselves to his mind in a long train, and accom
panied with great aggravations ; and tracing them back,
step by step, he arrived at the source from which they
had all proceeded, the original depravity of his nature.
In this sense only can the words quoted be understood.
To suppose him to refer to some sin of his parents, is
absurd ; for if they bad been guilty of some sin, in re
lation to him, the mention of it would have been out
of place on this occasion, when he was not confessing
their guilt but his own. When a penitent betakes
himself to the mercy of God, he is thinking of his
own transgressions, and anxious to obtain pardon for
himself; he certainly will not go out of his way, to
enumerate the faults of others, and least of all, in the
form of crimination. Why should David have recalled,
at this time, the sin of his mother? Was it the cause
ofhis sin? or would it serve to alleviate it? No; he
had sinned from his own choice, and he was willing
to bear all the blame. Besides, we know of no sin
of his parents, which he could have in his eye. He
was not born in fornication, but in lawful wedlock ;
his mother was not an adulteress, but a virtuous
woman. She and Jesse were both sinners, as a)l men
are ; but no particular criminality attached to them, on
account of the birth of their son. It is equally absurd
to suppose him to mean, that he was born with a con
stitution which inclined him to licentiousness. What
had this to do with his mother? If he inherited it
from her, does he not throw an unseemly reflection
upon her character, such as we should hardly expect
from the most worthless of mankind? If he merely
intended to plead his natural constitution as an allevi
ation of his crime, we may ask, Is it the character of
a peninent, to endeavour to exculpate himself? Could
he allege, as an apology, his physical temperament,
without virtually insinuating, that it was owing more
to God than to himself, that he had committed the sin
to which it inclined him? Yet to this wretched shift
have some had recourse, in order to evade the evidence
from this passage, for original sin. The testimony is
decisive. David was " shapen in iniquity, and con
ceived in sin." Sin was an element of his being; the
embryo in the womb was tainted. His nature was
depraved before he saw the light. Men might have
called him an innocent; but, in the eyes of God, he
was polluted. How could he be corrupted, before
he was capable of acting and thinking, but by the
transmission of moral defilement from Adam, his fed
eral head?
The next passage is taken from the conversation of
our Lord with Nicodemus : " That which is born of
tbe flesh is flesh."! This word "flesh" occurs in
different senses. Sometimes it signifies men, who are
so called, because they live in fleshly bodies : "All
flesh is grass." "The end of all flesh is come:"
" Except these days were shortened, no flesh should
be saved."! & also signifies the corrupt principle in
man, or his nature as depraved : " In my flesh dwelleth
no good thing." "If ye live after the flesh, ye shall
die." " The flesh lusteth against the spirit." "They
who are in the flesh, cannot please God."|| It is used
in both senses, in the passage which we are consider
ing : and this is not the only instance of the occurrence

» Conf. c. ix. j 3. f Gen. vi. 5.

X Gen. viii. 21.

* Psalm li. 5. T John in. 6.
t Isa. xl. 6. Gen. vi. 13. Matt. xxiv. 22.
|| Rom. vii. 18. lb. " "'' "

n. la. matt. xxiv. .".. ...
viii. 13. Gal. v. 17. Rom. via. 8.

252
of the

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

01 thesame word, with two different meanings attach
ed to it, m the same sentence: "Let the dead bury
their dead ;"* that is, let the spiritually dead bury
those who are literally dead, as is evident from the
occasion on which the words were spoken. In the
first place, the flesh signifies man. Our Lord is
speaking of two births, of which he ascribes the first
to the flesh, and the second to the Spirit. The Spirit
is the Author of the second, as he affirms in the pre
ceding verse, and man is the instrument of the first.
Natural and supernatural generation are referred to
their respective causes. There can therefore be no
doubt, that, in the first place, tbe flesh signifies man:
There can be as little doubt, that, in the second place,
it signifies moral corruption; for it is opposed to spirit,
or that which the operation of the Spirit produces, and
this is holiness. To imagine the meaning to be that
man begets man, would represent our Lord as uttering
with solemnity a saying unworthy of him, since it
conveys no information, and destroys tbe contrast be
tween the two parts of the verse. The Spirit generates
something totally different from that which the flesh
generates. But the subjects of regeneration are sanc
tified; the subj ects of natural birth must therefore have
pollution conveyed to them from their parents. I do
not see that any other sense can be reasonably put
upon the words ; and if this interpretation is just, we
have the testimony of Him who knew what was in
man, in opposition to those who maintain that we are
pure at our birth, or that our nature is so slightly
tainted, that it retains much of its original goodness.
For, let it be observed, that flesh, when metaphorically
applied, denotes moral evil alone, moral evil without
mixture. " Those who are in the flesh," in whom it
is the reigning principle, " cannot please God." There
is nothing about them of which he approves. When
it is represented as remaining in the saints, it still sus
tains the character of unmingled evil. Hence Paul
says, that "in his flesh," the corrupt part of him,
"there dwelt no good thing,"! and declares that "the
flesh lusts against the spirit," contends against the re
newed part of our nature ; " and these are contrary, the
one to the other."! At his natural birth, man, accord
ing to our Saviour, is flesh, wholly a polluted thing;
it is only at his supernatural birth that he becomes
spirit, or is inspired with the principles of holiness.
I might argue from the words of Job, " Who can
bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? not one."|| He
is speaking of the frailty and misery of man, who is
born of a woman, and is of few days, and full of trou
ble ; and he assigns the cause. He is afflicted and
mortal, not merely because he is guilty of many per
sonal sins, but because he is come out of an unclean
thing. He is the descendant of a polluted race; he
inherited corruption from his parents, who were the
channel in which it was conveyed to him, from the
original source of impurity.
A general argument may be founded on the doctrine
of Scripture respecting the necessity of regeneration.
We must be born again ; we must " put off the old
man, and put on the new;"§ we are "saved by the
washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy
Ghost, shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ
our Saviour. "% All this is unintelligible, if the nature
of man is not wholly depraved. Hence those who
deny original sin, or entertain superficial views of it,
aie muciun the same condition with Nicodemus, when
the subject was first proposed to him, and ask, How
can this be ? Regeneration, the name of which they
are compelled to admit, dwindles into baptism, or a
profession of Christianity, or a reformation of life.
They cannot understand it to mean a radical change

of disposition, because, upon tbeir principles, such a
change is not necessary. If man is pure when he
comes into the world, religion cannot make hiin better;
and if he has some unruly appetites, but possesses no
bler principles to control them, he needs no assistance,
or only such assistance as is afforded by the external
teaching of the word, and the dispensations of Provi
dence. But no person, who takes the Bible as his
instructor, can believe that nothing more is wanted. A
change is there described, which human power can
not effect, and which is the work of the Spirit of God ;
a change so great and so complete, that it is fitly com
pared to a second birth, a creation out of nothing, a
resurrection from the dead. Regeneration doesnotcon-
sist in repairing our injured moral system, but in ma
king it anew. It is pre-supposed that we have lost ori
ginal righteousness, are thoroughly depraved, and whol
ly disqualified for serving and glorifying God. The
Scriptural doctrine of regeneration is inseparably con
nected with the doctine of original sin. Both stand or
fall together.
A proof of original sin may be deduced from the
early appearances of depravity in children. The young
of the lion and the tiger may be comparatively harm
less, and submit to be handled, because they have
not yet acquired their natural strength, and their dis
positions are not fully unfolded ; but even then, they
will give indications of the ferocity by which their
species is distinguished. It is not long till infants
begin to shew, by their fruit, that they are shoots from
a bitter root. "I sinned," says Augustine, " in my in
fancy; and although I do not remember what I then
did, I learn it from the conduct of others at the same
age. I discovered dispositions which would be blam
ed in me now, and which, when we grow up, we are
at pains to eradicate. I sought with tears, what it
would have been improper to give me ; I was indignant
at my superiors, and my parents, because they would
not comply with my wishes, and attempted to avenge
myself by striking them. I have seen a child that
could not speak, full of envy, and turn pale with anger
at another that was suckled along with it."* We may
add to these instances, the deceit and falsehood which
are found in children, and illustrate the saying of the
Psalmist: "The wicked are estranged from the
womb ; they go astray as soon as they are born, speak
ing lies."! We are apt to look upon these things with
a smile of indulgence, and to ascribe them to ignorance,
or the absence of reason, rather than to depravity.
But, if they are in themselves at variance with the Di
vine law, to which man's nature was at first exactly
conformed, a change must have taken place in his moral
frame, or there would have been no disorder in it at any
period of his life, no movement which was not in unison
with the standard. Can we conceive any thing similar
in the infant Redeemer ; any signs of impatience, jeal
ousy, and anger, even a passing emotion to disturb the
calm of his mind ? Let us think of Him, and learn
what human nature would have been from the first mo
ment of life, if it had retained its primitive innocence.
The last proof which I shall produce of original sin
is, the universal depravity of mankind, for which it is
impossible to account in a satisfactory manner, unless
we admit the depravity of their nature. If it is al
lowed, on all hands, that a tree is known by its fruit,
and a man's disposition by his words and actions, this
rule ought, in fairness, to be applied to the whole
race; and, finding them all corrupt in practice, wa
are bound to conclude that they are corrupt in heart.
Besides the evidence afforded by our personal expe
rience, and by history which supplies its defects, the
testimony of Scripture, from which there is no appeal,
is decisive.

* Matt. viii. 2
|| Job xiv. 4.

f Rom. vii. 18.
J Col. iii. 9, 10.

t Gal. v. 17.
H Tit. iii. 5, 6.

* August. Confess. Lib. I. cap. vii. f Psalm lviii. 3.

THE FALL OF MAN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

253

In the first part of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul
discusses the subject, and proves, by an induction of
particulars, that Jews and Gentiles were both under
sin. The Gentiles had all fallen into idolatry ; and not
liking to retain God in their knowledge, were given up
to a reprobate mind, and vile affections, in consequence
of which they sunk into the lowest state of moral de
gradation. No kind of sin can be conceived which was
not practised among them ; and their wisest men did
not escape the contagion. There was not one of them
whose character would bear investigation. Common
readers are imposed upon by the extravagant praises
bestowed upon certain individuals, but Paul has pro
nounced a sentence of reprobation upon their most re
nowned philosophers ; and from what we know of them,
it is not too much to say, that their virtue, which is ad
mired when dead, if it were alive and displayed before
our eyes, would excite our abhorrence.
The depravity of the Gentiles may not excite sur
prise, because their religion, instead of restraining it,
furnished a stimulus to the most abominable vices, in
the example of their profligate gods. Were the Jews
better than they ? They had a law published by God
himself, and enforced by promises and threatenings ;
and prophets were sent to enjoin obedience, and to re
prove their transgressions. Yet the history of the
Jews is a continued narrative of rebellion against the
authority of heaven. In the wilderness they provoked
the Holy One of Israel ; they revolted from bis worship
in their own land ; blessed or chastised, they were still
the same, a refractory and ungrateful people. Every
person knows how low was the state of religion and
morality among them at the time of our Saviour's ap
pearance. A review of the history of the world in various na
tions and ages would confirm the doctrine of Scrip
ture concerning the entrance of sin, and the depravity
of our species ; and Christendom, with all its advan
tages, would furnish as ample proof as the other regions
of the earth. Sin, although there subjected to some
restraints, appears with great power, and in many an
odious form, and men every where exhibit the same
general character. There is no way of accounting for
this state of things, but upon the hypothesis, that man
is in a fallen state, and has lost the image ofhis Maker.
Accidental differences among men, such as the colour
of the skin, and tbe formation of the features, may
be explained by local and occasional causes ; but the
shape of the body, the organs of sense with which it is
furnished, the contrivances for receiving and digesting
food, and the other operations by which life is sustain
ed, and which are found to prevail throughout the vari
eties of the species, we consider as effects of a general
und permanent law. If we reason in the same man
ner concerning universal depravity, we must come to
the conclusion, that there is something radically wrong
in human nature, some inherent principle which gives
rise to this uniformity, for which external and adventi
tious circumstances are not sufficient to account. As,
in physical science, we discover the properties of mat
ter in general, and the distinguishing properties of par
ticular substances by experiment, so the moral quality
of human nature is ascertained by our own observations,
and that of others transmitted to us in authentic chan
nels. Whence is it that depravity exists in all individ
uals of a particular age, and has existed in all past gen
erations ?
Some endeavour to explain this fact by tbe influence
of bad example, by which they must mean, that men,
although capable of virtue, and born with good dis
positions, are led astray by seeing others walking
in the paths of vice. Now, in order to be consis
tent, as they cannot deny that depravity is very gen
eral, they must admit that bad example is general.
The cause must be commensurate with the effect.

If it were only here and there that bad example is
exhibited, it would be only here and there that cor
ruption would be diffused. It follows, therefore, that
there has been bad example in all ages and nations,
in all provinces, cities, villages, and families. Hence
it appears, that this is a preposterous attempt to ac
count for a thing by itself. We ask, How it comes
to pass that men are so generally corrupt ? and our op
ponents answer, It is because their conduct is generally
wicked. But this is the very fact about which we are
inquiring. We say to them, Explain it to us, and they
refer us to the fact itself. If human nature is not de
praved, what is the cause that men, every where and at
all times, exhibit bad example ? If they are not wick
ed in heart, why are they wicked in practice? But
further, if human nature is not depraved, why is bad
example so readily imitated ? What gives it such
extensive influence? Common sense would dictate,
that there must be a tendency to evil, since it is
so generally followed. What always takes place, must
be owing to a permanent cause. Surely if men came
into the world without sin, they would be more likely
to imitate good than bad example; and if they had on
ly a slight inclination to it, the goodness of the example
would, in many cases, prove a check to that inclination,
and the result would be an extensive prevalence of virtu
ous practice. This attempt to account for the corruption
of mankind, independently of the corruption of tbeir na
ture, is extremely foolish. The general imitation of bad
example demonstrates an innate propensity to evil ; and
this is the point for which we are contending.
Others would account for the depravity of mankind
by the abuse of freewill, by which they mean the
power which man possesses of choosing and refusing,
by his own sovereign determination, independently of
motives. It has been justly observed, that such free
will is of all causes the most uncertain. It cannot be
known beforehand how it will decide ; and it is utterly
inconceivable that a cause so unsteady and capricious
should produce a uniform effect. There is a manifest
absurdity, therefore, in this attempt to account for the
depravity of men in all ages and nations. You mio-ht
as well account for the regular return of day and niiriit
by the motion of a weathercock. We may ask,
Whence have men, in all ages, abused their free-will ?
Why, if they are masters of their own volitions, have
they always chosen in one way? How is it, if their
wills are equally free to good and evil, that they
have, not determined in favour of good ? If we found
that, in every trial, one of the scales of a balance de
scended, we should conclude that it was heavier than
the other ; and can we draw any other conclusion re
specting the will, on observing how regularly it decides
in favour of evil ? It has chosen evil among Jews,
Gentiles, Mahometans, and Christians : it chooses it in
Europe, Africa, Asia, and America. This is not the
work of chance ; it is the result of a previous bias.
The will is inclined to evil, and therefore human nature
is depraved.
Nothing is more unmeaning than the declamations
of some men concerning human nature, because they
are contrary to experience. If, when they tell us of its
virtuous dispositions, they mean any thing more than
the authority which conscience retains to a certain ex
tent, the instincts and affections which we possess in
common with the lower animals, a sense of honour
which is pride disguised under a decent name, the civil
ities of life, and the performance of certain dutips which
are enjoined by the laws of society and are enforced by a
regard to interest; if the virtuous dispositions which
they ascribe to human nature signify any thing purer
and more excellent, they affirm what is false, and what
they must know to be false, if they are not mere dream
ers wrapt up in the contemplation of the theories of
the closet, and ignorant of the realities of life. What

254

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

a disgusting spectacle does the history of mankind pre-
Bent ! It is the history of war, oppression and blood ;
of profaneness and intemperance, avarice and selfish
ness, falsehood and fraud. There is scarcely a page of
the annals of the world which does not furnish proof
of the doctrine which we have endeavoured to establish.
The institutions of civil society bear a testimony to it ;
for what renders necessary so many definitions of per
sonal rights, and so many securities of person and prop
erty, but the vicious dispositions of mankind, which
prompt them incessantly to encroach upon others, and
to promote their own interests by artifice and violence?
What embitters the relations of life, but wayward tem
pers and ungovernable passions ? And what makes in
dividuals unhappy, but insatiable desires, fretfulness,
impatience, discontent, remorse for the past, and fear
ful forebodings of the future ? Every appearance be
speaks a fallen race ; and upon a review of the crimes
and miseries which abound in the world, we are led
to the conclusion, that " all flesh have corrupted their
ways." " Lo ! this only have I found, that God hath
made man upright, but they have sought out many in
ventions."* The doctrine of original sin places human nature in
a very degraded light; but this is no argument against
its truth. The question is, not what we should wish
it to be, but what it actually is. It could serve no pur
pose to represent it as pure, if it is corrupted ; possess
ed of power to do the will of God, if it is dead in tres
passes and sins. Let us remember, that this descrip
tion of human nature is applicable to ourselves. Each
of us was born a sinner, and a son of perdition. What
reason have we to be thankful that God has remembered
us in our lost estate, and sent his Son to redeem us
from it ! Through him man rises from the ruins of the
fall, and in a better world shall enjoy happiness which
will fear no forfeiture, and know no end.

LECTURE XLVIII.
ON THE COVENANT OF GRACE.
Origin of Redemption in the Covenant of Grace— Meaning of
the term, Covenant — Transacted between the Father and the
Son — The Father viewed as a Party to the Covenant — The
Son as a Party — His character of Representative, Surety, and
Mediator — Remarks on a distinction between the Covenant
of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace.
Having illustrated the fall of man and its fatal con
sequences, in some preceding Lectures, I proceed to
speak of his Redemption. It is universally acknowl
edged, that God might have left our guilty race to per
ish in their sins. He was certainly not bound in jus
tice to interfere on their behalf ; but as the righteous
Governor of the world, he might have proceeded to up
hold the authority of his law, by executing its penalty
upon the disobedient, and to give an awful example
of vengeance to the intelligent inhabitants of the various
provinces of his empire. His goodness did not require
that he should rescue his rebellious subjects from the
misery which they had brought upon themselves, be
cause he had already given an ample display of it in
their creation, and it was still exhibited in the happi
ness diffused through all the regions of innocence. His
glory does not depend upon the manifestation of any
particular attribute, but upon the manifestation of them
all on proper occasions, and in full harmony. He is
glorified when he bestows blessings upon the righte
ous, and is equally glorified when he inflicts punish
ment upon the wicked. The event shews that his
glory is greater in the salvation, than it would have
* Eccl. vii. 29.

been in the destruction, of men ; but it ought to be con
sidered, that his glory means nothing but the manii'es.
tation of his character to his creatures, and that, as
there was no necessity for sucb a manifestation, and it
could not contribute in any degree to his felicity, it was
perfectly voluntary, and might have been withheld.
The only necessity which can be admitted, is that, if he
shew himself at all to his creatures, the discovery shall
correspond to the greatness and excellence of his nature.
He might not have created a single being to contem
plate and admire his perfections ; and wb^n those who
were admitted to the wonderful spectacle were guilty
of dishonouring him, he might have farther revealed
himself only in wrath, pouring out the vials of his in
dignation upon the polluted spot which they inhabit
ed, and turning it into a scene of desolation. What
would the loss of our world have been to Him in
whose eyes it is as nothing, yea, less than nothing
and vanity ? It follows from these observations, the
truth of which cannot be disputed, that the plan
which he has devised for the restoration of fallen men
to purity and happiness, originated in his sovereign
grace. In speaking of the work of redemption, we must as
cend to its source, and begin with the consideration
of that eternal agreement between the Persons of the
Godhead, on which the whole dispensation of mercy
to mankind is founded. It is usually called a cove
nant, and, on account of its origin, and of the manner
in which its benefits are communicated, it is denomi
nated the Covenant of Grace. But, in using this
term, we must not give loose reins to our fancy, and
invest a divine transaction with the forms and techni
calities of a human bargain. This, I fear, has been
sometimes done, — with the best intentions, I have no
doubt, but with an unhappy effect, as it brings down
a subject which should always be reflected upon with
reverence and admiration, to a level with the every
day affairs of miserable mortals, and is calculated to
make us forget its sublimity in the minuteness and
familiarity of the detail.
The Hebrew word JV13, and the Greek word
<f«0«t», which are translated covenant, are used in
different senses. rVO) in several places, evidently.
signifies an appointment or constitution, as, for ex
ample, when God speaks of " his covenant with day
and night," when the idea of an agreement or stipula
tion cannot for a moment be admitted. It evidently
bears the meaning of an appointment or ordinance, un
less we choose rather to call it a promise, when God
says to Noah, " I will establish my covenant with
you ; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the
waters of a flood, neither shall there be any more a
flood to destroy the earth." We must understand it
as signifying a promise, when God is said to have
made a covenant with Abraham, saying, " Unto thee
will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inherit
ance." In the Christian Scriptures, the word Jiaflwn
occurs in all the following senses, — a promise, a com
mand, a religious constitution or dispensation, a cove
nant, and perhaps in one instance or two, a testament.
Our translators, I think, have confined themselves to
the two latter words, using sometimes the one and
sometimes the other, I might almost say arbitrarily,
but without doubt injudiciously. We read, in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, of the mediator of a testament,
and the surety of a testament, although every person
must see that the word, covenant, should have been
preferred, because we know well what the mediator
or surety of a covenant is, while it is impossible to
conceive in what sense these terms can be applied to
a testament. I have made these remarks, to shew that
it is not from the simple occurrence of the Hebrew or the
Greek words, that we are to infer a federal transaction

COVENANT OF GRACE.

255

between God and man, or between any other parties,
but from the circumstances of the case, which alone
can determine in what sense the terms are employed.
We may meet with them where no covenant is im
plied, and we may find a covenant to have been made,
where neither of them is used to express it. I would
farther observe, that we should beware of falling into
the mistake of some superficial readers of the Scrip
tures, who have occasionally misinterpreted passages
in which the word occurs, by explaining it of the cov
enant of works, or the covenant of grace, when some
thing different is intended. I should wander from the
subject of the lecture, were I to examine the various
places in which it occurs. I shall take notice only
of one passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which
speaks of a first covenant that was not faultless, and
of a second which succeeded it.* If any man read
this passage with attention, he will perceive that nei
ther the covenant of works, nor the covenant of grace
properly so called, is intended, but that these cove
nants are the two great dispensations of religion, of
which tbe one was established by the ministry of Mo
ses, and the other by the ministry of Christ. Perhaps
it would have accorded better with the design of the
Apostle, to have translated the original word by dis
pensation ; but it is certain, that the first covenant was
the Jewish economy, and the second is the Christian.
There are various considerations, from which we
may infer the existence of the covenant of grace, or
of that agreement relative to the salvation of sinners,
into which God entered with his son before the foun
dation of the world. The character of a Surety, which
is given to our Saviour in Scripture, points him out as
the representative of others, and as having come un
der an engagement to fulfil certain terms in their name,
and for their benefit. The title of the Second Adam,
and the comparison, or rather the contrast, which is
drawn between him and the first man, implies, that he
resembled the latter, in beingafederal head, by whose
conduct others are affected. The frequent declarations,
that he came into the world to do the will of his Fa
ther, import, that the Father had proposed a certain
design to him, and that he had undertaken to accom
plish it ; and this conclusion is confirmed by the im
portant circumstance, that promises are made to him
of a glorious reward. The transaction is clearly ex
pressed in the following words : " When thou shalt
make his soul an offering for sin," or rather, " if his
soul shall make a propitiatory sacrifice, he shall see
his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleas
ure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand ;"! for
here we have a condition and a promise. Indeed,
the whole scheme of redemption involves the idea
of a covenant ; while one Divine person prescribes
certain services to the other, the other performs them ;
and the result is, not only his own personal exaltation,
but the eternal happiness of millions whose cause he
had espoused. That this transaction was anterior to
the beginning of time, is evident from the assertion
of an Apostle, that "eternal life was promised before
the foundation of the world ;" for as a promise al
ways supposes some person to whom it is made, and
the human race had then no existence, it must have
been made to Christ as the representative of his peo
ple. May we not apply to this occasion the follow
ing words ? "I was set up from everlasting, from the
beginning, ere ever the earth was. — Then I was by
him, as one brought up with him, and I was daily his
delight, rejoicing always before him ; rejoicing in the
habitable parts of the earth ; and my delights were
with the sons of men."! 1° 'he opinion of many, this
covenant is expressly mentioned in the eighty-ninth
Psalm : " I have made a covenant with my chosen, I
•Heb. viii. 7. f Isa. liii. 10. } Prov. viii. 23,30, 31,

have sworn unto David my servant. Thy seed will I
establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all gen
erations."* There is no doubt that the primary refer
ence is to tbe covenant of royalty, in which the king
dom was promised to David and his descendants ; but
there can be no question that a greater than David is -
here, namely, his illustrious Son, who is sometimes
called after his name, and in whom the promise has
been fulfilled ; for God has given to him, according to
the words of the angel who appeared to his mother,
" the throne of his father David, and of his kingdom
there shall be no end."! By reading the psalm, you
will be convinced that the language is too sublime,
and the things foretold are too great, to admit of being
limited to any earthly monarch, or race of monarchs,
however extensive their dominions, and however glo
rious their achievements. It is the antitype of David,
the elect of God, as he is styled by Isaiah, the ob
ject of his peculiar choice and dearest love, with whom
this covenant was made, by which " mercy is built up
for ever, and the divine faithfulness is established in
the very heavens."
It may be objected, that a covenant could not have
been made between the Father and the Son from eter
nity, when our Lord had not assumed our nature ; be
cause the transaction supposes not only two distinct
persons, but two distinct wills, and we are assured
that they are, in essence, numerically one. But the
objection will have no weight with any one who be
lieves the doctrine of the Trinity. It is possible, in
deed, to propose questions which he cannot answer,
and to start difficulties which he cannot solve; but it
is worthy of attention, that the reasoning of his antag
onists is not founded upon their knowledge, but upon
their ignorance. They do not know, that the thing
to which they object is impossible; they merely are
unable to conceive its possibility, and hence draw the
hasty conclusion, that it could not take place. If we
admit that there are distinct persons in the Godhead,
we must also admit, that the attributes of a person be
long to each, namely, understanding and will. How
this is consistent with the most perfect unity of the
Divine essence, we may be unable to explain ; but the
testimony of Scripture is a sufficient foundation of
faith. The Father has a will, and the Son has a will ;
for, on the contrary supposition, they would be in
every respect the same ; and the union of these two
wills, with respect to the salvation of men, and the
means of its accomplishment, is that covenant which
is the subject of our present inquiry.
As, in every covenant, there are parties who come
under mutual engagements, it is necessary to speak of
the Father and the Son under this designation ; and, in
doing so, we can hardly avoid ideas and expressions
which bear too close an analogy to the. thoughts and
proceedings of men ; but let us not adopt them from
choice, and, as I have, formerly remarked, degrade the
subject, by a too familiar illustration. A Divine trans
action we cannot understand, except by referring to a
human transaction to which it bears some resemblance ;
but we should exclude every thing low, every thing
which is allied to human infirmity. When two men
enter into a covenant, one of them makes a proposal to
the other, who immediately, or after deliberation, ac
cedes to it. We must not think, however, that, in the
present case, tbe proposal preceded the consent in the
order of time, or that it was the proposal of the one
party, which turned the attention of the other to tbe
subject, and gained his concurrence. Who does not
see the impropriety of such an imagination, as the par
ties were Divine persons, to whom we cannot ascribe
a succession of thoughts, without virtually denying
the infinity and immutability of their knowledge, and

* Ver. 3, and 4.

f Luke i. 32, 33.

256

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

Whom we cannot conceive to consult together after tbe
manner of men, without imputing to them limited
views, and a gradual accumulation of ideas? Who
does not see, that a single and harmonious act of the
1 ersons of the Trinity, was sufficient to form and to
ratify all those purposes which are executed in time ?
If there be any expressions in Scripture, which seem
to favour rather a successive process than a simultane
ous decision, they are used in condescension to us,
who can judge of things which we have not seen, only
by things which we do see ; and they ought to be ex
plained in the same way with all those passages which
represent God as actuated by human feelings and pas
sions. As the design of this covenant was to recon
cile opposite interests, the interests of heaven and of
earth, on each side there was a party ; the Father act
ing for the honour of the Godhead, and the Son for the
salvation of men.
The Father must not be considered as acting simply
in his personal character ; but as the Son was the fed
eral head ofhis people, whom he undertook to redeem,
so the Father is to be viewed as representing all the
Persons of the Trinity. This is not a refined specula
tion, or a mere subtlety, but a truth which it is neces
sary to know, that our ideas of the subject may be cor
rect. Whether he be considered as demanding satis
faction for sin, or promising eternal happiness, a little
attention will shew us, that he sustained a representa
tive character. Sin was as offensive to the other Per
sons as to him, and their honour was equally engaged
to demand its punishment; so that their concurrence
was indispensably necessary in any expedient for
averting the penalty from the criminals themselves.
One Person, if I may speak so, could not have
adopted it, without the consent of the others. The
promise of eternal life, although made by the Father,
is not exclusively his, but is expressive of the good
ness of the whole Godhead; for that life will consist
in the immediate and perpetual enjoyment of the favour
and love of all its persons. Hence, we find the Apostle
John praying for grace and peace to the churches of
Asia, not only " from him which is, and which was,
and which is to come,"* or the Father; but from the
Holy Ghost, called, on account of the variety and ful
ness ofhis gifts, "the seven Spirits wbich are before
his throne," " and from Jesus Christ, who is the faith
ful Witness, and the first-begotten of the dead, and the
Prince of the kings of the earth." The design of the
covenant was, to vindicate the rights, and to manifest
the glory, not of the Father alone, but of that nature
which is common to him, and the Son, and the Spirit.
By him, indeed, the terms were proposed, and the pro
mises were made ; but the terms were the result of the
united counsels of the Trinity, and their united love
was the source from which the blessings flow. We
should beware of understanding those passages of
Scripture, which ascribe our redemption to the love of
the Father, as if we were indebted for it to him alone,
while they are solely intended to point out the part
which he sustains in this wonderful economy. Re
demption originated in the love of the Godhead ; but
the office of appointing the Saviour, and prescribing
the services to be performed, devolved upon the Father
as being the first in the order of subsistence.
Without insisting further on this topic, I shall pro
ceed to specify some particular characters, in which
the Father acted when he made a covenant with his
Son. , T . .
First, He acted as a God of infinite love. I antici
pated what might be said on this point, in the intro
duction to this lecture. God first loved men, and then
proceeded to provide a Saviour for them, and to settle
(he plan, by which the design of his mission should
* Rev. i. 4.

be accomplished. Their fall and their subsequen
misery were clearly foreseen. He saw them to be
without excuse, without help, and without hope; and
at this moment, his eye pitied them, and his arm
brought them salvation. It is, therefore, to.love that
we must ascribe the making of the covenant, for, as
their character presented no motive, so it has appeared
that he could not be influenced by any other considera
tion than his own benevolence. They are miserable,
it is true, and he is merciful ; but although full of com
passion, he is impelled by no necessity to exercise it,
as manifest from the case of fallen angels, whose doom
is as lamentable as that of men, but against whom the
door of hope is for ever shut. The making of the cov
enant was the effect of pure goodness, and is repre
sented as " gTace given us in Christ, before the world
began." Secondly, He acted as a sovereign God, exercising
his goodness according to his own pleasure, giving
grace to some, and withholding it from others. His
sovereignty was displayed in the fact to which we
have already referred, tbe provision of the means of
redemption for men, while fallen angels were left in a
state of condemnation. Hence, the Redeemer was n at
appointed to enter into an alliance with the angelii al
nature, but to become bone of our bone, and flesh of
our flesh. The reason why creatures of an inferioi
order were preferred to those who so much excelled
them in the spirituality of their essence, and the extent
of their faculties, can be found only in that uncontrol
led will which directs all things in time and eternity.
His sovereignty appears also in the limiting of the
benefits of the covenant to a portion of the human race ;
for, while the first Adam represented all his natural
descendants, the second Adam was the representative
only of his spiritual seed, by whom are meant those
who were to be born again by his grace. Among the
Gentiles, as well as the Jews, there is a "remnant ac
cording to the election of grace,"* and these " weie
chosen in him before the foundation of the world.' \
"He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, ai i
hath compassion on whom he will have compassion.' \.
Thirdly, He acted as a holy and righteous Go!.
While he purposed to display the exceeding riches tf
his grace, he also purposed to glorify his purity and
justiee. It was impossible that he could devise ct
approve of any plan for the salvation of sinners, whii 1
could reflect dishonour upon any perfection of his
nature. But his truth, and justice, and holiness, would
have been dishonoured, because what was due to them
would have been entirely overlooked, if man had been
restored to happiness, while the law which he had
violated was not fulfilled, and no satisfaction was made
for his offences. Against such a result, effectual pre
caution was taken by the selection of the Son of God,
to intervene between him and sinners, and by tbe pro
posal to him of the only terms upon which they could
be restored to favour. He was substituted in the room
of the guilty, and undertook in their room to answer
every claim; he was constituted a federal head, whose
actions should have a legal respect to those whom he
represented, and be held by the Supreme Lavc'-ver as
a full equivalent for all that they were bound .0 joand
to suffer. The duty imposed upon him was to assume
the nature of man, in which alone the terms of a cov
enant made for the salvation of men could be fulfilled ;
and after he had assumed it, to yield obedience to the
precepts of the law, and to endure the execution of its
penalty. In the proposal of these terms, the inflexible
moral rectitude of the Divine nature was demonstrated.
At the moment when love was in full operation, ita
other attributes were held so sacred, that not a step
was taken without securing their rights. God was

Rom. xi. 5. f Eph. i. 4.

} Rom. ix. 15.

COVENANT OF GRACE.

257

willing to pardon, but he would not cancel the guilt
of the sinner, unless an atonement were offered for it.
He would be just in justifying the ungodly; he would
make " mercy and truth meet together, righteousness
and peace embrace each other." Hence you perceive
that the covenant could not have been made with men
themselves; for to them the fulfilment of the terms
would have been impossible. It could be made only
with a Divine Person, who, joining himself to our
nature, could bear almighty wrath, and magnify the
law by perfect obedience.
The other party in the covenant of grace was the
Son, who sustained a public character, and was the
representative of his people. The second covenant,
as we have said, could not have been made with men,
because they were under a sentence of condemnation
for the violation of the first. No other creature, how
ever dignified and richly endowed with moral excel
lencies, was qualified to enter into a federal transaction
with God in behalf of the guilty, because the terms
were too high to be fulfilled even by the ability of an
archangel. The universe was not then in existence ;
but that eye which sees tbe future as well as the pre
sent, did not behold in any of its provinces a single
being, who was worthy to stand forth as an intercessor
for our fallen race ; and if a Divine person had not ap
peared to undertake the arduous task, our condition"
would have been as hopeless as that of tbe apostate
angels, foT whom no remedial scheme has been de
vised. But the Father appointed his own Son, as one
who was both able and willing to befriend us ; and
the office which was assigned to him he most readily
accepted. " Lo, I come : in the volume of the book
it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my
God ; yea, thy law is within my heart."* These words
are expressive of his cheerful compliance with the
terms of the covenant, and they are recorded in the
volume of the divine decree, concerning the salvation
of men, or of the scriptures, which are a faithful tran
script of it. Animated with zeal for the glory of his
Father, and with ineffable love to perishing sinners,
he "rejoiced in the habitable parts of the earth;" that
is, it gave the highest pleasure to his benevolent heart
to assume the character of our Redeemer, although he
was fully apprised of the humiliation and sufferings to
which it would be necessary to submit, in order to ac
complish his design.
In consequence of his consent to the terms of the
covenant, he was constituted the head or representa
tive of his people. He became a public person, who
acted in the name of others. Some may think that, as
men had not yet fallen, it would be more accurate to
say, that it was then agreed that he should become
their representative, as soon as their circumstances
should require his interposition; but, if we believe
that the covenant was made from eternity, and that
they were chosen in him before the foundation of the
world, there seems to be a necessity for admitting that
he was invested with this character prior to the com
mencement of time. A new relation was formed be
tween him and the guilty, in virtue of which he was
made answerable for their guilt, and came under an
obligation to perform the obedience which they owed
to the law, that his righteousness might be imputed to
them, as if they had obeyed and suffered in their own
persons. That this doctrine has a foundation in Scrip
ture is evident from the comparison, formerly referred
to, wbich Paul institutes between Christ and Adam,
whom we acknowledge to have sustained a federal re
lation to his children. " But not as the offence, so
also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one
many be dead ; much more the grace of God, and the
gift by grace, wbich is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath

abounded unto many. And not as it was oy one that
sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to
condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences
unto justification. For if by one man's offence death
reigned by one ; much more they which receive
abundance of grace, and of the gift cf righteousness,
shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as
by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
condemnation ; even so by the righteousness of one the
free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
For as by one man's disobedience many were made
sinners ; so by the obedience of one shall many be
made righteous."* I have quoted this long passage,
in order to show you how the Apostle runs a parallel
between Adam and Christ, with a design to teach us
at once in what respect they agree, and also in what
they disagree. The disagreement consists in the dif
ference of the effects resulting from their respective
agency, the one having been the cause of guilt and
depravity, and death ; the ether, of righteousness and
life. The agreement consists in their public charac
ter, and the representation of Christ is as clearly stated
as that of the first man. In both cases the language
is similar, and implies, not an accidental, but an in
stituted connexion between them and others, in conse
quence of which others are affected by what they
have respectively done. By the one came condemna
tion, by the other justification ; by the one we are made
sinners, and by the other righteous. If Adam had not
been cur federal head, we should not have suffered by
his first transgression more than by his subsequent
sins, or by those of our nearer progenitors ; and we
may reason in the same manner, that, if Christ had not
been our federal head, we should have been no more
benefited by his obedience than by that of any of the
saints. Its merit would have terminated in himself,
and its influence upon us would have been merely that
of example.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ is called the
surety of the covenant-! A surety is a person who
gives security for another, that he will perform some
thing which the other is bound to do ; that is, in case
of failure, will perform it for him. The title, as given
to our Saviour, implies that he came under an obliga
tion to fulfil the condition of the covenant for his peo
ple. He undertook, as we shall afterwards see, to
yield the obedience which they owed to the law, and
to make satisfaction to Divine justice for their sins.
Some, however, have taken a different view of the
matter. Christ, they say, is surety for God to man,
or has pledged himself that, to those who enter into
covenant with God, the promises shall be performed.
It is true, that " all the promises in him are yea, and
in him Amen, unto the glory of God ;"! or, in other
words, that he has ratified them in this sense, that his
blood having been shed as the price of the blessings
which they contain, the performance of them ought to
be confidently expected by believers. But the per
formance depends solely upon the justice and faithful
ness of God. A surety is admitted, when a doubt or
suspicion is entertained of the person for whom he is
bound, and his credit is brought forward to supply
what is wanting in the other. Keeping this idea of a
surety in mind, we shall perceive, to say the least, a
manifest impropriety in calling Christ a surety for
God ; for it implies that the simple promise of God is
not worthy of trust, and could not be depended upon
till it was confirmed by the pledged truth of another.
But the Scriptures represent the word of God as the
sole ground of faith. We must believe, because he
is true and faithful, and will not deceive us. His
word is the highest possible security; it stands in
need of no confirmation ; and if he has been pleased

2H

* Pb. xi. 7, 8.

17

« Rom. v. 16-19. t Heb. vii. 22. t 2 Cor. i. 20.

258

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

to sanction it with his oath, it is not because an oath
was necessary to render it worthy of credit, but in
condescension to human infirmity. " God, willing
more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise
the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an
path ; that by two immutable things, in which it was
impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong
consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon
the hope set before us."* The promise is as immu
table as the oath ; and the latter was added, not to
Tender the former more sure in itself, but to remove
our unreasonable suspicions. How could any person
be a surety for God ? Is his sincerity more fully as
certained ? Has his faithfulness been more clearly
established ? I know not what some men mean, nor
am I sure that they understand themselves, when
they say that Christ was surety for God.
There are others who, granting that he was surety
only for man, explain his suretiship in a manner not
consonant to Scripture. He was surety, tbey say,
that men would perform the obedience which God re
quires from them in the covenant of grace. In some
instances, this mistake is founded upon another res
pecting the nature of the covenant, as being an agree
ment entered into between God and men themselves,
m which spiritual blessings are promised upon certain
conditions. I shall afterwards consider this opinion ;
and, in the mean time, I observe, that the notion of
Christ's being surety for our obedience, receives no
countenance from Scripture. He has, indeed, obtain
ed for his people that grace by which they are ena
bled to obey; but the actual communication of it be
longs to the Father, who has engaged in the covenant
to bestow it. The obedience of believers is secured,
not by any pledge which Christ has given in their
name, but by the following promise of the Father :
" A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit
will I put within you ; and I will take away the stony
heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart
of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and
cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep
my judgments, and do them."!
A surety for a bankrupt — for this is the only com
parison which the present case will admit — is one
who engages to satisfy his creditors, by paying his
debts. Hence, when Jesus Christ is called the
Surety of the new covenant, the meaning evidently
is, that he undertook to discharge the debt which
sinners owed to the law and justice of God, the debt
of obedience, and the debt of suffering.
Our Saviour is farther called the Mediator of the
covenant ; a title which imports that he interposes
between God and men with a view to reconcile them.
" There is one God, and. one Mediator between God
and men, the man Christ Jesus."! For this office he
is qualified by the constitution ofhis person. Possessed
of the Divine nature from eternity, he agreed to as
sume the human, that he might be allied to both par
ties ; and he knew how to establish a perfect har
mony between the glory of God and the salvation of
'his guilty creatures. There are so many observations
to be made upon the necessity of the Mediatorial of
fice, the qualification of our Saviour for it, and its ef
fects, that they would detain us too long from enter
ing upon the other parts of the subject. I shall there
fore reserve them for another occasion.
The covenant by which men are saved is one, and
was made with Christ before the foundation of the
world. Many Theologians, however, are of opinion,
that there are two covenants connected with the sal
vation of men, which they call the covenant of re
demption, and the covenant of grace, and distinguish

* m-b. vi. 17,18.
} i fim. ii'?5.

f Ezck. xxxvi. 23, 27.

them in the following manner. The covenant of re
demption was made from eternity; but the covenant
of grace is made in time : The parties in the former
are God and his Son, the parties in the latter are God
and sinners : The covenant of redemption is the ao-ree-
ment between the Divine Persons, which we have al
ready explained, and the condition of it is the rinbt-
eousness of Christ; the covenant of grace is the
agreement which God makes with sinners in the Gos
pel, promising to them spiritual and eternal blessings
upon the condition of faith. There is no reason to ex
claim against this statement as fraught with danger
ous error ; nor should we give way to that weak zeal,
which is startled at modes of expression different from
our own, and hastily concludes, that they are meant
to convey a difference of meaning. If we examine it
with candour, we shall find that, in substance, it ac
cords with our own views of the subject. I acknow
ledge, that there does not appear to be any ground in
Scripture for the notion of two covenants. The blood
of Christ is called " the blood of the covenant," not
" of the covenants," as we may presume it would have
been called, if it had been the condition of the cove
nant of redemption, and the foundation of the cove
nant of grace. The truth is, that what those Divines
call the covenant of grace, is merely the administra
tion of what they call the covenant of redemption, for
the purpose of communicating its blessings to those
for whom they were intended ; and cannot be properly
considered as a covenant, because it is not. suspended
upon a proper condition, as we shall presently see.
At the same time it is right to remark, that it is fre
quently spoken of as a covenant, and is said to be
made with men themselves. " I will make with you
an everlasting covenant."* " This shall be the cov
enant that I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, saith the Lord."! " He hath made with
me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and
sure."! I may a(ld, that the Confession of Faith,
which we receive as a standard of doctrine, although
we sometimes beg- leave to dissent from some of its
expressions, gives the same view of the covenant of
grace : " Man, by his fall, having made himself inca
pable of life by the covenant of works, the Lord was
pleased to make a second, commonly called the cove
nant of grace ; whereby he freely offereth unto sinners
life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them
faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising
to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his
Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to be
lieve. "|| Still I am persuaded that the doctrine
taught in our church, which has been adopted also by
many others, is more accurate, that the covenant by
which we are saved is one, whether you call it, the
covenant of redemption, or the covenant of grace, for
neither the one name nor the other is found in the
Scripture ; and that what some call the covenant of
grace, is nothing but the dispensation by which the
benefits that Christ purchased by his obedience and
death are imparted to believers.
The use of the term condition, in reference to the
covenant of grace, may also be considered as objec
tionable, because it commonly means something, which
when done by one party, gives a right to what was
promised by the other. To call faith, therefore, the
condition of the covenant, may seem to imply, that
there is merit in faith, which entitles us to salvation.
This, however, is far from being the meaning of those
whose sentiments we are at present considering. The
term is used by them in a lower sense, and simply
signifies something which goes before another, and
without which the other cannot be obtained. They dc

* Isa. Iv. 3.
} 2 Sam. xxiii. 5.

t Heb. viii. 10.
|| West. Conf. c. vii. } 3.

COVENANT OF GRACE.

259

not assign merit to faith, but simply precedence. Ac
cording to them, faith is the condition of the covenant,
oecause the promise of salvation will be performed to
none but believers. They hold as well as we, that it
is only the means of obtaining an interest in the salva
tion offered in the Gospel ; and that it is itself an effect
of grace, being wrought in the heart by the Spirit of
regeneration. If they err, then, it is not in sentiment,
but in language; and we should be cautious in affirm
ing that they err even here, lest the censure should re
coil upon persons of whom we are accustomed to speak
with great veneration, and to whom some are disposed
to look up as almost infallible oracles, the framers of
those public standards which we have adopted ; for
they did not hesitate to make use of the obnoxious
term. " The grace of God," they say in the Larger
Catechism, " is manifested in the second covenant, in
that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Medi
ator, and life and salvation by him ; and requiring faith
as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and
giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them
that faith, with all other saving graces."* As, however,
the word, condition, has been often employed in an un-
scriptural sense, and is apt to suggest false ideas to tbe
ignorant and unwary, it is more prudent to lay it aside.
I remark by the way, that tbe vehemence with which
some in our church have opposed the use of the term,
while they might have known that nothing improper
was meant by it, is altogether unjustifiable. It arose
either from ignorance that the term is found in our
standards, or from dishonest zeal, which condemns in
an antagonist what it tolerates in a friend. And here
we may remark the improper conduct of most churches
in reference to their standards. Having once adopted
them, they regard them as the laws of tbe Medes and
Persians, which must never be altered. As if their
infallibility were ascertained, they are never subjected
to revision ; whereas they should be frequently revised,
that such changes may be made in sentiment and lan
guage as are suggested by more correct views of the
Scriptures. Then we should have avoided the awk
wardness of having standards to which we assent with
out reserve or qualification, but in which there are
expressions that we cannot use without incurring the
suspicion of error. I know only of one exception from
this practice, so unbecoming Protestants and daily
students of the Scriptures-!
We cannot exercise the same indulgence towards
every view which has been taken by Theologians of
the covenant of grace, for, by some, it has been gross
ly misrepresented, so that nothing remains but the
name. According to them, the design of the death of
Christ was to make God reconcileable to sinners, and
to procure a new covenant with them, in which pardon
and eternal life are promised on the condition of faith,
repentance, and obedience. If sometimes they call
faith alone the condition of the covenant, we must be
ware of being imposed upon by the sound of a word,
to which they have affixed a peculiar meaning favour
able to their own system ; for it does not signify, as in
the language of other divines, reliance upon Jesus
Christ alone for salvation, but such a belief of tbe truth
as leads to obedience, and derives all its value and
efficacy from its effects. Having erected this fanciful
structure, they give it the name of the new covenant,
the gospel covenant, or the covenant of grace, because
they pretend God has manifested his grace in it by
proposing easier terms. In the first covenant, he ex
acted perfect obedience; but now he requires only
sincere obedience, in consideration of the infirmity of
man, who, being enfeebled by sin, and surrounded
* Quest. 32.
+ It is believed that the exception here alluded to, was that
of the Protestant Church of France, which revised its standards
It every period of two years.

with temptations, is incapable of complying with the
strict demands of the original law. The remedy in
this case, is repentance for defects and transgressions;
and, through the mediation of Christ, God accepts of
our upright endeavours to serve him. But, whatever
name may be given to this imaginary transaction, it is
truly and formally a covenant of works, the nature of
which consists in suspending the reward upon certain
performances, whether they be many or few, difficult
or easy. That is a covenant of works, which makes
works of any kind tbe condition of the promise. The
words of tbe Apostle are express, and expose the vanity
and criminality of this attempt to join together two
things, which are, and ever will bo opposed to each
other : " If it be by grace, then is it no more of works,
otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of
works, then is it no more of grace ; otherwise work i3
no more work."* There are only two laws by which
men can hope to be saved, the law of works, and the
law of faith ; of which the former says, " Do this, and
thou shalt live ;" but this is the language of the latter,
" To him that worketh not, but believeth in him that
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righte
ousness."! ^ne scheme which we are now consider
ing, is a clumsy and audacious attempt to blend toge
ther two methods of salvation which are essentially
different. It supposes, besides, what is absolutely
impossible, that God may relax the strictness of his
law, and require less from men than he once did, be
cause they are become unable to give more. But how
could God demand less, if be be the same holy and
righteous being that he was in the beginning? The
inability of men to yield perfect obedience, is not
owing to him but to themselves, and consists in un
willingness, in aversion of heart. It does not conse
quently deprive him of his rights, nor would it be wor
thy of his character to lower the standard because his
subjects are dissatisfied with it, and by doing so, to
give his sanction to their unjustifiable revolt. Are
they not commanded " to love him with all their heart,
and soul, and mind, and strength? and to love their
neighbour as themselves? And is not this the whole
of the law; the utmost that was ever required ? " Do
we make void the law through faith ? God forbid :
yea, we establish the law."! I add> tnat' although it
were granted that faith, repentance, and sincere obe
dience are now accepted instead of perfect righteous
ness, the covenant, of which these were the condition,
would not deserve to be called the covenant of grace
on account of the easiness of its terms. None will
deem them easy but the man who is ignorant of him
self, and of the total corruption of human nature. To
us, in whose flesh there dwells no good thing, they
are as impossible as perfect obedience. The person
who is reduced to the, last stage of weakness by a
mortal disease, is as incapable of raising a weight of
ten pounds, as a weight of a hundred. I conclude,
therefore, that this view of the covenant of grace is
erroneous, has no foundation in Scripture, is contrary
to the moral attributes of God, fosters pride, overthrows
the Gospel of Christ, and is calculated to deceive
sinners, with the vain hope of obtaining salvation by
their own efforts, while the terms which it proposes
are not more within the compass of their ability than
the strictest and most extensive demands

LECTURE XLIX.
ON THE COVENANT OF GRACE.
Condition of the Covenant— Preliminarv Remarks on the
Engagement to perform il into which the Son entered-The

* Rom. xi. 6. t lb- iv- 5- * Ib" "'• 31'

260

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY

Condition included, First, Perfect Obedience to the Precepts
01 the Law; Secondly, Satisfactory Sufferings for the Sins of
his People— Promises of the Covenant considered as thcv
respected Christ himself and as they respected the Elect-
View of the Blessings promised, to the Elect.
A covenant is an agreement between two parties
who come under mutual engagements. Something is
to be done by one of the parties, in consequence of
which the other party binds himself to do another thing
in return. When a master, for example, enters into an
agreement or covenant with a servant, he prescribes
certain duties to be performed by the servant, and
promises to recompense him with suitable wages. By
consenting to the compact, the servant becomes bound
to perform the stipulated work, and the master is bound
to bestow the reward when the term of labour is finished.
In a covenant therefore, there are two parts, a condition
with a promise ; and sometimes a penalty in added to
be executed in case of failure. The two former are
found in the covenant of grace ; and I now proceed to
consider them in their order.
The' condition of a covenant is that work or service
which gives the performer a right to the promised re
ward. In order to learn what was the condition of the
covenant of grace, let us remember that Jesus Christ,
by becoming the surety ofhis people, took upon him
self those terms which it would have been necessary
for them to fulfil, in order to obtain the favor of God,
and a title to happiness. What these were, will ap
pear, if we consider the original obligation under which
man was placed by his Creator, and the situation into
which he had brought himself by disobedience. The
first covenant enjoined perfect obedience to the Divine
law as the condition of life ; and the will of the Maker
of the covenant was signified to Adam, in the prohibi
tion to taste the fruit of the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil. As the prohibition was not founded
on the nature of things, but on the sovereign will of
God, it was a clear intimation to our first parent, that
his hope of continued and augmented felicity was sus
pended upon his unreserved submission to the authori
ty of his Creator. He was to obey him in every thing,
and to ask no reason but his command ; he was to live
for him alone, and to consecrate all his powers to his
service. Such was the original condition of the cove
nant ; but something more is now demanded, in conse
quence of the melancholy change which has taken
place in the circumstances of man. As he was a falli
ble creature, a penalty was added in the beginning to
enforce the precept, and to vindicate the honour of the
Lawgiver, if the covenant was violated. To this pen
alty, Adam became obnoxious as soon as he had sinned ;
and his descendants are under the sentence of death,
which was first pronounced upon him.
Hence we perceive what must have been, and actual
ly was, the condition of the covenant of grace. For
what was requisite that fallen man might enjoy peace
with his offended Maker, and regain the happiness
which he had lost by transgression ? Although the first
covenant had been broken, its claims subsisted in full
force. It still demanded that perfect obedience which
man had failed to yield, and in consequence of this fail
ure, farther demanded that its penalty or curse should
be executed upon the guilty. As man could not him
self satisfy these claims, they devolved upon his surety,
and that too, without any abatement ; for, to suppose
them to have been relaxed, on account of the dignity of
the person, and his intimate relation to the Father, is to
suppose God to have been less holy and just in the cov
enant of grace, *han in the covenant of works. You
see, then, that the fulfilment of the terms of the one cov
enant, was the express condition of the other. All that
was required from sinners was required from their Sa
viour. The second covenant could not be established
but by an exact compliance with the requisitions of the

first. And the demands of the first covenant were en
larged by the breach of it; for, from man in a state of
innocence.it required only obedience to its precepts;
but from guilty man, and from Christ his representa
tive, it required not only obedience but suffering.
Before I proceed to explain, more distinctly, the con
dition of the covenant, there are some remarks to be
made upon the engagement into which our Saviour en
tered to perform it. The engagement was perfectly
voluntary on his part; there existed no prior obligation,
nor was there any authority by which he could be com
pelled to it. As a divine person, he was subject to no
law, and acknowledged no superior; for, although we
call the Father the first Person of the Trinity, we do
not assign to him any pre-eminence of dignity and
power, but merely state the order of subsistence. To
suppose the Son to be inferior to him, would be incon
sistent with the belief, that the same individual essence,
and consequently the same perfections belong equally
to both. He " thought it not robbery to be equal with
God."* Supreme dominion is necessarily attached to
true and proper Divinity. The Son is " Kings of kings,
and Lord of lords." With this supreme authority
which we attribute to him, the engagement into which
he entered to perform the condition of the covenant,
was not incompatible. It was an act of his will, con
curring with his Father in the scheme of redemption,
and consenting to execute the part of the work which
was allotted to him ; but it did not imply a present sub
jection to the authority ofhis Father, or the immediate
assumption of an inferior station. It was merely a pur
pose thus expressed, to assume that station at the prop
er period ; a promise to descend to the earth in the ful
ness of time, and to appear in the form of a servant
By this promise of obedience, to be afterwards perform
ed in the nature of man, the Son, as God, no more sub
jected himself to the Father, than the Father subjected
himself to the Son, by promising to give him a right to
demand the stipulated reward. I would not, however, be
understood to insinuate, that he was not, from eternity,
constituted our Surety, and that he only assumed his
character at a posterior date. If grace was given to us in
Christ before the world began, and the eleet were then
chosen in him to salvation, there seems to be a necessi
ty for admitting, that a relation was then formed be
tween him and his people ; but it could not immediately
have all the effect which it afterwards had, when he
was manifested in the flesh. But it gave him a present
interest in them ; it was the foundation of ihat gracious
economy which commenced after the fall, and which he
carried on by bis Spirit, and by the external ministry of
angels and prophets ; and it was the ground on which
God pardoned sinners, and bestowed spiritual blessings
upon them, prior to the incarnation and death of his
Son. I shall afterwards take an opportunity to speakof
Christ as Mediator, and of the mysterious constitution
of his person. It is certain that he is Mediator in both
natures, the divine and the human; and hence it may
seem to follow, that in both he is subject to the Father;
and the difficulty remains, how one Divine Person
could be subject to another. The proper solution of it,
I think, is to consider the subjection, so far as the
divine nature was concerned, as merely economical ;
and, being voluntary on the part of the Son, submitted
to only for a time, and to promote a particular design,
it manifestly does not imply any degradation. He did
not surrender his Divinity, or any of his perfections,
or any of his rights, but solely consented to sustain,
for a season, a subordinate office, for the glory of the
Godhead, and the salvation of a perishing world. Re
taining his original glory, he was pleased to draw a
veil over it in the eyes of men ; to empty himself, ac-

* Phil. ii. 6.

COVENANT OF GRACE.

201

cording to tbe strong language of Scripture, and take
upon him the form of a servant. The case would be
similar, as far, at least, as human can resemble Divine
things, if the son of a king, who was associated with
him in the throne, should condescend, for reasons of
slate, to receive and execute the orders of his father.
His title to supreme authority would be unimpaired,
and, in fact, he would actually retain it undiminished,
although ho had waived the exercise of it for a time.
The subjection of the human nature to the Father, was
real, like that of any other creature to the Creator. It
was different, indeed, from any other creature, in this
respect, that the second person of the Trinity had
united it to himself; but, in consequence of this union,
there was no communication of properties from tbe one
nature to the other, so that the human was deified, and
raised above the authority of law. Although subsist
ing in the same hypostasis with the divine nature of
the Son, it continued perfectly distinct, and was con
sequently under the same moral obligation, which
binds the highest as well as the lowest creature to
obey the will of the Author of its being. We may
therefore say, that Christ as Mediator was subject to
his Father, using the word, subject, in such a sense as
is not inconsistent with his Supreme Divinity, and
always remembering, that his subjection in the divine
nature was voluntary and temporary, but in the human
nature is necessary and perpetual. The necessity of
maintaining the subjection of his whole person as
sustaining the mediatorial character to the Father is
obvious, because the acts of his human nature alone
would not have accomplished the redemption of his
people. A higher agency was requisite to fulfil the
terms of the covenant. The Son of God must be made
under the law, and the Lord of glory must be cruci
fied. I now proceed to speak more particularly of the con
dition of the covenant, which our Surety fulfilled. In
many theological books, we are taught that it compre
hended the three following things, holiness of nature,
righteousness of life, and satisfaction for sin by suffer
ings and death. To answer these demands, our Re
deemer assumed human nature without a stain, gave
perfect obedience to the precepts of the law, and shed
his blood as an atonement for sin. I am disposed to
call in question the accuracy of this statement. To
the second and third particular I have no objection,
and believe that they were truly the terms of the cov
enant; but I do not see that the first was any part of
the condition. My reason for dissenting in this in
stance from the common opinion, is that, besides satis
faction to divine justice, which is now required in con
sequence of sin, no other thing can be conceived to be
the condition of the covenant of grace, which was not
the condition of the covenant of works. Now, holi
ness of nature was not part of that condition, because
man already was possessed of it when the covenant
was made, and all therefore that could be required of
him was, that he should act agreeably to tbe principles
and dispositions with which his Maker had endowed
him. A condition bears reference to the future, and
implies something to be done. No man enters into a
covenant with another, on the ground of what he at
present is, but on the ground of what he promises to
be or to do. God did not promise eternal life to Adam,
because he had a holy nature, but in the event ofhis
obeying the command which he had given him respect
ing the tree of knowledge. The only condition pre
scribed to him was obedience, and it is the only condi
tion, therefore, which could be prescribed to his Surety.
It is true indeed that man, having lost the holiness of
his nature, is bound to account for it; but this is done,
not by substituting the holiness of the human nature
of Christ as a compensation for the want of it, but by
his atonement on the cross for all sin original and ac

tual : and being indispensably necessary to communion
with God and the enjoyment of heaven, it is restored
to the elect by the operation of his Spirit. The holi
ness ofhis human nature, I consider rather as a quali
fication for the work which he was appointed to per
form, than as any part of the work itself. It was
necessary that it should be a holy thing, not only be
cause an impure nature would not have been admitted
into personal union with the divine, but because it
would not have been acceptable to God, cr capable of
ferforminga single action of which he would approve.
ts holiness was an indispensable pre-requisite, accord
ing to his own saying. " First make the tree good,
and then the fruit will be good." The Father there
fore engaged to provide it, and actually gave it to him
at the appointed time. "Wherefore, when he cometh
into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou
wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me."*
These are the words of our Saviour, and they imply,
that the human nature was given to him by his Father
that he might have something to offer, namely, the
immaculate oblation of his body and soul We believe
that all that our Saviour did and suffered in the cha
racter of our Surety was meritorious of salvation. But
there is no merii. in the simple possession of a gift,
however excellent in itself; and merit arises from the
proper use of the gift, from the use of it according to
the will of the giver, and for the purposes which he
had in view in bestowing it. The holiness of the
human nature of Christ was a gift of his Father, by
which he was qualified for bis work, and in receiving
it, considered as a man, he was passive. There was
therefore no place for merit, although his unspotted
purity was in the highest degree pleasing in the eyes
ofhis Father. His merit consisted in the use of the
gift, in retaining his holy nature amidst all the temp
tations of Satan and the world, and in exerting its
faculties in the service of his Father. It could not
therefore be a part of the condition of the covenant,
which consisted in active duties, in doing something
which God had enjoined, and to which he had pro
mised a reward. For these reasons, I reject the first
particular, which is usually mentioned as included in
the condition of the covenant, and shall confine your
attention to the second and the third.
First, The Father required from our Surety perfect
obedience to the precepts of the law. Such obedience
was demanded from man under the first covenant; and
as the obligation of the moral law is not founded on
occasional circumstances, but on the nature and relation
of God and his creatures, the same obedience must
have been required in the second. There was no pos
sibility that man could obtain happiness unless this
obedience was performed by himself, or by another
whom the Lawgiver should admit to act in his name.
" If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,"!
is the answer which the law returns to the sinner, who
asks what he shall do to inherit that life. It is evi
dent that the same obedience was required from our
Saviour, when acting as our federal head. As he is
said to have been made under the law, when he was
made of a woman, so we hear him expressing, in the
view ofhis future incarnation, his intention to fulfil it:
|' I delight to do thy will, 0 my God; yea, thy law
is within my heart."! He knew and loved the law,
and he came into the world to honour it by submission
to its authority. He was always ready to recognise
his obligation to obedience. By receiving baptism
from the hands of bis forerunner, he solemnly and
publicly dedicated himself to the service of his Father;
and his whole conduct was a commentary upon his
own declaration : " I must work the works of him that
sent me while it is day; the night cometh, when no

* Heb. x. 5.

f Matt. xix. 17.

X Ps. xi. it.

262

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the
light of the world."* Accordingly he diffused on all
around him the light of holiness, as well as of heaven
ly doctrine. In every relation and condition of life, in
his conduct towards friends and enemies, in peace and
in trouble, before the eyes of the public and in retire
ment with his own followers, be exhibited a perfect
example of it. He glorified God, he loved man, he
went about doing good. As he boldly challenged his
enemies to convict him of sin, so he reckoned with the
utmost confidence upon tbe approbation ofhis Father.
" He that sent me, is with me ; the Father hath not
left me alone, for I do alwavs those things that please
him."! It may be objected, that the obedience of Christ,
however perfect, could not be available for us, since
he owed it for himself, because as man he was sub
ject to the same moral law, which is obligatory upon
all mankind. Its merit, therefore, could not be im
puted to others, but must have terminated upon him
self. Different answers may be returned to this ob
jection. It may be said, in tbe first place, that, al
though it was performed in tbe human nature, it was
the obedience of our Mediator in his whole person,
and consequently, that be did not owe it for himself,
because, being the Son of God, be was not subject to
the law. It may be alleged, indeed, that as Mediator
he was subject to the Father in the sense already ex
plained ; but it should be considered that, this sub
jection being voluntary, the obedience which resulted
from it was not necessary for himself, and could
therefore be accepted in behalf of those for whose
benefit it was intended. It may be said again, that
even his human nature owed no obedience for itself,
in order to its admission into heaven, but in virtue
of its union to bis Divine person, was immediately
entitled to all the glory and felicity of which it was
capable. Whatever obedience, therefore, he performed
upon earth and in a state of humiliation and trial, was
not upon his own account ; and hence, according to
justice, the benefit of it might be transferred to his
people. It may be said once more, that, although the
human nature of Christ was necessarily subject to the
law of God as the eternal rule of righteousness to all
intelligent creatures, yet it was from choice that it be
came subject to tbe law in that particular form, in
which it was binding upon men. To them it bore the
form of a covenant ; but this form was incidental and
temporary, and would have ceased as soon as the con
dition was fulfilled. " The obligation of the law under
this consideration," says Dr. Owen, " ceaseth when
we come to the enjoyment of the reward. It obligeth
us no more formally by its command, Do this and
live, when the life promised is enjoyed. In this sense,
the Lord Christ was not made subject to the law for
himself, nor did yield obedience unto it for himself.
For he was not obliged unto it by virtue of his created
condition. Upon the first instance of the union ofhis
natures, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate
from sinners, he might, notwithstanding the law that
he was made subject unto, have been stated in glory.
For he that was the object of all divine worship,
needed not any new obedience to procure for him a
state of blessedness. And had he naturally, merely
by virtue ofhis being a creature, been subject to the
law in this sense, he must have been so eternally,
which he is not. For those things which depend
solely upon the natures of God and the creature, are
eternal and immutable. Wherefore, as the law in this
sense was given unto us, not absolutely, but with res
pect unto a future state and reward ; so the Lord
Christ did voluntarily subject himself unto it for us,
and his obedience thereunto was for us, and not for

John ix. 4, 5.

t lb. viii. 29.

himself."* I may subjoin to these answers to the ob
jection, that it cannot be consistently advanced by
those who acknowledge the representation of Adam,
and believe that, although he was subject to the law
on his own account, and bound to obey its preeepts
for himself, yet, if he had fulfilled the terms of the
covenant, his descendants would have been entitled to
tbe promised reward on the ground of his obedience.
If his obedience could have been considered as vir
tually the obedience of his posterity, there is evident
ly no reason why the obedience of Christ should not
have been accepted on tbe behalf of his people, and
have entitled them to the reward promised in the cov
enant of grace, even although it were true that he was
himself personally bound to perform it. The will of
God was sufficient to establish a relation between the
acts of the representative and the represented, in the
one case as well as in tbe other.
In the second place, I proceed to observe, That the
Father required from our Surety satisfaction for the
sins of his people. When a covenant is broken, the
promise made by the other party is no longer binding,
and the penalty, if there be one, is inflicted. Hence
man, having failed to perform the stipulated obedience,
became subject to the curse ; and the justice of God
demanded the execution of it. There were only two
ways in wbich he could escape his righteous doom;
either by an act of mercy on the part of his Judge re
mitting the punishment, or by the substitution of an
other person, who should bear it in his room. To the
first method were opposed the purity and rectitude of
the Divine nature, which holds sin in abhorrence, and
will not permit it to pass with impunity. The second
was therefore adopted. Let it be here observed that,
while the claim of the law to a full compensation for
the wrong which it had sustained was established,
there was in the present case a relaxation of its se
verity, by the admission of a substitute. It is evident
that its original sanction required the punishment of the
transgressors. " In the day thou eatest thereof," the
law said to Adam, " thou shalt surely die,! and not
another for thee ;" and on this ground he and all his
descendants might have been called upon to answer,
each for himself. The law itself does not know a
substitute, and would not admit one. It was owing,
therefore, to a gracious dispensation of the Lawgiver
that Jesus Christ was constituted the Surety of sin
ners. Tbe sovereign will adopted this expedient as
the only one by which our ruined race could be res
tored, and the glory of all his perfections could be dis
played in our salvation. As the execution of the pen
alty upon the actual transgressors, would have involved
them in total and irretrievable perdition, a substitute
was appointed who was able to bear it. " All we,
like sheep, have gone astray ; we have turned every
one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid upon him
the iniquity of us all."! The satisfaction of Christ
was an eminent part of the condition of the covenant,
and is mentioned as such in several places of Scrip
ture : " When thou shalt make his soul an offering for
sin," or rather, " when his soul shall offer a sin-offer
ing, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days,
and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his
hand. "|| The condition enjoined is, that he should be
an expiatory sacrifice; and the promise is, that he
should be rewarded with immortal life, and the re
demption of his spiritual seed. " He hath made him
to be sin for us, who knew no sin ; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him."§ He who
was perfectly immaculate could be made sin only by
imputation ; which does not imply that he was pol
luted with sin, or accounted an actual transgressor,

* Owen on Justification, chap. xii.
X Isa. liii. 6. || lb. 10.

f Gen. ii. 17.
j 2 Cor. v. 21.

COVENANT OF GRACE.

263

but merely that he was made answerable for the sins of
those whom be had undertaken to represent. " Christ
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being
made a curse for us."* The curse is the sentence
dooming the transgressor to punishment; and Christ
was made a curse, by being subjected to that sentence,
in consequence of his voluntary assumption of the of
fice of a Surety.
How, it may be asked, could the sufferings of Christ
be satisfactory for the offences of others ? We ac
knowledge in this case a relaxation of the law ; but
does it not defeat the ends of justice? It is not, per
haps, sufficient to say, that he was legally one with
them ; for, although this is true, and was necessary to
his suffering in their room, he was in reality a totally
different person, and his sufferings were not literally
theirs. If the ends of justice had required that the
transgressors of the law should undergo the penalty
in their own persons, it is plain that Christ would
have died in vain, because substitution could not have
been admitted. But, if it was only required that com
pensation should be made to the law for the injury
Which it had sustained, the sufferings of Christ might
be available for us, as we see in the case of a debtor
whose creditor is fully satisfied by the payment of the
surety, although the debtor himself should be forever
insolvent. The death of Christ, in consequence of his
superior dignity, established, still more than the death
of the guilty would haye done, the authority of the
law, and fully demonstrated that its precepts are just
as well as holy : that its penalty is not a vain threat
ening, but that between sin and punishment there is
an inseparable connexion ; that God is righteous, and
shall not be disobeyed with impunity. This is all that
would have been accomplished by the execution of
the penalty upon sinners themselves, and all that was
necessary to uphold the moral government of God.
There was a mixture of grace in this dispensation;
but it did not set aside, or in any degree impair the
rights of the law.
But how, it may be asked again, could the suffer
ings of Jesus Christ satisfy for the sins of " a great
multitude which no man can number, out of all na
tions, and kindreds, and people, and tongues ?" The
common answer is, that the transcendent value of his
sufferings was the consequence of the dignity of his
nature ; and it seems to be sufficient. His sufferings
were limited in degree, because the nature in which
he endured them was finite ; but their merit was in
finite, because the suffering nature was united to the
Son of God. An idea, however, seems to prevail, that
his sufferings were the same in degree with those to
which his people were liable; that he suffered not
only in their room, but that quantum of pain and sor
row which, if he had not interposed, they should have
suffered in their own persons through eternity ; and so
far has this notion been carried by some, that they
have maintained that his sufferings would have been
greater or less, if there bad been one more, or one
fewer to be redeemed. According to this system, the
value of his sufferings arose, not from the dignity of
his person, but from his power. The use of his Di
vine person in this case, was not to enhance the merit
ofhis sufferings, but to strengthen him to bear them.
If this is true, it was not necessary that he should
have taken human nature into personal union with
himself; it was only necessary that he should have
sustained it; and this he could have done although it
had subsisted by itself. That the sufferings of the
man Christ Jesus were greater than those which a
mere mortal could have borne, will be readily granted ;
but, although it does not become us to set limits to
Omnipotence, yet we cannot conceive him, I think,

* Gal. iii. 13.

considered simply as a man, to have sustained the
whole load of Divine vengeance, which would have
overwhelmed countless myriads of men through an
everlasting duration. By its union to himself, his hu
man nature did not become infinite in power; it was
not even endowed with the properties of an angel, but
continued the same essentially with human nature in
all other men. Nor is the supposition which we are
considering, at all necessary; for as, in virtue of the
union, the sufferings of his human nature were the
sufferings of the Son of God, they acquired an incal
culable intensity of value, and were equivalent to the
sufferings of all his people, as bis obedience was
equivalent to the obedience which they were bound in
dividually to perform. The will of God determined
their degree, and the dignity of his person imparted a
worth to them above all price. This view of the sub
ject does not occur, I believe, in some of our Theolo
gical systems, and in our popular books ; but I per
suade myself that it is just, and is preferable to the
loose declamatory expressions which we often hear
with respect to the greatness of his sufferings.
I have now shown you what was the condition of
the covenant of grace. It included the obedience of
our Surety to the precepts of the law, and his satis
factory sufferings. These constitute his righteousness,
by which we are justified ; a term of frequent occur
rence in the Scriptures, which signifies his perfect
conformity to the law, in all its demands.
I now proceed to speak of the promises of the cove
nant. They are distinguished into two classes ; the
one including the promises which immediately res
pected Christ himself; and the other, the promises
which respect his elect.
In relation to Christ himself, God promised to fur
nish him with all necessary preparation for the ar
duous work which he had undertaken to perform.
The promise of a human nature in which he might
fulfil the law, is referred to in the following words,
which were formerly quoted : " Sacrifice and offering
thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared
me ;"* and it was performed when the power of the
Highest overshadowed the blessed virgin, and the
holy thing which was born of her was called the Son
of God. The promise of the holy and supernatural
endowments by which that nature would be fitted for
the discharge of its duty, is thus expressed by the
prophet Isaiah : " The Spirit of the Lord shall rest
upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the
spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge,
and of the fear of the Lord; and shall make him of
quick understanding in the fear of the Lord."! *n tne
writings of the same prophet, our Saviour himself
describes, in figurative language, his preparation for
his office by the power of his Father : — " The Lord
hath called me from the womb ; from the bowels of
my mother hath he made mention of my name. And
he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword ; in the
shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a
polished shaft ; in his quiver hath he hid me ; and
said unto me, " Thou art my servant, O Israel, in
whom I will be glorified."! These promises were
performed by the abundant communication, the com
munication not by measure, of the Holy Ghost in his
graces and gifts, of which there was a visible sign at
his baptism, when the Spirit descended like a dove,
and rested upon him.
Again, the father promised to support him in his
work. It was a work attended with such difficulties,
that created power, although unimpaired by sin, would
have been totally inadequate to it ; and it was to be
performed in human nature, which had failed in an
easier undertaking, even when possessed of untainted
* Heb. *. 5. + Isa. xi. 2, 3. % lb. xlix. 1-3.

264

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

innocence, and of faculties in all their freshness and
V]F°U1- .°ur Saviour was encouraged by the assurance
ot the Divine presence and assistance : " Behold my
servant whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my
soul delighteth : I have put my Spirit upon him, and
he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.— He
shall not fail, nor be discouraged, till he has set judg
ment in the earth ; and the isles shall wait for his
law — -I the Lord have called thee in righteousness,
and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give
thee for a covenant of the people, and for a light of the
Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the
prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in dark
ness out of the prison-house."* Accordingly we find
him firmly depending upon these promises on tbe most
trying occasions. The Lord God will help me, there
fore shall I not be confounded ; therefore have I set
my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be
ashamed."! ^n the spirit of unshaken faith, when his
enemies were conspiring against him, and his few
friends were about to forsake him, be said to his dis
ciples, " Behold the hour cometh when ye shall be
scattered, every one to his place, and shall leave me
alone ; but lam not alone, for the Father is with me."!
It is evident that these promises were not suspended
upon the condition of the covenant, like those which
will be afterwards mentioned, and may therefore be
considered as belonging to the covenant only in this
sense, that it was solely with a view to it that they
were made. From their nature, some of them antici
pated all obedience upon tbe part, of our Surety, and in
stead of being the reward of his services, were intended
to assist and encourage him in performing them. The
only stipulation implied in them, was that, if Christ
should undertake the work of our salvation, his Father
would provide him with the means of accomplishing it ;
and they are properly expressive of the share which he
would take in the execution of the plan that he had de
vised in concert with his Son.
Once more, The Father promised to confer a glo
rious reward upon his Son, and this promise, mani
festly depended upon the performance of the condition.
Under this head, we may consider, first, that, when his
work was finished, he should be invested with honour
and power: " The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou
at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot
stool." "I will make him my first-born, highef than
the kings of the earth." " He shall have dominion al
so from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of
the earth. "|| These promises were performed after his
resurrection from the dead, when God gave " him a
name which is above every name ; that at the name of
Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue should
confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Fath
er.'^ We may consider, in the second place, the
promises which respected the salvation of his people ;
for this is an eminent part of his reward, as it was
with a design to accomplish their salvation that he suf
fered and died : " He shall see his seed, he shall pro
long his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall pros
per in his hand. "If Such would be the happy result of
his propitiatory sacrifice. Having triumphed over death,
he should behold a numerous offspring arisino- in all
ages to call him blessed, and rejoicing in the invaluable
benefits which he had purchased for them with his
blood : "Ask of me, and I will give thee the Heathen
for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth
for thy possession."**
I proceed to speak of the promises which imme
diately respect the elect. I begin with observing, that
they were made in the first instance to Christ, with
» Isa. xiii. 1, 4, 6, 7. t lb. 1. 7. t John xvi. 32.
|| Ps. ex. 1. lb. Ixxxix. 27. lb. Ixxii. 8. § Phil. ii. 9—11.
IT Isa. liii. 10. ** P»- i'. 8.

whom alone God transacted in the covenant of grace.
In every case which admits of a representative, the other
party addresses himself to him, either in proposing the
terms, or in stipulating the reward. Hence it is plain,
that the promises were made to our Surety ; and it is
farther evident from the consideration, that the persons,
in whose favour they were to be performed, had then
no actual existence, as the transaction took place before
the foundation of the world : " In hope of eternal life,
which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world
began."* If eternal life was promised before the
creation, it follows that it was promised to Christ, who
was then constituted tbe federal head ofhis people. It
was promised to him, not simply as a divine person,
but as sustaining a public character, and standing in an
intimate relation to those whom he was appointed to
redeem ; and therefore, the promise may be considered
as virtually made to them, on whom the blessing will
be bestowed at the stated season, and in the proper
order. Eternal life comprehends all the blessings of the
covenant of grace. The Scriptures make mention of
it as the great end of the incarnation and sufferings of
Christ : " God so loved the world, that he gave his only-
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but should have everlasting life."! I' 's
emphatically represented as the promise, to denote
not merely its pre-eminence, but its comprehensive
ness : " This is the promise that he hath promised us,
even eternal life:"! By reflecting upon the subject,
you will perceive that all the blessings of grace and
glory are included in it. The enjoyment of it is not
confined to the future state; it commences in this world,
when the believer not only obtains a title to immortal
happiness, but is illuminated, and sanctified, and com
forted by the Spirit of grace, and it will be perfected in
the world to come. " This is the record, that God hath
given to us eternal life ; and this life is in his Son.
He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not
the Son of God, hath not life. These things have I
written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of
God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and
that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."||
It will be proper to take a distinct view of the
blessings promised to the elect; and not to multiply
particulars, I shall content myself with the following
summary. First, The Father promised to regenerate the elect.
When the covenant was made with Christ in their
name, they were considered as persons dead in tres
passes and sins, alienated from the life of God,
unwilling to return to him, and incapable of faith,
by which alone an interest in the righteousness of
the Surety is obtained. In this state they are when
the gospel is preached to them, and its grace is
first displayed by infusing into their souls a princi
ple of spiritual life : " This is the covenant that I will
make with the house of Israel : After those days, saith
the Lord, I will put my laws in their mind, and write
them in their hearts."§ In consequence of this prom
ise, the Holy Ghost enters into them, and, by his al
mighty power, effects that change which we call regen
eration, and which is the commencement of a new life
of holiness and peace. It appears from their state pri
or to this change, that the performance of the promise
precedes all qualification, and all dispositions preparato
ry to the reception of the grace which it communicates.
Secondly, The Father promised to forgive their sins.
This Messing consists in the repeal of the sentence,
which was pronounced upon them as transgressors of
the law, and annuls the obligation to suffer the penalty,
so that they are as safe as if they had not offended. It,

* Tit. i. 2.
II lb. v. 11—13.

f John iii. 16.
{ Jer. xxxi. 33.

X 1 John ii.
Heb. viii. 10.

COVENANT OF GRACE.

265

therefore, holds a distinguished place among the bles-
Bings of the covenant ; " I will be merciful to their un
righteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I
remember no more." It was procured by the atonement
of Christ, which satisfied the demands of justice, and
is enjoyed by those on whom his blood is sprinkled, or
who obtain by faith an interest in his propitiatory
sacrifice. It is a comprehensive blevssing, which has
a retrospective and a prospective influence ; for not only
is the guilt of their past and present offences cancelled,
» but they are secured against the imputation of the guilt
' of such sins as they may afterwards commit : "There
is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.*"
Thirdly, The Father promised to sanctify the elect.
This blessing is virtually comprehended in the promise
of regeneration, which we have already considered ; for
"the writing of the law upon their hearts" signifies, at
least, the communication of the first principles of holi
ness. The seed thus sown by the hand of God, he
waters and cherishes, that it may bring forth fruit in
abundance : " I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and
ye shall be clean ; from all your filthiness, and from all
your idols, will I cleanse you."! When Paul pray
ed that the Thessalonians might be "sanctified whol
ly," and that their " whole spirit, and soul, and body,
be preserved blameless unto tbe coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ,"! he rested his hope of an answer upon
the faithfulness of God in the performance of his
promises : " Faithful is he that calleth you, who also
will do it."|| Holiness is an essential ingredient in the
eternal life, which is the great blessing of the covenant,
and it is necessary to prepare us for the pure enjoyment
of the heavenly state.
Fourthly, The Father promised to preserve the elect
in a state of grace, from which they would fall if they
were left to themselves : " I will make an everlasting
covenant with them, that I will not turn away from
them, to do them good ; but I will put my fear in their
hearts, that they shall not depart from me."§ This
promise consists of two parts. First, God engages
not to forsake them, for his affection is not mutable
and transitory, like that of men, but he rests in his
love. Hence he says in another place, "The moun
tains shall depart, and the hills be removed ; but my
kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the
covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that
hath mercy on thee. "If Secondly, he puts his fear in
their hearts, that they may not forsake him. Their
faith may be feeble, but it shall not utterly fail ; their
holiness may lose its lustre, but it shall not be extin
guished ; sin may occasionally prevail against them,
but it shall not recover the dominion. There is a
spark under the ashes, which the breath of heaven will
kindle into a flame; there is a living principle which,
protected from danger, and cherished by secret com
munications from heaven, will acquire full vigour and
activity in a better world. "The water that [ shall
give him, shall be in him a well of water, springing
up to everlasting life."**
Lastly, The Father promised to glorify the elect.
" The ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to
Zion with songs, and everlasting joy upon their heads:
they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and
sighing shall flee away."!! '-This promise includes
many particulars; a happy death, a blessed resurrec
tion, a public justification at the. tribunal of Christ,
admission into heaven, and the fruition of unbounded
and never-ending felicity. When the promise is per
formed to all whom Christ has redeemed, the design
of the covenant will be fully accomplished ; and the
Mediator having delivered up the kingdom to the

Father, or brought to a close the administration over
which he presides, " God will be all in all."*
There are several other points relative to the cove
nant, upon which your time will not permit me to enter
at present, and I shall therefore reserve them for an
other Lecture.

* Rom. viii. 1.
|| lb. 24. _
** John iv. 14.
21

f Ezek. xxxvi. 25.
} Jer. xxxii. 40.
ff Isa. xxxv. 10.

t 1 Thess. v. 23.
If Isa. liv. 10.

LECTURE L.
ON THE COVENANT OF GRACE.
Farther Observations on the Promises of the Covenant — The
Covenant of Grace admitted of no Penalty — The Adminis
tration or Dispensation of it committed to Christ — View of it
as a Testament — Dispensation of the Covenant before and
subsequent to the coining of Christ.
Having pointed out, in the preceding Lecture, some
of the promises which were made to Jesus Christ, as
the Representative and Surety of his people, I proceed
to make a few general observations upon them.
The first observation is, That they originated in the
love of God. They are varied expressions of it ; diver
sified aspects wbich it bears towards man, considered
as guilty, polluted, and miserable; and the ultimate
design of them is his restoration to purity and happi
ness. In them, God is manifested to be love. They
are the overflowings of his heart towards his fallen
offspring, and awaken a more impressive sense of his
infinite benevolence, when we view them in connexion
with the wonderful expedient which has been adopted
that his goodness might have access to us, all the pro
mised blessings being conveyed by the substitution
and sufferings of his Son. " How excellent is thy
loving-kindness, O God ! therefore the children of men
put their trust under the shadow of thy wings. They
shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy
house ; and thou shalt make them drink of the river
of thy pleasures. For with thee is the fountain of life ;
in thy light shall we see light."!
The second observation is, That the promises bear
a relation to Christ, not only because they were made
primarily to him, but because the performance of them
was suspended upon his fulfilling the condition of the
covenant. A question has been agitated among Theo
logians, whether, as they express it, the promises were
founded on the offices of Christ; that is, in more intel
ligible language, whether it was owing to his media
tion that the promises were made ? This may be con
sidered as one of those subtle questions which have
been brought forward to exercise ingenuity, and fur
nish a subject of debate, without being of much prac
tical utility. In the usual manner, Divines have ar
ranged themselves on opposite sides, some affirming
and others denying. By those who are accounted
orthodox, it has been judged agreeable to truth to
maintain, that they were not founded on the offices of
Christ, but were perfectly free and voluntary on the
part of God, proceeding from his infinite goodness.
This is undoubtedly true ; but one thing is certain, that
when they were made to Christ, he was considered as
the representative ofhis people, who was to fulfil the
righteousness of the law in their name, and that not
one of them would have been made, if he had not con
descended to assume this character. It is also certain
that all the blessings contained in tbe promises were
purchased with his blood, which was the price of our
salvation. For all the blessings of grace and glory
we are indebted to his mediation. Hence God is saia
"to bless us with all spiritual blessings in Onnst, j.
or for his sake. As the life which was promised in

* 1 Cor. xv. 28.

f Ps. xxxvi. 7—1

9. t Eph. i. 3.

266

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the first covenant, would have come to us through the
obedience of Adam, so the eternal life promised in the
second covenant is the gift of God, through the obedi
ence of his Son.
The third 'observation is, That the promises of tbe
new covenant are free. In explaining this particular,
it is necessary to attend to tbe distinction of absolute
and conditional. By an absolute promise, is meant a
promise which will be performed without respect to
any qualification possessed, or any work done by tbe
person to whom it is made. The performance of it
depends exclusively upon the faithfulness of the pro-
miser. In this sense, some of the promises are abso
lute; and I may quote as an example the first promise,
formerly mentioned, which stands at the head of all
the rest, in the list given by an Apostle, " I will put
my laws into their mind, and write them in their
hearts."* It is evident that nothing in the sinner,
prior to regeneration, can be a reason for imparting to
him a principle of spiritual life; for while he is in the
flesh, or a state of natural depravity, he cannot please
God. To grace he is indebted for the communication
of the Spirit, and not to the earnestness of his prayers,
and his diligence in the use of the means. I request
you to observe, that on this subject there is a want of
correctness in tbe language which is frequently em
ployed. There is a way of talking of absolute pro
mises, as addressed to sinners in the Gospel, which,
although it recommends itself to the inattentive, by
seeming to exalt the grace of God, is not agreeable to
truth. As an absolute promise must without fail be
performed, it would follow, that, if the promise of re
generation, which is suspended upon no condition, was
made to sinners without distinction, they should all,
at one time or another, be brought into a state of sal
vation. The conclusion is unavoidable ; but as none
of us would choose to acquiesce in it, we must reject
the premises, and hold that this absolute promise is
not addressed to sinners in general, but to the elect
alone, orj-ather, is a sort of promissory prediction of
what God purposes to do in reference to those who
were redeemed by his Son. If there are any other
absolute promises — and in this class may be reckoned
the promises of the unchangeable love of God to his
people, and of the constant inhabitation of tbe Holy
Ghost in their souls — they are made to persons who
are in covenant with God by faith. No absolute pro
mise can be made to a sinner, simply considered as
such. Other promises suppose some qualification of
the person to whom they are made, or some work to
be done by him before these are performed. Such
promises some call conditional; but if condition is
understood to mean that which gives a just title to the
promise, we must say, that all the promises of the
covenant of grace are unconditional, there being no
such thing as merit of any kind, even in the saints.
If, however, the term merely signifies something
which precedes the enjoyment of particular blessings,
it must be acknowledged that many of them are con
ditional, although the use of this term ought to be
avoided. The remission of sins is not promised to
every man, but solely to him who believes ; nor eter
nal life to persons of every description, but to those
alone who are pure in heart, and persevere to the end.
Yet even those promises are free; because, if faith
and holiness are previously required, these qualifica
tions are the subject of other promises, which absolute
ly depend upon the faithfulness of God. They are re
solvable into the promise of regeneration, which we
have seen is absolute, with respect to the elect. God,
therefore, when he demands certain qualifications in
men, as necessary to the performance of particular
promises, must be considered merely as settling the
# Heb. viii. 10.

order in which the blessings of salvation shall be com
municated. The enjoyment of some must precede the
enjoyment of others. " Whom he did predestinate,
them he also calls; and whom he calls, them he also
justifies ; and whom he justifies, them he also glori
fies."* In short, however dear it cost our blessed
Saviour to accomplish our salvation, upon us it is be
stowed " without money and without price." The
whole building is of mercy; the hand of God is dis
played in its commencement and its completion, and
¦here, as in the second temple of the Jews, "the head
stone thereof shall be brought forth with shoutings,
Grace, grace unto it."!
When I stated the parts of which a covenant con
sists, I remarked that a penalty is frequently added,
to be inflicted if one of the parties shall fail. Thus,
when the covenant of works was made with our pro
genitor, and abstinence from the fruit of the tree of
knowledge was enjoined as the condition, God said to
him, " In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt
surely die." There was no penalty in the covenant
of grace, because Jesus Christ, our Representative
could not fail ; and his indefectibility arose from the
mysterious constitution of his person. He was a man,
but not a mere man, for he was at the same time the
Son of God. As all creatures are capable of change 
and the highest have changed, as we know from the
conduct of those angels who kept not their first estate
— in a covenant made with a mere creature, however
pre-eminent in nature and endowments, a penalty is
introduced with propriety. But our blessed Saviour
being immutable in his Divine person, and the human
nature being established in a state of holiness by its
union to him, a penalty could have no place in a fed
eral transaction in which he was concerned. Let it
not be imagined that this statement is contradicted by
the fact that sufferings were inflicted upon Christ. In
these, I acknowledge, a penalty was executed; but it
was the penalty of the covenant of works, to which he
submitted as an essential part of the condition of the
covenant of grace. If it were the condition of a cove
nant which one man made with another, that the latter
should engage in laborious services, or expose him
self to danger, or endure pain, it would be absurd to
call his cost and trouble a penalty, which is totally
distinct from the condition, and can have no place till
the covenant is violated. Christ suffered penal evil;
it was not, however, inflicted for any failure on his
part, but submitted to as the means of establishing the
covenant, and obtaining for his people the promised
reward. As there was no penalty in relation to the Surety,
so there is none in relation to his people, for this ob
vious reason, that he fulfilled the covenant for them,
and completely established their right to the promises.
"There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ
Jesus."! It. is acknowledged that there are threaten
ings addressed to those who have entered into the
covenant by faith, to deter them from disobedience,
and that these are executed when they transgress.
"If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my
judgments ; if they break my statutes, and keep not
my commandments ; then will I visit their transgres
sion with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes."||
These visitations may indeed be called penalties 01
punishments, but usually receive the milder character
of chastisements, because they are inflicted by the
hand of God, not as an avenging Judge, but as a mer
ciful Father; and are not intended for the destruction,
but for the good of the sufferer. They are not penal
ties, in the common acceptation of the term, for a
penalty is the evil of pain, to which a person is 6ub-

* Rom. viii. 30.
I| Ps. Ixxxk. 30—32.

•f Zeoh. iv. 7.

X Rom. viii. 1.

COVENANT OF GRACE.

267

jected for a crime, and is designed to satisfy tbe law
by a just retribution. But it is not satisfaction to jus
tice which is the object of the afflictions of believers;
the intention of them is, both to testify that sin is dis
pleasing to God, and to lead them to repentance and
amendnu nt. Severity is mingled with love : " Whom
the Lord loveth, he chasteneth ; and scourgeth every
son whom he receiveth."* Their afflictions may,
therefore, be considered in the light of blessings, and
as connected with the promises of the covenant, be
cause they are subservient to their sanctification and
final happiness. " Our light affliction, which is but
for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding
and eternal weight of glory."!
Having given you a view, at considerable length,
of the covenant of grace, I now proceed to speak of
what has been called the administration of it, but
might be more correctly called the dispensation of
grace, which is founded upon it.
I begin by observing, That the blessings of the
covenant are committed to our Saviour, that he may
distribute them according to his own will, and the will
of his Father, which in this as in every other matter
perfectly harmonize. This honour has been conferred
upon him, that the blessings which were purchased
with the infinitely valuable price of his blood should
be at bis disposal, and that sinners should be remind
ed of their unspeakable obligations to him, by receiv
ing every good thing immediately from his hands.
This constitution is agreeable to our notions of fitness
and justice ; for tbe fulfilment of the condition of the
covenant gave him a right to the promises, and put
him in full possession of their inestimable treasures.
Accordingly, after bis resurrection he told his disci
ples, that " all power was given to him in heaven and
in earth ;! evidently meaning, that it was given to
him in consequence of his sufferings and death-. Long
before, the holy Psalmist, looking forward in the
Spirit of prophecy, had said, " Thou hast ascended on
high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast re
ceived gifts for men ; yea, for the rebellious also, that
the Lord God might dwell among them."j| His words
are explained by those of Peter to the Jews, who were
filled with" astonishment at the miracle of Pentecost :
" This Jesus bath God raised up, whereof we all are
witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God
exalted, and having received of tbe Father the promise
of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye
now see and hear."§ Three things are observable in
these words ; that the gift of the Holy Ghost to our
Saviour was the performance of a promise made to
him by his Father ; that the promise was performed
after his ascension ; and that tbe Spirit was given to
him, that he might pour him out upon men like the
rain which falls upon our fields. Our Lord himself
has assured us, that he has received "power over all
flesh" from his father, " that he may give eternal life"1f
to his peculiar people ; and in the following words he
teaches us, that upon this donation is founded the dis
pensation of grace, which was established by his au
thority, and will be carried on to the end of the world.
"All things are delivered unto me of my Father."**
Hence follow the gracious invitations and promises
of the Gospel : " Come unto me, all ye that labour
and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."!+
This important truth is more distinctly expressed in
the following passage. " Wherefore he saith, When
he ascended upon high, he led captivity captive, and
gave gifts unto men. And he gave some, apostles ;
and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and
some, pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting of the

* Heb. xii. 6. +2 Cor. iv. 17. X Matt- xxviii. 18.
|| Ps. lxviii. 18. j Acts ii. 32, 33. T John xvii. 2.
** Matt. xi. 27. ft Matt- xi- 28-

saints, for the work of tbe ministry, for the edifying
of the body of Christ ; till we all come in the unity
of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God
unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature
of the fulness of Christ; that we henceforth be no
more children, tossed to and fro, and earned about
with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men
and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to
deceive ; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up
into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ;
from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and
compacted by that which every joint supplieth, ac
cording to the effectual working in the measure of
every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edi
fying of tbe body in love."*
In explaining the, administration of the covenant
of grace, it is remarked by Theological writers, that,
in relation to men, it assumes the form of a testament,
or a deed by which a person bequeaths his property to
his heirs, to be enjoyed by them after his decease; or
that its blessings are conveyed to us in a testamentary
form. By some of them, much importance is attached
to this view of the subject, and they illustrate it at
great length, and with a minuteness of detail, traeing
the metaphor and similitude in this, as in other in
stances, to every point of resemblance which a lively
fancy can suggest. Accordingly, tbey tell us of the
testator, the legacies, the legatees, and the executor.
The testator is Christ himself; the legacies are the
blessings of salvation ; the legatees are sinners ; and
tbe executor is also Christ, who differs in this respect
from a human testator, that, although he died to con
firm bis testament, he rose again, and is now alive to
carry it into effect. Particulars of this kind may ar
rest the attention of the multitude, and obtain their ap
probation and applause ; but they exhibit a Divine
dispensation too much in the shape of a human trans
action, and tend to degrade it by the association of
low and familiar ideas. One reason that some Divines
enlarge upon this view of tbe covenant, is, that, in
their opinion, it is calculated to exhibit, to the great
est advantage, the freeness of its administration ; for
a testament, they say, is a deed of grace, without con
ditions properly so called. But this is a mistake ;
for, although men do commonly make a free convey
ance of their property in their latter will to their heirs,
they sometimes burden it with conditions, upon the
performance of which the enjoyment of the property
depends. It is not, therefore, from the testamentary
form of the covenant, that the freeness of its adminis
tration can be justly inferred, but from other circum
stances unconnected with this view of the subject. It
does not therefore follow, that those who do not ap
prove of this view are enemies to the doctrine of grace,
although some of them may have been so, because
that doctrine may be more successfully maintained upon
different grounds. With respect to the assertion, that
the legatees of this testament were sinners in general,
I question whether it is perfectly accurate. A legatee
of an unconditional testament has an undoubted right
to the property bequeathed to him, and nothing but
injustice can prevent him from enjoying it. His right is
complete by bis nomination in the testament; it is not
necessary that he should come forward and claim the
inheritance ; it is the business of the executor to put
him in possession of it. Were all men the legatees
in the testament of Christ, all men would be entitled
to salvation, and without any effort on their part to
attain it, would infallibly be saved. But those who
call them the legatees, mean nothing more than that
by this deed salvation is offered to them, and will be
bestowed upon all who accept of it ; and at the same
time they call this an unconditional testament. Then
* Eph. iv. 8, 11— 16-

268

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

ideas are confused and contradictory; for if none shall
obtain the inheritance but those who claim it by faith,
it is evident that, in a qualified sense the testament is
conditional, and that, in strict language, the only lega
tees are believers. If these observations are just, it
will follow, that the view of the testament which is
given in some systems and treatises on tbe covenant
of grace, is incorrect. The following statement of a
late writer is, in my opinion, more agreeable to truth.
" As the promisscry part of the covenant respecting
the elect was, by the dying Redeemer, turned into a
testament, it necessarily follows that the legatees can
be none other than those to whom the promises were
originally made by the Father; the promissory part
of the covenant regulating the testamentary. To
whomsoever the promises were made in Christ, to
them, and to them alone, are the promises made by
him (in the Gospel,) otherwise his promises would be
more extensive as to their objects than his Father's
are ; that is to say, he would promise eternal life to
them to whom the Father never did ; a doctrine not to
be readily admitted, as neither agreeing with his dele
gated authority, nor with his fidelity in promising.
For, if eternal life be bequeathed to all, how is it be
stowed on so few ?"
"The covenant of grace," says our Confession of
Faith, " is frequently set forth in Scripture by the
name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus
Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance,
with all things belonging to it. therein bequeathed."*
We have already seen, that, by the covenant of grace,
the confession means a transaction between God and
men themselves, in which " he freely offereth unto
sinners life and salvation through Jesus Christ, re
quiring of them faith in him that they may be saved."!
The word testament does often occur in our trans
lation, and it has been remarked, that the original term
ticiBuxn signifies both a testament and a covenant. Its
primary meaning is "testament;" but in Scripture it
frequently occurs in the sense of a-vvBm-A. You have
seen that, by our translators, it is sometimes rendered
" testament" improperly, and that " covenant" should
have been preferred, as when Christ is called the Me
diator and the Surety of a testament; characters to
which no distinct idea can be affixed. I believe that
there are many other passages in which " covenant"
should have been substituted for " testament ;" and I
am not sure that there is more than one passage in
which the latter word should be used, namely in the
two following verses of the ninth chapter of the Epis
tle to tbe Hebrews : " For where a testament is, there
must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead ; other
wise it is of no strength at all while the testator liv-
eth."! Attempts have been made to shew, that even
here the word " covenant" should be used ; but as
they seem to be forced and unnatural, I abide by the
common translation, and admit that, in this instance,
the Apostle, taking advantage of the double, meaning
of Si/lB-mx, alludes to it in the sense of a testament.
But he alludes to it, I apprehend, not to lead us into
a train of speculation upon the new covenant as con
verted into a testament, and into all the details of such
a transaction, but merely to illustrate the subject which
he was discussing, the necessity and the effect of the
death of Christ. The idea of a testament was sug
gested by the mention of the eternal inheritance in the
preceding verse. As an inheritance is conveyed from
one person to another by a testament, this designation
may be given to the covenant of grace, because it
conveys to us the inheritance of eternal life, and con
veys it in virtue of the death of the Surety. It was
with the covenant of grace as it is with a testament.

* Conf. u. vii. J 4.

t lb. { 3.

1 Verses 16, 17.

As the death of the testator is necessary to rendeT ?
testament valid, so the death of Christ was necessary
to ratify the covenant, and to make its promises sure
to his spiritual seed. It is the necessity of the death
of Christ which the Apostle intended to establish, and
the notion of a testament is incidentally introduced
solely for the purpose of illustrating the point. Sal
vation comes to us through his death, as an inherit
ance comes to the legatees through the death of a tes
tator. I do not positively affirm that this is the only
passage in which SiclB-m-h should be rendered a testa
ment ; but I am persuaded that the propriety of this
translation is more apparent here than in any other
place ; and, although I will not presume, in opposition
to a formidable array of Theologians, to discard this
view of the covenant of grace, yet I cannot help think
ing that it rests upon a slender foundation, that undue
importance has been attached to it, and that it has
been dwelt upon with unnecessary prolixity.
In speaking of the administration of the covenant of
grace, we must consider it as carried on under two
distinct economies, of which the one preceded, and
the other is subsequent to the coming of Christ in the
flesh. That there was a dispensation of grace prior to the
coming of Christ, is evident to every person who reads
the Scriptures of the Old Testament. It commenced
immediately after the fall, when the first intimation of
mercy was made, and continued till the death of our
Saviour, when it was formally abolished. That it was
virtually the same with the present dispensation, and
differed from it only in form, may be proved by a vari
ety of considerations. The exhibition of the seed of
the woman as the ground of hope to the guilty, was the
preaching of the gospel to our parents in paradise; and
the same object was pointed out to the patriarch in sub
sequent revelations, and to the Jews by their typical
institutions and the voice of the prophets. Hence the
mission of Jesus Christ is represented as the fulfilment
of the ancient predictions. " Blessed be the Lord
God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his
people, and hath raised up a horn of salvation for us in
the house of his servant David ; as he spake by the
mouth of his holy prophets, which have been .since the
world began."* The Apostle Paul affirms that the
gospel which he was employed in preaching, had been
published long before to Abraham, and that those who
believed it, were admitted to a participation of the same
privileges with the patriarch : " The Scripture fore
seeing that God would justify the heathen through faith,
preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In
thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they wbich
be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham."! The
covenant established with him was virtually the same
covenant, which is still established with believers; for
it contained the great promise, in which all other bles
sings are involved, that God would be a God to him,
and to his seed after him ; and it is called by an
Apostle, " the covenant which was confirmed before ot
God in Christ,"! that is, the covenant cf grace. The
unity cf the two dispensations, notwithstanding their
apparent discrepance, is manifestly implied in the fol
lowing words: "God who at sundry times, and in
divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers
by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us
by his .Son. "|| The substance of the revelation is the
samp, although the persons by whom it was com
municated were different.
I request your particular attention to the two fol
lowing passages, from which it appears, that the dis
pensation under which the ancient church livpd, was
connected with the covenant of grace, being founded

* Lake i. 68-
} lb. 17.

-70.

+ Gal. iii. 8, 9.
H Heb. i. 1.

COVENANT OF GRACE.

269

en the atonement of Christ, by which the covenant
was ratified. " Him," says Paul, " God hath set forth
to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare
his righteousness for the remission of sins that are
past, through the forbearance of God."* Remark the
expression, " the remission" or passing by " of sins
that are past." These, it is acknowledged, are the
sins which were committed in the ages prior to the
manifestation of Christ. God passed them by, or re
mitted them in the exercise of his forbearance ; he was
gracious to the guilty persons, and received them into
favour, although no expiatory sacrifice of sufficient val
ue had yet been offered for them. How was it consis
tent with his justice to do so? This difficulty is re
moved by the mission of the promised Redeemer, who
has made an atonement of infinite value, the virtue of
which reaches back to the beginning of time, and
forward to the end of it. In exercising mercy towards
those who lived before his coming, God had a respect
to this atonement, and he acted towards them like a
creditor, who lets his debtor go free, although pay
ment has not yet been made by his surety, because
he has full confidence in him, that be will fulfil his en
gagement. The other passage is in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, and in quoting it, I shall correct our
translation by substituting covenant for testament,
which in our version is twice employed improperly.
" And for this cause he is the Mediator of the new cov
enant, that by-means of death, for the redemption of
the transgressions that were under the first covenant,
they which are called might receive the promise of
eternal inheritance."! The transgressions which were
under the first covenant, were the sins of the peculiar
people of God under the covenant of Sinai, the sacri
fices offered for which could deliver them only from
the temporal penalties of the law ; yet many of them
obtained the full pardon of their sins, so that God did
not enter into judgment with them, either in this life
or in the next, on the ground of the great sacrifice
which was to be offered in the fulness of time. Christ
was the Mediator of the new covenant for the redemp
tion of those sins, or assumed this character that he
might expiate them, and actually did so by the shed
ding of his blood. Hence it appears that those, who
lived under the law of Moses, were saved by the grace
of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as those who live
under the gospel.
Our Lord maybe considered as sustaining the office,
and performing the duties of a Mediator before his in
carnation. It is not a vain opinion of the Jews, that
it was the second Person of the Trinity, who gave the
promise of mercy to our first parents in paradise, ap
peared to the patriarchs, published the law from Sinai,
conducted the church in the wilderness, and managed
its affairs during the ages which followed. It is cer
tain, that a Divine Person did often appear under the
ancient economy, and as there is no reason to think
that it was the Father, whom no man has seen, we
conclude that it was the Son, who assumed the form
of that nature in which he was after to sojourn upon
earth. He was the Angel of God's presence, and the
Angel of the covenant, concerning whom these three
particulars are worthy of attention ; that he was a Di
vine Person, for the name of God was in him, and the
power of pardoning or not pardoning sin belonged to
him ; that he acted in an official capacity, for he was
an angel or messenger; and that his office was con
nected with the gracious dispensation which was then
established, for he wras the Messenger of the covenant.
As far as that dispensation was carried on by revela
tion of the Divine will, we are expressly assured, that
it was under his direction and superintendence. It
was the Spirit of the Messiah, Peter says, " who tes-

* Rom. iii. 25.

f Heb. ix. 15.

tified beforehand" in the prophets, "the sufferings of
Christ, and the glory that should follow."*
The administration of the covenant, durino- this
period, was carried on, as we have seen, by personal
appearances of the Son of God, by the ministry of the
prophets, by the miraculous and sanctifying operations
of the Holy Ghost, and by the various institutions
which God gave to the church. Sacrifices were offered
soon after the fall ; and as they could not be suggested
by reason, nothing seeming to be more unnatural than
to propitiate the Deity by the blood of the lower ani
mals ; and as, if they had been a human invention,
they would not have been acceptable to God, we must
believe, that they were appointed by himself, to pre
figure the oblation of our Saviour, and to direct the
faith and hope of mankind to him, for deliverance from
the curse. The sacrifices of the Jews were enjoined,
and every thing respecting them was regulated by Di
vine command. It is an error to consider the ceremo
nial law merely as intended to guard them against
idolatry ; and still farther from the truth, to imagine
that several of its rites were borrowed from heathen
usages ; an opinion which is derogatory to its honour,
and besides, is incapable of proof, the practices of the
Egyptians, in which the resemblance is traced, being
known to us only by Greek authors, who, living a
thousand years after the death of Moses, were as igno
rant of the state of matters in his age, as we are. The
legal institutions, says an Apostle, "were shadows of
things to come, but the body is of Christ."! Uis
meaning obviously is, that such a representation was
given by them of Christ, his office, his sacrifice, and
its effects, as is given of a man by the projection of
his shadow ; a representation which shews the outline,
or general form, but does not exhibit his features.
The information communicated to the people of God,
was obscure and imperfect ; but still there was a reve
lation which sufficed "for the time then present," as
it enabled them, through faith in the promised Re
deemer, to obtain eternal salvation. Some degree of
light was thrown upon the figures of the law by the
prophecies, which became clearer and clearer, as
the time drew nearer for his manifestation in the
flesh. "The Old Testament," says the seventh article of
the Church of England, "is not contrary to the New;
for both in the Old and New Testament, everlasting
life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only
Mediator between God and man. Therefore they are
not to be heard, which feign that the old fathers did
look only for transitory promises." Although there
is no express mention of eternal life in the law of
Moses, yet it was implied, as our Saviour has shown,
in the declaration, that God was the God of the patri
archs; and, we are assured by an Apostle, that "they
desired a better country, that is, a heavenly."! This
hope was retained by their descendants, who also
looked for an inheritance beyond the grave, of which
Canaan was a type. Although the law was much
enforced by temporal rewards and penalties, these
were not, and could not be, its only sanction, since
God was related to the Israelites, as well as to us, as
their moral Governor and Judge; and, if there was a
dispensation of grace, it must have held out the same
blessings to be enjoyed, and the same consummation
to be expected, which are exhibited in the premises
of the gospel. Accordingly, it is certain that, as be
lievers under the ancient economy were justified by
faith, and were favoured with the presence and conso
lations of the Holy Ghost, so they looked for perfect
and eternal salvation in another state of existence.
"Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and after
ward receive me to glory. My flesh and my heart

* 1 Pet. i. 11. f Co1- "• 17, -t Heb' xi 16-

270

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

faileth ; but God is the strength of my heart and my
portion forever."*
_ The administration of the covenant, since the com
ing of Christ, is a subject so well understood, that it
may be passed over with a few observations. The
gospel makes known to us the eternal counsel between
the Father and the Son, displays the riches and free
ness of Divine grace, offers salvation to all who hear
it, and comforts believers by its promises of present
and future blessings. All the other ordinances are
channels by which the benefits which Christ pur
chased are communicated. In particular, baptism and
the Lord's supper sustain a peculiar character, being
sacraments or seals ; that is, sacred institutions of Di
vine appointment, in which, by sensible signs, Christ
and the benefits of the new covenant are represented,
sealed, and applied to believers. The design of
them is to declare, that the persons to whom they are
administered, are in covenant with God, have a right
to its blessings, and shall obtain the everlasting inher
itance ; that so their faith and hope may be confirmed,
and they may be excited to perform that obedience
which Gj&d requires from those whom he has admitted
into his friendship.
The present dispensation is distinguished from the
past by the superior clearness of its manifestations.
What was formerly exhibited under the veil of types,
is now openly revealed. "The darkness is past, and
the true light now shineth." All the information is
given which is suitable to our present condition, and
which our minds are at present capable of receiving;
and, in consequence of the difference between the twi
light of the law and the bright day of the gospel, the
people of God far excel their predecessors in tbe mea
sure of their knowledge : so that the Baptist himself,
who enjoyed greater advantages than the prophets, is
surpassed by the meanest member of the Church, who
is illuminated by the Spirit. Again, it is distinguish
ed from the former dispensation by the more abundant
influences of the Spirit. An Evangelist having re
marked that Jesus spoke of the Spirit, which they who
believed in him should receive, adds, "For the Holy
Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not
yet glorified ;"! not meaning that he had not been
given at all ; but that he had not yet been given in
that fulness of his influences, which was enjoyed when
our Lord ascended to heaven, and the Christian dis
pensation commenced. God promised in the latter
days, or in the days of the Messiah, " to pour out his
Spirit upon all flesh," and the gospel is called the
"ministration of the Spirit." Hence, as there is now
greater light, there is also greater liberty. The people
of God, in ancient times, being under tutors or gov
ernors, to use the words of Paul,:f though sons, differed
not from servants ; but now they are sons freed from
every restraint, and in full possession of their privi
leges. The different states of mind arising from the
two dispensations, are pointed out in the following
words : " Ye have not received the spirit of bondage
again unto fear ; but ye have received the spirit of
adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father."|| Lastly,
the present dispensation is distinguished from the past
by its extent ; the one having been confined to the
nation of Israel, at least after the formal separation
from other nations, at the time of the Exodus, but the
other embracing as its object the whole human race.
Hitherto it. has not been universal ; but its limitation
has not arisen from its nature, as was the case with
respect to the Jewish economy, nor from any express
prohibition, but from the inactivity of Christians, and
from the secret arrangements of Providence, which
fixes the times and the seasons for accomplishing its

* Ps. Ixxiii. 24, 26.
II Rom. viii. 15."

f John vii. 39. | Gal. iv. 2.

own designs. " Go into all the world, and preach the
gospel to every creature," was the command of Christ
to his Apostles ; and ere long, God will have respect to
his covenant, the covenant wbich he made withhis Son,
and "will give to him the heathen for his inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession."
The great design of the administration of the cove
nant of grace, is to impart its benefits to those for whom
they were intended. It is accomplished by the preach
ing of the gospel, in which salvation is offered to sin
ners ; and by the power of the Spirit, who works faith
in the hearts of those who were chosen in Christ to
eternal life. It is only by faith that we can obtain an
interest in the covenant; agreeably to the solemn de
claration, " He that believeth shall be saved, but he
that believeth not shall be damned."* As the descen
dants of Adam came under the obligation of the cove
nant made with him, by successively entering upon ex
istence ; so men become connected with the covenant
which was made with Christ, by being born into the
world of grace.
It concerns every person, therefore, to inquire wheth
er " God has made with him an everlasting covenant,
ordered in all things, and sure." It is an inquiry inti.
mately connected with his eternal welfare, for by this
covenant alone salvation can be enjoyed. How shall
this important point be ascertained ?
First, He who has entered into covenant with God,
is a convinced and awakened man ; for, although its
benefits are offered to all, none but those who feel their
need, will accept of them. Peace with God, which the
covenant has established, will be prized and sought by
those alone, who, conscious of guilt, dread his displeas
ure and vengeance. By the secure and careless world,
the proposal of reconciliation is disregarded. Conviction
of sin, by the application of the law to the conscience,
is the first step in the process, by which men are exci
ted to take hold of God's covenant, that they may make
with him. Secondly, He who has entered into this cove
nant, " has fled for refuge, to lay hold on the hope set
before him."! This is a description by an Apostle, of
those who have an interest in the promises, and in Ihe
strong consolation which flows from them. They have
fled from the wrath of God, which pursued them accord
ing to the tenor of the first covenant, to the Mediator of
the second, whose blood speaks better things than the
blood of Abel. In the next place, He who has entered
into this covenant, has founded his hope of salvation
upon the righteousness of Christ, by which it was ful
filled. If this was the condition of the covenant, he
alone who consents to it, can have any right to the
promises ; those who go about to establish their own
righteousness, in vain expect to enjoy its blessings, and
are guilty of an impious attempt to disannul the eternal
agreement hetween the Father and the Son. This is
the tendency of the doctrine of the merit of good works,
in the mildest form in which it can be proposed. Al
low that they are performed by the assistance of grace,
and that nothing is required but sincere obedience, still
it is a new condition, totally different from the original
one. The admission of any thing, however qualified,
even of faith itself, as the ground of our acceptance, is
subversive of the covenant of grace. The notions of
some men may be confused, and their expressions in
accurate, while the exercises of their hearts are humble
and evangelical ; they may seem to trust in their own
righteousness, while before God they renounce it as
utterly insufficient ; but, if there is any man who dis
tinctly and deliberately depends upon it, as he betrays
the spirit, so he is under the authority of the old cove
nant which ministers condemnation and death. "As
many as are of the works of the law, are undeT the
curse."! Lastly, He who is in covenant with God,

* Mark xvi. 16.

+ Heb. vi. 18.

} Gal. iii. 10

MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST.

271

is a holy person ; for this, we have seen, is its first
promise : " I will put my laws in their minds, and in
their hearts will I write them." It found him a sin
ner, but it has made him a saint. Its design, to re-unite
men to God in the bonds of friendship, could not be
accomplished without the sanctification of our nature ;
between which, in its unregenerated state, and a Be
ing of infinite purity, there is a mutual repugnance, and
communion is impossible. The promises of the cove
nant not only furnish motives to obedience, but hold out
that aid by which the people of God are enabled to
perform it. And it is the character of believers, that
they do not rely upon their own powers, and attempt to
serve God in their own strength, but depend upon
his grace, which works in them both to will and to
do ; and that they ascribe to him all the praise of their
success. To the man who perceives in himself those evidences
of his interest in the covenant, we may say, ' Hail,
thou that art highly favoured of the Lord, the Lord is
with thee. Thy sins are pardoned, and thy immortal
welfare is secured; happy art thou, and it shall be
well with thee. " The lines are fallen to thee in
pleasant places ; yea, thou hast a goodly inheritance ;
for God is the portion of thy cup."* Tossed and
afflicted thou mayest be in this sinful world, but thou
shalt not perish, for the covenant is sure and everlasting.
The price of thy redemption is paid. Eternal life is
thine by right, and, ere long, it shall be thine in pos
session. The power which created all things, and
upholds them, will protect thee from dangers ; and the
truth, which is more stable than the everlasting moun
tains, is pledged to realize thy hopes. "My covenant
will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of
my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness, that I
will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure forever,
and his throne as the sun before me." '!

LECTURE LI.
ON THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST.
A Mediator between God and Man necessary — General Obser
vations on the Office of Mediator — Christ's Qualifications
for the Office — Reconciliation to God, the effect of Media
tion — In what nature Christ is Mediator — He is not Media
tor for Angels— Commencement and Duration ofhis Office.
There was not a Mediator in the first covenant,
because man being in a state of innocence was ac
ceptable to his Creator, and having a pure conscience,
was not disturbed by those terrors which haunt bis
guilty descendants, and make them recoil from inter
course with the Just and Holy One ; yet, it was con
descension on the part of God, to enter into a federal
transaction with his own creature to whom he owed
nothing, and whose obedience he might have demand
ed, without stipulating any reward ; and by making
a covenant with him, he lessened, as it were, the
natural distance between them, and put a veil upon his
glory, the full spendour of which, even a spotless be
ing could not have been able to endure.
Since the introduction of sin, tbe necessity of a Me
diator has been generally felt and acknowledged. It
was a consciousness of their own meanness, and un-
worthiness to approach the Supreme Being, the Lord
of heaven and earth, which first gave rise to the idol
atry of the Gentiles. Conceiving the celestial bodies
to be animated, dazzled by their splendour, and be
lieving that they had nearer access to the Deity, and
greater influence with him than the inhabitants of this
inferior region of the universe, they paid religious

homage to them, in tbe hope that through their patron
age, they should be recommended to the notice of the
Father of all. In process of time, they imagined an
order of invisible beings, to whom the office was as
signed of carrying the prayers of men to the Gods,
and bringing commands and blessings from the Gods
to men. " God," says Plato, " does not mingle in
familiar intercourse with mortals, but all intercourse
and conversation with him are maintained by means
of demons," as those fancied beings were called.
They conjoined with them those persons who had
been distinguished upon earth by their virtues and il
lustrious achievements, and were exalted to the rank
of demi-gods after their death.
Moses was the mediator of the covenant which God
made with the Israelites at Sinai, and hence the law
is said to have been given " by the hand of a media
tor."* The interposition of a third person between
that people and the Lawgiver was soon found 1o be
necessary. The appearance of Jehovah amidst black
ness, darkness, and tempest, filled the whole camp
with alarm, and his voice issuing from the midst of
devouring fire, so terrified them, that they said to Mo
ses, " Speak thou with us, and we will hear ;, but let
not God speak with us, iest we die."! How could
they but tremble, in whose ears his holy law was pro
claimed, and whose consciences told them that they
had often transgressed it ! The mediation of Moses
consisted in his acting as an internuncius, or messen
ger, between God and the Israelites. God did not
speak again to them with an audible voice; Moses
published his commands; and as he spoke for God to
the people, so he spoke for the people to God, pre
senting to him their promises and vows, and requests.
Jesus Christ is the Mediator of a better covenant,
and the office as sustained by him, is to be understood
in a higher and more perfect sense. He is not merely
a prophet, who has spoken to us in the name of God,
and an intercessor who recommends our petitions to
him, but, by the sacrifice of himself, he has removed
the obstacles which prevented our friendly correspond
ence ; and while by his death he reconciled God to
the guilty, by tbe influence of his grace upon their
hearts, he reconciles the guilty to God.
A Mediator is one who intervenes between two par
ties at variance, and makes peace. The original word
is /lio-itho, which signifies, o liitu£v Svo w, qui medius
inter duo stat, vel est-X Unitarians, consistently with
their principles, understand it to mean simply a mes
senger, a person sent by God to declare his will and
his promises. But, although it does not admit of a
higher sense in its application to Moses, it signifies
much more when Christ is designated by it, as will
appear, I trust, from what will be said in this lecture,
and from the subsequent illustration of his priestly
office. The word Mediator does not occur in the Old
Testament, except in the translation of the Seventy,
who render these words in Job, " Neither is there any
days-man (an old word for umpire) between us, that
might lay his hand upon both,"|| in the following man
ner, Eifle m o ilititk titim, xm ixfyx"" *** cfuxovm av=t fao-oy
ct/jicfoTtpuv, " I wish that we had a mediator attentively
hearing and judging between both." The Hebrew
rr31D) is a judge or arbiter, employed in settling a dis
pute, and deciding who has the right side of the ques
tion. The passage refers rather to an umpire than a
mediator. The necessity of tbe mediation of Christ, arises
from the existence of sin ; which being contrary to the
nature and the will of God, renders those who have
committed it obnoxious to his displeasure. As tney

* Ps. xvi. 6.

f Ps. lxxxix. 34—36.

* Gal. iii 19. t Exod. xx. 19-
t He that stands, or is, a middle person between two.
\ Job. ix. 33.

272

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

had no means of appeasing his anger, the interposition
ot another person was requisite to atone for their guilt,
and lay the foundation of peace. This is the great
design ofhis office; but it extends to all the acts, by
which sinners are actually brought into a state of re
conciliation, are fitted for holding communion with
God, and are raised to perfection and immutable feli
city in the world to come. It comprehends the par
ticular offices which our Saviour is represented as sus
taining, the prophetical, the sacerdotal, and the regal;
and it is by executing these that he completely per
forms the duties, and realizes the character of a Me
diator. " There is one God, and one Mediator be
tween God and men, the man Christ Jesus."* These
particular offices will be afterwards considered in their
order. In the present lecture, I shall confine myself
to some general observations. My purpose is to in
quire what are the necessary qualifications of a media
tor between God and man, and to shew that they are
all found in Him, to whom this character exclusively
belongs. In the first place, a Mediator is necessarily a differ
ent person from either of the parties whom it is his
design to reconcile ; he can neither be the party which
is offended, nor the party which has given the offence.
The party offended may forgive the offence ; but in
this case a mediator is not wanted, so far as he is con
cerned. The party offending may be sorry for his
conduct, and earnestly desire that peace may be made ;
but he may have no access to the party offended, or
the latter may reject his advances, because be does
not deem the proffered satisfaction to be adequate. In
this case, a third person must interpose to adjust the
difference, by the proposal of terms in which both will
acquiesce. It will be said, How could Jesus Christ be a Me
diator, since it is certain that he was not in a state of
neutrality, but was the party offended, being one with
the Father and the Spirit? for, if we hold the com
mon doctrine of the Trinity, which teaches that all the
Divine persons subsist in one undivided essence, we
must believe, that they were all displeased at the
sin of man, and that the penalty denounced upon
him had the sanction of their common authority. It
is acknowledged that, according to this view, he
whom we call Mediator must be considered as Law
giver and Judge, and that, instead of expecting him to
interpose in our favour, we had every thing to fear
from his vengeance. Have we not reason to believe
that it was he who appeared in paradise after the fall,
and pronounced the doom of the whole human race
upon our guilty progenitors ? But let us remember,
that the Scriptures introduce us to the knowledge of
an economy or arrangement among the persons of the
Godhead, by which different characters and offices are
assigned to each, and new relations are sustained by
them towards one another, and towards us. The law,
for the violation of which w_e are condemned, is the
law of the Father. He appears in the character of the
Supreme Governor of heaven and earth. It is against
him that the offence has been committed ; it is his
justice which demands the punishment of the guilty ;
and with him remains the power to extend mercy to
them, and to prescribe the terms upon which it will be
exercised. The Son having resigned, if I may speak
so, these prerogatives to the father, (resigned them, I
mean, for this special purpose,) has assumed a differ
ent character. He does not pursue tbe claims of jus
tice against sinners, but stands forth as their friend, to
rescue them from their perilous situation, and to give
euch satisfaction as their offended Sovereign may de
mand. Thus in this economy, he is distinguished
from the Father, and is as closely related to us as the

* 1 Tim. ii. 5.

surety is to the person for whom be has become re
sponsible. But, although between him and men an in
timate connexion subsists, he is not one of them, con
sidered as offenders ; such union would have totally
disqualified him for his office. A partaker of their na
ture, and even of its infirmities, he was perfectly free
from that pollution with which it is stained in every
other individual. " He was holy, harmless, undefiled,
and separate from sinners," — so separate that he could
approach to God in their name, and was looked upon
by the Holy One with entire approbation. This point
will afterwards come under our notice.
In the second place, A mediator must be indepen
dent, and master of himself. He must possess full
ability for the duties of his office, and a full rio-ht to
exert that ability in whatever way the design of the of
fice may require. If it be necessary, in order to effect
a reconciliation, that he should give satisfaction by
sufferings and death, it is evident that he must have
absolute power over himself; because those who are
subject to the authority of another, cannot dispose of
themselves and their services without his conspnt.
Hence we perceive that, in the present case, a mere
creature could not have been mediator, because some
thing was required which a creature was not at liberty
to give by his own spontaneous deed. Angels and
men are the property of the Creator, which cannot be
alienated without sacrilege. They must wait his com
mand before they venture to engage in any enterprizc
not comprehended in the original law of their naturp.
In particular, it should be considered that the life of
man is his gift, and is not to be thrown away or sur
rendered, whatever good might be anticipated from the
sacrifice, without tbe permission of the Giver. And
here we may remark, that the substitution of one life
for another, could not be justly admitted by a human
government, for this obvious reason, that what the sub
stitute had no right to give away, his superiors could
have no right to accept. That the offer was voluntary,
would not alter the case, because mere willingness
and moral power are two things totally different. As
our life is not our own, so our faculties are instruments
with which we are furnished for the service of our
Maker ; and the exertion of them for any purpose not
commanded or permitted, is a waste or an abuse, fri
which we are reprehensible. We may not trifle with
our happiness, although it may be thought, that if we
choose to suffer we are unwise, but not criminal ; for
it flows from the Divine bounty, and as it should be
thankfully received, so it should be carefully pre
served, and only parted with when duty calls, and an
act of self-denial is demanded for the glory of God.
Into the office of Mediator between God and man,
which required the sacrifice of ease and life itself, no
mere creature, although otherwise qualified, (which,
however, was impossible,) could have intruded with
out presumption. He had not the requisite power, the
power to lay down his life, and the power to take it
again. But this power belonged to Jesus Christ, who
was indeed bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, and,
if he had possessed no higher nature, would not have
been a fit person to mediate between heaven and earth ;
but, while the Scripture traces his human genealogy,
and calls him the son of David, it. is careful to inform
us that he was also the Son of God. As a Divine
person, he was not under the control of superior
power, he was subject to no law, by which his ac
tivity was confined to a particular sphere; he might
interfere wherever his wisdom and benevolence point
ed the way. He could stoop from his dignity, and
draw a veil over his glory. Having assumed our na
ture, he might emnloy it as the instrument of accom
plishing any service which would promote the designs
of the Divine government, and the interests of the hu
man race. He might present it as a pure oblation to

MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST.

273

his Father, and give his blood as the ransom of our
souls. In the third place, A mediator must be a person
who has great influence over both parties ; he must
possess the means and the power to terminate their
mutual aversion, and unite them in the bonds of peace.
It is not the interference of any person which will ef
fect a reconciliation : he must be one who can conduct
the business with prudence, and adjust the difference
to the satisfaction of both parties. In the present case,
the negotiation could be successfully carried on only
by one in whom both could confide, and who had such
interest with both, that to use language employed on
such occasions among men, they would be disposed
to attend to his proposals. The object of the inter
position was to bring together, upon amicable terms,
God and men, between whom sin had caused a
mutual alienation ; to remove displeasure on the one
hand, and aversion on the other, and to restore an in
tercourse founded in love. The necessary qualifica
tion was found in Jesus Christ ; " Him the Father
hearetr always;" to his requests be never fails to
lend a favourable ear. What would he refuse to a
Son, who is the brightness of his glory, and whom he
always" loved ; to a Son, who has shed at the foot of
his throne blood more precious, not only than that of
bulls and goats, but than the blood of the noblest and
the holiest of the human race ; a Son, who has so
faithfully and honourably finished the work assigned
to him, notwithstanding tbe most formidable difficul
ties; a Son, who submitted to humiliation, and sor
row, and death, that he might exalt the character of
his Father, and give the highest manifestation of his
glory to the universe? There was not another in
heaven or on earth who had such claims to be heard,
when he came forward to intercede for the guilty. To
the interest which upon these grounds he possesses
with the offended Lawgiver, no limits can be assigned.
Infinitely acceptable to Him, both as his own Son, and
as our Advocate, he may ask what he will, and it
shall be granted to him. God will not retain his an
ger against those whom one so high in favour has
taken under his protection, and recommends to his ap
probation. His influence with the other party, whose.
consent is necessary to complete the reconciliation, is
equally great. What power is he not able to exert
upon them by means of his word, which casts down
high thoughts and proud imaginations, and leads cap
tive the willing mind? What can tbey refuse to a
person of such dignity, who condescends to solicit
them ? How irresistible are the claims of his blood !
How attractive is the display of his grace ! If these
motives should prove ineffectual to dispel their preju
dices, and conquer their aversion, he has access to the
springs of motion in the heart. He can send the Holy-
Spirit to persuade with gentle but irresistible efficacy ;
who, by a manifestation of wrath and of mercy, of the
hopelessness of a contest with the Almighty, and the
happiness flowing from his favour, leads them humbly
to supplicate peace, and to accept the offered reconcil
iation with gratitude and joy.
In the fourth place, A mediator between God and
man must be capable of suffering. The design of his
office is to make reconciliation ; and as God would
not pardon sin without satisfaction to his justice, the
design could not be accomplished unless the mediator
would submit to the penalty ; for only upon this con
dition would the offended Lawgiver receive them into
favour. Had the redemption of man been merely an
act of power, like the deliverance of the Israelites
from Egyptian bondage, the Son of God might have
effected it without assuming our nature, and descend
ing to a state of humiliation. But it was a moral
work, which was to be conducted in conformity to the
principles of the Divine government, and to terminate
SK 18

in a full display of its rectitude and purity. We need
not here discuss the question, whether God could have
pardoned sin without an atonement. Although we
should venture to affirm that he could — and surely it
is a venture which ill becomes beings of such limited
views — it would be sufficient to know that he would
not, as appears from the event; for hence it follows,
that the qualification which we are considering, was
indispensably necessary to a mediator. The Scrip
tures, upon the one ground or the other, represent
the death of Christ as essential to the plan of our re
demption, and ascribe our reconciliation to it : " When1
we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the
death of his Son."* It is an obvious corollary from
these premises, that the Mediator must be a creature,
for a creature alone can suffer ; the Divine nature is
impassible and immortal ; its felicity is independent
and immutable. But there is probably a'great diver
sity of intelligent beings. We know of two orders,
the human and angelical ; and it may be asked,
whether an individual of either might have assumed
this office, or whether there was any reason why he
should be exclusively a man ? The answer is obvious.
The Mediator must be a man, because, being a third
person acting between two parties, with a view to
reconcile them, he would not have been qualified for
his undertaking if he had not possessed the nature of
both. But there are two other reasons connected with
the necessity of his sufferings. First, if he must un
dergo the penalty denounced upon the objects of his
mission, an angel could not have been our substitute,
because he might be annihilated, but could not die in
the sense of the law ; the death which the law threat
ened, being the separation of the soul from the body,
while his nature is spiritual and uncompounded.
Secondly, the expiation of sin must be made in the
nature which sinned. The identity of nature seems to
have been indispensable to the ends of justice. If a
man dies for men, we see a cause of righteous retribu
tion ; but nothing of this kind would have appeared
if the burden of human guilt had been laid upon an
angel. This doctrine is taught in the following
words: " Forasmuch then as the children were parta
kers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took
part of the same ; that through death he might destroy
him that had the power of death, that is, the devil ;
and deliver them who through fear of death, were all
their lifetime subject to bondage."! The reason of the
incarnation is assigned in the next verse : " For verily
he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took
on him the seed of Abraham."! The word rendered,
by the aid of a supplement, " he took on him the na
ture," is i?rtxcLft/2u.vtTii, from a verb which signifies to
take hold of, and to help.- "Verily he did not help
angels, but he helped the seed of Abraham," and for
this reason he took part of our flesh and blood, and
not of the spiritual nature of angels.
In the fifth place, A mediator, the design of whose
office is to reconcile God to tbe guilty, must himself
be free from sin : "Such an high priest became us,
who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separated from
sinners. "|| Would a man, who was himself a rebel,
and whose presence would rouse the indignation of
his prince, be a proper person to be employed in soli
citing the pardon of his brethren in guilt? The per
fect purity of the Mediator was necessary to the ac
ceptance of his services. The law made men priests
who had infirmity, and needed to offer first for their
own sins,-and then for the sins of the people; and the
character of the ministers, as well as the nature of the
sacrifices, rendered the service unavailing to the ex
piation of moral guilt. Again, the purity of the Me-

* Rom. v
X lb. 16.

10.

t Heb. ii. 14, 15.
|| lb. vii. 26.

274

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

diator was necessary to the fulfilment of that part of
his office, which consisted in giving us an example
that we might walk worthily of the state of reconcil
iation ; and that this example might answer its design,
it must be absolutely perfect. It must be one which
we may implicitly imitate, without doubt and without
danger of going astray. Once more, the Mediator be
tween God and man is a source of sanctification, ac
cording to the saying of the Evangelist: " Ofhis ful
ness have all we received, and grace for grace."*
But how could we derive this blessing from him, if he
were not himself perfectly holy ? How could we be
enlightened by him, if he were not light ? When the
angel announced his birth to the virgin, he said,
" The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; there
fore that holy thing, which shall be born of thee, shall
be called the Son of God."! This primitive purity he
retained during the course of his life, conversing and
familiarly associating with sinners, but not learning
their ways. He died, indeed, as a criminal, but he
died for sins not his own : he " suffered, the just for
the unjust, that he might bring us to God."! Nay,
he was not only free from actual transgression, but he
Was incapable of sin ; so fortified against temptation,
that he could not be seduced. It was an eternal cove
nant which God intended to establish by his min
istry ; a covenant which should not be broken like the
first. The first Adam was created in the image ofhis
Maker, but his holiness was not an inalienable pos
session. Had the second Adam resembled him in
mutability, the hopes of mankind might have been dis
appointed once more ; and the remedy proving insuf
ficient, the case would have been desperate. But he
stood firm in the severest trial. No argument, how
ever subtle, could perplex his reason ; no solicitation,
however powerful, could seduce his affections. Satan
exhausted his arts in vain, and in vain did the world
display its glories before him ; neither promises nor
threatenings, neither flattery nor reproach, could ex
cite a wandering thought, or an irregular desire. The
Mediator has, therefore, accomplished the design of
his office. By his immaculate sacrifice, the covenant
is confirmed, its promises are sure to his spiritual seed,
and there is no condemnation to those who believe in
him. " Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but
by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy
place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For
if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an
heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the puri
fying o£the flesh ; how much more shall the blood of
Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit offered him
self without spot to God, purge your conscience from
dead works, to serve the living God ?"||
In the last place, A mediator must be a person to
whom men may have free access, that they may place
confidence in him, and enter without fear into his com
munion. The design of his office would be defeated,
if his character were repulsive, and his conduct were
such as to keep them at a distance. They must be
encouraged to throw themselves into his arms, to com
mit themselves to his protection and guidance, to en
trust him with their most important concerns. It is
by first gaining our confidence and persuading us to
connect ourselves with him, that he brings us back to
God, from whom we have revolted : " No man cometh
Unto the Father, but by me."§ That he is one whom
we may humbly approach, and in whom we may hope,
is evident from these considerations. First, although,
in one ofhis natures, he is exalted far above us, and
above angels, who, in comparison with him, are less
than nothing and vanity ; yet on the other, he is nearly

* John i. 16. t I-uke i. 35.
|| Heb. ix. 12—14. 5 John xiv. 6.

t 1 Pel. iii. 13.

related to us, our kinsman and our brother. It is a hu
man voice which gently says, " Fear not, I am he that
liveth and was dead."* Secondly, he has felt our in*
firmities, and suffered our affliction, and may we not
expect more tender, and more active sympathy, than
if he had merely a speculative knowledge of our mis
eries ? John refers to the first consideration, when, he
says, " The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us ;"! and Paul points out the second as a source of
consolation in these words, " In that he himself hath
suffered, being tempted, he is able to succour them
that are tempted."! Thirdly, we have express assu
rances that he bears a most tender affection to us. It
would be nothing that he is a man like us, nothino-,
that he has experienced our sorrows, if we had not
positive evidence that his love to us is real, constant,
and infinite ; for men are often hard-hearted to their
brethren, and sometimes those who have tasted the
evils of adversity appear not to have become more
compassionate to others, but to have their feelings
blunted and destroyed. But in Jesus Christ we find
a heart which responds to the cry of distress, and a
tongue which speaks a word in season to the weary.
Love displayed in his life and in his death, and un
changed in bis state of exaltation, invites sinners to
approach, and assures them of a cordial reception:
" Come unto me, all ye that labour, and are heavy
laden, and I will give you rest." " Lord, to whom
shall we go ? thou hast the words of eternal life." j]
To the duties ofhis office, I have been led frequent
ly to refer when explaining his qualifications. They
will be particularly considered when we give an ac
count of the several offices which are implied in the
general one of Mediator. As Mediator, he is the re
presentative of God to us, the image of the invisible
God, the person in whom he is seen ; and the light
of the glory of God shines in his face. In consequence
of the darkness which sin had spread over the minds
of men, and the alienation of heart which it had pro
duced, the knowledge of God was in a great measure
lost, but it is restored by the revelation of which he is
the Author : " No man hath seen God at any time ;
the only-begotten Son, that is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him."§ He has not only
brought to light those doctrines which reason is sup
posed able to discover, but he has made known things
which eye had not seen, ear had not heard, neither had
it entered into the mind of man to conceive, the mys
teries of the Divine nature, and the eternal counsels
concerning human redemption, which had been hidden
from ages and generations. It is owing to the media
tion of Christ, that such a discovery has been made
of the Divine character as is adapted to the present
circumstances of man ; which, instead of depressing,
elevates him, instead of awakening fear, inspires hope
and joy. We behold the Father in the face of the
Son, and every feature is marked with benignity. The
terrors ofhis majesty have passed away, and we con
ceive it possible that worms of the dust should hold
communion with the Possessor of heaven and earth.
The rays of the sun come to us through a cloud, which
abates their dazzling splendour, and attempers them
to the human eye. To the question of Salomon,
" Will God in very deed dwell with man upon the
earth?" we can answer, He will dwell with them;
he has sent his beloved Son to re-unite them to him
self in the bonds of eternal friendship.
This leads me to remark, that the Mediator has
established that peace between God and man which it
was the object ofhis office to effect. For this pur
pose, it was necessary, as I formerly intimated, that
the efficacy of his mediation should extend to both

* Rev. i. 17, 18. -f John i. 14.
I| .Matt. xi. 23. John vi. 58.

{ Heb. ii. 18.
J John i. IS.

MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST.

275

parties ; that he should reconcile God to men, and
men to God. The reconciliation of God to us, by
which I mean the appeasing of his anger, and the pro
curing of our pardon and acceptance, was accomplished
by his sacrifice, which, by its intrinsic value, and the
willingness with which it was offered, fully satisfied
the demands of justice. The reconciliation of sinners
to God, which consists in destroying their natural en
mity against him, and inspiring love and confidence,
is effected by the power of his grace. The conse
quence is, that God dwells in them, and they dwell
in God. Peace on earth, and good will towards men,
are the fruits of his mediation : " This is the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel after those
days, saith the Lord : I will put my laws into their
mind, and write them iri tbeir hearts ; and I will be to
them a God, and they shall be to me a people. And
they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and
every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord ; for
all shall know me, from tbe least to the greatest.
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and
their sins and their iniquities will I remember no
more."* From what has been now said, it appears that he is
the medium through wbich intercourse is carried on
between heaven and earth. Through him the love of
God descends upon us, and through him our prayers,
and thanksgiving, and all our holy services, ascend to
God. He obtains for us all spiritual blessings. They
are granted in consideration of his merit, and in an
swer to his request ; and they are not dispensed im
mediately by the Father, but pass to us through the
hands of his Son. The fountain of Divine love has
found a channel, in which it flows to refresh and glad
den the souls of the guilty and unworthy. The heav
ens are opened ; and peace, and righteousness, and
salvation have come down to the habitations of mor
tals ; " Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and
he will dwell with them." In return, we present to
him the sacrifices which he requires, of gratitude,
praise, and obedience, accompanied with humble sup
plications for new communications of his goodness.
Our services, being imperfect and mingled with sin,
might be rejected ; but the iniquities of our holy things
were expiated by our merciful High Priest, and our
oblations presented by him meet with a favourable
Teception, to which they are not entitled on their own
account. His mediation is the basis of all acceptable
Teligion ; it gives us boldness to enter into the holiest
of all. " Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and
with his Son Jesus Christ."
It appears that the duties of the mediatorial office
are performed on earth and in heaven, as the High
Priest of the Jews ministered both in the court, where
the altars of sacrifice stood, and in the holy of holies.
If it be inquired in what precise nature Jesus Christ
is Mediator, I would say, that he executes the office
in both natures, the Divine and the human. The
Scripture characterizes him as the man Christ Jesus;
but that man was united to thesecond person of the
Trinity. Considered as Mediator on the part of God,
he discharges his duty, it has been said, by his Divin
ity; for it is as God that he sends the Holy Spirit,
reigns over the church, reveals the mysteries which
none could know but he who is in the bosom of the
Father, and performs other acts which imply sovereign
authority and infinite power. Considered as Mediator
on the part of man, he discharges his duty by his hu
manity ; for it was as man that he died, rose from the
grave, and ascended to heaven ; as man that he took
possession of heavenly glory in our name, and inter
cedes for us before the throne of his Father. But, in
thus referring his mediatorial acts to their respective
* Heb. viii. 10-12.

classes, we ought to be careful to avoid the affectation
of accuracy, and not to lose sight of the personal union
of his natures, in consequence of which they are one
principle of operation in the work of redemption. Since
the incarnation, both natures act together according to
their peculiar properties. They are not confounded so
as to make one nature, but, while they remain distinct,
the person is one. Some things could be done only by
one of them, as for example, the human nature alone
could suffer and die; but the other is always to be un
derstood as concurring with it. In the death of the
human nature, the Divine co-operated, by a voluntary
surrender of it to crucifixion, and by communicating such
value to its sufferings, that they were an adequate
atonement. It is only in the Divine nature that he can
hold and exercise the supreme authority overall thino-s,
with which he is invested for the salvation of the
Church ; for it is manifest, that the Lord of heaven and
earth must possess infinite knowledge, and wisdom,
and power ; but his human nature shares in this glory.
It is seated at the right hand of God, far above all
principalities and powers ; and it will be the vis
ible Judge in the great day, when all nations shall
be assembled to receive their final sentence : " When
the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the
holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the
throne ofhis glory."* It is in the human nature that
he has a fellow feeling of our infirmities, for it was as
man that he suffered what we suffer; but his divine
nature goes along with his human in pitying us, and
is the source of the consolation by which we are sup
ported. The Scripture calls Jesus Christ the Mediator be
tween God and man. Some have affirmed that he is
also the Mediator of Angels, upon what authority they
are best able to tell. The Bible does not say one
word in their favour, and to dogmatize when it is silent,
is surely to intrude into things not seen. All are
agreed that he is not the Mediator of fallen angels, and
an Apostle expressly assures us, that "he did not help
them," and therefore did not assume their nature.
Another informs us, that, " God spared not the angels
that sinned, but cast them down into hell, and deliver
ed them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto
judgment;"! that is, he placed them in very different
circumstances from those of men, who were condemned
as well as they, but not by an irreversible sentence ;
whereas angels are consigned to a state of hopeless
misery. He determined from the beginning to admit
no negotiation on their behalf. The peace having been
broken, was never to be restored. He has exhibited in
their doom an awful example of severity, which will
no doubt be productive of important consequences in
the moral administration of the universe. The reason
of this distinction between two classes of rebellious crea
tures we do not understand ; but while we see justice
taking its course upon the one, and grace extended to
the other, with what intense feelings of gratitude should
we extol and magnify Him, who so loved the world as
to give his only-begotten Son for its redemption ! It is,
then, of good angels that Christ is said to have been
Mediator; and if you inquire in what way he could
sustain this character in relation to beings, who, having
never transgressed, had no need of his interposition ?
you will be told that he was not a Mediator of redemp
tion to angels, but of preservation and confirmation. It
was owing to him, that when others fell they stood,
and by him such stability was given to the righteous
ness with which they were created, that they shall never
lose it. If this doctrine be admitted, man will seem to
have been hardly dealt with, who stood in as much
need of such a Mediator as they, but not enjoying this
^benefit, yielded to temptation, and involved all his pos-

« Matt. xxv. 31.

f 2 Peter ii. 4.

276

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

terity in misery. The sovereignty of God may be
deemed a sufficient answer to this difficulty ; but if we
proceed to ask, what occasion there could be for a
Mediator between God and innocent beings whom he lov
ed, and upon whom he was ready to bestow every neces
sary blessing without solicitation ? Whether the idea of
a Mediator before any change had taken place in the ori
ginal state of things, does not imply some imperfection in
that state ? and whether there is any thing in the consti
tution of our Saviour's person, and in the new covenant,
which bears the most distant relation to angels ? we shall
not, I fear, receive a satisfactory answer. The truth is,
that the opinion under review, is a mere conjecture,
which does not receive the slightest countenance from
Scripture; and when we go beyond the information
which it gives, our speculations about angels are not
more wise nor more worthy of attention, than the the
ories would be which in our idle hours we might form
about the inhabitants of Saturn. The angels are said
to be put in subjection to our exalted Redeemer ; but
this is very different from their being confirmed by him
in holiness, and refers to a different period of their ex
istence. They are said also, — if we understand them
to be " the things in heaven," — to be in him " gathered
together in one," with the things on earth ;* but the ob
vious and natural sense is, that they are united with the
saints in one society, over which he presides. By him
the enmity subsisting between angels and men was
destroyed ; for when men are reconciled to God, and
renewed after his image, angels love them and minister
to them, and will joyfully receive them into their ever
lasting habitations. There is no doubt that in conse
quence of the mediation of Christ the happiness of angels
is augmented : the cause is not, that they were the ob
jects of his mediation, or that as Mediator he did any
thing with a direct view to their good, but that a new
revelation was given of the Divine character and per
fections which these holy beings contemplate with de
light. Hence the joy which they expressed at our
Saviour's birth : " Glory to God in the highest ; and on
earth peace, good will towards men." If there are any
other holy beings in the universe, this effect is not pe
culiar to angels: for the glory of God in redemption
will increase the felicity of all to whom it is made
known. There is a question which relates to tbe commence
ment of the Mediatorial office, and which it might be
improper to pass without notice, because it gave rise to
a great deal of speculation not long ago, in one of the
bodies into which our Church was then divided. It
so happened that I paid little attention to it at the time,
and am not acquainted with the arguments which were
advanced by the opposite parties ; but the one contend
ed that Christ did not become Mediator till his incar
nation, and the other assigned an anterior date to his
office. It is not a proof of the falsity of a doctrine, that it
is held by persons many of whose other views are erro
neous, because they who are often wrong, may sometimes
be right. It will not, however, serve to recommend the
opinion that the mediation of Christ commenced at his
birth, to know that it is a doctrine of the Church of
Rome, which has been condemned by Protestant Di
vines. Roman Catholics maintain that Christ is Me
diator only as man, and therefore consider him as not
having entered upon his office till he assumed our
nature. It is of importance to settle the meaning of terms,
because when they are left vague and indeterminate,
both parties may dispute with great vehemence, and
seem to hold the most opposite creeds, while in re
ality there is no difference of sentiment. If by the me
diation of Christ we mean his acts of humiliation, obe
dience, anil suffering, we must say, that he became
 A 
* Eph. i. 10.

Mediator at his incarnation, because it was only in
human nature that he could perform those acts. But,
if we mean by his mediation, the whole ofhis agency
in behalf of sinneTS, we must go back to the fall, and
even into eternity, when the covenant was made be
tween the Father and the Son. I can conceive some
men who pride themselves in what they call metaphy
sical reasoning, (which, however, is often the work
ing of a dark and bewildered mind,) to object that, as
the Mediatorial office implies subordination, our Sa
viour could not sustain it while he remained, if I may
so speak, in bis pure Deity, unallied to an inferior
nature. If there is any force in this argument, it will
prove too much ; for the legitimate inference from it
is, that still he is Mediator only as man; a position
contrary to the doctrine of out Church, and to the most
obvious conclusions from Scripture.
Those who claim the character of orthodox, and
particularly such of them as aim at systematic accu
racy, and delight in nice distinctions, have some
times need to be reminded of their own admoni
tion to heretics, not to allow Teason to intermeddle
with matters of pure revelation. It is of no conse
quence what may be the result of our speculations
upon the nature and fitness of things ; our faith in
every point ought to be determined by the oracles of
God. Now, if we consult the Scriptures with simpli
city of intention, resolved not to cavil but to learn, we
shall discover not a few grounds for believing, that
our Redeemer acted as Mediator prior to his coming
in the flesh. We shall find him acting towards men
in the name of God, and towards God in the name of
men, as he has acted since his incarnation. It is a
mediatorial act, the act of a prophet, to reveal the will
of God ; and who needs to be told that he was the
author of revelation under the old as well as the new
dispensation? The prophets were his ministers as
well as the apostles ; and accordingly the Spirit who
spoke in them is expressly called the "Spirit of
Christ."* And it appears that he is called his Spirit,
not merely because he testifies concerning him, but
because he was sent by him.! Again, it is a media
torial act, to exercise authority over the people of God,
and to give laws for the regulation of their worship,
and of their conduct towards God and man. It is the
belief of Jews and Christians, that it was he, and not
the Father, who promulgated the law to the Israelites
in the wilderness, and as this opinion is consonant to
his own declaration, that no man has at any time seen
the Father, the Son being his representative to mankind,
so it is confirmed by the proto-martyr Stephen, who,
speaking of Moses, says, " This is he that was in the
church in the wilderness, with the Angel that spoke
to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who
received the lively oracles to give unto us."! But we
read of none who spoke to him at that time but God.
" Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice."||
Who then could this angel who is called Jehovah be,
but the angel who assumed the same character, when
he appeared in the burning bush, the angel to whom
the power belonged of pardoning or retaining sin, a
power completely divine ? This angel was God ; but
the title of angel or messenger implies, that he was
acting in subordination to another, and destroys the
argument that he could not be Mediator, till he had
united himself to a created nature. And surely there
is no difficulty in conceiving a person to be officially
subordinate to another, although in essence and ori
ginal dignity he is his equal. To intercede for man
is another act of mediation, which our Saviour per
forms in the heavenly state. In the first chapter of
Zechariah, we find these words : " Then the angel
* 1 Pet. i. 11. f Lecture xxxiii. p. 177. % Exod. xix. 19.
|| Acts vii. 38.

THE MESSIAH.

277

of the LoTd answered and said, O Lord of hosts, how
long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on
the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indig
nation these threescore and ten years?"* It is most
reasonable to think, that this was not a created angel,
but the angel who spoke to Moses in Sinai, the second
Person of the Trinity, to whom the administration of
grace for the salvation of the church has been com
mitted in all ages, and who was the immediate au
thor of the ancient dispensation. This conclusion is
strengthened by the fact mentioned in the preceding
verses, that the messengers whom the Lord sent " to
walk to and fro through the earth," and who evidently
signify the ministers of providence, are represented as
giving an account to this angel of the execution of their
commission. Surely they did not give the account to
-a creature, but to God, in whose service they were
engaged. I have only to add, that to deny that Christ
was Mediator before his incarnation, leads to the denial
of the existence of any covenant or transaction respect
ing our redemption till that period ; because in that
transaction he must have appeared as the friend and
surety of man, and, according to the hypothesis, he
could not become such till he had assumed a nature
capable of subjection and obedience.
It may safely be inferred, I think, from these things,
that the mediation virtually commenced before our
Saviour was made flesh, and dwelt among us in a
visible form. I admit that, till he descended to the
earth, that constitution of person, which the office
required, was wanting, and some of its most impor
tant duties could not be performed ; but, to conclude
that, therefore, he performed none of them, would be
illogical, and contrary to the evidence produced. When
he assumed the body which God had prepared for him,
as he came to do the will of God, so he was in a con
dition to fulfil it in every particular, to obey, to suffer,
and to die. At his baptism, he was formally invested
with the office, or more accurately, he was publicly
recognised as the Messiah ; and he dedicated himself
"to the service of his Father, in the work of our salva
tion. The visible descent of the Spirit upon him, was
a symbol of the ample qualifications with which his
human nature was supplied, and a voice from heaven
attested the Divine approbation : " This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased."
How long Jesus Christ will continue to discharge
tbe duties of his office, is a question about which there
is a diversity of sentiment. The common opinion is,
that the office will be perpetual. It seems reasonable
to believe that, as by him sinners are reconciled to
God, and admitted into communion with him, he will
be the medium of intercourse even in the heavenly
state. With this idea those passages of Scripture are
understood to accord, which represent him as a Priest
for ever, as ever living to make intercession, and as
cribe to him an eternal kingdom.! On the other hand
it is contended, that the office may be conceived to
cease when its design is fully accomplished ; that ouy
Saviour having been appointed Mediator to bring sin
ners to God, and to a state of perfection, there will be
no cause that he should any longer sustain that cha
racter, when all the saints have been redeemed from
the earth, and being not only justified, but free from
the slightest taint of sin, will have no need of an in
tercessor, and may hold immediate intercourse with
the Holy One. The Scripture appears to favour the
idea of the termination of his office, by saying, that
when the end comes he will deliver up the kingdom
to the Father, and be subject to him, and that then
God will be all in all."! Those who maintain the
perpetuity of the mediation, besides being influenced
* Zech. i. 12. + Heb. vi. 20. vii. 25. Luke l. 33, &c.
X 1 Cor. xv. 24—28.

by what they deem scriptural authority, are actuated
by zeal for the honour of our Saviour, which seems to
them to require that he should forever retain an office
which has reflected so much glory upon him, and with
out which the happiness of the righteous could not be
secured. Those who adopt the opposite opinion do
not consider it as derogating from his glory in any de
gree, and persuade themselves that nothing can give
a more exalted idea of his mediatorial character than
to believe, that he has so perfectly re-united God and
his sinful creatures, that his farther interposition is
unnecessary. The work will stand upon the solid
basis which he has laid, will need no repair, nor the
constant care of the Architect to prevent it from fall
ing into ruins. It is formed of such durable materials,
and compacted with such skill, that it will last for
ever. I have given you a general account of this con
troversy, but reserve the discussion of it to another
opportunity, when it will again occur.
The wisdom which is displayed in the mediation
of Christ, is worthy of the highest admiration. Human
wisdom would have been confounded by the question,
Who shall repair the breach between heaven and earth ?
Who shall engage his heart to approach to God, in the
name of the guilty ? A creature was too mean, and
too weak, to undertake the arduous enterprise, and a
Divine Person was too great, and too remote from us,
to appear upon our side. The mediation is the work
of Him who is wonderful in counsel, and who proposes
the noblest ends arid the fittest means.
What glory does the mediation reflect upon our Re
deemer ! Standing between heaven and earth, he con
ducts a negotiation, on which depend the interests of
both. He stands alone; his own arm brings salvation,
and of the people there is none with him. The work
which he is performing, surpasses every other in its
nature and consequences. To him are committed the
care of the Divine honour, and the happiness of the
human race, and by him are all things made new ;
human nature is raised from the ruins of the fall, para
dise is regained, and tbe everlasting triumph of righte
ousness and truth over error and sin, is secured.

LECTURE LII.
ON THE MESSIAH.
Predictions of the Messiah prior to the Appearance of Christ —
Their Import — Evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Mes
siah. We have seen that Jesus Christ is the Surety and
Mediator of the New Covenant; and, in speaking of
him in these characters, it was impossible to avoid
references to the mysterious constitution of his person.
This, however, is a subject so important, as to be
entitled to distinct consideration, both because it is the
foundation upon which the whole scheme of redemp
tion depends, and because some men of corrupt minds
have, in all ages, and in various forms, exerted them
selves to overthrow it. But, before we enter upon it,
it will be proper to attend to tbe notices which were
given of the Saviour to the church prior to his mani
festation in the flesh, and then to show that Jesus of
Nazareth is the promised Messiah.
As God was not pleased to send his Son into the
world immediately after the fall of our first parents,
but to defer his mission till the fulness of time, it
seemed good to his wisdom to give before-hand such
information respecting him, as would support the faith
and hope of his people, and enable them to know him
when he should actually appear. It could not have
been supposed that, in the ancient Scriptures, which

278

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

record the divine dispensations to the descendants of
the patriarchs, and the other nations of the world, there
would be no mention of an event more wonderful and
interesting than the rise and fall of kingdoms and em
pires. We find, accordingly, that, as he is brought
forward to view almost at the commencement of the
sacred volume of the Jews, so it closes with a renewed
prediction of his approach, and a delightful picture of
the happiness which awaited our race, when " the Sun
of righteousness should arise upon them with healing
in his wings."*
The first notice of the Saviour was given on the
afternoon of the day on which our first parents trans
gressed, and before they were expelled from paradise.
It was included in the sentence pronounced upon their
seducer; and while it foretold his destruction, implied
a promise of their deliverance from his power. " I
will put enmity between thee and the woman, and be
tween thy seed and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head
and thou shalt bruise his heel."! I* is plain, that the
person here announced was to be the adversary and
the conqueror of the serpent, or the devil, who, by the
instrumentality of that animal, successfully tempted
our first parents, and that he was to be a partaker of
tbeir nature. It would be absurd to consider the pas
sage as relating to the enmity which literally subsists
between the serpentine race and ours; nor is there any
reason to understand it generally of a hostility which
would afterwards arise between them and the devil,
with whom they had now joined in a confederacy
against God. The seed of tbe woman denotes an in
dividual, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom this
designation is peculiarly applicable, because he has
descended from her in a different manner from all her
other posterity. In reference to him, an equivalent
expression is U3ed, when it is said, that, "In the ful
ness of the time, God sent forth his Son, made of a
woman, made under the law."! To be made of a
woman, and to be the seed of the woman, evidently
signify the same thing; and hence, we may conclude
this to be the import of the prediction, that the future
antagonist of the serpent would be conceived and born
in a miraculous manner. He is not called the seed
of the man, although he was as much a descendant
of Adam as of Eve, and his genealogy is traced up to
him in the third chapter of Luke, because he was not
derived from him in the ordinary way. He is the
seed of the woman in an exclusive sense, because his
mother was a virgin.
The next notice of the Messiah was given to Abra
ham, when God said to him, "In thy seed shall all
the nations of the earth be blessed. "|| It maybe sup
posed that this promise may be understood in a lower
sense, as foretelling the benefit which mankind would
derive from his posterity, who were destined to be the
original depositories of divine revelation, and from
whom it was to be afterwards diffused over the vari
ous regions of the earth. But an apostle has shown
us that it should be applied principally or solely to the
Messiah. " Now to Abraham and his seed were the
promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of
many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is
Christ."§ By this second notice, the people of
God obtained some new information. It not only re
peated what was already known, that the Messiah
would be a man, a partaker of the same nature with
the patriarch, but it farther taught, that he should be a
Jew; because it was expressly said, that "in Isaac
this seed should be called," or that he should spring
from Abraham, not by Ishmael, but by Isaac. The
nation was specified, in which he should appear; and
as they were thus excited to look for him, his relation

* Mai. iv. 2.
H Gen. xxii. 18.

¦f- Gen. iii. 15.
} Gal. iii. 16.

X Gal. iv. 4.

to them was the ground on which that system of typi
cal services was established, which was afterwards
introduced by the ministry of Moses.
The next prediction to wbich I shall direct your at
tention, is contained in the following words: "The
sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver
from between his feet, until Shiloh come ; and unto
him shall the gathering of the people be."* Although
it is agreed among Christians, that the Messiah is the
person to whom this prophecy refers, yet there is a
difference of opinion with respect to the import of the
name or title by which he is described. Some sup
pose that nVty, Schiloh, is derived from rhv/,j which
signifies to send, the final H, heth, being changed into
H, he, and, consequently, that n^'C, signifies HetJial
is sent. In the Vulgate, it is translated Qui mittendua
est, he who is to be sent. Our Saviour is elsewhere
termed the angel or messenger of Jehovah, and often
speaks of his mission in the New Testament: "Say
ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent
into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I
am the Son of God ?"! Others are of opinion, that it
is a derivative of nbty,|| which signifies to be quiet or
tranquil ; and that rv)"lt>, Schiloh, is the peaceable one,
or the giver of peace ; a character which is, with the
greatest propriety, given to our Saviour, on account
not only of the gentle virtues by which he was distin
guished, but of the peace which he has happily effected
between God and man by his mediation. It may be
added, that, as his religion inculcates brotherly love,
so it actually creates it in the hearts of his genuine dis
ciples. Under its influence, in the figurative language
of prophecy, " The wolf dwells with the lamb, and
the leopard lies down with the kid ; and the calf, and
the young lion, and the fatling together."§ But,
whatever is the true import of the title, as there is no
doubt respecting the person to whom it belongs, the
words now under consideration convey this additional
information with regard to the Messiah, that he was
to arise from the tribe of Judah, which should subsist
as a distinct political body, till tbe time ofhis appear
ance. This prophecy will again come under review,
in the subsequent part of the lecture.
I proceed to lay before you another passage in which
the family is pointed out, which should have the honour
of claiming bim as one of its members. '* Tbe Lord
hath sworn in truth unto David ; he will not turn from
it: Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. "If
I acknowledge, that there is nothing in these words
themselves which would justify us in applying them
to the Messiah, and that, without bringing the light of
other parts of Scripture to bear upon them, they might
be considered merely as a promise, that the royal au
thority, with which David had been invested, should
descend to his children in a long succession. But, in
the mind of a person who is acquainted with the Scrip
ture, no doubt will remain that the fruit of David's body
is that illustrious descendant, whom the Jews welcom
ed when he entered Jerusalem with this acclamation,
"Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord."** There is a mani
fest allusion to the passage in the words of the angel
who announced the birth of our Saviour to his mother.
" He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the
Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the
throne of his father David : And he shall reign over
the house of David for ever; and ofhis kingdom there
shall be no end."!! I may add the prediction of Isaiah.
" Of the increase of his government and peace there
shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his
kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment
* Gen. xlix. 10. f Shalach. f John x- 36. || Shalah.
}Is-xi. 6. T Ps.cxxxii.ll. **Matt.xxi.9. Tf Luke i. 32, 33.

THE MESSIAH.

279

and with justice from henceforth even for ever."*
The seventy-second Psalm begins with a prayer of
David for himself and his son ; but Solomon, if he
thought of him at all, immediately vanishes frcm his
mind, and he goes on to describe, in the sublimest
strains, the future glories of the Messiah's reign. This
is the king to whose manifestation the prophecies direct
ed the attention of the Jews, and under whose admin
istration they were taught to expect that substantial
and unfading felicity, of which earthly things were
only a shadow. And as he was the Son of David
by way of eminence, and was appointed to sit upon
his throne, he sometimes receives in prophecy the
name of that monarch, of whom he is the antitype.
"Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and
seek the Lord their God, and David their king;
and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter
days."! Having seen that, in his human nature, the Messiah
was to be a member of the family of David, we shall
find, in the following prophecy, something still more
specific. " Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a
son, and shall call bis name Immanuel."! The Mes
siah would be a miraculous child, born of one of the
daughters of David, according to a peculiar law. The
miracle consisted, not in the exertion of extraordinary
power, but in the manner of his conception ; for the
difference between a miracle and a common event is,
that in the latter the band of God is concealed from su
perficial observers by the means Which it employs,
whereas, in the former it is openly revealed. The
birth of every child is effected by the same power wbich
formed the body of our Saviour in the womb of the Vir
gin Mary; but in the latter case, it strikes us more,
Because it is unaccompanied with the usual circum
stances. Omnipotence appears unveiled, and admira
tion is excited by the naked display of it.
It will be proper to inquire into the reason of this mir
acle ; and we feel desirous to know how it came to pass,
that the human nature of our Saviour was so different
from that of all other men, in its perfect exemption from
moral impurity. The common opinion is, that its holi
ness was the consequence of his being born of a virgin ;
and it is explained in the following manner. Let us
look back to the introduction of sin, and attend to the
way in which it is propagated. In consequence of the
federal relation between Adam and his posterity, his
sin is chargeable upon them, and is transmitted to them
as they successively come into existence. The nature
which they derive from him is corrupt. They are at
once guilty and polluted. From this law of transmis
sion there has been no exception since the beginning
of the world. The individuals of the human race have
been distinguished by important differences in their
talents, their dispositions, and their actions; but all
have been tainted with sin, because they have all borne
the same relation to that one man, with whom they
were appointed to stand or fall. He was the represen
tative of his natural posterity, or of all who should de
scend from him in consequence of the blessing pro
nounced upon the man and the woman : " Be fruitful
and multiply, and replenish the earth." In the repre
sentation of Adam every person was included, who was
to be born according to the law of generation then es
tablished. Had our blessed Lord been born according
to the same law, he also would have partaken of the
general corruption; and being himself a sinner, would
nave been disqualified to be the Saviour of sinners.
Now, the design of his miraculous conception was,
to secure the innocence of his human nature, that it
might be fitted for the high honour of union to his di
vine person, and for the holy services which were to
be performed for the salvation of men. He was born

of a virgin, that be might be an immaculate child. He
was derived from Adam in a new channel, by which
depravity could not be transmitted.
But it is a more satisfactory view of the subject to
consider, that the miraculous birth of our Saviour was
tbe consequence of a promise made after Adam had
ceased to be a federal head, the promise, namely, re
specting " the seed of the woman." He was not re
lated to Adam while he continued the representative of
his descendants, and was not, therefore, subject to the
effects of his fall. His relation to him, if I may speak
so, was incidental and conditional, depending upon the
failure of Adam to fulfil the terms of the covenant.
Christ was one added to the human race, after it had
been brought into new circumstances, and he was not
therefore bound by the law under which it was orig
inally placed. It was not by an act of power in his
miraculous conception, but by an act of justice, that he
was exempted from the common depravity. He had
no connexion with its cause ; he was not more included
in the representation of Adam than the angels of heaven ;
he would not have been born at all, if the covenant had
not been broken ; and that it is not our simple descent
from Adam, which is the reason of the corruption of our
nature, but our relation to him as our federal head, is
evident from this consideration, that only his first sin
is imputed to us, and all his subsequent sins were
charged upon himself alone.
This I consider as the true account of the purity of
the human nature of our Saviour. It was not owing
simply to his being born of a virgin, although this is
commonly assigned as the cause, but to his not being
included in the representation of Adam. But all were
included in it who were derived from him by the ordi
nary mode of continuing the species ; and hence it was
necessary that, in order to distinguish him, our Lord,
who never was in Adam as a federal head, should de
scend from him in a miraculous manner.
We have seen that the notices of the Messiah in big
human character, became clearer and more particular in
every stage; but the ancient church was favoured with
still more ample information. His divinity was the
subject of revelation, as well as his humanity, in a vari
ety of passages. I shall mention in the first place, the
prophecy which we have just now considered, and in
which, after it is foretold that he should be born of a
virgin, it is added that his name should be called Im
manuel. This is a compound Hebrew word, which
signifies " God with us." It is not meant that he should
actually bear this name, but that he should be what it
imports. Accordingly, he never was called Immanuel
by any evangelist or apostle ; but he truly was God in
our nature, manifested for our salvation. His divinity
was also declared in the following words : " Unto us a
child is born, unto us a son is given ; and the govern
ment shall be upon his shoulder : and his name shall be
called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the
Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."* He is a
child, and the mighty God; born, yet possessed of eter
nal existence. To the same purpose is this other pre
diction; " Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that
I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a King
shall reign and prosper, and shall execute justice and
judgment in the earth. In his days Judah shall be
Saved, and Israel shall dwell safely ; and this is the
name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our right
eousness."! The original word is Jehovah, which is
the incommunicable name, and, being applied to our
Saviour, intimates that he is the living, self-existent
one. Let it be observed that, while this passage as
serts bis divinity, it points out the inestimable benent
which would accrue to mankind from his "«*»¦*»*»
in their nature, as through him they should obtain the

* Is. ix. 7. f Hos. iii. 5.

X Is. vii. 14.

* Is. ix. 6.

f Jer. xxiii- 5, 6.

280

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

blessing of justification, and by his obedience many
should be made righteous.
It would be tedious to refer to all the notices of the
Messiah which are contained in the Old Testament.
As I have laid before you predictions and declarations
respecting his person, so I might proceed to collect
testimonies to the whole work which he would per
form, to his humiliation, his sufferings, his death, his
resurrection, his ascension, his power, the progress
and final triumph ofhis religion. But, passing these,
I observe, that an expectation was excited of a great
deliverer, who would appear in a future age to accom
plish the redemption of the people of God. He was
known by various titles, as the Redeemer, the Mes
senger of the Lord of Hosts, He that should come, and
the Messiah. This last title signifies the anointed one,
as Christ does in Greek ; and was given to him to de
note his divine appointment to his office, and his quali
fications for it. In ancient times, the pouring of oil
upon them was a rite used in the consecration of kings,
priests, and prophets. In allusion to it he is called
the Messiah, because he was set apart to the office
of Mediator by God himself, and was endowed with
all the gifts and graces wbich were necessary to the
performance of its duties. Hence he is said to have
been anointed with the Holy Ghost, whom God gave
not to him by measure. The notions entertained by
the Jews at the time of his manifestation, were ex
ceedingly erroneous. They seem to have lost sight
ofhis divinity, and to have imagined that he would be
a mere man. They had overlooked the prophetic de
scriptions of his sufferings, and fixed their attention
upon the splendid imagery in which bis triumph was
announced ; they waited with impatience for the ad
vent of a great temporal monarch, and were ready to
march under his banners to victory and glory. Their
misapprehension of his character was not owing to the
obscurity or ambiguity of prophecy, but to their own
carnal minds, which dwelt with fondness upon those
parts of the description which flattered their passions
and sordid views, and turned away with disgust from
the lowly scenes amidst which his career was to com
mence. They had no wish to be saved from any ene
mies, but those by whose power their nation was op
pressed; and set no value upon any blessings, but
such as would minister to their sensuality and ambi
tion. Hence, when the Messiah did come, they re
jected him. Rulers and people, learned and unlearned,
joined in an outcry against hirn as guilty of presump
tion in claiming this character ; and the false charge
has been transmitted from father to son during a long
series of years. The mention of his name still kindles
the rage of the Jews; and, with impious lips, they
pour curses upon him, leaving it to the Gentiles to
hail him in the language of their fathers, " Blessed be
he that cometh in the name of the Lord."
Let us, therefore, proceed to show that Jesus of
Nazareth is the promised Messiah.
It is evident that the Messiah must have long since
appeared, since the time fixed by prophecy for his mani
festation is past, as even the Jews are constrained to
acknowledge. It is a pitiful evasion to allege, as they
do, that his coming has been delayed on account of
their sins. In what place in scripture is it suspended
upon their repentance and obedience ? Can any thing
be more absurd than to assign, as a reason for not
sending him, the only cause for which God promised
to send him at all, namely, the sins of men, which were
to be expiated by his immaculate sacrifice ? " The
sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver
from between his feet, until Shiloh come."* But the
sceptre has departed from Judah, the civil constitution
of the Jews has been overthrown, and for many ages
* Gen. xlix. 10.

they have remained without a priest or a king. At the
time when he whom we call the Messiah was born,
they were under the dominion of Herod, an Idumean,
but a proselyte to their religion, and therefore account
ed one of themselves ; their ancient forms were re
tained, they were governed by their own laws, and
had rulers of their own nation. The sceptre had not
departed, but it was at the point of departing; and
this, therefore, was the critical moment at which the
prophecies must either be fulfilled, or fail for ever;
for, before the century expired, Jerusalem was taken
and destroyed by the Romans, the people were ex
pelled from their country, and scattered over the face
of the earth. The dispersion of the Jews, which has
lasted for more than seventeen hundred years, might
convince them that the Messiah is come, and that they
look in vain for another.
It was foretold that he should come while the sec
ond temple was standing. " The glory of this latter
house shall be greater than of the former, saith the
Lord of Hosts : and in this place will I give peace,
saith the Lord of Hosts."* These words were ad
dressed to the Jews, who, after their return from the
Babylonian captivity, were much discouraged by the
difficulties which they experienced in building the
temple, and by its inferiority to that which was erected
by Solomon. It is predicted that it should be more
glorious, not, however, by its external magnificence,
but by the personal presence of Him, of whom the
Schechinah, or the bright cloud which rested on the
propitiatory, was a figure. " The Lord, whom ye
seek," said another prophet, " shall suddenly come to
his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom
ye delight in ; behold, he shall come, saith the Lord
of Hosts."! The house which the Jews, after their
restoration, constructed for the solemn worship of God,
was repaired, and in a manner rebuilt, by Herod the
Great, in whose reign our Saviour was born ; but it
was never called or accounted a new temple, because
the work was carried on by degrees, and the regular
service was not interrupted. Ages have elapsed since
it was laid in ruins. It perished in the overthrow of
the city by the Romans, its walls were levelled with
the ground, its very foundation was turned up, and the
prediction was literally fulfilled, that not one stone
should be left upon another. The Messiah, therefore,
is come ; and what the prophets had announced was
accomplished, when the Son of Mary was presented
to God in the temple, and afterwards in that place pub
lished the tidings of peace and salvation. The Jews
saw only a man in homely attire, and without any
worldly pretensions; but never was the temple the
scene of such glory as now, when the God of the tem
ple stood within its walls.
There is a prophecy in the book of Daniel, which
fixes the time ofhis appearance with greater exactness.
" Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and
upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to
make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for in
iquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and
to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the
most holy. Know, therefore, and understand, that from
the going forth of the commandment to restore and to
build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be
seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks : the street
shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous
times. And after three-score and two weeks shall
Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. — And he shall
confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in
the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and
the oblation to cease."! Different opinions have been
entertained with respect to the commencement of these
seventy weeks of years. According to Prideaux, who

* Hag. ii. 9.

t Mai. iii. 1.

} Dan. ix. 24—27.

THE MESSIAH.

281

supports his opinion by many learned arguments, they
are to be dated from the seventh year of Artaxerxes
Longimanus, when a decree went forth from that mon
arch to Ezra, to restore the nation and church of the
Jews ; and the seven weeks, or forty-nine years, extend
from that period to the time of Nehemiah, when the
walls of Jerusalem were finished, and the affairs of the
nation were settled. The sixty-two weeks, or four
hundred and thirty-four years, fill up the interval be
tween Nehemiah and the appearance of the Baptist ;
and the one week, or the last seven years, were employ
ed in the ministration of John and our Saviour. In the
course of that week, or rather in the latter half of it, he
made the sacrifice and the oblation to cease by his own
death, which fulfilled the types, and was followed by
the abolition of the ceremonial law. It is evident from
this prophecy, that the Messiah is come ; and the evi
dence is so clear, that the Jews are thrown into the ut
most perplexity by it, and not knowing what answer
to give to the arguments of Christians, wish to pre
serve silence on the subject, and pronounce a curse upon
the man who shall presume to calculate the weeks of
Daniel. That the Messiah, whose advent is past, is Jesus of
Nazareth, may be proved by the exact correspondence
between his character and history, and the particulars
mentioned in prophecy. He was of the tribe of Judah
and the family of David, as we learn from his geneal
ogy in Matthew and Luke ; and these points, I believe,
have not been disputed. In legal reckoning he was the
son of Joseph, but in reality he was the son of Mary.
- The descent of Joseph from David is traced in Mat
thew, and of Mary in Luke, although her name does
not occur in it. In this way we account for the dif
ference in the two genealogical tables, which, while
both point out David as his progenitor, do not agree in
one particular with respect to the intermediate persons.
Now, unless we were to suppose the evangelists to have
written at random, this difference is a proof that, hav
ing the same object in view, namely, to show that he
was of the royal family, they prove it, the one by the
lineage of his reputed father, and the other by that of
his mother.
The place ofhis birth was Bethlehem, according to
the prediction of Micah : " But thou, Beth-lehem Eph-
ratah, though thou be little among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto me that
is to be Ruler in Israel ; whose goings forth have been
from of old, from everlasting."* And how was this
prophecy fulfilled? Joseph and Mary had taken up
their residence in Nazareth of Galilee, which lay at
least seventy miles north from Jerusalem, while Beth
lehem was situated some miles to the south. Had the
pious pair, when the time drew near that Mary should
be delivered, gone intentionally to the appointed place,
the truth of prophecy would have been established by
their voluntary agency. But it does not appear that
they had formed such a design, or that the propriety of
it had ever occurred to them. God had purposed to
accomplish his word, not by the instrumentality of per
sons who should knowingly co-operate with him, but
by a man who was ignorant of prophecy, and had never
hoard of the Messiah. Augustus, sitting on the throne
of the Roman world, issues a decree that all his sub
jects should be taxed or enrolled. The design of Caesar
is to replenish his treasury with their silver and gold,
or to ascertain their number and wealth, that he may
be acquainted with his resources against any future
emergency. The design of God is to bring Joseph and
Mary to Bethlehem, to which the descendants of David
were, commanded to repair, that their names might be
inserted in the family register. Augustus thought only
of gratifying his avarice or ambition : God thought of

2L

* Micah v. 2.

fulfilling his word. We see the whole empire in mo
tion, and thousands hastening, every man to his own
city, at the command of their sovereign, and we are apt
to look upon this mighty bustle merely as a political
movement. But God is the prime mover, and his ob
ject is to conduct, without noise and without a miracle,
two of the humblest of the emperor's subjects to a small
city, in a distant province, because he had determined,
and by the mouths of his prophets had foretold, that
there the Messiah should be born.
As his birth corresponded, in all its circumstances,
with the ancient predictions, so did every other partic
ular in his history. Our limits will not permit me to
enter into a minute detail. According to the descrip
tions of the prophets, there would be a wonderful mix
ture in his character, of humiliation and greatness, of
suffering and triumph. To the Jews, who have adopt
ed false notions respecting his person and work, the
language of the Old Testament is a riddle which they
are sadly puzzled to explain ; and hence some of their
doctors have had recourse to the supposition of two
Messiahs, to whom they assign the different parts of
tbe description, as it seems impossible that they should
admit of an application to the same individual. The
one will be of the tribe of Ephraim, and will sufferand
die ; the other will be of the tribe of Judah, and will
conquer and reign. I need not spend a single moment
in refuting an hypothesis which is supported solely by
the authority of men, whose comments on Scripture
furnish the most pitiable display of ignorance (and stu
pidity) which the world ever saw. The character of
Jesus of Nazareth affords a full solution of the difficul
ty, which has compelled them to have recourse to this
wretched expedient. In bis human nature, which, like
ours, existed at first in the feebleness of infancy, and
when it grew up to manhood was placed in circum
stances of poverty and degradation, we see the fulfil
ment of what had been spoken concerning his humilia
tion ; and the predictions of his greatness are accom
plished in the dignity of his person, which, although
made flesh, and concealed, in a great measure, from the
eyes of men, retained the glory which it had with the
Father before the world hegan. The incompatibility
ofhis sufferings with his triumph, exists only in the
dreams of the Jews. They were not simultaneous, but
successive ; his course commenced in darkness, and
ended in light; he first became obedient to death, even
the death of the cross, and then he obtained a name
above every name, which all the powers of earth and
heaven adore. He sits at the right hand ofhis Father,
and his enemies are made his footstool. It were easy
to show, by a reference to the prophecies, that there is
not one particular of his sufferings recorded by the evan
gelists, which had not been pointed out beforehand ; so
that there is not a mere resemblance between the char
acter of Jesus Christ, and that of the Messiah, but an
exact coincidence; a coincidence in so many minute
circumstances, that it could not have taken place by ac
cident, and can be explained only by the identity of the
person. It could not happen by chance that, agreeably
to the ancient predictions, he was betrayed by one of
his own followers, sold for thirty pieces of silver, buf
feted, scourged, and spit upon ; that he was condemned
by the common consent of his own countrymen and the
Gentiles; that he was put to death by crucifixion, which
was not a Jewish punishment, and in company with
criminals; that vinegar was given to him during his
last sufferings, and his clothes were partly divided, and
partly disposed of by lot; that he was insulted by his
enemies, and, in particular, derided for his faith ; that
he was pierced with a spear; and finally, that, although.
it was intended to bury him along with his fellow-suf
ferers, his body was deposited in the sepulchre of a rich
man. It would have required the co-operation of many
persons to bring all these circumstances together by de-

282

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

sign ; but as the agents had nothing in view, except
to gratify their own feelings, we perceive the hand of
God pointing out his own Son as the object of our
faith, by fulfilling whatsoever his counsel had deter
mined before to be done.
The messiahship of Jesus is farther manifest from
tbe wonderful works which he performed. These
prove that he was the expected Redeemer, because it
was foretold that his advent should be signalized by
works at once beneficent and divine: "Behold, your
God will come with vengeance, even God with a re-
compence: he will come and save you. Then the
eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the
deaf shall be unstopped : then shall the lame man leap
as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing."* Hence
tbe Jews expected such signs to be exhibited by the
Messiah, as we learn from the words of some of them
who believed in him, and said, " When Christ cometh,
will he do more miracles than these which this man
hath done?"! But farther, these miracles prove him
to be the Messiah, because they were express attesta
tions to his character by his Father, in concurrence
with whom he performed them. Hence he appeals to
them as such: "The works which the Father hath
given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear
witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And
the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne
witness of me."! -^n(l again, when the Jews were
filled with indignation, and threatened to stone him,
because be called himself the Son of God, he said to
them, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe
me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, be
lieve the works ; that ye may know, and believe, that
the Father is in me, and I in him."|| The argument
from miracles is well understood. Whether we con
sider those of our Saviour as performed by his own
power, or by that of his Father, we arrive at the same
conclusion. If they were performed by his own power,
they prove that he was a divine person, to whose de
clarations concerning himself, implicit confidence is
due. If they were performed by the power of his
Father, they were his solemn attestation to the mis
sion and doctrine of Christ. The allegation of the
Jews, that his miracles were wrought by the assist
ance of evil spirits, had no better foundation than their
ignorance and malignity; their ignorance — in suppos
ing that those spirits could perform real miracles, and
particularly such miracles as displayed an uncontrolled
dominion over all nature; their malignity — in ascrib
ing to them, in opposition to the clearest dictates of
reason and religion, works confessedly benevolent and
holy. Certainly they would not have changed the
course of nature to advance the glory of God, and the
best interests of the human race. The answer of our
Saviour must have carried conviction to any candid
mind: "Every kingdom divided against itself is
brought to desolation; and a house divided against a
house falleth. If Satan also be divided against him
self, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say
that I cast out devils through Beelzebub. "§
The last argument by which we prove that Jesus
of Nazareth is the Messiah, is founded on the success
of his religion. Let us reflect upon the circumstances
in which it was promulgated. The Author of it was
a person rejected by the only nation which expected
the Messiah, and knew anything about his character;
and, by that nation, he was not only pronounced to be
a deceiver, but subjected to an ignominious death; so
that there was every human probability that his name
would be soon forgotten, or be remembered only as an
object of reproach. No person could have dreamed,
that a man who had been crucified as -a malefactor in

Is. xxxv. 4 — 6.
lb. x. 37, 38.

f John vii. 31. .
} Luke si. 17, 18.

X lb. .. 36, 37.

a distant province, would acquire such posthumous
fame, as to be acknowledged and adored in the proud
capital of Rome, and throughout the whole extent of
the empire: whether we consider the nature of his
doctrine, the persons who were employed in preaching
it, or the opposition which it had to encounter, there
was no likelihood that it would ever attain a footing
in the worid; and still less, that it would become the
dominant religion. His doctrine was offensive to all
classes of men, because it interfered with their opinions
and usages, and called upon them, not only to adopt a
new creed, but to engage in a new course of life to
which they felt the utmost repugnance. The preach
ers could not give it the recommendation which a sys
tem derives from the rank and authority of its patrons,
and the eloquence and learning which they enlist in
its service; for they were of a low rank, and wanted
all the qualifications which attract the notice and ad
miration of mankind. These were its only or its chief
friends, when it appeared ; all other men were leagued
together as its enemies ; the high, the mighty, and the
wise ; the rulers of states, and the interested ministers
of the various superstitions which were established on
the earth. In whatever way we may account for ita
wonderful success in circumstances which foreboded
a certain failure, it supplies a new evidence in support
of the claim of Jesus of Nazareth to the character of
Messiah. If its success should be attributed to its
intrinsic excellence, what but truth could take such
hold of the minds and consciences of men, as to com
mand their assent, notwithstanding strong motives to
reject it? If we say that it was the effect of Divine
power, exerted not only in miracles, but in secret in
fluences upon the hearts of men, we acknowledge that
the gospel is authenticated by the seal of God, and
that he who preached it was his Son.
It deserves, in particular, to be considered, that the
doctrine of Christ has been embraced by the Gentiles,
and has caused a great revolution in the religious state
of the world. The law of Moses was confined to the
Jews, and a few proselytes who occasionally submit
ted to it ; it was not intended to be universal, and its
peculiar usages rendered it impossible that it should
ever become the religion of mankind. But it was fore
told of the Messiah, "that he should be "a light to en
lighten the Gentiles, as well as the glory of his people
Israel ;"* " the heathen would be given to him for his
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his
possession;"! "the is'es would wait for his law;"!
and, " from the rising of the sun, to the going down
of the same, the name of God would be great among
the Gentiles."|| Of the fulfilment of these predictions,
there was no appearance for many centuries after they
were uttered ; but they have been fulfilled since the
coming of our Saviour. As he gave a commission to
the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature,
and they extended their labours beyond the limits of
Judea, so his religion has ever since been professed
by nations converted from heathenism. By the propa
gation of the gospel, tbe ancient idolatry has been
overthrown, the knowledge of the true God has been
diffused, and his worship established ; his law has
been promulgated as the only standard of right and
wrong, and men have been taught to expect salvation
only through his crucified Son. His kingdom does
not yet extend " from sea to sea, and from the river to
the ends of the earth ;" but what has been accomplish
ed, encourages us to hope for greater things; and we
look forward to the time when he shall achieve the
conquest of the whole earth, and be acknowledged and
honoured as universal Lord.
These are .the principal arguments by which we
prove, against the Jews, that Jesus of Nazareth is the
* Luke ii. 32. f Ps. ii. 8. X Is. xiii. 4. || Mai : 11

THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

283

piotnised Messiah. I have omitted many particulars
which might have been introduced under the general
heads, and given you only a superficial view of the
subject. What has been said, is sufficient to confirm
our faith in this fundamental article of religion. The
character of Messiah includes several offices to which
our SaviouT was anointed, and by the execution of which
he accomplishes the salvation of his people. These
we shall afterwards consider ; but, in tbe mean time, it
is necessary to inquire into the mysterious constitution
ofhis person, by which be was qualified for those of
fices, and which is intimately connected with his mes-
siabship, in the creed and confession of the Church.
" We believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God."* This important point will be
the subject of the next lecture.

LECTURE LIII.
ON THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
The human nature of Christ — Heretical opinions respecting it
—Integrity of it — Its sinlessness — Necessity of his assump
tion of human nature — The constitution of his person, by
the union of the divine and human natures — Effects of this
hypostatical union.
Having proved that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah
promised to the Fathers, I proceed to speak of his per
son, before I enter upon the consideration of his particu
lar offices. To a Jew, it would seem that this inquiry is
unnecessary, or may be reduced to narrow limits, it be
ing enough to know his human descent, as there is no
distinction between him and other men, except in his
high destination, his superior endowments, and his
achievements. Some professed Christians are of the
same opinion, and maintain, that he who was born in the
fulness of time, was in every respect a man like our
selves. It is certain, however, that the expectations of
the ancient people of God pointed to a nobler object, in
consequence of the declarations of the prophets, that the
Redeemer of Israel should be one who might " be call
ed Jehovah our righteousness," and "Immanuel,"
which signifies " God with us." Our own Scrip
tures are still more explicit, and, in language which does
not admit of a figurative interpretation, inform us, that
it was the Word who " was God," and " by whom all
things were created," that was "made flesh and dwelt
among us ;" that it was the Son of God who was made
of a woman ; and that he who came of the Jews, accor
ding to the flesh, was " God over all, blessed for ever."
These, and many other passages, import that in him
the divine and the human nature were united ; so that
of the same person it may be affirmed with truth,
that he is the fellow or the equal of the Lord of hosts,
and tbe kinsman and brother of the children of the dust.
This article of our religion has been opposed with
great violence in every age, and by heretics of various
descriptions. It is the rock on wbich the Church is
built, and the powers of darkness have exerted their ut
most efforts to overthrow it. It is not necessary to
review those opinions, which aimed at subverting the
foundations of our faith by denying the divinity of
Christ, whether he was affirmed by the Ebionites,
and others, to be a mere man, -{txos avB^avrot, or at a
later period by the Arians, to be a secondary deity; be
cause we have formerly proved that he is God, equal to
the Father. Our present design only requires that we
should take notice of the errors which immediately re
lated to the constitution of his person as SaySoam-o;, God
and man.

* John vi. 60.

Let us begin with the consideration of the nature
which he assumed. And here we are met by two
opinions which were vented in the primitive times, in
opposition to the common faith of Christians, founded
on the authority of Scripture. The first is that of the
Docetae, who were so called on account of their distin
guishing tenet, that our Saviour was not a man in reality,
but in appearance only. It was held by different in
dividuals and sects ; but as they concurred in this opin
ion with respect to the Christ, they received in an
cient times this common designation. According to
them, what was supposed to be the Man Christ Jesus,
was a mere phantom, and his crucifixion was a scenical
representation, by which the senses of the spectators
were imposed upon. It surely is not necessary to at
tempt an elaborate refutation of a heresy so manifestly
contrary to the most explicit declarations of Scripture.
" Forasmuch," says an apostle, " as the children were
partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part
of the same."* There is no reason why we should
listen for a moment to men who give the lie direct
to an inspired writer, and would persuade us that, for
the space of more than thirty years, God, for no con
ceivable end, deceived the Jewish nation by a series of
miracles, (for it was only by miracle that tbey could be
made for so long a time to think that a shadow was
a solid substance ;) and that our hope of salvation by
the death of our Redeemer is vain, as he did not shed
his blood for us, and, in truth, had no blood to shed.
The second opinion, destructive of the human nature
of Christ, is said to have been maintained by Arius and
Eunomius, who affirmed that he had a body, but not a
soul, and that the Logos, or his superior nature, suppli
ed its place. Apollinaris, or Apollinarius, also taught
that the Son of God assumed manhood without a soul,
¦\vx*c clviv, as Socrates relates ; but afterwards, changing
his mind, he said that he assumed a soul, but that it did
not possess the intelligent or rational principle, vewSievx.
exuy clvtkv j! and that the xoyozX was instead of that prin
ciple, avTi vou. |j Human nature he conceived to consist
of three parts, a body, a soul, and a mind, of which the
latter was wanting in our Saviour. The contrariety of
both opinions to Scripture is apparent, and particu
larly of the former, which affirms that he had no soul.
Besides that it is expressly mentioned by himself, when
he said in his agony, " My soul is exceeding sorrowful,
even unto death,"§ and when, on the cross, he commit
ted it to his Father, there is the same evidence that
he possessed this essential part of our nature, as there
is that it belongs to any other man ; his thoughts, his
reasonings, bis feelings, his affections, his joys and
sorrows, his hopes and fears, being all indications of
the existence of that living and intelligent principle, of
the operation of which we are conscious in ourselves,
and to which we give the name of the soul. It was
impossible that the Divine nature was in him instead
of a soul, because it is omniscient, and there were some
things of which he declared himself to be ignorant ; and
because his sufferings, and fears, and sorrows, were in
compatible with the perfect felicity of which it is im
mutably possessed. Can we conceive the Divine na
ture to have been in an agony, and to have exclaimed,
" My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"TT
We conclude, therefore, in opposition to those here
sies, that our Redeemer assumed a complete human na
ture ; or, as our Catechism expresses it, with its usual
accuracy, that he took to himself " a true body and a
reasonable soul." In the ancient, creed, which goes
under the name of Athanasius, he is said to have " not
only been perfect God, but perfect man, of a reasonable
soul and human flesh subsisting."

* Heb. ii. 14. \ But it had not intellect.
X The word, or divine reason. .. . .
[| Instead of intellect. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. c. 44.
j Matt. xxvi. 38. V lb. xxvii. 46.

284

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

While we maintain the integrity of his human na
ture, we admit that he assumed it with all its sinless
infirmities. These may be comprehended in the word
flesh, which is used by the evangelist John, in speaking
ofhis incarnation; at least the word suggests this idea
in other places where it occurs. " My Spirit shall not
always strive with man, for that he also is flesh."*
" He remembered that they were but flesh ; a wind that
passeth away, and cometh not again."! In both pas
sages the term seems to represent man as a being frail
and mortal. Our Redeemer was not subject to any of
the sinful infirmities of our nature, to sensual appetites
and transports of passion ; nor was there any stimulus
or incentive to sin in the constitution or temperament
of his body. The Scripture is careful, when it asserts
his conformity to us in other things, to make this im
portant exception. " He was in all things tempted like
as we are, yet without sin."! He was subject to none
of those diseases which are the portion of man, who is
born to trouble as the sparks fly upwards. Infirmities
of this kind would have discommoded him in the dis
charge of his duty, and he was exempted from them on
account ofhis personal purity. But he was subject to
hunger and thirst, to cold and heat, and weariness, to
pain of body arising from external injuries, and to dis
tress of mind from the experience or apprehension of
evil, and from the effects produced upon his feelings
by the scenes with which he was surrounded. Al
though living in our world, he might have been de
fended against every annoyance by the order of Omnip
otence, as an angel of heaven would be, were he to de
scend to the earth, and sojourn in it for a season ; but
such a state would not have accorded with the design
of his mission. He submitted to our infirmities, that
he might acquire an experimental knowledge of our
sufferings, corporeal and mental, and we might be more
fully assured ofhis sympathy; besides that it was only
by his tears, and agony, and death, that the great work
of our redemption could be accomplished. " We have
not a high priest that cannot be touched with a feeling
of our infirmities, but was in all things tempted like as
we are."||
Before we proceed farther, the question occurs, Whai
was the reason that the Son of God assumed the nature
of man ? Some of the Schoolmen were so bold as to
affirm, that he would have assumed it although man
had not sinned. I do not know what arguments they
advanced in support of this opinion, nor is it necessary
to inquire, because, without hearing them, we may con
fidently pronounce that they are unsatisfactory and
false. Their philosophy, such as it was, could give
them no assistance in a matter of pure revelation ; and
every thing which the Scriptures say upon the subject,
directly tends to the opposite conclusion. He became
man for the redemption of men, the assumption of our
nature being necessary to prepare him for those services
and sufferings by which alone we could be redeemed.
" Verily," says Paul, " he took not on him the nature
of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. "§
Theword which we translate, took on him, or assumed,
signifies to take hold of, to assist, or to help, and was so
understood by the Greek commentators, the most com
petent judges. The true sense of the passage, I ap
prehend, is, that the Son of God interposed for the de
liverance, not of angels, but of men; and the nature of
his interposition is stated in the preceding verses.
" Forasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and
blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same ;"^[
that is, he helped man by becoming a man. It is re
lated by Caesar, that it was an opinion of the Gauls,
" that unless the life of man was given for the life of
man, the immortal gods could not be appeased."** It
* Gen. vi. 3. + Ps. lxxviii. 39. J Heb. iv. 15. || Idem.
} Heb. ii. 16. 1 lb. 14. ** De Bell. Gall. lib. vi.

would be absurd to quote tbeir sentiments in support
of a doctrine of revelation, especially as they founded
upon them the cruel and detestable practice of human
sacrifices ; but it is worthy of attention that they had
adopted an idea which in general was true, and was the
reason of the great mystery which we are at present
considering, the incarnation of our Saviour. If an
atonement was necessary, we cannot conceive it to hava
been made by the sufferings of any other nature than
that which had incurred the penalty of sin. No such
relation could have, been established between two be
ings of totally different natures, between a man and ait
angel, that, in consequence of it, what was done by the
latter, should have been accepted, as if it had been done
by the former. We can understand how the services
of an individual may be admitted as an equivalent foi
the services of the whole class to which he belongs;
but there is no principle on which we could account
for the same mode of estimating the services of an in
dividual of a different class. If an angel had suffered,
there would have been no display of the righteousness
of God ; as, in that case, the nature which had sinned
would have escaped with impunity. It behoved the
surety, in this case, to be closely allied to the debtors,
bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh, that lie
might be identified with ihem in legal reckoning.
To this argument for the incarnation of our Saviour
it may be objected, that God might have saved us with
out satisfaction to his justice, and consequently, that
there was no absolute necessity for the manifestation
ofhis Son in the flesh. He might have freely pardon
ed our sins, bestowed blessings upon us unbought and
unsolicited, and admitted us to communion without a
mediator. Some have hazarded this opinion, which is
as little distinguished by modesty as by reverence for
Scripture. It imports that the mission of Jesus Christ
was gratuitous in every sense ; that without any suffi
cient reason he was subjected to sorrow and death; that
there has been a theatrical display of the severity of
divine justice, to persuade us that it is inflexible and in
exorable, while it would not have been dishonoured, al
though sin had been permitted to pass with impunity;
and that the love of God is not so wonderful as we were
wont to believe, because its greatest gift might have
been withheld without at all hindering our salvation.
Such consequences will justify us in rejecting this opin
ion, especially when we consider that it does not find
the shadow of support in the Scriptures, and rests on no
more solid basis than the speculations of presumptuous
men. The necessity of the incarnation farther appears from
the nature of the sufferings which our Redeemer had to
endure. They were sufferings which would atone for
the guilt of the people of God from the beginning to the
end of the world. These were not easy to be borne.
Human nature, unsupported by superior power, would
have sunk under them. They would have crushed the
mightiest of our race; they would have overwhelmed
the highest angel in irretrievable misery. As it was
necessary, therefore, that the penalty of the law should
be inflicted on the nature which bad sinned, so it was
necessary that that nature should be so sustained in the
dreadful enterprise, as, although bruised and broken,
not to be utterly destroyed. The Son of God united it
to himself; he was present with it more intimately than
he is with the angels of heaven; he upheld it by the
powpr of his divinity ; and hence, although the man
Christ Jesus Was in such an agony, that his sweat was
as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground, he
bore all his woes with invincible fortitude, and closed
the scene with the words of triumph on his expiring
lips: "It is finished."
The assumption of our nature by the Son of God is
expressed in the Scriptures, by his " partaking of our
flesh and blood," by his "being made flesh," and by

THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

285

his " being manifested in the flesh." The Greek
writers called it cLyBocemcric., evcLvBewmo-ic, evo-utLciTacrx, and
vio-*exteo-io ;* of which last term, the ecclesiastical Latin
word incarnatio, which we have adopted into our lan
guage, is a literal translation. The act by which the
union was formed, we cannot explain ; but it consti
tuted such a relation between him and our nature,
that it is now as really his nature as is the divine. He
is as truly man as he is God. This peculiar relation
was indispensably necessary to the unity of the Me
diator. Had the two natures, however intimately con
nected, not been personally united, their actions would
not have been referrible to one agent; there would
have been two agents, perfectly distinct, whereas now
the person of Christ, if I may so express myself, is
one principle of operation in the accomplishment of
our redemption.
To illustrate this point more fully, I remark that it
Was not a human person which our Saviour assumed,
but a human nature. The distinction between these
is important, and should be carefully considered. By
a person, we understand an intelligent being subsist
ing by himself, and not dependent upon any other.
This is the meaning of tbe word when it is used in
reference to men ; when applied to the Trinity, it ex
presses a distinction which we cannot explain. To
say that the Son of God assumed a human person,
would be an express contradiction, because there is an
idea imported in the word assumed, with which the per
sonality of his human nature is absolutely inconsist
ent ; for it imports that he made it his own ; and be
sides, on this supposition, as we have already re
marked, the acts of the man would not have been
the acts of the Son of God, and consequently would
not have been available for our salvation. He assumed
a human nature, or, in other words, made it his own
nature, by giving it a subsistence in his divine person.
The term personality merely imports, that the nature
of which we are speaking, subsists by itself. To de
ny, therefore, the personality of the human nature of
Christ, takes nothing from it that is essential ; it sim
ply represents it as standing in a peculiar relation to
another nature. It would have been a person, if it had
not been united to the Son of God ; but, being united
to him, it cannot be called a person, because it does
not subsist by itself, as other men do ; each of whom
has an independent existence. " The Son of God,"
says our church, " became man, and so was, and con-
tinueth to be, God and man, in one person for ever."
And the Athanasian creed affirms, that, " although he
be God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ."
When, in speaking upon this subject, we use the
phrase, the constitution of the person of Christ, it is
necessary to guard against a misapprehension of the
meaning. It is not that his person is made up of two
constituent parts, the divine and the human nature ; for
this would imply that the Son of God was not a per
son before the union, or that he became a different per
son after it. The union of the soul and the body is
the object in nature which most resembles it, particu
larly in this respect, that as these compose one indi
vidual, what is said of either of them may be predict
ed of that individual ; and, in like manner, what is af
firmed of either of the natures of Christ, maybe affirmed
of Christ himself. But the resemblance is not exact;
for neither the soul nor the body is a person by itself,
but the divine nature of our Saviour had a personal
subsistence prior to its union to the human. His per
son is not a compound person ; the personality be
longs to his Godhead, and the human nature subsists
in it by a peculiar dispensation. The assumption of

* Literally, humanation, inhumanation, i. e. a becoming
man, the assumption of human nature; incorporation, incar
nation.

our nature caused no change in his person ; it added
nothing to it ; and the only difference is, that the same
person, who was always possessed of divinity, has
now taken humanity.
It was the second person of the Trinity who alone
was incarnate, as is evident from the Scriptures. It
was the " Word" who "was made flesh," the " Son"
who was " sent forth in the fulness of time, made of a
woman." The incarnation was a personal act, and
was therefore limited to the person whose act it was.
We say, indeed, that the divine nature was incarnate,
but we speak of it not immediately, to adopt the lan
guage of scholastic Theology, and as it is considered
absolutely and in itself, but mediately in the person
of the Son, or as far as it is determined and character
ized in tbe person of the Son. The incarnation was
not an act of the divine nature, but of a person in that
nature, and therefore terminated upon that person
alone. The whole divine nature may be said to have
been incarnate ; but this is true only because tbe whole
divine nature is in the second person of the Godhead.
In this way we may explain our meaning ; but I am
not sure that any distinct idea will be conveyed into
the mind of the hearer. If the divine nature is in all
the persons of the Trinity, we cannot understand how
the incarnation was the act of one, and not of all ; and
the reason is, that we do not understand in what tbeir
personal distinction consists : yet we are certain that
there is such a distinction, in consequence of which
some acts are ascribed to one person, and others to an
other; and, in particular, that it was the Son who as
sumed our nature, and not the Father, or the Holy
Ghost, although both concurred in this act ; the Father
by his appointment and approbation, and the Holy
Ghost by his immediate agency in the miraculous con
ception. This doctrine concerning the person of Christ was
opposed by two heresies, which were broached in the
fifth century, and after much disputation and confusion,
terminated in the separation of their respective ad
herents from the communion of the catholic church.
The first was the heresy of Nestorius, bishop of Con
stantinople, who is said to have taught that there are
two persons in Christ, a divine and a human. It ori
ginated in the conduct of one of his presbyters named
Anastasius, who publicly condemned the title, of
Ssotcxsj, or Mother of God, which was frequently given
to the Virgin Mary, because, as he said, she was a
woman, and of a woman God could not be born. He
was supported by Nestorius, who zealously taught
the same doctrine, and maintained that she should be
called only xZ"?totox.oc., or the Mother of Christ. A
great clamour was immediately raised ; suspicions
were entertained, that he denied the divinity of Christ ;
his enemies eagerly laid hold of the opportunity to
humble and overwhelm him ; and the affair having
been brought before a council assembled at Ephesus,.
A. d. 431, his heresy was condemned, and it was de
clared, " that Christ was one divine person, in whom
two natures were most closely united, but without be
ing mixed or confounded together." Not a few of the
moderns are of opinion, that his sentiments were mis
understood and misrepresented during the violence of
the controversy. Men do not always admit all the
consequences which others draw from their opinions,
nor even all which may be legitimately deduced. It
is acknowledged by some ancient writers, and particu
larly by the historian Socrates, that he was sound in
his views of the Trinity, and consequently of the di
vinity of Christ.* He himself denied the charges
wbich were fixed upon him by his enemies, and in one
ofhis epistles virtually maintains the doctrine of his
opponents, when he says, that Christ is a name sig-
* Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. vii. c. 32.

286

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

nificant of an impassible and a passible essence in one
person, and that he acknowledged in him h 7rpoo-unrov.
Hence it is not improbable that he and his opponents
agreed in sentiment, and differed only in words. The
controversy, however, gave rise to a sect called by his
name, which held this unscriptural doctrine, " that
there were two persons in our Saviour, the one divine
and the other human ; that a. union was formed be
tween the Son of God, and the Son of man, in tbe mo
ment of the virgin's conception, and will never be dis
solved ; that it was not, however, a union of nature
or of person, but only of will and affection ; that Christ
Was therefore to be carefully distinguished from God,
who dwelt in him as in his temple ; and that Mary
was to be called the mother of Christ, and not the
mother of God."
It is not necessary to engage in a formal confutation
of this heresy, which expressly contradicts the pas
sages formerly quoted, and others which affirm that
the "Word was made flesh;" that he who was "in
the form of God took upon him the form of a servant,
and was found in fashion as a man ;" that the Son of
God was " made of a woman ;" and that her child was
" God with us ;" all which assert, as clearly as words
can do, the unity of his person. Were the doctrine
of the Nestorians true, the hope of the church founded
on the divinity of the Saviour would be vain ; for he
who died upon the cross was a man, more highly
exalted indeed than other men, but still a creature
only, whose blood could not have atoned for the sins
of the world.
The author of the other heresy was Eutyches, the
abbot of a monastery in Constantinople, who expressed
himself thus; "I acknowledge two natures in Christ
before the union, but after the union I acknowledge
only one nature." He did not specify the time when
the union took place; but some of his followers said,
that it took place at the conception, some at the resur
rection, and some at the ascension. His opinion seems
to have been, that his human nature was absorbed by
the Divine, and that the divine nature alone remained.
It underwent modifications by those who succeeded
him, some of whom chose to say, " that in the Son of
God there was one nature, which, notwithstanding its
unity, was double and compounded ;" while others,
who assumed the name of Monophysites, laid down
this proposition, " that the divine and human nature
of Christ were so united as to form only one nature,
yet without any change, confusion, or mixture of tbe
two natures." The heresy of Eutyches was condemn
ed by the council of Chalcedon, a. d. 451, which pro
mulgated the following decree, as expressive of the
faith which all Christians should hold, " that in Christ
two distinct natures were united in one person, with
out any change, mixture, or confusion."
The distinction of the two natures in Christ was
manifest while he lived upon earth. As God, he knew
all things, but as man, there were some things which
he did not know; as God, he was blessed for ever;
but as man, he. was acquainted with grief; as God, he
was the living One; but as man, he died upon the
cross. That the distinction is continued in the heaven
ly state is certain from this fact, that " he will so come
in like manner as he was seen to go into heaven;*
that is, will return in the human nature, and that he is
the ordained man, by whom God will judge the world
in righteousness. The absorption of the human nature
by the divine, or the mixture of the two natures, is
perfectly unintelligible.
The ancient church maintained that the two natures
of our Saviour were united, aSiaietTuc, and «^»g«^-at in-
divisibly and inseparably, against tbe Nestorians, and
UTeiTTTce; and no-vyxvTm without change and confusion,
* Acts i. 11.

against the Eutychians. In opposition to both, it is
declared in the Athanasian creed, that "though our
Saviour be God and man, yet he is not two, but one
Christ, one, not by conversion of the godhead into
flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God, one
altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity
of person ; for, as the reasonable soul and flesh is one
man, so God and man is one Christ." Our own
church teaches, " that two whole, perfect, and distinct
natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were insepa
rably joined together in one person, without conver
sion, composition, or confusion. Which person is
very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only
Mediator between God and man."*
Let us now attend to the effects of the constitution
of his person. The first effect which demands our at
tention, has been already noticed, namely, that by the
union of our nature to his divine person, it was quali
fied to accomplish our salvation. It was not like our
nature in Adam, which, although perfectly innocent,
and endowed with all holy dispositions, was fallible,
and might be overcome by temptation ; but it was sup
ported by the divine, and could not fail or be discou
raged. While it was thus enabled to endure the ardu
ous trial, a value accrued to its acts, which would not
have belonged to them, although they had been per
formed by the highest creature in the universe; for
they were the acts, not of the man alone, but of the
Son of God, who was united to the man. When God
says, "I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I
have exalted one chosen out of the people,"! he refers
to the constitution of the Messiah's person ; and the
might which is ascribed to him, was not inherent in
his human nature, but in the divinity. This is evident,
even to the adversaries of his Godhead, who, aware
that upon their hypothesis he could not have performed
the work which we assign to him, deny that he did
perform it, or that he offered an atonement for sin ; and
even proceed so far as to affirm, that he was subject,
not only to the sinless, but to the sinful infirmities of
our nature. Indeed, a human Saviour might have
taught us our duty, and communicated such revela
tions as God had empowered him to make; but he
could not have averted the wrath of God from us, nor
have restored us to his favour. Such a Saviour could
not have been proposed as the object of religious con
fidence. " Cursed is the man that trusteth in man,
and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth
from the Lord. — Blessed is tbe man that trusteth in
the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is."! The ob
ject of the faith of the ancient Church was the same
divine Redeemer who is exhibited to us as "the
brightness of the Father's glory,, and the express
image of his person, who by himself purged our sins."||
" Surely, shall one say, in Jehovah have I righteous
ness and strength ; even to him shall men come, and
all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
In Jehovah shall all the seed of Israel be justified,
and shall glory."§
The second effect of the constitution of his person
is what the Greeks called xoivmu. ifiu>/v.zTm,^ and fre
quently cLyTiSoa-i; tSiieLi-LTm.** In our language, it is the
communication of properties, by which Theologians
mean, that, in consequence of the union of the two
natures, the properties of both are ascribed to his per
son ; or the properties of one nature are ascribed to
his person, when it is denominated from the other. It
will make the matter more distinct to say, that the
properties of one nature are predicated of the other,
because both belong to his person. One of the Fathers

* Westm. Conf. c. viii. 5. 2. T Ts. Ixxxix. 19.
X Jer. xvii. 5, 7. || Heb. i. 3. § Is. xiv. 24, 25.
TT Communication of Properties.
* * Reciprocation of Properties.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST-

287

gives the following example : " We may say concern
ing Christ, He who is our God, was seen by men, and
conversed with them ; and, This man was uncreated,
impassible, and incomprehensible." The Scripture
furnishes a variety of examples. The properties of the
divine nature are ascribed to the human, or to him in
the human, when Peter said to him, " Lord, thou
knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee ;"*
and Thomas, " My Lord and my God."! Human pro
perties are ascribed to the divine nature, or to him as
possessing the divine, when it was said that " the Lord
of glory was crucified,"! and that God purchased the
church with his own blood ;"|| for, after all that Gries
bach has alleged against it, the word God, in this last
verse, is probably the true reading, and, as such, is re
tained by some eminent writers. The reason that, in
both cases, the properties of one nature are attributed to
another, is the identity of the person to whom they
equally belong, and who may be described by the one
or the other, as occasion requires.
This is the sense in which we speak of the communi
cation of properties, as an effect of the hypostatical
union. We do not mean, that the properties of one
nature were really communicated to the other; but that,
all being the properties of one person, they are predica
ted of him, as denominated sometimes by the one na
ture, and sometimes by the other. The subject, how
ever, is not always so understood. The Lutherans
maintain a real communication of properties from the
one nature to the other, or, at least, from the divine to
the human. This opinion they have been led to
adopt,, with a view to support their peculiar ideas of
tbe presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Renouncing
transubstantiation, or the conversion of the bread and
wine into the body and blood of Christ, as held by the
Church of Rome, they have embraced a dogma equally
unintelligible, but more harmless in its consequences,
namely, consubstantiation ; which imports, according
te the meaning of the term, that, although the elements
are not changed into the substance of Christ, he is lit
erally present in, with and under them. Against this
notion, it was an obvious objection, that such presence
was impossible, as his human nature is in heaven. In
attempting to evade this difficulty, they have furnished
an illustration of the remark, that, if a man has told a
lie, he must tell anotheT to cover it, lest it should rain
through ; and they fairly admonish us to be cautious in
adopting opinions, lest, finding ourselves involved in one
absurdity, we be led into another, and then into a third,
and all for the purpose of defending the first. .' Consub
stantiation cannot be true, unless the human nature of
our Saviour be present in all places ; but we know that
a man cannot be in two places at the same time ; that
he is a local being, necessarily confined to a particular
spot, which he must leave, when he wishes to be in
another. The Lutherans remove this impossibility by
supposing another,_ namely, that the human nature of
Christ is endowed, in consequence of the personal union,
with the property of ubiquity, or that his divine nature
has communicated to it the attribute of omnipresence. It
is the first step, as we say, in some cases, which is dif
ficult; the rest are easy. We are not, therefore, sur
prised that, having bestowed one divine perfection upon
the human nature of our Saviour, they should make a
donation of others, and affirm, as some of them do, that it
is also possessed of omniscience and omnipotence. I am
not aware that it is necessary to discuss this strange
and irrational doctrine. There are some opinions which
confute themselves simply by being stated, and this, I
apprehend, is one of them. It confounds the divine and
human nature of Christ, by assigning the same proper
ties to both. It deifies the man Christ Jesus, and,
consequently, makes him cease to be man ; it, in fact,
* John xxi. 17. t lb. xx. 23. J 1 Cor. ii. 8. || Acts sx. 28.

represents him to be as truly God as tbe Second Person
of the Trinity. The Scripture points out, most clearly,
the distinction between his natures ; and if in any
case it seems, upon a superficial view, to confound them,
the passages will be easily understood, by the principle
of the communication of properties, in the sense already
explained. The truth is, that it was neither the sense
nor the sound of Scripture wbich led the Lutherans to
adopt their opinion; it was, if I may speak so, a second
thought, and was forced out of the Scripture, by per
verting and torturing it, to support their foolish hypo
thesis respecting the sacrament. Were they asked,
What they mean by the ubiquity of the human nature
of Christ ? I am persuaded that every intelligent per
son among them, speaking without prejudice, would
acknowledge that he could not tell. A body can be
present every where, only by being infinitely or indefi
nitely extended. Do they imagine that the body of our
Saviour is commensurate with the universe, or even
with this world ? If they say so, do they affix any idea
to their words ; or can any person affix an idea to them ?
The last effect of the hypostatical union, which I
shall mention, is the honour which results from it to
the human nature of our Saviour. This consists,
primarily and chiefly, in the relation which it bears to the
divine nature. God is said to dwell in the saints, but
not as he dwells in the man Christ Jesus. The union,
in this case, is of a peculiar kind ; no other man ever
was, or ever will be, so united to the Godhead. He
who is God, has made our nature his own. This is
tbe highest honour which could be conferred upon a
creature, and would be incredible, were we not assured
of it by the Word himself, who was made flesh. By
the assumption of our nature, it was exalted abovetall
created beings. Angels were originally greater than
man ; but man is now elevated above them ; that is,
his nature has obtained a rank, which leaves the lof
tiest of the heavenly host at an immeasurable dis
tance. " Thou madest him a little lower than the
angels ; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and
didst set him over the works of thy hands."* A man
now sits upon the throne of the universe, and exercises
dominion over all things in heaven, in earth, and in
hell ; a man is appointed to be the Judge of the world.
It is evident, however, that he could not have been
invested with this authority, if he had not been also
God ; for the government and final judgment of the
universe manifestly require divine perfections, the
knowledge of all things, unerring wisdom, and almighty
power. It has been inquired, Whether the human nature
of Christ is the object of religious worship ? but I
apprehend this question is not attended with much
difficulty. We do, indeed, find the Church in heaven
and on earth, and the angels who surround the throne,
worshipping the Lamb that was slain, and ascribing
to him blessing, and honour, and glory and power ;
but we know that there is just ground for this hom
age in tbe divine nature which he possessed with the
Father before the world began. The formal reason of
religious worship is the infinite excellence of him to
whom it is addressed. It is the want of this excel
lence which renders the worship of saints and angels
idolatry. "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and him only thou shalt serve."! It follows, there
fore, that the human nature of Christ, although glo
rified above all conception, cannot be the formal ob
ject of worship, because it is a creature. The personal
union did not deify it, but merely gave it a subsistence
in the Second Person of the Trinity. We worship
him who is God and man, but we worship hirn be
cause he is God. We pray to him, because, as God,
he hears and can help us ; we wait on him, and obey

» Heb. ii. 7.

f Matt. iv. 10.

288

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

him, because he i* nossessed of divine power and au
thority. This is the proper reason of those acts of wor
ship which we perform to the Son ; but the considera
tion that he still wears our nature, in which he died
upon the cross, and ascended to heaven, is a powerful
motive to serve him, and our great encouragement to
hope for acceptance. While we look up to him as one
who is bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, and has
a fellow-feeling of our infirmities, the awe with which
the contemplation of his uncreated greatness would
have inspired us, is abated, and we are emboldened to
commit ourselves to his care, and confidently to expect
his gracious aid in every time of need.
There is another question connected with the person
of Christ, namely, Whether he is the object of worship
as mediator ? Divines commonly answer this question
in the negative ; because, in this character, he is infe
rior to the Father, and because, he is the medium through
which our prayers are offered up, and our services are
accepted. His inferiority is, perhaps, not a sufficient
reason for excluding the Mediator from divine honours,
because it is merely economical, and is consistent with
his equality in all other respects. In thinking of his
official character, we must not lose sight of his essen
tial dignity. It is acknowledged, however, that the
ordinary method of Christian worship is, to address
the Father by the Son ; to pray to the Father for bles
sings, and to plead the merit of the Son as the argu
ment for obtaining them. "Through him, we both
(Jews and Gentiles) have access by one Spirit unto the
Father."* We come to the Father through the media
tion of the Son, and by the assistance of the Spirit.
We do not usually pray to the Son, but to tbe Father
in his name ; yet prayers may be addressed to the Son,
because he also is God, and ought, by the express com
mand of the Father, to receive the same honour from
men with himself; and although, to speak accurately,
we pray in the name of the Mediator, and not to him,
yet I am not sure that exact attention to this distinction
is absolutely necessary in practice, or that it is always
observed by the people of God. There is no doubt that
they often address him as their Saviour and Interces
sor, and there are passages of Scripture which seem to
set them an example. Did not John think of him as
mediator when he uttered this doxology, " Unto him
that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own
blood ; to him be glory and dominion for ever and
ever?"! And is he not viewed in the same character
by the Church, when it says, " Worthy is the Lamb
that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wis
dom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and bles
sing?"! In a word, when we pronounce these words,
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of
God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with
you all ; Amen :"|| do we not address him as a distinct
person from the Father, and a distinct agent in the
work of our salvation, and, consequently, as the medi
ator, to whom is committed the dispensation of the grace
of the new covenant?
It is surprising that there should have been any dis
pute on this subject, while certain principles are grant
ed by all parties, which are fully sufficient to terminate
the controversy. It is acknowledged that we ought to
love the Mediator with religious affection, that we
should confide in him, and commit our souls to his
care, and that we should bow to his authority, and
yield implicit obedience to his law. How, then, can
there be any hesitation about the propriety of addressing
our prayers to him ? Are not faith and love the essence
of religious worship ? and is there any thing more sa
cred and solemn in prayer, than in the dedication of our
souls and bodies to our Redeemer, that they may be
protected by his power and saved by his grace ? He
* Eph. ii. 18. f Rev. i. 5, 6. | Rev. v. 12. li 2 Cor. xiii. 14.

to whom this homage may be justly paid, is entitled to
every other honour; and our ingenuity in making nice
distinctions is very unwarrantably employed, if it lead
us to defraud him of any ofhis claims. Certainly we
shall not err, if, laying aside unprofitable speculations,
we humbly and devoutly obey the command which was
long ago given to the Church respecting the Messiah,
" He is thy Lord : worship thou him."*

LECTURE LIV.
ON THE PROPHETICAL OFFICE OF CHRIST.
The particular offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, included in
that of Mediator — Christ's investiture with them — Their re
spective provinces, and mutual relations — The prophetical
office of Christ — Different periods and modes of administer
ing it — View of Christ's instructions as a Prophet.
The general office with which our Redeemer was in
vested, is that of mediator between God and man. The
nature of that office has been explained, and his quali
fications for it have been pointed out. There are some
particular offices comprehended in it, which I shall
consider jn their order.
Before we enter upon them, it will be necessary to
attend to tbe manner in which he was invested with
them, and fitted for the performance of their respective
duties. We have seen that the fundamental qualifica
tion for his mediatorial office, was the assumption of
our nature into personal union with the divine; but this
important fact does not include all that the Scriptures
say upon the subject. Something farther was done to
the assumed nature, to prepare it for the high and ardu
ous part which it was appointed to act.
Our Saviour is called in the Old Testament the Mes
siah, and in the New Testament the Christ; and both
words import that he was the Anointed One. Thisde
signation is given to him, in allusion to the rite by which
persons were consecrated to their offices under the for
mer dispensation, namely, by being anointed with oil.
This rite was observed in the case of the three offices
which were most celebrated, those of prophet, priest,
and king. With regard to the prophets, we have, I
believe, the solitary instance of Elisha ; but it is enough
to establish the fact that it was occasionally, if not uni
formly, us$d in setting them apart. The anointing of
Aaron and his sons is expressly mentioned in the thir
tieth chapter of Exodus ; and particular directions are
given with regard to the composition of the oil. Of the
anointing of kings, we have examples in David and Sol
omon. In allusion to this rite, our Redeemer was call
ed the Messiah or the Christ, to signify, not that he
was consecrated by the same rite, but that he was
solemnly appointed to his office by his Father, and fur
nished with all the requisite qualifications. The Fa
ther says concerning him, as is evident from the con
text, "I have found David my servant; with my holy
oil have I anointed him."! Material oil could confer
no power, and impart no qualifications, and was merely
a sign, of which the meaning was understood. In the
present case, the sign was not used, but the thing sig
nified was communicated in perfection. " He was
anointed," says the Scripture, " with the Holy Ghost."!
There are two periods at which this anointing took
place. The first was his conception, when he was
sanctified by the Holy Ghost, endowed with all the
graces which can adorn human nature, and with those
faculties which, being afterwards developed, excited
admiration even in his youth ; for at the age of twelve
he astonished the doctors of Jerusalem by his wisdom,

* Psalm xiv. 11. f Psalm lxxxix. 20. } Acts x. 38.

THE PROPHETICAL OFFICE OF CHRIST.

289

both in asking and answering questions. The second
was his baptism, when " the heavens were opened unto
him, and he saw the spirit of God descending like a
dove, and lighting upon him."* The Spirit coming
down from the opened heavens in a visible form rested
upon him, to signify, in conjunction with the voice
which proceeded from the excellent glory, to all who
were present, that God recognized him as his Son, and
bestowed upon him an abundant measure of heavenly
influences. In this manner he was publicly installed
in his office, and fitted for the discharge of its duties.
And thus the prophecy was fulfilled, " The spirit of the
Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and un
derstanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit
of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord : and shall
make him of quick understanding in the fear of the
Lord : and he shall not judge after the sight ofhis eyes.
nor reprove after tbe hearing of his ears : but with
righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with
equity for the meek of the earth : and he shall smite
the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the
breath ofhis lips shall he slay the wicked. And right
eousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithful
ness the girdle ofhis reins."!
This anointing relates to the human nature of our
Saviour. I should have deemed this remark unneces
sary, had I not found that even some professed theo
logians have entertained confused notions of the sub
ject, and have hesitated to admit the plain proposition
which has now been laid down. They seem to have
been led into a mistake, by supposing that, because
he was anointed as mediator, the unction extended to
both his natures, forgetting that, in consequence of the
hypostatical union, what is done to or by either of
them, is done to or by his person. We say that the
BexvBpanrtjs, the God-man, died for us upon the cross ;
but we mean that he died only as a man. In like
manner we say, that our Mediator was anointed to his
office ; but we mean that he was anointed only in his
human nature, unless we refer simply to his appoint
ment to office, &c. And that we ought to mean noth
ing more, it requires very little reflection to perceive.
The anointing is the communication of the Holy Ghost
to qualify him for the duties of his office; but his di
vine nature stood in need of no new qualification, and
could receive no accession of gifts and graces ; where
as, his human nature possessed no excellence which
had not been imparted to it, was capable of progres
sive improvement, and actually grew in wisdom as
well as in stature, and in favour with God and with
men. The particular offices to which our Saviour was
anointed, were the three which have been already
mentioned as existing among the Jews, and which
were conferred by the ceremony of pouring or sprink
ling oil opon the persons set apart to them, the pro
phetical, the sacerdotal, and the regal. The first is
ascribed to our Saviour in the following passage,
which the use of it in the New Testament authorises
us to apply to him, " The Lord thy God will raise up
unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy
brethren, like unto me ; unto him shall ye hearken ;"!
the second in these words, "The Lord hath sworn,
and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the
order of Melchizedek ;"|| and the third, when God
says to him, " Yet have I set my King upon my holy
hill of Zion."§ It is unnecessary to bring any quota
tions from the Christian Scriptures to prove, that all
these offices belong to Jesus Christ. It has been re
marked that, under the ancient economy, they were
held by separate individuals, or at least that never
more than two of them were united in the same per-

* Matt. iii. 16.
II Ps. ex. 4.
2M

f Is. xi. 2—5.
{ Ps. ii. 6.

} Deut. xviii. 15.
19

son. There were kings and priests as Melchizedek;
kings and prophets as David ; and, perhaps, too,
prophets and priests in the case of some of the family
of Aaron ; but no person occurs who was invested with
them all. This honour was reserved to our Redeemer,
who alone could realize in himself what was pre
figured by the various types. Moses, however, may
be considered an exception, who was at once the
prophet of the Lord, the leader of the people, or " king
in Jeshurun,"* as he is termed ; and a priest, or one
who at least performed the duties of a priest prior to
the inauguration of Aaron. But this, it is said, was
an extraordinary case, admitted only for a time, and
not intended to be an example. This instance, how
ever, seems to abate the force of the remark, as does
likewise that of Samuel, although I do not find that it
has been noticed, who was at once the judge of Israel,
a prophet, and a priest. As, however, neither he nor
Moses was high-priest, and both ministered occasion
ally only at the altar, it may be true that no person
but our Saviour permanently possessed all these of
fices. It was necessary that he should be a prophet, a
priest, and a king, because the duties of all those of
fices were requisite to the complete deliverance of his
people from the circumstances in which they were
placed. The moral condition of mankind 3hows, that
notone of them could be dispensed with. They were in
volved in ignorance, guilt, and pollution. Their ignor
ance is removed by his prophetical office, tbeir guilt by
his priestly office, and their pollution by his kingly office.
As a prophet, he dispels the darkness of ignorance ;
as a priest, he atones for our sins ; as a king, he de
livers us from the bondage of depravity. He reveals
God to us as a prophet; he brings us near to God as
a priest ; he renews us after the image of God as a
king. As a prophet he illuminates our minds by the
spirit of truth ; as a priest, he tranquillizes our hearts
and consciences by the spirit of peace ; as a king, he
sanctifies the whole man by the spirit of holiness. The
necessity of all his offices for the complete and final
salvation of men, is pointed out in these words of
Paul; "Of God he is made unto us wisdom, and
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption."!
As these offices relate to both God and man, God be
ing the immediate object of the priestly, and man
of the prophetical and kingly office, our Lord realizes
the character of a mediator by performing their duties ;
for he establishes peace between heaven and earth, and
binds them together in intimate and inviolable friend
ship. In the relation of his offices to one another, the
priestly office must be considered as the foundation
of the dther two. If Christ had not been a priest, he
would not have been a prophet and a king; it being
evident that, unless salvation had been obtained for
us, it could not be revealed and applied. All his acts
towards sinners for their deliverance from sin, and
their restoration to the favour of God, pre-suppose an
atonement by which Divine justice was satisfied. It
was necessary that, as a priest, he should fulfil the
condition of the new covenant, before he could admin
ister it as a prophet and a king, for the communication
of its blessings. But the order of the execution of his
offices towards us is different. In the salvation of the
soul, as in the creation of our world, he commences
with the diffusion of light. The knowledge of our
selves and of the Saviour, is necessary to the produc
tion of faith, by which his righteousness is embraced
as the only foundation of our acceptance with God.
Conversion consists in " the opening of the blind eyes,
and the turning of the soul from darkness to light;
and this is the work ofhis prophetical office. When

* Deut. xxxiii. 5.

f 1 Cor. i 30.

E90

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

our Prophet manifests himself to us by his word and
spirit in his mediatorial character, we come to him as
our priest, whose sacrifice has expiated our guilt, and
submit to him as our king, whose service is perfect
liberty, and whose power will defend us from every
evil. I omitted to mention, in the proper place, that the
elder Socinians, who believed that Christ was a mere
man, and at first was ignorant of the doctrine which
he was appointed to publish to the world, maintained
that, before he entered upon bis ministry, he was
taken up into heaven, and there received all necessary
instructions. Thus the Racovian Catechism, which
is a summary of their creed, in answer to the question,
How Jesus Christ came to the knowledge of the Di
vine will ? says, " He ascended into heaven, and there
saw his Father, and that life and blessedness which
he has announced to us, and heard from his Father all
the things which he ought to teach ; and being after
wards let down from heaven to earth, he was anointed
with an immense effusion of the Holy Spirit, by
whose afflatus he delivered all the things which he
had learned from the Father." The time when this
is supposed to have happened, was soon after his bap
tism, and during his abode in the wilderness. It is
enough to have stated this opinion, concerning which
the Scripture preserves a profound silence, and which
rests solely upon the confident and groundless asser
tion of those heretics. It was manifestly unnecessary
that he should be taken up into heaven, because the
will of God could have been as fully revealed to him
upon earth. This fancy originated neither in Scrip
ture nor in reason, but was a dishonest expedient re
sorted to for the purpose of supporting their favourite
dogma concerning "the simple humanity of our Sa
viour, by evading the argument for his pre-existence,
founded on those passages of the New Testament
which declare that he came down from heaven.
The word prophet, is commonly understood to mean
a person who foretells future events; and in this sense
it frequently occurs. But it also signifies a person who
speaks by divine inspiration, whether the subject relate
to the future, the past, or the present ; a person who
speaks in an eminent and extraordinary manner; and
even a person who speaks in the name of another like
himself. Indeed, the Greek word otcowtm, and the He
brew word N'OJ, are used with a considerable variety
of meaning. By some of the Jews, the latter term is
interpreted an orator, or eloquent preacher ; and by others,
a man to whom God has revealed secret things. In the
following words of God to Moses concerning Aaron his
brother, it simply denotes one who speaks in the name
of another : " Thou shalt speak unto him, and put words
in his mouth; and I will be with thy mouth, and with
his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And
he shall be thy spokesman unto the people ; and he shall
be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and
thou shalt be to him instead of a God."* This pas
sage is to be taken in connexion with what is after
wards said : " See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh,
and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet."!
It is not with the usual limitation of the term that
we call Jesus Christ a prophet. We use it in its ut
most latitude, to denote that be is the great messenger
of God, the revealer of his counsels and will, who has
not only foretold future events, but made known to us
Divine truths to be believed, promises to be em
braced, ordinances to be observed, and laws to be
obeyed. When we contemplate Jesus Christ simply as a di
vine person, we must consider him as the uncreated
source of all intelligence and wisdom : He is " the true
Light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the
* Exod. iv. 15, 16. f lb. vii. 1.

world."* In bis mediatorial character, however, be
speaks not properly in his own name, but in the name
of him who gave him his commission, and brings to us
his Father's message. Hence we say, that he was in
vested with the prophetical office; the term, office, im
plying that he acted a subordinate part, and by the
authority of another. What has been nowstated iscon-
formable to his own declarations, of which the follow
ing are a specimen : " My doctrine is not mine, but his
that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall
know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether
I speak of myself." "I have not spoken of myself;
but the Father which sent me, he gave me a.command-
ment what I should say, and what I should speak."!
In the first verse of the Revelation of John, his inter
mediate agency in the communication df knowledge to
the church is distinctly expressed : " The revelation of
Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto
his servants things which must shortly come to pass;
and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant
John."! Having made these preliminary observations, I pro
ceed to treat directly of his prophetical office. The ex
ercise of it may be considered in three distinct periods.
The first reaches from the fall to his incarnation ; the
second from that era, or from his baptism, to his
death ; and the third from his resurrection, and par
ticularly from the day of Pentecost to the end of the
world. The first period extends from the fall to his birth; for,
although he was not incarnate, he was the appointed
Saviour of his people ; and, as far as was consistent
with hip present state, he acted the part of a mediator.
The assumption of our nature was not indispensably
necessary to prepare him for giving instruction to man
kind, although every gracious communication to the
world pre-supposed that event as afterwards to take
place, and was made in the view of it. There were
frequent appearances of a divine person in the human
form, who delivered commands and promises to the
patriarchs ; and it seems reasonable to conclude, that it
was the same person who proposed actually to take our
nature in a future age. It is highly probable, that it
was he who promulgated from Sinai the system of laws
which served as the foundation of religion for so many
ages ; and, indeed, by whom can we so naturally con
ceive sacrifices to have been instituted, and the know
ledge of future events to have been communicated, as
by him in whose person, and manifestation, and life,
and death, and resurrection, and subsequent glory, the
types and predictions were to be fulfilled ? But there
is no necessity to have recourse to conjectures and prob
abilities, when we are in possession of explicit and au
thentic information. The following words of Peter de
serve particular attention: "Of which salvation the
prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who
prophesied of the grace that should come unto you ;
searching what, or what manner of time, the spirit of
Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified
beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that
should follow.'! The remarkable expression in this
passage is, the " Spirit of Christ," or of the Messiah ;
which evidently signifies not merely, as the Socinians
affirm, that he predicted the Messiah, but that he was
sent by him ; and, consequently, teaches us that the
prophets were his ministers, commissioned and quali
fied by him to give instructions suited to that age of the
church. Hence it appears, that he executed his pro
phetical office prior to his coining in the flesh, and tjiat
the books of the Old Testament contain the Revelation
of Christ, as well as those of the New. It is not an
objection against this statement, that God is said to
have spoken to the fathers by the prophets, and in these

* John i. 9.
} Rev. i. 1.

T lb. vii. 16, 17. xii. 49.
1 1 ret. i. 10. 11.

THE PROPHETICAL OFFICE OF CHRIST.

291

last days to have spoken to us by his Son ;* words
which seem to import that till the last days the minis
try of the Son did not commence ; because their design
is merely to point out the difference in the external and
visible agency under the two dispensations. Under. the
first, God made known his will by the medium of the
prophets; under the second, by the medium ofhis Son
in our nature. But the same person who, in the ful
ness of time, declared the will of God in person, reveal
ed it before his incarnation by human messengers, as
he continued to do after his ascension. The difference
between the former and the present dispensation con
sisted chiefly in this, that the present commenced with
the personal min'.stry of the Messiah ; and hence the
Gospel is called, the word " which began to be spoken
by. the Lord. "f
The second period extends from the birth of Christ,
or more properly from his baptism, when he entered
upon his public ministry, to his death. During this
period, the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of
the Father, declared him to men with his own lips.
The privilege which his contemporaries enjoyed, who
heard his discourses, so full of wisdom and grace, was
invaluable, althougb few of them understood and im
proved it. "Blessed," he said to his disciples, "are
your eyes, for they see ; and your ears, for they hear. For
verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous
men have desired to see those things which ye see, and
have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye
hear, and have not heard them."! Were I to attempt
to give an account of the instructions which he deliv
ered to his disciples and others, it would be necessary
to transcribe, or at least to lay before you, a summary
of the Gospels. In general, it may be observed, that,
while he corrected the false notions of religion, and the
perverse interpretations of the law of Moses, which pre
vailed among the Jews, he unfolded the character of
God in all its perfection, called the attention of men to
the cultivation of piety and holiness as alone accepta
ble to him, exhibited himself as the Messiah whom they
expected, and gave intimations of the design of his mis
sion, and the nature of the salvation which he had come
to accomplish. At present I shall not speak more par
ticularly of his doctrine, because it will come under re
view in the sequel of this lecture.
There is a question, however, which this is the
proper place to consider, Whether Christ corrected
and perfected the moral law, which was delivered to
the Jews? It has been maintained, that tbe moral
precepts of Christ were in some instances different
from those of Moses, and that our Saviour has enlarged
the law, by prescribing new duties, and has even pro
hibited certain actions which were formerly permitted.
It is a favourite tenet of-Socinians, that the moral sys
tem delivered to the Church before the coming of
Christ, was imperfect, and needed correction or sup
plement, and they have been led to adopt it by their
peculiar views with respect to the design of the mis
sion of Christ. As they do not admit, with the Catho
lic church, that he came into the world to expiate our
sins, it was necessary to find something for him to do,
which should be worthy of the great expectations that
were excited, and the mighty preparations that were
introductory to his appearance. With this view they
are anxious to prove, that the rule of morality which
had been previously given to the Jews, laboured under
many defects, that he might have the glory of having
published to mankind a law clear and full, in which
our whole duty to God and to man is explained. In
the Racovian Catechism, which first appeared about
the beginning of the seventeenth century, we find this
question, " What are the perfect commandments of
God, comprehended in the New Testament?" to which

* Heb. i. 12. j lb. ii. 3.

X Matt. xiii. 16, 17.

this answer is returned — " A part of them i= contained
in the precepts delivered by Moses, together with
those which were added by Christ and his apostles ,
and a part is contained in those which were peculiarly
prescribed by the same Christ and his apostles."* By
the latter, I apprehend they mean precepts entirely
new, and by the former old precepts improved. They
go on to show, under the several precepts of the deca
logue, the supposed additions and improvements, in a
manner by no means satisfactory, and sometimes ex
ceedingly trifling and silly. On the contrary, those
whom we call orthodox, affirm that the law was abso
lutely perfect from the beginning; that Christ came
not to destroy it, or any part of it, but to fulfil it ; and
that all the duties enjoined by him, which have been
supposed to be new, may be resolved into love to God,
or love to man. The right answer to this question
depends upon the manner in which it is stated. In
the Socinian sense, I have no hesitation in saying, that
it leads to a conclusion which ought not to be admit
ted. If it were asked, Whether Jesus Christ enjoined
greater love to God and our neighbour than was en
joined by the law of Moses ? no man who had con
sidered the subject, could hesitate to give a negative
anSwer. But if it were asked, Whether he has pre
scribed new modes of expressing our love to both? I
cannot conceive that there could be any heresy in say
ing, that he may have done so. Divines have endea
voured to prove, that faith in Christ, and repentance,
are duties inculcated by the law which was given to
Adam in innocence. This position requires explana
tion. Faith and repentance could not be duties incum
bent upon man, while he retained his integrity, and
consequently they can be referred to the moral law as
originally given, only in the same sense in which all
possible duties of all possible intelligent creatures
might be referred to it, because it enjoins supreme
love to God, from which universal obedience will flow.
In strict language, they are new modifications of this
principle, or new duties founded on new relations be
tween man and his Creator. At the same time it
should be observed that, whether we call them new
or old, they were not prescribed for the first time by
our Saviour, but were enjoined under the former dis
pensation. The arguments commonly advanced to
prove that the moral law was corrected and improved
by our Saviour, are of little or no force ; either because
the new duties which he is supposed to have enjoined,
were binding before his coming, or because his design
has been totally misapprehended, as if he was correct
ing the law itself, when he was only exposing and
rejecting the corrupt glosses and traditionary maxims
of the rabbies.
The third period extends from the ascension of
Christ, or rather from the day of Pentecost, when he
poured out the Holy Ghost on his disciples, to the end
of the world. But this period may be divided into
two portions, according to the difference in the mode
of administration. In the first he instructed the Church
by extraordinary means. The apostles were inspired
men, and delivered to the world the revelations which
were made to them by the Spirit. And as it was the
spirit of Christ who filled them with knowledge and
wisdom, our Saviour continued to execute his prophet
ical office by their ministry, as much as when he de
clared the mysteries of the kingdom to his immediate
followers with his own lips. This is also evident
from his words to them on the evening before his
death : " I have yet many things to say unto you, but
ye cannot hear them now. Howbeit when he, the
Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into an
truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatso
ever he shall hear, that shall be speak: and he will
* Catech. Eccl. Pol. Sect. vi. Cap. 1 .

292

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

fibow you things to come. He shall glorify me; for
"e shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.
All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore said
I, that he shall take of mine, and show it unto you."*
There is no difference in respect of authority between
the doctrines of his apostles, and those delivered
by hirnself. They are equally his doctrines, and
are entitled to be received with the same submis
sion of mind, and the same undoubting confidence.
Hence we perceive, how groundless is the distinction
which has been made between the gospels and the
epistles, as if the former were * more certain rule of
faith than the latter. As those who chiefly insist on
this distinction, affirm that our Saviour was a mere
man, peccable and fallible, there is no proper founda
tion for it in their system, because such a person could
not be so much superior to the apostles, as to entitle
his testimony to a decided preference to theirs, espe
cially as theirs was confirmed by miracles as great
and numerous as those which he performed. We have
always reason to suspect those who depreciate one
part of Scripture to enhance the value of another.
This expedient has not been resorted to from a con
viction of its truth, but to serve a particular purpose.
Certain doctrines which its authors are unwilling to
receive, are more fully and explicitly taught in the
epistles; and the insinuations thrown out respecting
their obscurity, tbe perplexedness of the reasoning,
the abruptness of the style, and the inferiority of the
writers, are designed to set aside their evidence in
favour of those doctrines ; as in a legal process, the im
putations on the character of a witness, are intended
to weaken the force ofhis testimony. The shift is as
unavailing as it is dishonest, for it were easy to show
that the contested doctrines, as the divinity and atone
ment of Christ, election and justification by grace, are
plainly delivered in the gospels; and that the only re
spect in which the epistles differ from them is, that
there they receive a more ample illustration, and the
objections against them are considered and refuted.
The epistles are the word of Christ, as much as the
gospels, for the writers were assisted by his spirit in
composing them. When conjoined with the Gospels,
they fill up or complete what we call the Christian
revelation, because it was communicated to the world
by Christ himself, and his accredited messengers.'
The second portion into which we have divided the
last period of the ministry of Christ as a prophet, reaches
from the close of revelation to the end of time. During
this interval, he executes his office by ordinary means ;
that is, by the Scriptures, which it is his will that men
should read and understand ; by his ministers, who are
appointed to explain and apply them ; and by bis
Spirit, of whose agency, in the illumination of the
mind, we shall afterwards speak. Jesus Christ, in his
state of exaltation, continues to be the instructor of the
ignorant, and of them that are out of the way; and his
work will not cease, till all who are to be saved have
been brought to the acknowledgment of the truth.
Hence, he is represented as still speaking to us by his
word, written and preached : " See that ye refuse not
him that speaketh ; for, if they escaped not, who refus
ed him that spake on earth, much more shall not we
escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from
heaven."! The system of ordinances, and ministers,
and laws, instituted for the conversion and salvation
of men, has emanated from his authority, and will be
maintained by his providence, till its design is accom
plished, in the perfection of every member of the
Church. "And he gave some, apostles; and some,
prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors
and teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints, for the
Work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of

* John xvi. 12—15.

t Heb. xii. 25.

Christ : till we all come in the unity of the faith, and
of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect
man, unto the measure of tbe stature of the fulness
of Christ : that we henceforth be no more children,
tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind
of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive ; but
speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in
all things, which is the head, even Christ."* What
ever knowledge of God and his will, of the purposes of
grace, and the realities of the world to come, is found
among men, it has been derived from the instructions
of Christ ; and his word will continue to impart wis
dom to his disciples, till they have entered into the
world above, where their faculties will be fully expan
ded, and vision will succeed to faith. He is the sun
of the spiritual world, whose rays, penetrating into oul
benighted souls, diffuse a divine light, and make them
shine with reflected glory. In short, as there is but
one sun in the heavens, from which light has flowed to
irradiate every region of the earth, throughout the suc
cessive generations of mankind ; so, our Redeemer is
the one source of all the spiritual wisdom which has
enlightened them from the beginning of the world, in
whatever form it has been communicated ; whether as
a record of the past, or a prediction of the future ; a dis
closure of mysteries which reason could not discover,
or an authoritative publication of the will of the Supreme.
And hence originates the unity of revelation, the harmo
ny that binds together the Jewish and Christian Scrip
tures, the identity, in respect of substance, of the reli
gions of the antediluvians and the men of the present
age ; for, great as the difference seems to be upon a su
perficial view, it is reduced to this single point, that
the germ contained in the first notices of it has now de
veloped itself, and yields fruit in abundance.
If you now ask, what Jesus Christ, as a prophet, has
taught us? I might, in answer to the question, refer you
to the Scriptures. These contain his instructions under
both dispensations, and are the only rule of faith and
obedience. I shall not attempt to give you a summary
of his doctrine, which would occupy too much time;
and, besides, would be improper, as it would necessari
ly lead to a repetition of topics, which have been already
considered, and an anticipation of others, which will af
terwards be discussed. I shall confine myself to a few
general remarks.
First, He has illustrated certain truths of which men
already possessed some knowledge, such as the exis
tence of God, his providence and moral government,
and the law which he has given for the regulation
of our conduct. Of these, some notions were found
among nations which had not been favoured with
revelation ; but they were imperfect, and mingled
with errors, as we have seen in a former part of this
course. It was in consequence of his teaching by
the prophets, that the Jews were so distinguished by
their creed, that, in matters of religion, the wisest
nations of antiquity, when compared with them, were
as children and fools. No philosopher could ever ven
ture to pronounce, with unhesitating confidence, the
proposition which was in the mouth of every rustic in
Canaan, that God is one. It is owing to his teaching
by the Apostles, that the polytheism, the idolatry, the
gross superstition, the licentious maxims and barbarous
usages of Greece and Rome, and otheT nations less
civilized, have been supplanted by the pure and simple
creed, which is adopted in Christian countries, or, at
least, in such of them as acknowledge the Scripture
alone as their standard. Those truths, which were
once dimly seen, now shine with the light of day. The
knowledge of them is facilitated, and is within the reach
of the most common capacity, because they are not to
* Eph. iv. 11—15.

THE PROPHETICAL OFFICE OF CHRIST.

293

oe sought out by laborious investigation, but to be re
ceived upon authority. The voice of Jesus Christ has
decided all controversies, and terminated all doubts re
specting them. " No man hath seen God at any time ;
the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him."*
Secondly, He has established as certain, some points
which were the subject of conjecture, or of fluctuating
opinion. I refer particularly to the immortality of the
soul, and a future state of rewards and punishments.
On these topics much was talked and written, and,
perhaps, they were not called in question by the com
mon people, who did not reason about them, but gave
credit to tradition. That the belief of the wisestamong
the heathens rested upon no solid foundation, is evident
from this fact, that when they proceed to bring argu
ments, some of them are inconclusive and fanciful ; and
those which are of more weight, failed to produce con
viction, as we see from the doubts expressed by the
most eminent philosophers. If at one time they seem
to have attained to certainty, at another they hesitated
and wavered, and ended in leaving the matter to be
determined by the event. " But Jesus Christ hath abo
lished death, and brought life and immortality to light
by the gospel." Coming from the invisible state, he
has so far disclosed its secrets, as to assure us that the
soul shall survive the death of the body, and will be
consigned to bliss or woe by the sentence of its Judge.
Although this truth may have little practical effect upon
many of his followers ; they never call it in question ;
and they alone doubt and disbelieve, who, having re
nounced him as their Teacher, commit themselves to
the guidance of their erring reason, and the blinding
influence of unholy passions. In the creed of his fol
lowers, it is a primary article, that the present is only
the introductory stage of our existence ; that at death
we shall enter upon a new state of being: and that,
through him, they who believe, shall enjoy perpetual
felicity in heaven.
Thirdly, He has made known truths of which men
were completely ignorant. I refer to the scheme of re
demption in all its parts, which, having its origin in the
sovereign will of God, is a matter of pure revelation.
Some notions were entertained by heathen nations of the
placability of the divine nature, and sacrifices were of
fered to appease the anger of the gods, and to conciliate
their favour. But they could assign no satisfactory-
reason for their opinion or their practice. Their fathers
had believed and acted in this manner before them, and
they followed them without being able to show that
their hope had any solid foundation. The truth is, that
it was not from reason that they derived their ideas of
the mercy of the Supreme Being, and the efficacy of
sacrifices, but from revelation, of which some frag
ments, encrusted with superstition, had been handed
down to them by tradition. Those faint rays, which
glimmered amidst the darkness of heathenism, proceed
ed from the Sun of righteousness, but had been deprived
of their splendor and their influence, by the grossness
of the medium through which tbey were transmitted.
All our knowledge of the gracious purposes of God,
whether more or less extensive; whether consisting
in hopes and conjectures, or in the full assurance of
faith, must be traced to this source: "For who hath
known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his
counsellor?"! ^° one was present with him but his
Son, when the plan was formed for the salvation of our
guilty race. There is nothing in his external works to
suggest the idea of it ; there is no impression of heaven
ly mysteries upon visible objects. Providence displays
his beneficence and his patience ; but it gives no inti
mation of his purpose to bestow final felicity upon sin
ners, of an atonement to expiate their guilt, or of the

John i. 18.

f Rom. xi.34.

communication of supernatural grace to purify their
nature. " Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither
have entered into the heart of man, the thino-s which
God hath prepared for them that love him. ^But God
hath revealed them to us by his spirit ; for the spirit
searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."* It
is the glory of Jesus Christ as a prophet, that he has
not only shed new light upon subjects of which men
possessed some previous knowledge, but has disclosed
a scene, in grandeur and interest, surpassing the won
ders of creation. It is chiefly on this account that there
was a necessity for his prophetical office. It is chiefly
on this account that he is the Light of the world. And,
indeed, all the other knowledge which he has commu
nicated to mankind would have been of no avail, if he
had not revealed his Father to us as the God of love,
and himself in the character of a Saviour. What we
wanted to know, was not merely that there is one God,
but that he is propitious to his fallen creatures; not
merely that we should worship him, but that our ser
vices shall be acceptable to him ; not merely that there
is a state beyond the grave, but by what means we
shall obtain possession of its blessedness. On these
important subjects, he has given us full satisfaction.
How welcome to us should be a teacher, who speaks
the words of truth and grace, and in the execution of
his office, has realized the following interesting des
cription:! "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me;
because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good ti
dings unto the meek : he hath sent me to bind up the
broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and
the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to
proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day
of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto
them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the
garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness ; that they
might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of
the Lord, that he might be glorified." This is the ju
bilee of the human race, and the Messiah, in the char
acter of our prophet, has announced it by the Gospel.
I shall resume the subject in the next Lecture.

LECTURE LV.
ON THE PROPHETICAL OFFICE OF CHRIST.
View of Christ's instructions as a Prophet continued— Superi
ority of Christ to all other Teachers, in the completeness,
perspicuity, authority, and efficacy of bis instructions — Agen
cy of the Holy Ghost in the execution of Christ's Prophetical
office ; its necessity and effects.
In the preceding Lecture, I pointed out the qualifica
tions of Jesus Christ for the prophetical office, the time
during which it is executed, and the subjects ofhis in
structions, of which only a very general account was
attempted. You would observe, that the subjects to
which I referred were all of a religious nature, and to
these his instructions were confined.
Jesus Christ has said nothing concerning some to
pics to which the attention of men is earnestly direct
ed, and which are intimately connected with tbeir tem
poral interests ; as science, politics, and tbe various
arts by which life is sustained and adorned. Of these
he took no notice; not because they are unimportant;
for, in their own sphere, they are of great utility; but
because they bore no relation to the purpose ofhis mis
sion. In the business of the present life, reason and
experience are sufficient guides. We needed no reve
lation to assist us in the study of nature, in the opera
tions of husbandry and commerce, in the constitution

* 1 Cor. ii. 9—10.

f Is. lxi. 1—3.

294

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

of civil government, and the enactment of laws for the
security of our persons and property. The degree of
knowledge which is necessary for purposes of practi
cal use, may be obtained on these subjects by the ex
ercise of the faculties with which our Creator has en
dowed us. There was no reason, therefore, why Jesus
should have interrupted his more important labours to
descend to details about these inferior matters. He was
something higher than a philosopher or statesman ; he
was a teacher of sublime mysteries, which it had not
entered into the mind of man to conceive.
He has not given us so full and particular an account
of a future state as some men may deem desirable, and
they may, therefore, look upon the want of it as a de
fect. Curiosity is a very powerful principle, and every
thing which promises to gratify it meets with eager at
tention. How welcome to some persons would be
graphical descriptions of heaven, and such a detail of
the state of the inhabitants and their employments, as
we receive, of the places which they have visited, from
travellers on their return from a foreign country! En
thusiasts indulge in such descriptions. Mistaking the
visions of fancy for realities, they retail them as au
thentic, and sometimes obtain for their fables the credit
which is due only to truth. You might imagine that
one of them had been in the celestial paradise, and had
lately descended to the earth with the impressions of
its scenes of magnificence and felicity fresh in his mem
ory ; while, in fact, he is the dope ofhis own sleeping
or waking dreams. Mahomet has portrayed his para
dise with the bright colours of oriental imagery ; and
while it rises to the view of his deluded followers, with
its groves of perpetual verdure, and its cooling streams,
and its houris, and all its other sensual delights, they
feel their hearts glow with augmented zeal for his reli
gion, and new fervour of desire. Our Prophet, who
alone could have given a faithful description of the in
visible state, has abstained from it. He has contented
himself with informing us, that there is a place of rest
for his followers beyond the limits of this visible diur
nal sphere, and with a general account of the exercises
and enjoyments of those who are admitted into it.
There is nothing to please the imagination ; but there
is enough to support faith, and animate hope, and min
ister consolation amidst the ills of life ; and if these
purposes are accomplished, his end is gained. If men
will not be excited to a life of piety and holiness, by
the simple knowledge that there is another world in
which the followers of Christ shall receive a recom-
pence of incalculable value and everlasting duration,
they would 'have continued equally insensible, and as
much attached to earthly vanities, although by the par
ticularity of the description, the veil had been drawn
aside, and it had stood disclosed, as it were, to the eye.
Having taken a general view of the instructions of
Christ, I proceed to lay before you some characters or
properties by which they are distinguished, and he is
proved to be superior to all other teachers.
The first particular to which I request your atten
tion, is their fulness or completeness ; for, although
there are some points, as we have shown, which he
has passed over in silence, there is nothing wanting in
his instructions as a system of religious truth. To be
convinced of this fact, we must take into consideration
the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament as
constituting a whole; for such they are, having been
dictated by one Spirit, and intended to promote one de
sign. When we call them two revelations, we express
ourselves inaccurately if we mean that they are differ
ent in the subject of which they treat ; for it is one
religion, varying only in its external form, which is
taught from the beginning to the end of the Bible.
Were we to separate the Old and the New Testament,
and to examine them as distinct and independent rev
elations, we might find defects in the former; but what

is wanting in the one is supplied in the other, and both
taken together constitute the word of Christ. In like
manner, if we were to consider by itself the revelation
made by out Saviour in person, it also might appear
to us deficient, for he had many things to say to hia
disciples, which they were not then able to bear, of
which, however, they were afterwards informed when
the Spirit came and led them into all the truth. I
have no doubt that the New Testament alone is suffi
cient for salvation, as it contains the whole gospel, or
all that can be known concerning the gracious purposes
of God; but when I speak of the fulness of our Sa
viour's instructions, I refer also to the Old Testament,
of which the histories' and prophecies and devotional
compositions are so useful and edifying to the church.
What I affirm is, that he has made a perfect revelation
of the will of God, using the term perfect in a relative
sense, as importing that it is fully adapted to its de
sign. As much light is let in upon the mind as ia
suited to its present capacity and circumstances. We
may learn from the Scriptures all the truths which we
ought to know, and all the duties which we are bound
to perform; we may find the way to heaven, and re
ceive all the directions and assistance which we need
in pursuing our journey to it. While vain curiosity
is checked, humble inquiries are encouraged, and the
means of satisfying them are provided. Whosoever
sits down at the feet of Christ and receives his law,
shall be made wise unto salvation.
"I know that Messias cometh, which is called
Christ; when he is come, be will tell us all things."*
These words have no authority in themselves, as they
were spoken by an ignorant, heretical woman ; but
they prove tbe state of opinion among the Samaritans,.
and no doubt also of the Jews. There was a general
expectation that the Messiah would solve all questions
in religion, and make a clearer and more perfect reve
lation than was then enjoyed. When Moses, by the
order of God, had given laws and ordinances to his,
countrymen to regnlate tbeir worship and obedience,
he added, " The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee
a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like
unto me."! Whether we conceive Jesus Christ alone
to be meant, or the words to have a double sense, and
to refer, in the first instance to a succession of pro-i
phets. and ultimately to him, they manifestly implied.
that new communications of the Divine will would be
made. When the ministry of the prophets came to a
close, the Jews received a commandment to adhere
steadfastly to the law which was published from Sinai,
but at the same time were directed to look for a dis
pensation of greater light. Hence the last of thein
closes his book with a prediction of the appearance of
the Sun of Righteousness, and of his forerunner who
would prepare the people for the day of the Lord.
When the Baptist came, and tbe eyes of all men were
turned to him, he told them of another, whose. shoes
he was not worthy to unloose, and who would excel
him in doctrine, as well as in dignity of person. " He
that cometh from above, is above all : he that is cf the
earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that
cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath
seen and heard, that he testifieth."! But there is no
intimation of another divine messenger after Jesus
Christ, to supply what may be wanting, or to illumi
nate what may be dark in his revelation. By the
books of the New Testament the canon is completed.
God, when he spoke to us by his Son, spoke for the
last time. The spirit of inspiration is withdrawn from
the church, and men must henceforth walk by the rule
of the written word. This is a proof of the fulness
of revelation. It is not because God is less attentive
than in former times to the interests of mankind, that

* John iv. 25. f Deut- xv"'- 15- t Jolm "'¦ 31> 32"

THE PROPHETICAL OFFICE OF CHRIST.

295

he no longer sends extraordinary messengers, but be
cause the revelation which he has already given is
sufficient. The Scriptures are. "profitable for doc
trine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness," and are able to make us " perfect, and
thoroughly to furnish us unto all good works."*
It is on the ground of the fulness or perfection of
the instructions of Jesus Christ as prophet, that we
are commanded to hear him alone, and to call no man
master or teacher. If there were any defect in revela
tion, it would not be a erime to endeavour to supply it
by the efforts of our own reason, or by having recourse
to the superior wisdom of others. The undue stress
which is sometimes laid upon human authority in reli
gion, betrays the want of proper respect for the claims
of our Saviour to the implicit and unreserved confi
dence of his professed disciples. The church of Rome,
by admitting traditions as a part of the rule of faith,
and placing them on a level with the dictates of inspi
ration, pronounces the Scriptures to be imperfect, and
is as manifestly guilty of setting aside the prophet
ical office of Christ, as she is of setting aside his
priestly office when she exalts the glorified saints to
the rank of intercessors with God.
The second particular which is worthy of attention,
is the perspicuity of his instructions. In ascribing
this property to them, I wish it to be understood that
I do not apply it to every part of them, but to the
Scriptures considered as a whole. The revelation of
Jesus Christ, taken as a whole, is perspicuous ; that
is, it communicates distinct and satisfactory informa
tion respecting all the subjects which it interests us to
know. Some parts of it, when viewed by themselves,
are obscure. This is the general character of the Old
Testament, so far as it speaks of future things, whe
ther they relate to Christ himself and his work, or to
the events which were to befal his church to the end
of the world. This obscurity may be said to have
been intentional, it being the design of God not to give
more light than was adapted to the circumstances of
mankind. You will perceive that his wisdom re
quired that a clear and minute statement of future
things should not be given, for various reasons, and
particularly that there might be no interference with
the free agency of men, who were to be instruments,
and, in many cases, the unconscious instruments, of
fulfilling his will. But these obscurities, and partic
ularly those which relate to the Messiah, are cleared
up in other parts of revelation ; for what was formerly
the subject of prediction, is now the subject of history.
The incongruities which seemed to be in his charac
ter, while at one time he was described as a man of
sorrows, and at another as a mighty conqueror; at one
time as dying, and at another as enjoying immortal
life, are explained in the gospels, and are seen to har
monize in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. " These
are Ihe words which I spake unto you while I was
yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which
were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets,
and in the Psalms concerning me."! There are obscu
rities, too, which arise from the nature of the subject.
We cannot understand the doctrine of the Trinity, of
the union of two natures in Christ, and of the opera
tions of the Holy Ghost upon the soul ; we cannot give
an answer to several questions which are proposed
with respect to the divine decrees, the agency of Pro
vidence, and the origin of evil. But before we make
our ignorance an objection against the perfection of
revelation, we should be certain that it proceeds from
the suppression of information which might have been
communicated, and not from our want of capacity. Of
this, however, we are not certain ; or rather, we have
reason to believe that some of those subjects are be-

* 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.

f Luke xxiv. 44.

yond the comprehension of any created intellect, and
that none of them could have been rendered intelligible
to us in the present state of our faculties. The obscu
rity, therefore, which attends them, is no reproach to
our Teacher, who has adapted his lessons to the abil
ity of his scholars. He could have given a full ex
planation of them, for to him they are not mysteries;
but to whom should he have addressed it? Not, sure
ly, to us, in whose minds his words would have ex
cited no ideas, and who should have been in the same
situation with the prophet Daniel, who said, when in
answer to his question the man clothed in linen d&
clared the time of the end of the wonders, " I heard,
but I understood not."
It is worthy of attention, that although in such cases
the interior of the doctrines is enveloped in darkness
which no eye can penetrate, the doctrines themselves
are clearly revealed. No person who reads the Scrip
tures with attention and candour can doubt that there
is a plurality of persons in the Godhead ; that our na
ture and the divine are united in our Saviour; that
God has fore-ordained all things which come to pass;
and that men and all their actions are subject to the
control of his providence. It is not necessary that
we should be able to show how these things are, nor
is it possible to conceive any moral purpose which
such knowledge would promote ; religion is concerned
only with the facts ; and these are stated in such a
manner, that ingenuity is required, not to find, but to
avoid finding them in the Scriptures. If it be true
that the facts alone are of practical utility, and that a
more intimate acquaintance with them would contribute
nothing to their effect, our Lord has been sufficiently
explicit ; and, with respect even to these points, has
fulfilled his duty as a prophet.
With regard to revelation, considered as a whole,
and as intended to instruct us in religion, no man can
reasonably complain of want of perspicuity. What is
more plain, than that there is one God, possessed of
every natural and moral perfection ? — that he is the
Creator, and Governor, and Judge of the human race ?
— that we are sinners, and his Son is our Saviour ? —
that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and now intercedes
for us in heaven ? — that we are justified through faith
in his blood, and sanctified by his Spirit ? — that we are
bound to yield obedience to his law ? — that he will
raise the dead, pronounce sentence upon the righteous
and the wicked, and receive his faithful followers into
his everlasting kingdom ? These, and similar topics,
which constitute the essence of reiigion,.are expressed
in the plainest manner, and are level to the lowest
capacity. The unlearned may understand them — and
even children may attain such a measure of knowledge
as shall awaken the feelings and exercises of piety.
No man can be a scholar or philosopher without su
perior talents, and many years spent in reading, and
observation, and reflection ; but to a disciple of Christ,
nothing more is required than attention, humility, and
prayer. A third character of the instructions of Christ, is the
authority with which they are delivered. The manner
is not that of an ordinary teacher, who feels it incum
bent upon him to prove what he says, but of a legis
lator, who commands. The first chapter of the Bible
(for you will remember that the whole Scripture is the
revelation of Christ, as I showed in my last lecture)
furnishes a specimen. An event is there recorded, of
which there could be no human witness, and about
which, therefore, the ingenuity of men has displayed
itself in the invention of a variety of theories. The
history of the creation is not submitted by Moses to
the judgment of the learned, but propounded as un-
unquestionably true; not a single argument is ad
vanced in support of the narrative ; coming from the
Creator himself, who revealed it to his servant, it de

296

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

mands the assent of all to whom it is published. " In
the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
The same authoritative manner is apparent throughout
the whole Scripture. It is seen in the ministry of the
succeeding prophets. No hesitation is expressed,
whether they foretell future events, or tender reproofs,
or denounce threatenings, or inculcate duties. Their
personal authority, indeed, was nothing, but they
speak in the name of God; bearing his commission,
they demand implicit obedience; and, if they ever
condescend to reason, it is solely with a view to give
greater force to their admonitions and intreaties. The
Scriptures every where suggest the idea of a law, ac
companied with many manifestations of grace, but
Speaking in the tone of command, and requiring sub
mission as our duty.
The authoritative manner, however, is more fully
displayed in the personal instructions of our Lord.
There was necessarily some abatement in those of the
prophets, who, being only his messengers, were under
the necessity of appealing to their commission ; but in
him, authority assumed its most dignified character.
While they spake in the name of God, he spake in his
own name. It is true, that he also was the messenger
of the Lord of Hosts ; but he was of a different rank
from all who had preceded him. He was the Son, as
well as the servant of Jehovah, and, therefore, enti
tled to address mankind in a style which would have
been unbecoming and presumptuous in a mere mor
tal ; and, accordingly, if on some occasions he referred
to his commission as attested by miracles, on others
he spake as the oracle of truth. " Verily, verily, I
say unto you," was the only argument which he
usually assigned for his doctrines — the only reason
which he alleged for demanding the assent and obe
dience of his hearers. "The people," we are told,
were astonished at his doctrine; for he taught them
as one having authority, and not as the Scribes."*
This remark is made at the close of his sermon on the
mount, throughout which he had spoken in a strain
which might well astonish the hearers, because it was
different from any thing to which they had been accus
tomed. The Scribes were regarded as persons of su
perior wisdom, and the people listened with reverence
to these expoundprs of the law. He treated them as
his inferiors, and, without hesitation or ceremony, set
aside their maxims as false and licentious. To their
instructions, supported as they were by the traditions
of the elders, which they pretended to be of equal
weight with the written word ; to their instructions,
which no man hitherto ventured to dispute, he opposed
his simple affirmation: "It hath been said," or, "ye
have heard that it was said to them of old," but 'I
tell you the contrary.'
It is in consequence of the authority with which the
instructions of Christ are delivered, that faith is pre
scribed as a duty. They are not exhibited as matters
of speculation, to which we may assent or not, as we
feel ourselves disposed. We are bound to believe
them and to act upon them, from respect for him, as
well as from a regard to our own interest. The gos
pel is called a law, because it is the will of a superior,
and faith is called the obedience of faith. Unbelievers
are guilty, not only of rejecting his proffered grace,
but also of despising his authority. Hence, the com
mission which he gives to his apostles, and which
authorises the ministry of the word to the end of the
world, was enforced by this awful sanction : " He that
believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not
shall be damned."!
The last particular which I shall mention, is the ef
ficacy of his instructions. A power accompanies them,
which was never exerted by human eloquence. " Is

not my word as a fire ? saith the Lord ; and like a
hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces ?"* We have
a remarkable instance, in the effect produced upon the
servants of the Jewish Sanhedrim, who were sent to
apprehend our Saviour. They had, no doubt, imbibed
the prejudices of their employers against him, and, at
any rate, would have executed their commission in or
der to please them. When they came to the place,
Jesus was addressing the people. But their attention
was arrested by tbe sound of bis voice ; as they lis
tened, their admiration was excited, and, forgetting the
purpose for which they had come, they returned, ex
claiming, to the no small mortification of the rulers,
" Never man spake like this man !"! The efficacy
of his instructions appears in the success which at
tended the preaching of his gospel in the primitive
ages. Notwithstanding the obstacles which were op
posed to it, it spread with such rapidity during the
lives of the apostles, that it reached almost every part
of the Roman empire, and even some nations lying
beyond its frontiers; and, after their decease, it con
tinued to make progress, although its path was marked
with blood, till the whole civilized world submitted
to its sway. The historian Gibbon has assigned five
secondary causes, as he calls them, of its success ;
meaning, however, that tbey are the primary or only
causes. His causes are obviously inadequate to the
prrduction of the effect, and every Christian must view,
with triumph this abortive attempt to rob his religion
of the honour of having established its dominion sole
ly by the power of the truth. Its success is a fulfil
ment of tbe prophecy: "The LoTd shall send the rod
of thy strength out of Zion : rule thou in the midst
of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the
day of thy power."!
Human eloquence, by moving the passions, may
lead men to adopt new resolutions, and rouse them to
sudden efforts of vigour; it may produce permanent
effects in politics, in religious profession, and moral
conduct, although, in the latter case, it must be ac
knowledged, that it has few triumphs to boast. The
history of ancient times furnishes only one or two in
stances, which, if examined by a proper standard,
would be found to be of no value. Shall these be
brought into comparison with the innumerable trophies
which the eloquence of our Divine Teacher has won ?
— with the thousands who, in obedience to his com
mand, have renounced their prejudices, their pleasures,
their gains, and their honours, and have submitted to
a life of self-denial and suffering ? Let us remember,
that the word of Christ has prevailed to induce men,
not only to embrace a new system of opinions, but to
adopt a new manner of living; that it has purified
them from their sins, and from sins which once seemed
to fie essential to their happiness ; that it has effected
such a revolution in their hearts, that the objects of
their love and hatred are exchanged, and new tastes,
and tempers, and feelings are displayed, as if they had
been created again. As in the days ofhis flesh, when
he said to any man, " Follow thou me," he forsook
all and became his disciple, so it is now ; the proud
est humbly bow to his command ; the most abject
slave of the world, bursting his fetters, enters into his
service ; even the dead hear him and live ; for the fol
lowing words are verified in every age of the Church :
" The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead
shall hear the voice of the Son of God ; and they that
hear shall live. For, as the Father hath life in him
self; so hath he given to the Son to have life in him-
self."|| The efficacy of tbe instructions of Christ is con
nected with the operations of grace ; and this natu»

» Matt. vii. 28, 29.

t Mark xvi. 16.

* Jer. xxiii. 29.
|| John v. 25, 26.

f John vii. 46.

X Ps. ex. 2, 3.

THE PROPHETICAL OFFICE OF CHRIST.

297

rally leads me to remark, that as he teaches men by
his word, so he. also executes his prophetical office by
the agency of the Holy Ghost on their minds. " He
reveals to us," our Church says, " by his word and
Spirit, the will of God for our salvation."* Of this
double teaching there is an illustrious promise in the
Old Testament : " As for me, this is my covenant with
them, saith the Lord : My Spirit that is upon thee,
and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall
not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of
thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed,
saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever."! The
promise of the Spirit which our Lord made to his dis
ciples, relates primarily to them, but authorizes the
expectation of his presence and gracious operation in
every age of the Church. Hence he is called the
Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of
Christ;! and the example of Paul, in the Epistle to
the Ephesians, encourages others to pray for his en
lightening influences.
But if the Scriptures are a perfect rule of faith and
manners, and are expressed with such perspicuity on
all subjects essential to salvation, that even the illit
erate may understand them, of what use is the Spirit ?
In the first place, I remark, that it is not the office
of the Spirit to give new revelations. Some, from
mere ignorance conceiving that this is understood to
be his office, and judging rightly that he is not wanted
for any such purpose, have rejected the common doc
trine of his operation in the soul. They may have
been encouraged in their error by enthusiasts, who,
boasting of the Spirit, have pretended to be favoured
with supernatural discoveries, and have retailed their
extravagant fancies as heavenly visions. But we ex
pressly disclaim this view of the subject, and main
tain that he is not sent to teach any thing new, but to
enable us to understand in a spiritual manner the truths
which are already revealed. In fact, we Could hold
no other opinion consistently with the principle which
we avow, that the canon of Scripture is completed,
and that all things are taught in it which are neces
sary to salvation. Whether God may not, for some
important purpose, make known to individuals by his
Spirit things secret and future, is a question which we
presume not to decide ; but such revelations are ap
propriated to the use of those individuals, and have no
claim to the attention of others, unless they were au
thenticated by miracles ; and wanting this attestation,
are no more a part of the rule of faith and obedience
than any mere human speculation.
In the second place, It is not the office of the Spirit to
discover to us mysteries and recondite meanings of
Scripture, which would have eluded the research of
our unassisted faculties. I acknowledge that a man
who has received the Holy Ghost, will understand
many parts of the Scriptures better than those who have
not received him ; that he will perceive a beauty,
and glory, and goodness in subjects which others re
gard with the greatest indifference ; but I affirm at the
same time, that there is no doctrine of religion, of which
an unregenerated man may not acquire a speculative
notion, by tbe exercise of his natural understanding.
The practice of allegorizing the Scriptures, and affix
ing senses to them which do not present themselves to
ordinary readers, have resulted rather from an affecta
tion of ingenuity, than from any pretension to super
natural illumination. But some persons, mistaking
the wild reveries of imagination for the motions of the
Divine Spirit, have pretended to sublime discoveries,
and brought to light concealed wonders; so that, if
any credit were due to them, we should conclude, that
truth indeed lies at the bottom of a well, dark and
deep, where it must have for ever remained, if they

Shorter Cat. Q. 24.
2N

f Is. lix. 21. X Eph. i. 17.

had not been furnished with extraordinary means fot
drawing it up. There are mysteries in the Scriptures,
which no man can explain ; there are passages which
it requires acuteness of intellect, to explore; but in
general they are expressed in simple terms, which are
to be understood in their usual sense ; and the only
requisites for the successful study of them are atten
tion and a moderate capacity.
The Holy Ghost teaches, by enabling the mind to
perceive the truth, and excellence, and interesting na
ture of the doctrines of revelation. That his agency
is needed for this purpose, none will deny but those
who choose to give the lie direct to the Scriptures,
and entertain an extravagant idea of the power of rea
son, which is at variance with the experience of all
ages ; for, whatever perspicacity reason has discovered
in matters of science, it has shown itself to be blind
as a mole in religion. " The natural man receiveth
not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are fool
ishness unto him ; neither can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned."* There has been much
disputing about the true sense of " the natural man,"
— ^.vxixoc. *»8giw«; — and an evident wish has been some
times discovered to give such an explanation as should
not represent the mind as wholly incapable, without
divine assistance, of forming just views of supernatu
ral truths. The man, of whom the Apostle speaks,
has been called the sensual man, the animal man, the
man who makes his senses, and passions, and preju
dices the standard of judgment; and the character has
been supposed to be realized in the heathen philoso
phers, who rejected the Gospel because it did not ac
cord with their speculations. Whatever English term
we may use in translating ^"X""*' the meaning is ob
vious to every person who is willing to see it. The
natural is opposed to the spiritual man in the next
verse ; ¦^ux"t°f to mivLtcLTixit. The same contrast is stated
in the Epistle of Jude, who says of some, that they
are 4"^"«',! " having not the Spirit."! The natural
man and the spiritual man are opposed to each other.
They belong to different classes, and are distinguished
by different qualities. The former has only the pow
ers of nature, improved, it may be, by culture ; the
latter has received a supernatural gift. If you inquire,
then, why the natural man cannot discover the things
of the Spirit, or the truths of religion? the reason is,
that he has not received the Spirit ; whence it follows,
that the agency of the Holy Ghost is necessary to the il
lumination of the mind ; and this the Apostle plainly sig- -
nifies when he adds, that the things of the Spirit are spir
itually discerned, or can be rightly perceived only by a
spiritual man. This single passage is sufficient to prove
the necessity of the teaching of the Holy Ghost. The
Scriptures, indeed, are said to be able to make us wise
unto salvation ; but their sufficiency consists solely in
a complete exhibition of truth. Notwithstanding their
fulness and clearness, they will make no man savingly
wise, unless his understanding be opened to under
stand them, by the spirit of wisdom and revelation in
the knowledge of Christ.
The manner in which the Spirit acts upon the mind
when he illuminates it, is unknown, as is the manner
in which our Maker acts upon us, when he assists us
in the natural exercise of our mental powers. The one
is a mystery of grace, and the other a mystery of na
ture : " The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou
hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it
cometh, and whither it goeth ; so is every one that is
born of the Spirit."])
It is impossible to describe, except in general
terms, the knowledge which believers acquire by the
teaching of the Spirit, or to show, so as to make the
distinction perfectly intelligible, the difference between

* 1 Cor. ii. 14. f " Natural." 1 Jude 19. H John iii. 8.

298

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

his knowledge and that which is obtained by the un
assisted exercise of our rational faculties. " No
words," as I have elsewhere observed, " however
carefully and copiously selected, could make a man,
who had been born blind, form an idea of light. The
views of divine things, which are obtained by the in
ternal revelation, are clear and impressive. Hence,
believers are said to "discern" spiritual things, to
"behold with open or unveiled face the glory of the
Lord, and to be changed into his image." Such evi
dence accompanies the truth, and sucb a manifestation
is made of its excellence, that the mind feels the high
est assurance, and embraces it with ardour and ineffa
ble delight. The Christian enters upon a new scene,
and sees around him objects, the grandest and most
interesting, which awaken a train of feelings and af
fections never experienced before. The words of
Scripture are the same which he had often read with
out any emotion, but. the thoughts which they excite
are exceedingly different. There is a living virtue in
the language of inspiration which penetrates into the
inmost recesses of his soul ; exerts a commanding,
transforming influence upon it, and fills it with light,
and love, and hope, and activity. A similar change
would take place if a man of a gross uncultivated
mind were suddenly inspired with those refined per
ceptions, and that delicate sensibility, which are the
foundation of taste. A new light would be poured
upon the face of nature. The scenery at which he
lately looked with a languid and careless eye, would
present features of sublimity and beauty, by which his
soul would be alternately filled with awe and delight.
Where nothing formerly appeared but a variety of ob
jects, distinguished only by their place and their form,
he would now discover order, proportion, harmony,
and grace."*
The degree of knowledge is different in different in
dividuals. This is, no doubt, partly owing to a dif
ference in mental capacity; for, without a miracle, a
weak illiterate peasant could not take the same com
prehensive view of the truths of religion as a scholar
and a philosopher. It is not the intention, nor the
effect of the operations of the Spirit, to equalize our
natural faculties. We might assign, as another cause,
the different degrees of diligence, with which the
study of the Scriptures is pursued ; for this is the
promise: "Then shall we know,' if we follow on to
know the Lord."! We must remember, too, that the
Spirit distributes his gifts according to his own will ;
that there is a sovereignty exercised with respect to
the measures of grace, as well as the persons to whom
it is communicated; and that this is the primary
cause, that some so much excel others in all spiritual
endowments. But the nature of this illumination is
the same in all, in the lowest as in the highest be
liever. It imparts certainty to the mind ; it discovers
the excellence and goodness of the truths which are
perceived; it is the foundation of faith and holiness,
and consequently of final salvation. It is in this way,
I apprehend, that we must account for the assurance
which all Christians feel of the divine origin and au
thority of the Scriptures. The arguments by which
we prove their inspiration are not generally known.
Many have no opportunity of being acquainted with
them ; nor is every person capable of entering into a
train of reasoning by which the several topics are il
lustrated and confirmed. Yet every believer regards
the word of God' with unsuspecting confidence as the
ground of his hope, and is borne up under all his
trials, and in the view of eternity, by its promises.
Shall we charge the illiterate Christian with implicit
faith ? No ; he has the witness in himself that the
* Sermons by the Author, Glasg. 1816, pp. 287—9.
f Hos. vi. 3.

Scriptures are true. The marks of divinity which his
enlightened mind perceives upon them, and the effects
which they produce upon his conscience and heart,
convince him that they are what they claim to be, as
the sun manifests himself by his own light to every
man who has eyes. They have come to him in demon
stration of the Spirit, and with power. Such was the
conviction of the martyr, who declared that he could
not reason for Christ, but could die for him.
The degree of knowledge which is necessary to sal
vation, it would be presumptuous to attempt to deter
mine. We may say safely, that no man will be saved
in ignorance ; for the first effect of the gracious opera
tions of the Spirit, is " to open the eyes ;" that he must
know himself to be a sinner, and Christ to be the Sa
viour; but farther we do not venture to proceed. It
belongs not to us to fix the standard, and as, should we
do so, there would be danger of its being too high oi
too low, so it would want all authority, because there
is no determination of this kind in the Scriptures. In
children whose faculties are beginning to open, and in
adults who labour under mental imbecility, the measure
of knowledge must be necessarily small. But a faint
ray, imparted to the mind from the eternal source of
wisdom, is of more value than the full blaze of reason
and learning. The revelation vouchsafed to babes, and
often denied to the wise and. prudent, is sufficient to
show the way to eternal life, and to guide them in it,
notwithstanding insidious endeavours to draw them
aside. " The way-faring man, though a fool, shall not
err in it."
As the knowledge which the Spirit communicates is
distinguished from other knowledge by its nature, so it
is also by its effects. Other knowledge puffs up the
mind with a vain conceit of its attainments ; but this
knowledge creates humility, not only by convincing us
how little we know, but by giving a discovery of the
guilt and vileness of our natural character. It like
wise purifies the soul ; for, while other knowledge isa
mere exercise of intellect, this affects the heart, awa
kens new feelings, and tastes, and desires, inspires the
love of God, and the noble ambition to be like him. It
is a perception and relish of true excellence, consisting
in the conformity of the creature to the moral image of
its Maker. Hence our Saviour prayed, that his Father
would "sanctify" his disciples "through the truth;"*
and an apostle says, " that beholding as in a glass the
glory of the Lord, they are changed into the same image
from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord."! It
imparts consolation and joy to the soul, while the en
lightened man is fully persuaded of the precious prom
ises of the Gospel, and regards its blessings as his own.
And when we think of the ineffable satisfaction, the di
vine peace, the bright and animating hope, which are
inspired by the contemplation of the wonders of redemp
tion, we understand the reason that Paul "counted all
things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of
Christ Jesus his Lord ;" and that other holy men have
expressed the highest esteem for this word, and a de
cided preference of it to the wealth, and pleasures, and
glory of the world. In a word, this knowledge is in
troductory to the more sublime discoveries of the future
state. The objects which will be contemplated there,
are the same which are exhibited in the Gospel ; and,
so far as any man is enabled, by supernatural illumi
nation, to form just conceptions of them, he anticipates
the knowledge which will flow from the beatific vision.
The difference is not in kind, but in degree. The one
is the knowledge of a child ; the other is the knowledge
of a man. Wherever the light of heaven has once ap
peared, it will " shine more and more unto the perfect
day," when the mists and clouds which now obscure
our prospects will be dispelled, and we shall " know

* John xvii. 17.

t 2 Cor. iii. 18.

THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.

299

even as we are known :" "And the city bad no need
of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it ; for the
glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light
thereof. And the nations of them that are saved shall
walk in the light of it."*

LECTURE LVI.
ON THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.
The office of Priest — Necessity of this office of our Redeemer
— Christ's call to, and investiture with it — Duties of the of
fice ; sacrifice, intercession, and blessing; of the people — Gen
eral observations on Christ's execution of these duties, and
on his pre-eminence as a Priest.
Ever since the fall, the hopes of the human race
have centred in the Messiah. He is the restorer of our
fallen nature, the conqueror of our formidable adversa
ry, the mediator by whose ministry peace with God is
procured, the second Adam who has removed the curse
pronounced upon us for the sin of the first, and opened
the gates of paradise, that we might have access to the
tree of life.
The design of the ceremonial institutions and the
prophecies of the ancient law was, to make known this
illustrious person, to describe his character, and to give
notice of tbe purpose for which he would afterwards
appear upon earth. Hence a general expectation of a
great deliverer was excited ; but the ideas which rnany
entertained of him were the most distant imaginable
from the truth. They believed indeed that he would
be a prophet; for the words of Moses, and of other in
spired men, were too express to be mistaken. They
believed also that he would be a king, who, marching
forth in the terror of his power, would subjugate the
nations, and restore tbe kingdom to Israel. But they
seem not to have believed that he would be a priest ;
or, if they allowed the title, they explained it in such
a manner, as rendered it perfectly nugatory; nothing
appearing to them more inconsistent with the office of
the Messiah, than the proper work of such a priest,
which was to redeem us to God by the sacrifice of him
self. He was, however, not only to sit upon a throne,
but also to minister at the altar; not only to exert his
power for the destruction of his enemies, but to employ
his interest with God in our behalf. He was to draw
near to the Divine Majesty in our name, and to medi
ate a peace between us and our offended Creator.
That Jesus Christ is a priest, is plain from many
passages of Scripture which it is unnecessary to quote;
because; whatever difference of opinion there is among
his professed followers with respect to the import of
the title when given to him, they all acknowledge that
there is a sense in which the office belongs to him.
What we mean by calling him a priest, may be learned
from the following definition of the character, although
it does not comprehend every particular of the office.
" Every high priest taken from among men, is ordained
for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer
both gifts and sacrifices for sins."! ^ 's t0 the last
part of the definition that I at present request your at
tention. A priest is a person officiating in the name of
others, who approaches to God to make atonement for
them by sacrifice. The design of his ministration is
to render the object of worship propitious, to avert his
wrath from men, and to procure their restoration to his
favour. He differs from a prophet, who treats with
men in the name of God, making known to them his
counsels and commands ; while a priest treats with God
in the name of men, to prevail upon him to admit them

* Rev. xxi. !

t Heb. v. 1.

into friendship. It was in this sense of the word, that
Aaron and his successors were priests. Their proper
work was not to instruct the people, but to serve at the
altar, and lay those oblations upon it which the law re
quired for the expiation of sins. It cannot be denied
that the title of priest is sometimes given to men not in
a literal but in a figurative sense. Thus Christians are
called a " royal priesthood,"* and are said to be " made
priests" as well as "kings to God."! It is evident,
hbwever, that in this case there is merely an accom
modation of the title, because they minister to God in
the duties of religious worship, and present the spirit
ual sacrifices of prayer and praise, which ascend with
acceptance to his throne, like the smoke of rams and
bullocks, and of the ineense which was burnt in the
sanctuary. A proper priest offers a proper sacrifice.
A question here demands our attention, because it
has been the subject of much and vehement discussion
among Christians, Whether it was necessary that our
Redeemer should sustain this office ? The negative is
held by tbose who believe that God might have par
doned sin without a satisfaction ; and the affirmative,
by those who are persuaded that it would have been
inconsistent with the purity and rectitude of his nature,
to permit sin to pass with impunity. It is certain that
God is represented as a Holy Being, as necessarily
and infinitely holy, so that in the strong language of
Scripture, " He is of purer eyes than to behold evil,
and cannot look upon iniquity."! There is here an
allusion to men, to whom some objects are so disgust
ing, that they avert their eyes and find it impossible
to look at them without doing violence to their feel
ings. The divine abhorrence of sin could not be more
emphatically stated than by this mode of expression.
God can do every thing which is consistent with his
essential perfections; he can do nothing which is con
trary to them, and he cannot because he will not. It
is not the want of physical but of moral power which
is ascribed to him. Now, if it is impossible that God
should ever regard sin with favour, it is impossible
that he should suffer it to go unpunished ; his nature
forbids such an act of sovereign, unconditional mercy.
To impress this idea, his holiness is represented as
his "jealousy," or as accompanied with it. " He is a
holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive
your transgressions nor your sins."|| It is the nature
of jealousy not to spare, and nothing but the execu
tion of vengeance will satisfy its demands. This
awful truth is declared in the solemn proclamation of
bis name, when he said that " He will by no means
clear the guilty,"§ — that is, the guilty for whom no
atonement has been made. " God is jealous," says
the prophet Nahum, "and the Lord revengeth; the
Lord revengeth, and is furious. The Lord will take
vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath
for his enemies. "^ It is to represent the punishment
of the wicked as the consequence of his holiness, that
our God is said to be a " consuming fire."** Fire,
indeed, burns by necessity of nature — God does not so
act in any external operation. His dispensations-origi-1
nate in his will ; but his will is always conformable to
his essential perfections. Is it not then plainly signi
fied by this figurative description, that as fire consumes
every combustible substance which it reaches, so the
nature of God requires that the transgression of his
law should be punished, unless some expedient be de
vised to reconcile the exercise of his mercy with the
honour of his holiness ?
Again, the necessity of the priesthood of Christ may
be inferred from the justice of God. As there is an
.essential rectitude of his nature, in consequence of

* 1 Pet. ii. 9.
|| Josh. xxiv. 19.
** Deut. iv. 24.

f Rev. i. 6. t Hat), i. 13.
{ Exod. xxxiv. 7~ H Nahum l. 2,

300

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

wbich every thing which he does is right, sustaining
the character of the moral Governor of the universe,
he will render to all his creatures their due. Justice
is ascribed to him in many passages of Scripture ; and
reason perceives so clearly that it belongs to him, that
the question may be proposed as admitting only one
answer, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do
right?"* What it is right for him to do in the cha
racter of a Judge, we learn from the law which he has
given to men, and in which death is denounced as the
penalty of sin. Let it not be imagined that this is an
arbitrary penalty ; for, since it would be a reproach to
a human legislator to subject crimes to a severer
punishment than they deserved, or than was necessary
to maintain the authority ofhis law, we could not im
pute such procedure to God without a direct impeach
ment <.f his benignity and clemency. It is right, there
fore, that transgressors should suffer to the extent
threatened in the law. There is something in their
conduct which deserves this punishment; and it is
suitable to the moral perfections of God to inflict it.
Now, let us consider what is implied in the supposi
tion that God might have pardoned sin without an
atonement. It is implied, either that it was not right
that sin should be punished, that is, that it was not
absolutely right, that it was not agreeable to the nature
of God, that justice did not demand it; or that, in order
to exercise his mercy, he might do what was not right.
It is impossible to maintain that sin might have been
pardoned without an atonement, unless we at the same
time affirm that punishment was not necessarily due
to sin, or that God was not bound to recompense it
according to its desert. If any man shall adopt tbe
latter opinion, he must say, that what we call the jus
tice of God is not justice, or that, when attributed to
him and attributed to men, it has a different meaning.
We always conceive justice, in a private or public
person, to consist in treating others exactly according
to their desert : and, consequently, it is equally con
trary to justice to let merit go without reward, and
demerit without punishment. If it be alleged that,
although justice requires that the penalty of his law
should be executed, he may set aside its claims by an
act of authority, I would request you to consider atten
tively the import of this assumption. If justice has a
claim, to dispense with it is to do something which,
if justice would have been permitted to take its course,
would not have been done. This is plain. Justice
demands the punishment of sin — but the demand is not
complied with, and therefore ju-stice does not receive
what is due to it. It follows, that to suppose that
God may dispense with the claims of justice, is to
suppose that he may cease to be just. Some men may
not be alarmed at this consequence; but let it be ob
served that, if God may set aside in any caseJJie de
mands of justice, justice is not essential to him ; \\e
can no longer have confidence in the rectitude of his
moral administration; nor can his laws be regarded
with the same reverence as when they were understood
to be guarded by the immutable sanction of death. As
the moral Governor of the universe, God is bound, if I
may speak so, to maintain the respect due to himself
by the strict distribution of rewards and punishments,
and to hold out the most powerful motives to obey his
law, which is not an arbitrary institution, but is found
ed on the relations subsisting between him and his
creatures. The inference from the preceding reasoning is, that
the priesthood of Jesus Christ was necessary, if God
was to pardon sinners, and receive them into favour.
It is this hypothetical necessity alone which we as
sert; as his susception of the office was voluntary, so
his investiture with it by his Father was an act ofhis
* Gen. xviii. 25.

sovereign grace. God was under no obligation to re
new the intercourse between himself and man, which
had ceased at the fall.
"No man," says Paul in the Epistle to the He
brews, " taketh this honour unto himself, but he that
is called of God, as was Aaron."* The necessity of a
divine call is manifest from the nature of the case. A
priest ministers before God in the name of men, to
effect a reconciliation between them. Now, although
it is their interest which is connected with the office,
and no advantage can redound from it to God, yet they
have not the power of appointing the priest, for two
reasons ; first, because it depends solely upon the will
of God whether a priest shall be admitted at all ; and
secondly, because it is his prerogative to declare who
is acceptable to him, and proper to be entrusted with
so important a work. " So also," the apostle adds,
" Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest,
but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day
have I begotten thee."! Great as his love was to
sinners, he interposed in their behalf only in concur
rence with his Father, and in obedience to his will.
With respect to the time ofhis investiture with this
office, it was coincident with his appointment to the
general office of mediator. At that time, he was con
stituted the prophet, the priest, and the king of his
Church. The manner of his consecration has been
explained in different ways. He was consecrated, it
has been said, at his baptism ; and this is so far true,
because he was then solemnly dedicated to the service
of his Father ; but he possessed the office before, and
performed its duties, both by bearing our griefs and
carrying our infirmities, while yet, in a private char
acter, he led a life of poverty, labour and suffering of
various kinds, and by the intercessory prayers which
he no doubt offered up for the salvation of his people.
It is the opinion of that eminent and learned divine,
Dr. Owen, that he was consecrated by the shedding
ofhis own blood, as Aaron and his sons were by the
blood of the sacrifices ; and this he conceives to be the
import of the expression, " made perfect through suf
ferings."! But this notion we can by no means ad
mit, because it seems to be absurd to suppose a per
son to be consecrated to an office, by doing the duties
of it ; to hold it, and proceed to perform its most im
portant functions, before he is properly invested with
it. His being " perfected through sufferings" evi
dently means, that, by his death upon the cross, he be
came the Captain or the Author of our salvation, having
offered that atoning sacrifice, which obtained eternal
redemption for us. It appears that he was consecrated
by the oath of God, of which we shall afterwards
speak, because it is an important fact in the history
ofhis priesthood, and, as such, is mentioned in Scrip
ture. " The law maketh men high priests, which
have infirmity ; but the word of the oath, which was
since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated
for evermore."||
The two great duties of tbe sacerdotal office, are
sacrifice and intercession ; to which may be added a
third, the blessing of the people, as Aaron and his sons
were commanded to do. I do not think it necessary
to take any farther notice of the last in relation to oui
Saviour's office, because it does not appear that, as a
priest, he blesses us in any other way than by dying
to procure, and by obtaining, through his interces
sion, the communication of blessings to us. It is
properly in the character of a king that he bestows
them. The first duty of his office he performed upon earth,
when he presented to God the immaculate oblation of
himself upon the cross. " He that loved us, and hath

* Heb. v. 4.
t Heb. ii. 10.

f lb. 5.
Owen on Heb. in loco.

H Heb. vii.

THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.

301

given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God,
for a sweet smelling savour."* This would be the
place to prove that the death of Christ was a true and
proper sacrifice for sin ; but I shall postpone this dis
cussion to another occasion, as my design, in this lec
ture, is merely to give you a general view of his
priesthood. There are some who deny that he of
fered a sacrifice for sin, namely, those who were for
merly called Socinians, but now have taken the name
of Unitarians. The doctrine of that heretical sect is,
in substance, the following : — that Jesus Christ is
called a priest, but is not such in reality ; that he re
ceives this title, on account of some resemblance be
tween what he does, and the ministration of the priests
under the law ; that he is a priest, in the same meta
phorical sense in which all Christians are said to be
priests; and, that his priesthood solely consists in the
good offices wbich he performs towards us, and on our
account. He properly entered upon it when he ascend
ed to heaven, and received power from his Father to
assist men in working out their salvation ; his death
upon the cross was no part of his duty, but merely a
preparation for the services of the heavenly sanctuary ;
his priestly office is virtually the same with the king
ly, both implying authority and ability to bestow
blessings upon men, and differing only in this respect,
that, as a king, he has power to help us, and, as a
priest, he is willing. — This was the doctrine of the
elder Socinians, and has been generally adopted by
their successors. I know not well what are the sen
timents of the Unitarians of the present day ; but some
of them, " waxing worse and worse," like other " evil
men and seducers," are actively employed in reducing
the character of our Saviour lower and lower, and
seem not to be able to tell where be now is, or what
he is doing. I content myself, at present, with sim
ply stating their doctrine, as an opportunity will after
wards occur, of showing its contrariety to Scripture.
There is another Socinian notion, which, however,
has been adopted by some who are not Socinians, but
believe that the death of Christ was a sacrifice for sin,
namely, that he did not offer his sacrifice on earth, but
in heaven, by appearing before God in the body in
which he suffered on the cross. You will find this notion
stated and defended by Dr. Macknight, in the notes on
the Epistle to the Hebrews ; an author, I may take
this .opportunity of saying, from whose work on the
Epistles a cautious and discerning reader may derive
considerable advantage, but who is a dangerous guide
to young students, not only because he dogmatises in
rather an unusual manner in matters of great import
ance, giving only his own affirmation for proof, but
also, because many of his principles are false, and
there are few who have distinguished themselves more
by wresting and misinterpreting the Scriptures. This
notion is at direct variance with the language of Scrip
ture, which uniformly speaks of the sacrifice of Christ
as having been offered before he entered into heaven.
" Christ was once offered," says Paul, " to bear the sins
of many,"! evidently meaning, that he was offered
upon earth, because he contrasts this act with his fu
ture revelation from heaven. " When he had by him
self purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand
of the Majesty on high."! His sitting down at the
right hand of God was immediately consequent upon
his entrance into heaven, before which he had purged
our sins by his sacrifice. " By his own blood he en
tered once into the holy place, having obtained eter
nal redemption. "|| The obtaining of eternal redemp
tion is put in the past tense, — iv^fLevo;, — and preceded
his entrance into the holy place. But he obtained it,
as all will acknowledge, by his sacrifice, which, there
fore, was offered not in heaven, but upon earth. Great
,• Epb. i. 2. f Heb- "• 28- t Heb- ' 3- II Heb- ix- 12.

stress is laid upon these words of Paul, "If he were on
earth, he should not be a priest."* But, ifthev fur
nish any evidence in favour of the present opinion they
prove more than its patrons would be willing to grant
namely, that while our Saviour was in this world he
was not a priest at all. This no man who believes' the
Scriptures would affirm. The meaning certainly is,
that, if his office had been of the same kind with the
priesthood which already existed upon earth, he could
not have been a priest, because the office was vested in
a family of which he was not a member; or that, if his
whole office was to be executed upon earth, he must
have been excluded, because, not belonging to the fam
ily of Aaron, he had no access to the holy of holies in
the temple, in which alone his blood could be present
ed. The notion, that Christ offered his sacrifice in
heaven, is one of those niceties which are sometimes
brought forward as mighty discoveries, but which, al
though they were founded on truth, are of no practical
utility. As it is, it overturns the ideas respecting sac
rifices which men have entertained in all ages and na
tions, making them consist, not in the death of the vic
tim, as has been always believed, but in the sprinkling
of its blood ; and it furnishes a pretext for ihose who
are so minded, to deny that Christ offered any proper
sacrifice, and to affirm that his whole work consists in
intercession. The second duty of his office is intercession..- It was
typified by the entrance of the high priest into the most
holy place, where he sprinkled the blood of the sacrifi
ces, and burned incense before the mercy-seat ; and it
is carried on in heaven, of which that place was a fig
ure. What is the nature of his intercession, how it is
conducted, who are its subjects, and what is its design,
are points, the consideration of which I shall reserve
for another occasion.! According to the scheme of the
elder Socinians, his priestly office was executed in
heaven alone ; but, although they could not deny that
intercession belonged to his office, they explained even
it away, as well as his sacrifice, and affirmed, that it
signified merely that he obtained from God the power
by which he is able to help us, as if he had prayed for
it. A similar scheme has been contrived by some mod
ern Socinians, which may be stated in the words of a
celebrated writer. " Jesus Christ has not only taught
the pure doctrines of the gospel ; manifested, by rising
from the dead, the certainty of a future state, and pro
posed to mankind a pattern for imitation ; but has, by
the merits of his obedience, obtained, through his in
tercession, as a reward, a kingdom or government over
the world, whereby he is enabled to bestow pardon and
final happiness upon all who will accept them on the
terms of sincere repentance. That is, in other words,
we receive, salvation through a mediator ; the mediation
conducted through intercession ; and that intercession
successful, in recompence of the meritorious obedience
of our Redeemer."! In this scheme, the atonement is
left out, and our salvation is owing to the death of Christ
only remotely, as it constituted the ground on which
he obtained, by his prayers, power to save such as
should sincerely embrace his religion. But his inter
cession has a different object, as we shall afterwards
show. Our Lord was made a priest " after the order of Mel-
chisedec."|| The apostle Paul explains what is meant,
when he says of Melchisedec, that he was " without
father, without mother, without descent," and that
" having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, he
abideth a priest continually. "§ It is certain that, being
a man, he was born and died like other men, and had
a genealogy which was known to his contemporaries ;
but Paul refers to his history, which on these subjects

* Heb. viii. 4. + See Lecture lix.
} Magee on Atonement, vol. i. p. 20. || Heb. v. 6.
j Heb. vii. 3.

302

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

preserves profound silence, and speaks of him only in
his public character, and in relation to his office. He
is an insulated individual, like a man fallen from the
clouds, who had no earthly connexions, except that, as
he was a priest and a king, there must have been per
sons for whom he ministered, and over whom he reign
ed. The similitude between our Saviour and Melchis
edec may be traced in the two following particulars.
First, He had no predecessor in office. He was in
deed made a priest after the order of Melchisedec ; but
you are not to understand that he was a priest of the
same order, because, on this supposition, the resem
blance between them would be destroyed in an essential
particular. Christ did not succeed Melchisedec, but he
is like him ; and like him in this respect, that none was
before him. Aaron and his sons were not his prede
cessors ; for he could not have succeeded them unless
he had belonged to the family to which the legal priest
hood was confined hy tbe express commandment of God.
"It is evident," says Paul, "that our Lord sprang out
of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concern
ing priesthood."* He succeeded them, indeed, as the
antitype succeeds the type ; but his priesthood was of
a different kind. Theirs was a shadow, but his was
thextruth ; theirs consisted in offering animals upon the
altar, but his in offering himself; theirs averted tempo
ral punishments from the Israelites, but his has deliv
ered mankind from the guilt of sin, and from eternal
perdition. Secondly, Jesus Christ has no successor in the priest
hood. It is in the perpetuity of his office that the re
semblance between him and Melchisedec principally
consists. When Aaron died, Eleazar his son stood up
in his room ; and all the high-priests of that family were
succeeded by their sons and relations, till the second
temple was destroyed ; but no person will ever succeed
our Saviour: and this difference between him and the
priests of the law, was founded on two important cir
cumstances : —
In the first place, "They truly were many priests,"
as Paul says, "because they were not suffered to con
tinue by reason of death."! Notwithstanding the great
dignity of their office, and the solemnities with which
they were installed in it, they were but men, subject to
infirmity and dissolution, like the persons for whom they
ministered. " But this man, because he continueth
ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood."! He likewise
died ; but the cases were totally dissimilar. The legal
priests died, if I may speak so, out of office ; but he
died in it. Death was no part of their work, whereas
to die was the chief duty incumbent upon him. When
they fell under the power of death, they could not ex
tricate themselves from it, and return to life and the ser
vice of the sanctuary; but he had power to lay down
his life and to take it again. Death was so far from
putting an end to his priesthood, that it did not even
interrupt the exercise of it.
In the second place, A succession of the legal priests
was necessary, because the sacrifices which they offer
ed could not expiate sin. Notwithstanding their mor
tality, if any of them could have appeased divine jus
tice by his oblations, there would have been no neces
sity that another should rise up in his stead. But the
legal sacrifices could not atone for past sins, and still
less for those which were future; the blood of an irra
tional animal was not equivalent to the blood and life
of the transgressor himself. Our Lord Jesus Christ
"hath by one offering for ever perfected them that were
sanctified. "|| His sacrifice removed the sins ofhis peo
ple in one day; it established, upon a solid basis, peace
between God and his offending creatures; it is the
ground of an everlasting dispensation of pardon and
mercy. Hence it appears that there was no reason why

* Heb .-ii. 14. f lb. vii. 23. J lb. vii. 24. ||Ib. x.14.

another priest should succeed him, and that no place
was left for the ministrations of another, which could
serve no valuable purpose, as the great design of the
office had been already accomplished, namely, the ex
piation of sin.
The death of Christ was a sacrifice, not for one
generation alone, but for men in every age. He ever
lives to make intercession in the heavenly sanctuary ;
and hence he is "able to save to the uttermost all
them that come unto God by him."* No other priest,
therefore, can arise. There remains nothing for him
to do. Christ has made sacrifice and oblation to cease,
and has gone into heaven to appear in the presence of
God for us.
It is derogatory to the honour of Christ, and subver
sive of the doctrine of the Scripture concerning his
priesthood, to maintain that any person is now invested
with the priestly office, and performs its proper work.
It implies that he did not fully accomplish the design
of his office, and destroys the resemblance between
him and Melchisedec. Yet the church of Rome calls
her ministers priests ; (and so likewise does the church
of England, from an imitation which is the more in
excusable, as she rejects the doctrine upon which alone
an argument could be founded for giving them this
title ;) — the church of Rome calls her ministers priests,
and affirms that they perform the proper work of tbe
priesthood by offering sacrifice. Jesus Christ, into
whose body and blood the bread and wine in the eucha-
rist are transubstantiated, is offered up in tha mass by
the officiating minister, as a sacrifice for the dead and
the living. If this opinion were true, the ministers
of antichrist would be more truly priests than Aaron
and his sons; because the latter offered only typical
sacrifices, while the former daily repeat the great sacri
fice which procures eternal redemption. But this su
perstructure rests upon a foundation of sand. The
sacred supper is merely a commemorative ordinance.
" Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many."!
The Christian religion acknowledges only one priest,
who was consecrated by God himself, and is exalted
to heaven. Those who assume this character encroach
upon his prerogative ; and to suppose them to be what
they pretend, would be to consider our Redeemer as a
priest, not after the order of Melchisedec, but after the
order of Aaron, which admitted successors.
Jesus Christ excelled all that were before him in
respect of the order of his priesthood. There are other
points of difference, from which it appears that, ac
cording to the words of an apostle, " he has obtained
a more excellent ministry,"! and of which I shall
briefly take notice in the sequel of this lecture.
First, He was superior to all other priests in per
sonal dignity. They were " men having infirmity,"
subject to disease and death, and not to these alone,
but also to error and sin ; and therefore they needed to
offer for themselves as well as for the people. How
much superior is our High-priest ! Considered as a
man, he is distinguished from all other men, not only
by his miraculous conception, his sublime wisdom,
and his stupendous works, but by his immaculate
purity, which he retained amidst the strongest tempta
tions. But besides his pre-eminence in moral worth,
he was still more exalted above all who might be com
pared with him, by tbe dignity of his nature, for in
consequence of his mysterious union to the second
person of the Trinity, he was truly the Son of God.
While he is said to have "purged our sins," he is de
scribed as " the brightness of the Father's glory, and
the express image of his person, and as upholding all
things by the word of his power."|| Surely, he is the
most glorious of all the ministers of God ! and the
office derives a lustre from him who sustained it.

* Heb. vii. 25. j Ibid. ix. 28. i Ibid. viii. 6. || Ibid. i. 3

THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.

303

Secondly, the manner in which he was invested with
his office was peculiar ; and it is expressly mentioned
in order to demonstrate his superiority. "And inas
much as not without an oath he was made a priest,
(for those priests were made without an oath, but this
with an oath, by him that said unto him, The Lord
sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever
after the order of Melchisedec,) by so much was Jesus
made a surety of a better covenant."* This circum
stance alone is sufficient to prove tbe pre-eminence of
his priesthood. It is not upon slight occasions that
God interposes by an oath; and if he did not swear
when Aaron and his sons were set apart to the service
of the altar, but observed this unusual solemnity in
the consecration of his Son, may we not conclude that
there were interests of far greater importance depend
ing upon his ministry ? The design of the priesthood
of Aaron was to prevent the dissolution of the cove
nant, which God had made with the Israelites. The
design of the priesthood of Christ was the estab
lishment of a better covenant, by which God would
be glorified, and our. Jost world redeemed. The oath
was intended to assure us that God himself invested
him with the office ; that as a priest he is the object
of his highest approbation; that he will never take the
priesthood from him, nor cease to be pleased with
the atonement which he made by the effusion ofhis
blood. " The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent."
Thirdly, The oblation which he presented was far
more valuable than the ancient sacrifices. He offered
not the firstlings of the flock, and the choicest of the
herd, but himself. He was at once the priest and the
sacrifice. What raised the worth of his sacrifice above
all calculation was bis personal dignity, of which we
have already spoken, fie who was crucified without
the gates of Jerusalem was the Lord of glory, although
the princes of this world did not recognize him in such
profound humiliation ; the blood with which the church
was redeemed was the blood of God, although the
priests and rulers of the Jews, who saw it streaming
from his wounds, despised it as the blood of an im
pious malefactor. The Godhead, it is acknowledged,
is impassible ; but from the union of the two natures
of Christ, there resulted a communication of proper
ties, in consequence of which the acts of both belonged
to the same person, and are predicated of each other.
That nature died which alone could die; but it was
the nature of him who was higher than the kings of
the earth and the angels of heaven, because he and
his Father are one. Compared with this oblation,
those which were offered with such pomp in the tem
ple of Jerusalem were weak and childish things, and
would be altogether unworthy of notice, were it not
that God himself appointed them, and that they derived
a borrowed importance from their typical relation to
the sacrifice of Christ, the only sacrifice which God
ever accepted for its own sake, and which satisfied the
demands of his justice. Accordingly, the legal sacri
fices are declared to be inefficient, and are laid aside,
while the sacrifice of Christ is substituted in their
room. " Wherefore when he cometh into the world,
he saith. Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but
a body hast thou prepared me : in burnt-offerings and
sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then
said I, Lo! I come (in the volume of the book it is
written of me) to do thy will, O God. He taketh
away the first," says the apostle, " that he may estab
lish the second."!
Fourthly, Let us observe for whom Jesus Christ
officiated as a priest. The sacrifices of the Mosaic
law were appointed for the Israelites; the annual
atonement was made for none but the twelve tribes,
and their names alone were engraven on the breast

plate which the High-priest wore when he went into the
holy of holies. Jesus Christ is the High-priest of the hu
man race, and his blood was shed for the Gentiles as
well as the Jews. " He is a propitiation for the sins of
the whole world."* He suffered, therefore, not in the
temple which was the sanctuary of the Jews, nor with
in the precincts of Jerusalem, the capital of their coun
try, lest it should be imagined that they were the sole
objects of redemption, but without the gates of the
city, to signify that he was the Saviour of mankind,
and that there was salvation through his cross to those
who should turn their eyes to him from the ends of the
earth. We do not affirm that he died for every indi
vidual of the human race. This extent some have as
signed to his atonement ; but, although it is their de
sign to give a magnificent idea of its efficacy, their doc
trine is really derogatory to its excellence. For upon
this supposition it will follow, that as every individual
is not saved, his sacrifice has failed of its end in the
case of those who perish in guilt, and his blood has
been shed in vain. He died for those whom his Fa
ther gave to him ; but how great their number is, no
man can tell. All ages have experienced the benefit
of his death, the influence of which was retrospective
and prospective, extending backward to the beginning
of time, and forward to its close. For his sake God
was merciful to those who lived before his coming in
the flesh, pardoning them in the view of the satisfac
tion to be afterwards made ; and now we know that
there is salvation in no other, and that there is not an
other name under heaven given among men, by which
they can be saved.
Lastly, The effect of his sacrifice demonstrates ita
transcendent excellence. No person, who has just no
tions of the evil and demerit of sin, can believe that the
sacrifices of the law could appease the justice of God,
and obtain his favour to the guilty. Reason gives a
ready assent to the declaration of an apostle, that "it
is not. possible that the blood of bulls and of goats
should take away sins."! Their sole effect was to de
liver the offerer from temporal punishment, whether to
be inflicted by the civil magistrate or by the hand of
God himself. He was permitted to live, and to enjoy
his privileges, although he deserved to be cut off for
his transgression from among his people. But he had
no security against eternal condemnation, and fell un
der it at death, if he had not an interest by faith in that
better sacrifice, of which those which he had presented
were merely shadows. The oblation of Christ satis
fied every demand of justice, and cancelled the sen
tence pronounced by the moral law upon all who have
violated its precepts: "He finished the transgression,
and made an end of sins, and made reconciliation for in
iquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness."!:
Hence forgiveness is preached through him ; and those
who believe " are justified from all things, from which
they could not be justified by the law of Moses."|| No
thing is necessary to our full pardon, but faith in the
great propitiation ; no supplementary penances of our
own, no kind of satisfactory works. A foundation is
thus laid for perfect peace of mind ; and the only rea
son that believers do not always enjoy it, is the weak
ness and unsteadiness of their faith. No purpose of
vengeance against them ever arises in the mind of God,
however great are their provocations. He may frown
upon them ; but it is the frown of a father, who will
not cast off his son, although he is displeased with his
conduct ; he may chasten, but it is the hand of love
which wields the rod, and the design of every stroke is
the good of the sufferer.
It appears from what bas been said, that the priest
hood of Christ is not a speculative point, but a doctrine
intimately connected with our duties and our hopes.

* Heb. vii. 20—22.

t Ibid. x. 5—9.

* 1 John ii. 2. f Heb. *. 4. X Dan- ix- 24- U Acts ""• 39-

304

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

It is the foundation of all acceptable religion ; and had
he not sustained this office, intercourse between heaven
and earth would have been forever suspended, and God
and men would have been separated by irreconcilable
hostility. The religion of man in a state of innocence
was founded on the natural relations subsisting between
him and his Creator, to whom, as the author of his be
ing, he owed obedience, and from whose goodness he
was authorized to hope for felicity continued through
an endless duration. But when sin had introduced mu
tual alienation, the interposition of a third party was
necessary to adjust their opposing interests, and to
unite them in the bond of friendship. As God can thus
be merciful without ceasing to be just, so the way is
prepared for the acceptance of our duties, notwithstand
ing the imperfections with which they are attended.
Coming from us, who are so polluted that every thing
is tainted which we touch, they are unworthy of the di
vine regard ; but they are purified by passing through
the hands of " the Minister of the true tabernacie, which
the Lord hath pitched, and not men."* This is an un
speakable advantage which Christians derive from the
priesthood of Christ; for, although they should multi
ply their services, and perform them with assiduity and
earnestness, they would not be pleasing to God, if he
did not recommend them. As, while the sword of the
cherubim waved dreadfully before the gate of paradise,
our first parents could not have forced their way to the
tree of life, the seat of immortality : so, the curse of the
broken law rendered access to the throne of grace
equally impossible to us their descendants; but Christ
is " the way, the truth, and the life," or the true and
living way ; and " having him as our High-priest over
the house of God, we may draw near with true hearts
in the full assurance of faith."

LECTURE LVII.
ON THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.
Death of Christ, a propitiatory Sacrifice — Socinian View ofhis
Death ; Its Defects — The middle Scheme : Objections to it
— Proof of the catholic Doctrine — The Idea of sacrificial
Atonement prevalent among: the Heathen — Sacrifices of
Atonement, a Part of the Jewish Worship — Import of the
Language of Scripture respecting the Death of Christ.
The death of Christ is one of tbe most remarkable
events recorded in history. Many ages before it hap
pened, it was foretold by those men whom God raised
up to uphold the authority of his law among his chosen
people, and to direct their thoughts and expectations to
a future and more perfect dispensation. David, Isaiah,
and Daniel described the Messiah not only as a person
of high dignity, and the Author of the most glorious
works, but also as one who should lead a lowly and
afflicted life, and terminate his labours and sorrows by
a painful and violent death. The cause or occasion of
it was singular; for it was not the effect of accident, or
disease, or the decay of nature, but was inflicted by a
judicial sentence pronounced upon him for the supposed
crimes of imposture and blasphemy. The obscuration
of the sun at mid-day without any natural cause, the
earthquake which clove asunder the rocks and laid open
the graves, and the rending of the veil of the temple
from top to bottom, proclaimed that he who was hang
ing on the cross was no ordinary sufferer. He had not
lain three full days in the grave, when he was restored
to life by the power of God ; and, after an interval of
a few weeks, he ascended to heaven in presence ofhis
disciples. Ten days after, he poured out the Holy
Ghost, by whom they were enabled to publish to men
* Heb. viii. 2.

of every nation, in their respective languages, the won
ders of his death and resurrection ; and the effect was
not less surprising than the means employed to ac
complish it. The attention of Jews and Gentiles was
excited ; multitudes were prevailed upon to acknowl
edge him to be the Son of God, and the Messiah ; and a
church was formed, which, notwithstanding powerful
opposition and cruel persecution, subsists at the present
hour. The death of Christ was the great subject on
which the apostles were commanded to preach, although
it was known beforehand, that it would be offensive to
all classes of men ; and they actually made it the chosen
theme of their discourses. " I determined," Paul says,
" not to know any Ihing among you, save Jesus Christ,
and him crucified."* An ordinance was appointed by
our Saviour himself on the night preceding his crucifix
ion, for the express purpose of being a memorial of it
to the end of the world. In the New Testament, his death
is represented as an event of the greatest importance,
— as a fact on which Christianity rests, — as the only
ground of hope to the guilty, — as the only source of
peace and consolation, — as, of all motives, the most
powerful, to excite us to mortify sin, and to devote
ourselves to the service of God. It is remembered in
heaven, and we have reason to believe that it now
is, and ever will be, the theme of the songs both of
the redeemed and of angels : "Worthy is the Lamb
that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and strength,
and glory, and blessing."!
It is evident from this detail, that there is something
peculiar in the death of Christ, something which dis
tinguishes it from all other events of the same kind,
and renders it more worthy of attention. It is necessa
ry, therefore, that we should entertain just conceptions
of it; by which I do not merely mean, that we should
know when it happened, and with what circumstances
it was attended, but that we should endeavour to ascer
tain from the Scriptures what was our Saviour's design
in submitting to die upon the cross. From the earliest
ages Christians have believed that his death was an
atonement for sin, a sacrifice offered to God to satisfy
his justice, and avert his wrath from the guilty ; that it
was the means of reconciling us to our offended Crea
tor, the procuring cause of pardon and eternal life. In
this view of it, all the great bodies into which professed
Christians are divided are agreed, — the Eastern and the
Western Church, Papists and Protestants, Calvinistsand
Arminians. They may differ in their explanation of the
nature of the atonement, its extent, and the means of its
application ; but with regard to the general truth, that
the death of Christ was propitiatory, there is no conflict
of opinion. This may be considered as a presumption
in favour of the doctrine, and at least shows that there
is an apparent foundation for it in tbe Scriptures ; be
cause if there were no trace of it there, we could not
well account for the consent of so many parties, separ
ated on other points by so wide an interval. It will
hardly be denied, that the Scriptures seem to favour
this view, by using language, in speaking ofhis death,
which was appropriated to the sacrificial institutions of
the law ; and those whose interest it is to evade this evi
dence, confess its existence by their anxious and violent
endeavours to bring the style of the New Testament to
a consistency with their system.
The doctrine which has been received by the Catholic
church, is controverted by one class of nominal Chris
tians, by the same persons who deny the divinity of
our Saviour, and maintain his simple humanity. Those
two articles of their creed harmonize, for if Jesus
Christ was a mere man, it is impossible to believe that
his death possessed such merit as to redeem that great
multitude, wbich no man can number, of all nations,
and kindreds, and people, and tongues. They alone

* 1 Cor. ii. 2.

t Rev. v. 12.

THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.

305

can with anyappearance of reason consider his death as
an expiation of sin, who are persuaded that the blood
shed upon Calvary was divine. It would be absurd to
suppose, that the sufferings of a common descendant of
Adam, who was himself not exempt from human frail
ties and imperfections, were accepted as a full compen
sation for myriads of transgressions. The following is
a summary of the sentiments of Unitarians.
" The great object of the mission and death of Christ,
was to give the fullest proof of a state of retribution, in
order to supply the strongest motive to virtue ; and the
making an express regard to the doctrine of a resurrec
tion to immortal life, the principal sanction of the laws of
virtue, is an advantage peculiar to Christianity. By this
advantage the gospel reforms the world, and the remis
sion of sin is consequent on reformation. For although
there are some texts in which the pardon of sin seems to
be represented as dispensed in consideration of the suffer
ing, the merits, the resurrection, the life or the obedi
ence of Christ, we cannot but conclude, upon a careful
examination, that all those views of it are partial repre
sentations, and that according to the plain general tenor
of Scripture, the pardon of sin is in reality always dis
pensed by the free mercy of God, upon account of man's
personal virtue, a penitent upright heart, and a reformed
exemplary life, without regard to the sufferings or merit
of any being whatever." Thus the propitiatory nature
of the death of Christ is discarded; and, according to
them, when the Scripture says, that he gave himself for
us, that he died for our sins, that we have redemption
through his blood, — all that is intended is, that his doc
trine, confirmed by his death, is the means of leading
us to repentance and amendment of life, in consequence
of which we are pardoned, and entitled to a happy im
mortality. It is a thought which will naturally occur
to you, that if this is the actual amount of what the
Scriptures teach upon this subject, the terms which the
sacred writers have employed, serve only to encumber
and darken the sense ; and that it would have been bet
ter to have expressed the simple truth in plain terms
not liable to be misunderstood, and not to have envelop
ed it in metaphors and allusions, by which thousands
have been misled.
Let us attend more particularly to the account which
is given of the death of Christ by those who deny the
atonement, that having found their reasons to be inade
quate, we may be the better prepared to receive the
catholic doctrine, which alone accords with the state
ments of the sacred writers.
Sometimes they speak of his death as an accidental
event, as having taken place in consequence of the
wickedness and perverseness of the age in which he ap
peared, and thus insinuate that among a different people
he might have escaped without persecution. How
contrary this opinion is to truth, and to the belief of a
particular providence, they need not to be told, who
remember that he was delivered up by the determinate
council and foreknowledge of God, and that his death
was predicted by the prophets, and prefigured by the
institutions of thelaw. If it was accidental, it is evident
that no stress can be laid upon it, that it could not be an
essential part of the scheme of religion which God was
carrying on, and that, in itself, it was of no greater mo
ment than the death of any other good man who has
fallen a victim to calumny and malignity.
There is a notion entertained by Socinians, which if
true would militate against the supposition that the
death of Christ ought to be considered as an atonement
for sin, or that any merit attached to it ; for they hold
that death is not the penalty of transgression, but the
eonsequence of the original law of our nature. Man
would have died, or might have died, although he
had continued in innocence. When Jesus Christ
therefore expired, we may apply to him the expression,
tvhich however common is very inaccurate, that he
2 0 20

paid the last debt to nature: and since he was origin
ally mortal, his death was not an act of choice, and
could not be a voluntary sacrifice. I need not stop to
refute this opinion, the falsity of which was demon
strated when we pointed out the effects of Adam's
transgression. It is sufficient to repeat the well
known words of the Apostle, " By one man sin en
tered into the world, and death by sin; and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ;"* and
the words of our Lord, " No man taketh my life from
me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay
it down, and I have power to take it again."!
But although Socinians have sometimes talked in
this loose manner, that the death of Christ might ex
cite as little attention as possible, yet they have found
it necessary from the general tenor of Scripture, to ad
mit that it had some important end, and have racked
their invention in order to give a plausible account
of it.
In the first place, They tell us that he died to give
us an example of patience, resignation, faith and hope ;
and thus far they are countenanced by Scripture,
which says, " Christ also suffered for us, leaving us
an example that we should follow his steps ;"! and
addresses this exhortation to us : " Forasmuch then as
Christ hath suffered for us in tbe flesh, arm yourselves
likewise with the same mind."|| But the question is,
Was this the only design of his sufferings ? Does the
giving of an example exhaust the meaning of the lan
guage of Scripture on this subject? We grant that
he has left us an example, but we deny that this was
the only object which he had in view ; and we pro
nounce it to be false reasoning to hold any single end
which is gained, to be the only end contemplated by
the person who employed the means. Every man
knows the distinction between a subordinate and an
ultimate end, and is aware that, unless both be con
sidered, we do not understand the design of the agent.
If it was the sole purpose of the death of Christ, to
give us an example, we cannot avoid thinking that the
means were disproportionate to the end ; and it seems
incredible that a just and good Being would have sub
jected a person so excellent as Unitarians acknowledge
him to have been, pure and spotless in his life, and
richly furnished with supernatural gifts, to the most
cruel torments, solely that we might learn how to be
have under our afflictions. We might have been
taught this lesson at less expense ; and it does not
appear to be a happy expedient for recommending sub
mission, to place before us the spectacle of a person
enduring the severest sufferings, although he had
neither sinned himself, nor become responsible for the
sins of others. The moral efficacy which is ascribed to
the example, is destroyed by the nature of the case.
Nothing will induce us to acquiesce in the will of God,
when its operations are painful to our feelings, but a
full conviction of his justice and benevolence. But
the agony and blood of one who had never offended,
are calculated to create fear and distrust, and to repre
sent the Ruler of the universe, rather as a despot than
as the Father of the human race.
In the second place, they tell us that he died to at
test the truth of his doctrine. I grant that this is true,
but in a sense which they will not allow. He died to
confirm the promises of God, by paying the price of
the blessings exhibited in them, and securing the en
joyment of them to believers. " All the promises of
God in him are yea, and in him amen, to the glory of
God."§ But his death had this effect, because it was
an atonement for sin, by which the anger of God was
appeased, and his favour was restored. I deny that
he was a simple martyr for the truth, and is to be

Rom. v. 12.
lb. iv. 1.

+ John x. 18.
} 2 Cor. i. 20.

X 1 Pet. ii. 21.

306

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

classed with Stephen,' and James, and Antipas, and
other holy men, who have sealed tbeir testimony to
religion with their blood. Considered in itself, his
death would not have proved the truth of his doctrine ;
it would have proved only that he was fully persuaded
of its truth. This is all that we can justly infer from
the sacrifice which a man makes for his principles;
if we go any farther, as there have been martyrs for
different religions, we should be compelled to conclude
that they are all equally true. It was not necessary
that he should die to confirm, his doctrine, because he
had already established it upon the solid basis of his
miracles,. To these he appealed, saying, " Believe me
for the very works' sake."* They demonstrate that he
was a messenger from God, and consequently, that
whatever he delivered in the name of God, was to be
received without murmuring and disputing. They
were admitted as evidence by all persons of candour,
and with respect to those who were dissatisfied, we
may say, that they would not have believed, although
one had risen from the dead. " Rabbi, we know that
thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do
these miracles which thou doest, except God be with
him."! Hence we conclude, that this was not the
design of his death. His dying for tbe truth could
not have afforded clearer evidence than his miracles,
nor considered in itself, evidence so clear. What fol
lowed it, indeed, namely his resurrection, is the grand
demonstration, that he was the object of the divine ap
probation ; but it is so, because he was put to death
as an impostor and blasphemer, and was not at all
necessary, independently of these charges against him,
to vindicate his claim to the character of a messenger
from God. The proof was so complete before his last
sufferings, that those who rejected him were without
excuse, as we learn from his own words : " If I had
not come and spoken unto them, they had not had
sin ; but now they have no cloak for their sin."!
Once more, They tell us that he died to give us the
assurance of eternal life, that we might be led to faith
and obedience, through which we obtain the remission
of sin. At first sight, it seems strange and far from
the truth, that the painful and ignominious death of an
innocent person should avail to persuade us, that a re
compense is prepared in a future state for those who
lead a holy life upon earth. Appearances are directly
in the face of such an expectation. Aware of this dif
ficulty, Socinus said that this hope, which exerts so
happy an influence upon us, is not properly the effect
of the death, but of the resurrection of Christ, and is
ascribed to his death, because it necessarily preceded
his resurrection. But if this were the truth, the Scrip
ture would have made mention of his resurrection, or
rather of his ascension to heaven, and his sitting at the
right hand of God, when it speaks of the remission
of sin, and not of his death and sufferings, at least not
so often, and in such significant terms. The frequent,
and almost constant, conjunction of his " blood" with
remission, indicates that the latter is not a remote, but
the proximate effect of it. To what, purpose is this
circuitous method? Remission is granted to those
only who obey the commandments of God; faith, and
the hope of a reward, as Socinus affirms, aie motives
and excitements to obedience ; this faith is generated
by the consideration of Christ raised from the dead,
and exalted to glory on account of his holiness ; but
death preceded his resurrection, and therefore remis
sion is fitly said to be obtained by his death. That
which is near, or separated by a moderate interval, is
not assigned as the cause, but that which is removed
to a great distance from the effect; the first step in the
process is given as the cause of the result, while it
cught to be ascribed to the last step, which goes im-

* John xiv. 11.

j- lb. iii. 2.

t lb. xv. 22.

mediately before it; and this is done not once, but
uniformly. Who can believe that the Scripture ex
presses itself so inaccurately and obscurely ? To
speak ofhis death when it means his resurrection, of
which his death was not the cause but the antecedent,
is just as proper as to speak of night when we mean
day. A slight perusal of the sacred writings will con
vince any man who is not prejudiced, that this is not
the true account. He will find that the remission of
sin is not attributed to the resurrection and exaltation
of Christ, or to the effect which these events are cal
culated to produce upon our minds, but expressly to
his death; and that his death, as distinguished from
his resurrection and exaltation, is stated to be the pro
curing cause of our redemption. "If, when we were
enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of
his Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be
saved by his life."* Our reconciliation, which im
plies the pardon of sin, was effected by his death, and
not by tbe life which be now leads in heaven.
In a word, they tell us that Christ died in order to
obtain the power of forgiving sin. But to this asser
tion we oppose the fact, that he possessed this power
before his death : and it is absurd to suppose him to
have died for tbe purpose of acquiring what was already
his own. He repeatedly said, "Thy sins are forgiven
thee." It is observable that, on one occasion, he used
these words; "The Son of man hath power on earth
to forgive sins;"! as if ne had meant to provide for
the refutation of those who affirm that this power was
subsequent to his ascension. He had power to forgive
sins while he was on earth, in his state of humiliation ;
and that it does not signify, as some pretend, simply
the power of healing diseases, will appear on consult
ing the passage, where there is a clear distinction be
tween the pardon and the cure of the paralytic; the
one having taken place before the other, and the cure
being expressly declared to be the sign and confirma
tion of the pardon.
This view of the death of Christ, as the means of
obtaining the power of forgiving sin, leads me to take
notice of another theory, which has been called the
middle scheme, because it admits more than the So-
cinian, and less than the Catholic system. This state
ment, however, is not perfectly accurate; because
Socinus himself, and his immediate followers, who
allowed to Jesus Christ supreme authority over men,
held in substance the doctrine which has been sup
posed to be peculiar to the scheme now to be con
sidered. The middle scheme agrees with the Socinian in
rejecting the atonement, but it accords thus far with
the Catholic, that it maintains the intervention or
mediation of Christ in a qualified sense, as necessary,
or at least as appointed, for the restoration of the guilty
to the favour of God. It proceeds upon this principle,
that God, who is infinitely merciful, may pardon the
transgressions of his creatures freely, and might have
pardoned them upon repentance, but that it appeared
expedient to his wisdom, and conducive to the interests
of his moral government, to exercise his mercy to
them, not immediately, but through the interposition
of another person. This friendly office was performed
by Jesus Christ, whom the abettors of this system do
not consider as the eternal and consubstantial Son of
God, but as the first and most glorious of created
beings, by whom the world was made. Pitying our
fallen race, he generously engaged to assume out
nature, to submit to poverty and persecution, and to
suffer crucifixion, that he might acquire the right and
power to carry into effect his benevolent design. His
services were highly acceptable to God ; and in con
sideration of them, there has been granted to him, upon

Rom.

10.

Matt. ix. 6.

THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.

307

his intercession, a kingdom or government over men,
authorising him to bestow pardon and eternal life upon
those who repent and obey. In confirmation of their
scheme, they appeal to certain cases mentioned in
Scripture, as being analogous, and as evincing its con
formity to the manner in which the Divine adminis
tration is conducted; to cases in which the sins of
others were pardoned at the request of good men, and
from respect to their virtues. Thus, great privileges
were conferred upon the Israelites, to reward the piety
and obedience of Abraham ; the idolatry of the people
in the wilderness was pardoned when Moses interceded
for them; and God heard the prayer of Job for his
three friends, against whom his anger was kindled,
because they had not spoken of him the thing that
was right.
As this system admits a Mediator, although it
confines his duty to intercession founded on his pre
vious sufferings, it enables its advocates to make a
plausible use of the language of Scripture, and to say
with truth, according to their limited views, that we
are saved by the blood of Christ, that we are forgiven
for his sake, that we are redeemed to God by the death
ofhis Son. It seems also to guard the honour of the
Divine government amidst the exercise of mercy, by
not treating the sins of men as light and venial, and
pardoning only from respect to the merits of a being
of a higher order, through whom their repentance is
accepted. It will occur, however, to your minds, that
the Scriptural phrases concerning the death of Christ
must be interpreted in a low sense, that they may be
brought to accord with the scheme now under consider
ation. We are saved by the death of Christ, not as
an atonement, for this idea is expressly excluded; but
as a preliminary step to our salvation, or as the ap
pointed means of obtaining the power to save us, or
rather the power to prescribe the terms of our salva
tion. If it be said that this power was merited by his
sufferings, and, consequently, that they are in truth
the primary cause of salvation, we remark that, after
all, no more is ascribed to them than might be ascribed
to the sufferings of a mere man, on whose account
some favour should be conferred upon his family and
friends. He bas received wounds or lost his life in
the service of his country, and his country testifies its
gratitude by rewarding those who are related to him.
All the arguments drawn from the terms in whicb the
death of Christ is spoken of, to prove its propitiatory
nature against the Socinians, bear with equal force
against the scheme of intercession. It is true, accord
ing to both systems, that he did not die as our Surety,
and bear our sins in his own body on the tree. This
scheme, in short, is an expedient which has been de
vised, not to interpret Scripture according to the
genuine sense, but to explain it away ; to evade, on
the one hand, the obnoxious idea of atonement, and to
seem, on the other hand, to attribute to our Saviour's
death some powerful efficacy in our redemption from
sin. It is liable to the objection against the Socinian
system, that it does not satisfactorily account for the
sufferings of an innocent person, as on all hands he is
acknowledged to have been. It may display the good
ness of God, but it reflects upon his justice, with which
it is impossible to reconcile the sufferings which Christ
underwent by Divine appointment, although he was
free from personal or imputed guilt. In short, although
it has been called a beautiful- theory, it will not appear
in this light to the man who thinks, and thinks justly,
that the beauty of a moral system depends upon its
truth; and to a person who has studied and understood
his Bible, it will not have even the merit of specious-
ness, because, before it could impose upon him for a
moment, he must have forgotten all that he had read.
I have said that it is an objection against this and
the Socinian system, that they do not satisfactorily

account for tbe death of an innocent person. That our
Saviour was without sin, we may assume as an in
controvertible fact, upon the testimony of Scripture ;
and we reject with abhorrence the insinuation of
modern Unitarians, who have dared to insinuate that,
although his public life was blameless, he might not
be exempt in private from the imperfections incident
to humanity. " He did no sin, neither was guile
found in his mouth."* According to all our ideas of
justice, an innocent person has a right to live in peace
under the protection of the laws, and we should exclaim
against the government which should molest him, as
oppressive and tyrannical. Yet we are not surprised
when such a person is persecuted by men, because
we know by experience what are the fatal effects of
calumny and envy, and how often power is abused
from caprice, and ignorance, and passion. But, in
heaven we look for a pure administration, and it is a
principle of reason and religion, that the righteous are
acceptable to the Ruler of the world, and are the ob
jects ofhis peculiar care. The sufferings of our Lord
did not originate solely from men; the agency of God
was concerned in them, and they all, indeed, befel
him either by his immediate interposition, or by his
appointment and permission : " It pleased the Lord to
bruise him, and to put him to grief."! Some tell us
that, in virtue of his sovereignty and supreme domin
ion, God may subject bis creatures to sufferings with
out a cause ; that he is not bound to give an account
of his proceedings to us ; that, if an angel in heaven,
or the holiest man upon earth, were severely afflicted,
it would be sufficient to say, that such is his will.
Were this doctrine admitted, our antagonists could
explain the mystery of the cross without any difficulty.
But those who hold it, have forgotten that the Lord
of the universe is not a despot, but a righteous and
beneficent Governor ; they take a partial view of his
character, and sink all his other perfections in that of
his power. They have forgotten, too, that he has pre
scribed a law to himself, from which he will never
deviate; a law expressly declaring that he will render
to every man according to his deeds. Hence we con
clude, with the utmost certainty, that when any being
suffers there is a just cause. We are at no loss to
account for the sufferings of men, whatever are their
attainments in piety and virtue, knowing, as we do,
that each of them is a sinner ; but what reason shall
we assign for the sufferings of Him, who was pro
claimed by a voice from heaven to be the Son of God,
in whom he was well pleased ? Here both the sys
tems which we have reviewed entirely fail. They
give no explanation in wbich a well instructed mind
can acquiesce. To say that Christ was subjected to
sufferings for the benevolent purpose of conferring im
portant benefits upon mankind, is to give the highest
sanction to the principle, which is so strongly repro
bated in the Scriptures, that evil may be done that
good may come. To say that, although his sufferings
were great, he has been amply rewarded for them, is
to set up the plea, that a person may be treated un
justly in the mean time, provided that justice shall be
done to him at last, and to vindicate any arbitrary
exercise of power, if the victim of it is not an ultimate
loser. Such a procedure would be condemned in a
human governor, and is not to be attributed to Him
who is the archetype of justice to kings and princes.
You have heard the reasons which are assigned for
the death of Christ, by those who deny that it was an
atonement for sin. If they have proved unsatisfactory,
the doctrine of the catholic church remains unshaken ;
and it is a presumption in its favour, that all the at
tempts to substitute something better in its place have
failed of success. Before, however, we are authorised

* 1 Pet. ii. 22.

f Is. Iiii. 10.

308

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

to pronounce it to be true, we must ascertain that it is
not only preferable to other views of the subject, but
that it is agreeable to Scripture, from which only the
real design of the death of Christ can be learned. It
is not our business to contrive a variety of hypotheses,
and try which of them is most suitable, but to inquire
what our Saviour himself and his disciples have said
upon this important subject.
I begin by observing, That the idea of atonement
has prevailed among all nations and in every age of
the world, and that, accordingly, sacrifices have been
offered with the view of propitiating the Deity. From
what source tbe idea and the practice were, derived, is
a question about which learned men have been divided
in sentiment. Some have maintained that sacrifices
were an invention of men, who hoped, by the offering
of something valuable, to gain the favour of the Being
whom they worshipped, as we seek to conciliate the
good will of our superiors by gifts ; and others contend
that they originated in the command of God to our first
parents after the fall. Without engaging in this con
troversy at present, I simply remark upon the improba
bility that a thought, apparently so extravagant, should
have ever occurred to the human mind by its own sug
gestion, as that the wrath of Heaven would be appeased
by the slaughter of unoffending animals. Whatever
gave rise to this service, it is certain that such sacri-
.fices held an important place in the religion of tbe
heathens, and continue to be offered in one form or an
other, by idolatrous nations. Nay, in some cases, a
nobler sacrifice was deemed necessary ; a human vic
tim was dragged to the altar ; and the guilty hoped to
wash away their own sins with the blood of one of
their brethren. These things are mentioned to show,
that a sense of guilt has been universally felt, accom
panied with the fear of punishment, and that a persua
sion has obtained, that there was no possibility of es
caping with impunity, except by the suffering of an
other in the room of the transgressors. They are a
proof that notwithstanding the loud exclamations
-against the atonement of Christ, as an impeachment
of both the goodness and the justice of God, the human
mind has, with great uniformity, approved of the idea
of substitution, and has found in it the best resource
against the terrors of conscience.
But this statement has been controverted, and it has
been confidently affirmed, that, from a review of the
religions of all nations, ancient and modern, they ap
pear to be utterly destitute of any thing like a doctrine
of proper atonement ; that a general belief has pre
vailed of the benevolence of the Deity ; and that
nothing has been deemed necessary to conciliate his
favour but repentance and the practice of virtue. The
power of prejudice is great. It hides from the mind
the plainest truths, and leads it to draw the most illo
gical conclusions ; it reconciles it to palpable absur
dities, and renders it impenetrable to the most cogent
arguments. But there are some cases in which the
utmost stretch of charity cannot admit the power of
prejudice as an apology. It is impossible to believe,
that a man of learning and good sense has been so
blinded by its influence, as to mistake the whole his
tory of mankind upon a particular point, and not to
see what, to every other person, presents itself with
the brightness of a sun-beam. Either Dr. Priestley,
who has made the strange assertion which I am now
considering, had never read the history of the various
relio-ions of the human race, and in this case was
guilty of presumption and dishonesty in pronouncing
positively concerning their tenets ; or, he has pub
lished to the world, with a view to support his own
system, what he must have known to be utterly false.
It would disgrace a school-boy to say, that the hea
thens knew nothing of expiatory sacrifices. Dr. Ma-
gee has refuted his assertion by an induction of par

ticulars, which show that it is destitute of the slight
est foundation. He has proved, that, "a great part
of the religion of the Pagan nations consisted in rites
of deprecation; that fear of tbe Divine displeasure
seems to have been the leading feature in their reli
gious impressions ; and that, in the diversity, the
costliness, and the cruelty of tjjpir sacrifices, they
sought to appease gods, to whose wrath they felt
themselves exposed, from a consciousness of sin, un
relieved by any information respecting the means
of escaping its effects.* Hence the practice of human
sacrifices among, not only the Phenicians, the Per
sians, the Egyptians, and the Carthaginians, but also
the learned Greeks, and the civilized Romans ; and
hence the doctrine of the Druids, as related by Cssar
in his Commentaries, that, unless the life of men were
given for the life of men, the immortal gods would not
be appeased-! The gods are often represented as
angry, and the idea of propitiating them is expressed
by a variety of terms. To turn away the wrath of an
other, was signified among the Greeks by the verbs
IKcLCrXitrBcLl, Sip)iV07roKIV, HCLTCLXcLfftreiV, CL7rOX.cLTCLXcLCTCTliV,X and
among the Latins, by the words placare, pacare, con-
ciliare, reconciliare, and propitiare.]] The act and the
effect were called by a single word in both languages ;
in the one ix«o/tof,§ and in the other placamen.%
I observe again, that prior to the coming of Christ,
sacrifices were offered, not only of thanksgiving, but of
atonement, by the worshippers of the true God, in obe
dience to his command. Such appears to have been
the sacrifice of Abel, because it consisted of tbe first
lings ofhis flock; and that he had authority for what
he did, we infer from the words of the apostle, who
says, that he offered by faith,!]" which presupposes a
Divine revelation. This single passage, independently
of other considerations, might decide the question re
specting the origin of sacrifices. Such are the sacri
fices of Job for his sons, lest they should have sinned
during the days of feasting; and for his friends, who
had sinned in their speeches, and were directed by God
himself to adopt this method of averting his anger.
When the Israelites were delivered from Egypt, a law
was given to them, enjoining sacrifices, appointing a
particular family to the priesthood, ordering an altar to
be built, and specifying the animals to be used, and tbe
time and manner of offering them. When any of them
had transgressed, a sacrifice was prescribed, upon of
fering which his sin was pardoned, and the penalty
was remitted. There were sacrifices also for the whole
congregation, in tbe morning and evening of every day,
and on the anniversary of expiation, when the high
priest officiated, and entered into the holy place with
the blood of the victim, which he sprinkled before the
mercy-seat, signifying that it was only through an
atonement that God would continue to be gracious to
the people. In a word, the whole system proclaimed
and illustrated this truth, that "without the shedding
of blood, there was no remission of sins."** No hope
was given to the Israelites of the protection and bles
sing of the Almighty, unless they were purified by sac
rifices. If it be said, that the death of animals without
reason, could not satisfy Divine justice for the sins of
men, we grant, that although they freed the offerer from
ceremonial, they could not free him from moral guilt;
but hence we infer, that the sacrifices of the law were
shadows and figures of a nobler oblation, by which
eternal redemption has been obtained.
We should have thought it so clear, that sacrifices
were enjoined by the ancient law, and were of a propi
tiatory nature, that no person would have ventured to
* Magee on Atonement, Vol. i. No. 5.
t De Bello Gall. lib. vi.
X To propitiate, pacify, conciliate, reconcile.
|| To appease, pacify, conciliate, reconcile, propitiate.
j Propitiation. T Heb. xi. 4. ** lb. ix. 22.

THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.

309

dispute it; but it has been asserted, that the Jews had
no notion of expiatory sacrifices ; or that, if they had
any such notion, it was derived from the heathens, con
trary to the common opinion, that the heathens derived
the notion from them. Nothing is more plainly taught
in the Old and the New Testament, than that sacrifices
were piacular.' The idea is unavoidably suggested by
the language of the law, and by the nature of the rites
which it prescribed ; and it is still retained by the Jews,
although they are aware of the argument drawn from
thence for the true and proper sacrifice of Christ, and
would for this reason have been strongly tempted to
renounce it. It is the doctrine of the modern Jews.
that the mercy of God accepted the sacrifice of the an
imal in the room of the offerer, and appointed that in
offering it, he should lay his hands upon it, to remind
him that the victim was received as his vicarious sub
stitute. In order to prove that the ancient sacrifices
were not of an expiatory nature, it is alleged, that they
were required in cases where no guilt could be sup
posed. In the cases of the high priest, the ruler, pri
vate individuals, and the whole congregation, a sacri
fice was enjoined, when they had sinned through igno
rance; and ignorance, it is insinuated, must have ex
empted them from criminality. Ignorance, however,
may not signify the absolute want of knowledge, but
inattention and inconsiderateness, which, being itself
culpable, would not excuse the conduct to which it gave
rise; or, if they were really ignorant, they were still to
be blamed, because it was their duty to have made
themselves thoroughly acquainted with the law which
God had given them, and to have kept it constantly in
mind. The truth seems to be, that the sins spoken of
did not proceed ex ignoranlia juris,* but from want of
reflection, from the sudden assaults of temptation, and
the violence of passion ; and they are opposed to pre
sumptuous sins, sins committed with a high hand, that
is, deliberately, against knowledge, and the present
conviction of the mind. The former are called sins as
well as the latter; but this difference is made between
them, that those were expiated by a sacrifice, whereas
for these no atonement was provided. "If a soul sin,
and commit any of these things which are forbidden to
be done by the commandments of the Lord ; though he
wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the
flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass-offering, unto
the priest : and the priest shall make an atonement for
bim concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist
it not, and it shall be forgiven him."! Again* sacrifi
ces were required from those who had been cured of
leprosy, and from women after child-bearing, and in
neither case, it has been said, can sin be supposed. It
is the observation of a Jewish writer,! that " without
committing sin, no person is ever exposed to suffering;
that it is a principle with the Jewish doctors, that there
is no pain without crime; and that for this reason, she
who had endured the pains of child-birth, was required
to offer a piacular sacrifice." With regard to the leper,
it has been remarked by the same person, that " a sin-
offering was enjoined, because the whole Mosaic law
being founded on this principle, that whatever befals
any human creature, is the result of Providential ap
pointment, the leper must consider his malady as a ju
dicial infliction for some transgression. "|| And cer
tainly the loathsome disease of his body was an em
blem of the natural pollution of the soul, and reminded
him how necessary it was to seek the favour of that
Being who had smitten him once, and might smite him
again. But, although a case had occurred, in which
we could not discover any vestige of guilt, manifest or
implied, it would not, in the judgment of any reasona-

* From ignorance of what was right. f Lev. v. 17, 18.
X Abarbanel. || See Magee, vol. i. Note 33."

ble man, furnish an objection against the general import
of the legal institutions, which so clearly teach, that an
atonement is necessary to avert the anger of God.
I observe farther, That the Scriptures affirm, in the
most express tprms, that the death of Christ was a pro
pitiatory sacrifice. They use the same language in
speaking of that event, which is used concerning the
piacular services of the law. He is called a priest, and
the work of a priest is assigned to him. " Every high
priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices ; where
fore, it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also
to offer."* It is said, that "he gave himself for us an
offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet^smelling sa
vour;"! and the same thing is asserted in many other
passages. It is affirmed, that " he died for our sins ac
cording to the Scriptures ;"! that " he bore our sins in
his own body on the tree ;"|| that "he is the propitia
tion for our sins ;"§ that " he was made a sin-offering
for us i"% that "by his death we are reconciled to
God ;"** that " he has redeemed us to God by his
blood."!! This is the general strain of the New Testa
ment, and I am not aware of a single expression which
has a different meaning. One should think, that lan
guage so express, and occurring in so many places,
would be sufficient to settle the question, whether the
death of Christ was of an expiatory nature, and that no
man who feels any reverence for the word of God, and
submits to it as the rule of his faith, would venture to
controvert this position, or allow a doubt to remain in
his mind. But some persons are not so easily satisfied.
They have conceived a prejudice against the doctrine,
and will not be convinced by any evidence. Hencs
they have recourse to the same expedient, by which
they endeavour to set aside the proofs of the divinity
of Christ, namely, the pretence that the words are not
to be understood according to their usual import. They
cannot deny that he is called a priest, and his death a
sacrifice ; but they allege that the literal sense must
be rejected, for no reason which I can discover, except
that it is at variance with their system. , Christ, they
say, was a metaphorical priest; his death was a meta
phorical sacrifice; and what follows, but that he has
obtained for us a metaphorical redemption, that is, no
redemption at all ?
As the Scriptures were given to instruct us in re
ligion, it may be presumed that they are written in
language which all may understand. To suppose
that the style is highly figurative even in the didactic
parts, that plain truths are wrapt up in metaphors,
that the real is often different from the apparent sense,
is to throw a most injurious reflection upon the word
of God, and would justify the church of Rome in with
holding it from the common people as a. book liable
to be abused by them. No person who has read the
Old Testament, can be ignorant what is meant by a
sacrifice. He understands it to have been a victim
slain and offered upon the altar, in order to avert the
anger and procure the favour of God. When he finds
that, in the New Testament, the death of Christ is
called a sacrifice, and considers that both parts of re
velation proceeded from the same Author, he is neces
sarily led to believe that the word retains its ancient
sense, and that Christ died in our room to reconcile
us to God. We account him a blundering writer, who
uses the same word upon the same occasion in different
senses; and we call him an unfair writer, who, by
changing the meaning without warning, seeks to im
pose upon his readers. To tell us that we ought to
beware of being misled by the sound of words, and
that, in the passages which speak of the death of Christ
as a propitiatory oblation, nothing is intended but an

* Heb. viii. 3.
|| 1 Pet. ii. 24.
** Rom. .. 10.

\ Eph. v. 2.
{ 1 John ii. 2.
•ft Rev. v. 9.

X 1 Cor. xv 3.
T 2 Cor. v. 21.

310

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

allusion to tbe sacrifices of the law, is to tell us that
we may -seek truth were we please, but we shall not
find it in the Scriptures.
If a person is honestly inquiring after truth, he will
have recourse to no shifts — no far-fetched and over
strained methods of establishing a particular point.
There will be "no prejudices admitted in favour of one
opinion, and against another; there will be no reluc
tance to receive evidence, on whatever side it present
itself; there will be a cautious and diligent use of all
tbe means, by which a correct view of the subject is
most likely to be obtained. Truth alone being his
object, there will be no temptation to step out of
the way which leads to it. When the question re
gards the sense of a particular author, he will proceed
according to tbe plan pursued on all such occasions,
and understand the terms in their common acceptation,
unless it clearly appear that the author has designedly
deviated from the established usage. He will not at
tempt to make him express sentiments different from
those which he seems to express, if he is writing his
torically or didactically, without assigning a reason
sufficient to satisfy any competent judge. If we see
a person taking a different method, wresting words
from their obvious import, talking of metaphors when
the literal sense is perfectly intelligible and spontane
ously presents itself to the mind, trying to find out,
not what they naturally signify, but what they may
be made to signify by the dexterity of bold and un
principled criticism, and converting the text into an
enigma, the recondite meaning of which can be dis
covered only by conjecture and not by any rational
rules of interpretation, we have ground to suspect that
he is not honest, and that his aim is, not to come at
the truth, but to establish a doctrine of his own. Such
is the procedure of Socinians, with respect to the
atonement and the divinity of Christ. It is itself suffi
cient to put every man upon his guard, and betrays a
conviction, on their part, that the Scriptures, as we
have them, and their system, cannot stand together.
Socinianism requires a new Bible, or, what amounts
to the same thing, an improved version; that is, a cor
rupted text, and an equally corrupt interpretation.

LECTURE LVIH.
ON THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.
The Correspondence between tbe atoning Sacrifices of the
Levitical Law and the Death of Christ, traced and proved —
Christ a Substitute, and his Death an Atonement — Notice
of Objections to the Doctrine.
We have ground for believing that the death of
Christ was an atonement for sin, in the language
of Scripture, which, being borrowed from the sacrifi
cial rites of the law, is applied to that event in such a
manner, as to leave no doubt that his death was con
sidered by the sacred writers as having the same nature,
and the same design, with the ancient oblations. But,
in order more fully to establish the doctrine, let us take
a closer view of the legal sacrifices, and observe how
exact is the correspondence between them and the
death of Christ in everything essential. If we find
that it has all the characters of a true and proper sacri
fice for sin, we cannot hesitate to view it. in this light,
and to regard it as the procuring cause of pardon and
eternal life.
Tbe first point of resemblance is found in the sub
stitution of the sacrifice. It was put in tbe place
of the person who offered it, and was called an offer
ing for his sin, or.for his soul. It was not a free gift,

a token of gratitude, or a tribute paid by a subject to
his sovereign, but a vicarious oblation, which was slain
to signify the death which he deserved, and to save
him from personally undergoing the penalty. As this
notion of a sacrifice is obviously taught by the law, so
it was adopted by the Jews and by the Gentiles, who
both considered the victim as given for them, as oc
cupying their place. This was signified by the act
of laying his hands upon the head of the victim, by
which the offerer transferred his guilt from himself to
the devoted animal, that it might be punished in his
stead. Jesus Christ was substituted in the room of
sinners; and hence he is called eyyvoc, "the surety of a
better covenant."* A surety is one who gives secu
rity for another, that the other will fulfil his engage
ments, or, in the case of failure, that he will fulfil them
for him. Some say that he was surety to us for God,
having engaged that God would perform his promises;
or surety for us to God, having engaged to him that
we should perform the condition of the covenant. Both
ideas are inadmissible, and the true meaning is ex
plained by the apostle in another place, when he says,
that Christ was " the Mediator of the new covenant,
that by means of death, tbey which are called might
receive the promise of eternal inheritance."! He was
a surety who undertook to die for those whom he re
presented. The substitution is evident from those passages in
which he is said to have died for us, imp i/urn. It ia
acknowledged that the preposition imp sometimes
signifies merely on account of, or ¦with a view to the ad
vantage of; but it does not follow that, in reference to
the death of Christ, it imports only that be died for
our good, to confirm his doctrine, and to set us an
example. It is beyond doubt that it also signifies in
the room of, and bears this sense when it occurs in
connexion with the verb cnroBywr>eu,X both in the Scrip
tures and in the classics. "The Socinians," says
Raphelius, " will not find one Greek writer to support
a different interpretation. "|| In this sense it occurs
repeatedly in the writings of Xenophon : H km eBexonca
imp toi/tou curoBcLven ;§ "would you be willing to die for
this boy?" that is, as is evident from the context,
" Will you die in his stead ? save his life by parting
with your own ?" Avtixo^o? tov ttcltso^ vmecLTroBayw — ^T
" Antilochus dying for his father" obtained such glory,
that he alone among the Greeks was called SAoa-M-a^.**
The preposition retains the same sense in the New
Testament. When Caiaphas, the high priest, said,
that it was expedient ivse ac AvBeu7roc clttoB-lvv inree, tov xxcu,
icui/lii iui to eBvoo aTroxhTM,]] he manifestly signified that
our Lord should be put to death as a victim for the
Jews, that by his death they might be saved from the
vengeance of the Romans. He was to be like the
mgi^iifLZTci and mp'ix.jLB*pfL*Tu. of the Greeks, men who
were taken from the multitude and slain, that the
anger of the gods might be appeased. " Scarcely —
imp iiKcuov, for a righteous man will one die, but for a
good man, — Imp tci/ ayaSai — some would even dare to
die."!! Persons might be found to lay down their
lives for such a man. The apostle is unquestionably
speaking of a case of substitution, of the voluntary
sacrifice of one life for another. The proposition,
therefore, must, by all the laws of criticism, have the
same import, in the words which immediately follow:
— "But God commendeth his love towards us, in that,
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, — imp
Hjucny umBzve. ""]]]]
The same inference may be drawn from the use of

* Heb. vii. 22. f lb. ix. IS. \ To die.
|| Raphelii Annot. torn. ii. p. 253, 254. } De Cyri Exped.
IT De Venat. ** Lover of his father.
ft That one man should die for the people, and that the
whole nation perish not. }( Roa>- Y- 7- III! lb. 8.

THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.

311

the preposition clvti, wbich conveys tbe idea of com
mutation and substitution. The law says, o$B*x/loc. clvti
ocpBctXLtov, oto; clvti otovTot,* requiring that the man who
had put out the eye or the tooth of another, should lose
one of his own. To render k*x°v clvti kukov,] is to do any
injury to our neighbour, because he has done an injury
to us. In these cases, the general idea is that of com
mutation. The preposition also denotes substitution
and succession, or coming in the room of another.
Thus, Archelaus reigned over Judea, — clvti 'Hfaufou t™
vcLTpoc clvtov — "in the room of Herod his father."!
And in what other sense but this of substitution can
We understand it in the following words ? " The Son
of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister,
and to give his life a ransom for many — " fovvcu t»v
^¦vx»v clvtov xvtcov clvti voxxeey.]] The preposition ascer
tains the action to be vicarious, to be an action per
formed by one person, not only for the benefit, but in
the room of another, as a benevolent man would lay
down the price demanded for the liberty of a captive,
which the captive himself was unable to pay. The
life of sinners was forfeited, and it was redeemed by
the life of the Saviour. The word xvTpct signifies a
price of any kind, but is limited to tbe sense of a ran
som by the occasion, being xvTpov clvti ?roxxn>v,§ for the
deliverance of many. There is a compound noun,
tLVTixvTpuv, which is used by Paul, when be says, that
Christ gave himself a " ransom for all, to be testified
in due time;"Tf intimating, in the most intelligible
manner, that his death was not merely the means, but
tbe price of our redemption, and, consequently, that
his sufferings were vicarious.
When we affirm the substitution of Christ, we sup
pose that our guilt was legally transferred to him, so
that he was made answerable for it; and, in this re
spect, there is a resemblance between him and the an
cient sacrifices. They were called sin-offerings, and
simply nxtan, sin, — the same term being employed to
denote the transgression and the oblation for it; be
cause there was a translation of the one to the other,
or the latter was considered as bearing the former.
This translation was represented by a significant rite.
When the priest, the ruler, or any one of the common
people, brought for a sin-offering a bullock, a goat, or
a kid, or a lamb, each was commanded to lay his hand
upon its head ; and the meaning of the rite is evident
from what was done on the great day of atonement.
Two goats were then presented, of which the one was
to be slain and offered for a sin-offering; but the other
was to be sent by the hand of a fit person into the
wilderness, in order to represent the removal of guilt
as the effect of the sacrifice. That the design might
be understood, and might make a proper impression
upon the spectators, "Aaron," says the law, "shall
lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and
confess over him all the iniquities of the children of
Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,
putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send
him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilder
ness. And the goat shall bear upon him all their ini
quities unto a land not inhabited : and he shall let go
the goat in the wilderness."** There seems to be an
allusion to this rite, and certainly the same thing is
expressed by the prophet, when he says, " All we,
like sheep, have gone astray ; we have turned every
one to his own way ; and the Lord hath laid on him
the iniquity of us all." \\ They were laid upon him as
the sins of the Israelites were laid upon the scape-goat.
To the same purpose are the words of the Apostle,
" He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no
sin ; that we might be made the righteousness of God

{ An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. f Evil for evil.
Matt. ii. 22. || lb. xx. 28. } A ransom for many.
1 Tim. ii. 6. ** Lev. xvi. 21, 22. ft Is. liii. 6.

in him."* I add the testimony of Peter: "Who his
own self bare our sins in his body on the tree: by
whose stripes ye were healed."! The sins which he
bore on the cross were not his own, but ours ; and
" his bearing them" implies, that they had been laid
upon him as a burden under which we were sinking
into perdition, and from which he was graciously
pleased to relieve us. It is an obvious inference from
these passages, that there was a transference of the
sins of men to our Saviour, as the sins of the Israelite
were transferred to the animal which he brought to the
altar. Christ having voluntarily engaged -to give
satisfaction to the Divine justice for us, tbey were
reckoned to him, as a debt is reckoned to a surety
when the debtor himself is insolvent, and the creditor
looks to the surety for payment. God dealt with him
as if the sins had been his own; he inflicted punish
ment upon him as if he had been the offender. This
is what we mean by saying that our sins were im
puted to him ; be came under an obligation to bear the
penalty. They were only imputed to him, but not ac
counted really his own. This was impossible; for
God, who always judges according to truth, would not
charge one person with having crmmitted the sins
of another. Such a charge would be false, and never
was, nor never will be, made. We cannot, therefore,
read without disgust and detestation the language in
which some high-flyers have indulged, — men who car
ried every thing to excess, and exposed important doc
trines to reproach, by the unguarded and presumptuous
manner in which they expressed them; not hesitating
to call our blessed Lord a sinner, and the greatest of
sinners ; and to maintain that, during his last suffer
ings, he was separated from God and disowned by
him, and was odious and abominable in his sight.
These are not the words of truth and soberness, but
the ravings of impiety or insanity. Such men did not
understand the translation of guilt, which merely im
plies an obligation to punishment, but no moral taint,
and was so far from rendering our Lord an object of
the displeasure of bis Father, that he never was the
object of higher approbation than when he was expi
ring on the cross. The voluntary susception of our
guilt, while in himself he was perfectly pure, could
not for one moment change the sentiment of entire
complacency with which his heavenly Father had al
ways regarded him. Without sin, he was a sin-
offering, bearing the iniquities of those whom he had
undertaken to redeem. He owed nothing to justice
for himself, but he owed much as the surety of men.
His death was accompanied with such circumstances
as showed that it was a penal act ; for, besides its
shame and its torments, it was that kind of death
which the law had pronounced to be accursed ; and the
preternatural darkness at his crucifixion, was a visible
symbol of the frown of the invisible Creator.
The animal which was substituted in the room of
the offending Israelite, and over which he had con
fessed his sin, was slain, and laid upon the altar. Life
was given for life ; the life of the animal, which God
was pleased to accept, instead of the life of the man.
" The life of the flesh is in the blood ; and I have
given it unto you upon the altar, to make an atone
ment for your souls ; for it is the blood that maketh an
atonement for the soul."! That Jesus Christ died, is
a fact about which there is no dispute ; but, with re
spect to the design of his death, we have seen that his
professed followers are far from being agreed. It
is granted that he died for our good, that he sub
mitted to crucifixion to attest his doctrine, and give us
an example ; but that his death was a sacrifice of atone
ment, some men confidently deny. Upon their hypo
thesis, there was no material difference between nig

* 2 Cor. v. 21. t J Feter- "' 24> * LeT" """ U*

312

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

death and that of many other holy men, who laid
down their lives for the truth, and at the same time,
were admirable patterns of faith, and patience, and
hope. We assert, that he died as the substitute of the
guilty; that death was a punishment inflicted upon
him for our sins, which were the impulsive cause of
his sufferings, and, in this sense, he was made a curse
for us ; and that the great design was, to give satisfac
tion to Divine justice. This view is founded upon the
passages formerly quoted to prove his substitution,
passages which assert, that " he gave himself for us ;"
that " he was made sin," or a sin-offering, " for us;"
that " he died for all;" that "he bore our sins in his
own body on the tree;" that " he suffered, the just for
tbe unjust, that he might bring us to God." In a case
where the defence of a particular system was not con-.
cerned, it would be acknowledged to be contrary to
the laws of sound interpretation to understand, by such
expressions, merely that the death of Christ has been
productive of some benefit to mankind. I should wish
to know, from those who wrest them from their obvi
ous sense — the sense which they have suggested to all
men but themselves — in what stronger terms the in
spired writers could have expressed themselves, if it
had been really their design to inform us that Christ
died, not only for our good, but to atone for our sins ;
and whether the usage of the language, and the pre
vailing sentiments of those for whose instruction they
wrote, would have led them to employ other terms
than those which they have actually employed. If
their words do not teach that the death of Christ was
a true and proper sacrifice for sin, we must say that
this is an idea which human language is incapable of
communicating. Is it possible to be more explicit
than Peter is, when he affirms, that Christ suffered for
sin, or as a sin-offering, the just for the unjust? Surely
every man must see, who has not wilfully shut his
eyes, that the just One suffered in the room of the
unjust; suffered that they might not suffer; that his
death was vicarious, and he submitted to it that he
might bring us to God, or effect a reconciliation be
tween us and our offended Creator. There is no per
ceptible difference between his death and the legal
sacrifices but this — that, in the one case, it was an
animal without reason which was slain, and in the
other, it was a man, the Son of the living God, who
was the victim. His death was called a sacrifice,
without the slightest hint of a metaphor. " He offered
himself," as the Levitical priest offered the goats, and
lambs, and bullocks, which were required by the law,
"he offered himself without spot to God ;" he appear
ed in the end of the world, to put away sin by the
sacrifice of himself;"* to accomplish at once what
was typified by the legal oblations. He was a " Lamb
slain;" the " Lamb of God, which took away the sins
of the world."!
I Attempts have been made to neutralize the evidence
furnished by these passages in favour of the doctrine
of atonement. When Christ is said to have borne our
sins, we are told that this does not mean that he bore
the punishment of them, but that he bore them away ;
and that he bore them away by procuring the offer of
pardon upon repentance, or by presenting motives fit
to turn us from our sins, in consequence of which we
are forgiven. In the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, it is
said, " Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our
sorrows."! In order to prove, from this verse, the
propitiatory nature of the sufferings of Christ, the two
words which express what he has done in reference to
our sins, — XKO and Sjd, translated borne and carried, —
have been carefully examined, and their import has
been ascertained by a comparison of other passages in
which they occur. The result is given by Dr. Magee
* Heb. ix. 14, 26. f Rev. t. 6, &c. John i. 29. f Is. liii. 4.

in the forty-second note.* Both signify, not to bear
away, but to bear or sustain, as a person bears a bur
den, and this is evidently the sense in all cases where
sin is spoken of; "the suffering, or being liable to
suffer, some infliction on account of sin, which, in the
case of the offender himself, would be properly called
punishment." " We are told that God made theiniqui-
ties of us all to fall upon him, who is said to have borne
the iniquities of many ¦¦ thus is the bearing of our ini
quities explained to be the bearing them laid on as a
burden; and though a reference is undoubtedly intend
ed to the laying the iniquities of the Jewish people on
the head of tbe scape-goat, which was done, (as is
urged by Socinus, Crellius, Taylor, and other writers
who adopt their notions,) that they might be borne, or
carried away; yet this does not prevent them from
being borne as a burden. The great object in bearing
our sins, was certainly to bear them away ,- but the
manner in which they were borne, so as to be ultimate
ly borne away by him who died for us, was by his
enduring the afflictions and sufferings which were due
to them ; by his being " numbered with transgressors,"
treated as if he had been an actual transgressor, and
made answerable for us, and consequently wounded for
our transgressions and smitten for our iniquities, in such
a manner that our peace was effected by his chastise
ment, and we healed by his bruises ,- he having borne our
iniquities, having suffered that which was the penalty
due to them on our part, and having offered himself a
sacrifice for sin on our account."]- Peter alludes to
this passage in Isaiah, when he says, "that Christ —
TCLO alLZPTlcLC i)LLW CLVTOC. CLVilVeyttSV £V Tftl CTCeLiXTl CLVTOV STI TO £vX0V,
— bore our sins in his own body on the tree."! ^ has
been contended, that the verb *vx$tpu here signifies to
bear away ,- but literally it means to carry up from a
lower to a higher place, and is used to express the act
of sacrificing : " Who needeth not daily, like the high
priest — -jLvcLcfi^m Buo-txt, — lo offer sacrifices for sins."|| It
does not seem to occur in the sense of bearing away.
In the passage under consideration, if it convey any
idea beyond simple bearing, it signifies lo carry up,
and intimates that Christ carried up our sins to the
cross, having previously taken them upon him, that
he might there bear the punishment of them, as the
legal sacrifices were carried up to the altar, and laid
upon it, that they might be consumed.
It has been objected to the vicarious nature of the
death of Christ, which imports that he endured the
punishment due to our sins, that he did not actually
suffer the punishment to wbich we were liable, for his
sufferings were temporary, whereas eternal death is
the doom of transgressors. The objection comes with
an ill grace from Socinians, who deny the eternity of
future punishment, unless they mean to refute us from
our own principles, or to use the argumenfum ad homi-
nem ; but from whatever quarter it comes, it involves
a difficulty which may occur to the attentive inquirer.
It has been frequently said, that eternity is not a
necessary adjunct of the punishment of sin, but arises
from the limited capacity of creatures, who could not
endure in a definite time, the full execution of the
penalty. I am disposed to call in question the accu
racy of this statement, and to believe that it is not
from the weakness of the subject, that suffering will
be perpetual, but because the penalty implies the final
forfeiture of happiness ; and that, by the constitution
of things, the loss incurred is a total and irretrievable
loss. Sin separates the creature from the Creator,
without the possibility of reunion. Be this as it may,
I remark, that, in considering the atonement of Christ,
we are not to inquire what was the quantum of suffer
ing, in order to ascertain whether it bore an exact pro-

* Magee on Aton. vol. i.
t 1 Pet. ii. 24.

t Magee, vol. i. p. 461.
1| Heb. vii. 27.

THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.

313

portion to the sufferings which would have fallen to
the lot of those whom he died to redeem. Some men
have allowed themselves to go into estimates of this
kind, and have presumptuously, and, in my opinion,
nonsensically maintained, that the^sum of suffering
was so nicely adjusted between our Saviour and the
objects of bis love, that, if there had been a single
person more to be saved, his sufferings would have
been proportionably augmented. They seem to have
imagined, that he actually endured all the pain which
the millions of the redeemed were doomed to endure
throughout the whole of their being. — We should
scarcely have expected arithmetical calculations to be
introduced into a subject so little connected with them ;
but human speculations are sometimes pushed to an
extravagant and ridiculous length. This comes from
understanding our sins to be debts in a literal sense,
and the sufferings of Christ to be such a payment as a
surety makes in pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings.
I remark by the way, that they have gone to the oppo
site extreme, who have ventured to affirm, that one
drop of the blood of Christ would have been sufficient
to redeem the. world. They might be asked to tell us,
why he shed so many drops, and even poured out his
soul unto death, and whether they seriously believe
that he suffered more than was necessary for the sal
vation of mankind? To return to the first calculators,
they entirely overlook the personal dignity of our
Saviour, which must have given an unspeakable value
to his sufferings; for had this been taken into the ac
count, they would have seen, that such an accumula
tion of pain as they imagine was unnecessary. Ac
cording to their hypothesis, the dignity of his person
added nothing to the value of bis sufferings, nor did
they need to be enhanced by it, as they were equal in
degree to the appointed sufferings of his people. We
can hardly speak, without presumption, upon a sub
ject so mysterious and awful. His sufferings were
great, beyond the power of language to express, or
of imagination to conceive; but if we admit that all
the acts of his human, nature were finite, we cannot
consistently say that his sufferings were infinite in
degree, and must consequently admit that their tran
scendent worth was owing to the union of that nature
to the divine. He did not, therefore, suffer all the pains
and sorrows of sinners, but he suffered what was equi
valent. It was the blood of the Son of God which was
shed; it was the Lord of glory who was crucified.
Hence, although his sufferings were temporary, they
satisfied the demands of justice, and were a valid ground
upon which God might pardon the sins of believers. It
was not necessary that the sacrifice should remain for
ever upon the altar, because it was so superior in worth
to all former sacrifices, so precious in itself, that, in the
language of Scripture, God " smelled a savour of rest."
Perhaps our ideas are not always distinet, when we
speak of the death of Christ as a satisfaction for sin.
That word, indeed, is used to signify any thing with
which the person having a claim is contented, whether
he receive the whole that he claims, or only a part of it,
or something instead of it. In law, it strictly signifies
a payment which may or may not be admitted, accord
ing to the pleasure of him to whom it is due; and it
"takes place when not the very thing. is done which he
had a right to demand, but something which he is
pleased to accept as an equivalent. In the present case,
what the law demanded was the death of the transgres
sors themselves ; it was, therefore, a relaxation of the
law, to admit another to die for them ; and, on this ac
count, the death of Christ was properly a satisfaction to
justice ; something with which it was content, although
not the very thing which it originally required. It is
on this ground that sinners were not ipso facto set free
from guilt and condemnation, but continue under them
till they believe. The reason is, that they did not them

selves undergo tbe penalty, but another underwent it in
their room; and the Lawgiver had a right to settle the
terms of their actual deliverance. We need not, there
fore, puzzle ourselves with inquiring how much Christ
suffered ; for, besides that this is a question which we
are not competent to decide, it is enough to know, that
he suffered all that was necessary to demonstrate the
Divine abhorrence of sin, to maintain the authority of
the law, and to exclude the impenitent from the hope of
impunity. The same effect is ascribed to the death of Christ, as
to the ancient sacrifices, and both are said to have avert
ed the anger of God, and procured his good will and fa
vour to man. Upon offering the appointed sacrifice, an
Israelite was exempted from the penalty incurred by
transgression, and was permitted to retain his place in
the congregation, and to enjoy his political and ecclesi
astical privileges. This expression is frequently sub
joined to the precept respecting offerings to be made on
particular occasions: "The priest shall make atone
ment for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him."* This
is the prayer to be presented on the occasion of offering
a heifer when a person had been slain, and tbe murderer
could not be discovered ; — " Be merciful, O Lord, unto
thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay
not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge.
And the blood shall be forgiven them."! If, then, the
death of Christ has accomplished the design of sacrifi
ces, we may justly conclude, that it was a sacrifice in
the true and proper sense. The blessings which we
enjoy by it are, pardon, peace, and the favour of God.
" He was delivered for our offences, and was raised
again for our justification. Therefore, being justified
by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord
Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith
into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in the
hope of the glory of God."! " We have redemption
through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according
to the riches of his grace. "|| " Be it known unto you,
men and brethren, that through this man is preached
unto you the forgiveness of sins : and by him all that
believe are justified from all things, from which ye
could not be justified by the law of Moses. "§ There
were some sins for which the law provided no sacri
fice, and the transgressor died without mercy : the su
perior excellence of this sacrifice appears from its un
bounded efficacy, there being no sin, however aggrava
ted, which will he not remitted to him who believes-
In a word, Christ is said to have made peace by the
blood ofhis cross, to have redeemed us to God with his
blood, to have redeemed us from the curse, to have de
livered us from the wrath to come, to have made us
kings and priests unto God, even our Father. It is
plain, from these and many other passages wbich it is
unnecessary to quote, that the removal of guilt, the re
peal of the condemnatory sentence, and the hope of
eternal life, are attributed to his death as the procuring
cause. The design of sacrifices was to appease the anger of
the Deity ; Jews and Gentiles agreed in this idea. Je
sus Christ is called a " merciful and faithful high priest
in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for
the sins of the people,"lf — a; to 'ojtrxn-Bai tzc. clllcl^ticlc
tov xclw, — literally, to propitiate the sins of the people;
but the expression is evidently elliptical, and is put for
eio to lxcLcrieeo-Bu.i Biov mpi tchv aLLcLpTimv, to propitiate God for
the sins of the people. The design of his death was to
make God propitious to men, to avert his anger, and to
procure his favour. This is what we mean by making
atonement for sin. Such an atonement as consists in
the destruction of sin by repentance, and the acquisition

* Lev.
X Rom.
1THeb

iv. iv ii

26, 25
17.

31 v.

35.
1,2

vi. 7. xii. 8,
|| Ephes.

&.C.
.7.

f Deut. xxi. 8.
J Acts xiii. 38, 39.

314

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

of habits of holiness, (and this is the only atonement
which Socinus would admit), could not be expressed
by ikcl<7x.cll!li,* or its derivative ixclo-lloc. It is well known
that ixclo-llo; signifies an atonement, something done or
suffered to reconcile an offended person ; and it is re
peatedly applied to our Saviour, obviously for the pur
pose of informing us what was the design and the effect
of his death. " He is — ixclo-lu; — the propitiation for our
sins."! " Herein is love, not that we loved God, but
that he loved us, and sent his Son to be — ixuo-liov — a
propitiation for our sins."! Paul makes use of a dif
ferent word, but of the same derivation, — " Whom God
hath set forth to be a propitiation — ixxcrTnpiov.]] It is the
word employed by the Seventy, to express the covering
of the ark of the covenant, which was called the mercy-
seat; and they have joined with it the word ittiBiucl.
'Jxao-Tupiov vriBiLLo., is ihe propitiatory covering.1} Hence,
some read the passage, " Whom God hath set forth a
mercy-seat." 'Christ,' say the Unitarians, 'is what
the mercy-seat was under the former dispensation. In
him God shows himself merciful. Here he takes his
stand, and declares his gracious purposes.' Their
meaning is, that Christ is the messenger of Divine
mercy, the medium of Divine communication ; and thus
they get rid of the idea of atonement. Grotius suppo
ses IxcLo-Txpioy to be a noun, and says, that all words of
this termination import an efficient power, and are im
properly understood as merely declarative, and, conse
quently, that Ixdo-Txpiov here signifies, that Christ has
made God propitious. Others, regarding it as an ad
jective, think that a noun is understood, either lepuov or
Bv/A*.,^and that the meaning is, God hath set him forth
as a propitiatory sacrifice ; ixdo-Txpioo the adjective sig
nifying having the force or power to propitiate or expiate.
And, that this is the true sense of the word, is plain
from two considerations : First, the Apostle calls him
\xcLo-Tr,pm, " a propitiation through faith in his blood,"
intimating that it was the effusion of his blood which
propitiated, as under the law it was the blood of the
devoted animal which made an atonement. Secondly,
Something more than a declaration of mercy must be
intended, because the design of setting him forth as a
propitiation was, " to declare the justice of God in the
remission of sin, that he might'be just, and the justifier
of him that believeth in Jesus."** We can understand
how Divine justice was displayed, if Christ died for
sin, or suffered the punishment of it; but there is no
thing like justice in a simple declaration of mercy.
The atoning nature of the death of Christ is signified,
when its effect is said to be " our reconciliation to God,"
and is expressed by the verbs xcltclxclo-o-uv and clvoxcltcl-
XcLo-o-eiv, and by the noun x^TuxxcLya.]] When we were en
emies — xcLTnxxttyuLLiv, — we were reconciled to God by the
death of his Son."!! " We joy in God through our
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have received — t»v
xcLTcLxxcLym — the reconciliation."^ It is objected, that it
is no where said that God was reconciled to us, but
that we are reconciled to him ; and such a reconcilia
tion does not signify the averting of his anger against
us, but the laying aside our enmity against him. We
may ask those who advance the objection, whether they
believe that God was not offended at the sins of men ?
If they say that he was not, they give the lie to innu
merable passages, in which his abhorrence of sin, and
his determination to punish the sinner, are declared ;
and they virtually maintain, that holiness and justice
are not perfections of his nature. If they admit that
sin is displeasing to him, and vengeance is proclaimed
against tbe sinner, they must also admit, that not only
we are reconciled to God, but he is reconciled to us ; that
having been once angry, he is now pacified. Whether
» To propitiate, f 1 John ii. 2. \ lb. iv. 10. || Rom. iii. 25.
} Exod. xxv. 17. IT A sacrificial victim, or sacrifice.
** Rom. iii. 26. ff To reconcile. Reconciliation.
XX Rom. v. 10. IIH lb. v. 11.

they will allow that this change was effected by the
death of Christ or not, they can neither deny that it does
take place, and is owing to some cause, nor object to
the idea itself with appearance of reason. He who
once threatened to punish another, but has since par
doned him, and now treats him with kindness, has cer
tainly been reconciled to him. If his sentiments to
wards him were always the same, his appearances of
displeasure were » dramatic show, inconsistent with
sincerity. The argument that God is not said, in ex
press terms, to have been reconciled to us, is of no
weight, while bis reconciliation is implied in other
phrases ; as that he hath made peace by the blood of
his cross, and reconciled those who were once aliena
ted, and enemies in their mind by wicked works, and
that Christ is a propitiation for sin, or has made God
propitious to us, with whom, on account of sin, he was
formerly displeased. The objectors have been misled
by not attending to the true import of xuTcLxxdcrereo-Bcu,
and tficLXaTTto-BcLi, which is also used in tbe New Testa
ment. Such words are employed in the classics to
signify, the removing of tbe anger of the gods, and
bear the same sense in the sacred writings. — They sig
nify, to return to a state of peace with a person whom
we had offended, to pacify him and render him friendly
Thus, when our Lord says in the Gospel of Matthew,
if " thy brother hath aught against thee," has some
ground of offence, " go and — StcixxcLyeBt tu «cT&<f» nv — be
reconciled to thy brother,"* nothing can be plainer,
than that the offender is not exhorted to lay aside his
enmity to his brother, although this is understood ; and
that the purpose of going to the offended person is, to
reconcile him by confession and reparation, to appease
his anger, and persuade him to be at peace with the
offender. Here then the phrase, be reconciled to ano
ther, signifies to reconcile the other to us ; and why
should not the word have the same meaning, when it
is used in reference to God? We are reconciled to
him, as we are reconciled to our injured brother; some
thing is done which disposes him to receive us into fa
vour. Now, the cause of the reconciliation which the
Scripture assigns is, the death of Christ, and, conse
quently, his death was a propitiatory sacrifice. The
Apostle explains our being saved from wrath, by " our
receiving the reconciliation."! To receive the recon
ciliation is to obtain the remission of our sins; but to
receive our conversion, which is the sense of Socinians,
is a form of speech altogether unprecedented. Tbe two
reconciliations of God to sinners and of sinners to God,
are mentioned in the fifth chapter of the second Epistle
to the Corinthians. Of the first the apostle says, " God
was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not
imputing their trespasses unto them."! Thus, recon
ciliation consisted in forgiving them, that is, in ceasing
to be angry with them, and receiving them into favour;
and how it was effected we learn in general from the
mention of Christ as a person by whom tbe world was
reconciled, and in particular from the words subjoined
for explanation. " For be made him to be sin," or " a
sin-offering for us, who knew no sin, that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him."|l This recon
ciliation was evidently on the part of God, who, by the
mediation of Christ, opened the way for the exercise of
his mercy in pardoning the guilty. It cannot mean our
personal reconciliation to God, or our conversion, for
this follows as a consequence of the former. On the
ground of God's reconciliation to us, we are exhorted
to be reconciled to him, and the great motive or encour
agement is his previous reconciliation. " He hath
committed unto us the ministry of reconciliation. Now
then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did
beseech you by us, we pray you, in Christ's stead, be

* Matt. v. 24.
U 2 Cor. v. 21.

f Rom. v. 9. 11.

} 2 Cor. v. 19.

THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.

315

ye reconciled unto God."* ' Since God has given
Christ to be a propitiation for sin, and has sent us to
proclaim the joyful tidings, do you accept the offer of
peace, and enter into covenant with him.' We are re
conciled to God when we are justified by faith.
It is false to affirm, that God is never said to be rec
onciled to us.; and, consequently, this argument against
the propitiatory nature of the death of Christ falls to
the ground. It is equally false to affirm, that God was
reconciled before he sent his Son into the world, and
that therefore Christ did not die to reconcile him. We
acknowledge that it was because he loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son. But this love was
merely a benevolent purpose to deliver us by proper
means, and proceeded no farther than to provide those
means. He had not actually forgiven us, but was wil
ling to forgive us, if a sufficient atonement was made.
He appointed Christ to die for transgressors, that he
might receive them into favour in perfect consistency
with his threatenings against sin, and the righteousness
of his administration. He was content — nay he willed
— that the grounds ofhis displeasure against us should
be removed ; but, till they were removed, he was not
actually reconciled ; and hence our pardon and restora
tion are not represented as the immediate effects of his
original purpose to save us, but are ascribed to the vica
rious sufferings of the Saviour. "The chastisement
of our peace," or by which our peace was procured,
" was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed."
God was reconciled when that was done, which made
justice cease to demand our punishment.
The general ground on which we maintain the doc
trine of atonement is, the necessity arising from the na
ture and the revealed will of God, that the transgressors
of the law should be subjected to the penalty. We
think that the transgressors can be allowed to escape
only by a gracious dispensation, admitting a surety to
suffer in their room. We cannot see how the honour
of the Divine character and government could be other
wise maintained. Believing that avenging justice is
essential to God, we conclude that free pardon, or par
don upon the simple condition of repentance, was im
possible. But, although abstract reasoning from the
Divine perfections may be auxiliary to our belief of any
particular doctrine, the proper foundation of faith is the
express testimony of Scripture ; and I have therefore
endeavoured to lay before you a part of the evidence
which it supplies on this most important subject. The
argument drawn from the justice of God in support of
this doctrine, was considered when I endeavoured to
illustrate his perfections.
It is an important question, for whom Christ offered
his sacrifice ; and the answers to it are different. Some
contend that he died for all men ; and others, that he
died for those alone who were given to him by his Fa
ther. Of late, we have heard much of a new doctrine,
whichxmaintains not only that Christ died for all men,
but that, in consequence ofhis death, all men are actu
ally pardoned. The true Gospel is not, that God for
Christ's sake will forgive the sins of all who believe:
but that he has already forgiven every man, woman,
and child, who is now alive, or shall be in the ages to
come. It seems a natural inference, that every man
will be saved ; but to guard against this mistake, we
are informed that, although all men are already pardon
ed, this act of grace will be of no avail to them, unless
they believe that they are pardoned. This faith, is of
easy attainment, as easy as to believe that the sun is
shining at noon ; because, if it is true that all men are
pardoned, it requires no effort to conclude that, since I
am a man, I am one of the number. It is added, in
deed, that we shall not enjoy the benefit of this pardon,
unless we not only believe, but are sanctified by our
* 2 Cor. v. 19, 20.

faith ; but this is going still farther from tbe genuine
Gospel, by making our final deliverance from condem
nation depend upon our holiness, and not exclusively
upon the atonement of Christ. What a mass of error
contradiction, and absurdity ! Here we have a pardon
which is not pardon, because it affords no security to
the possessor ; the guilt of sin taken away, and yet lia
ble to be charged upon the sinner ; an act of indemnity
passed in his favour, while everlasting punishment is
still hanging over his head ! Who can receive this doc
trine who has learned from the Scriptures that we are
"justified by faith," that is, that pardon follows faith,
and does not go before it ? Who can believe that all
men are pardoned, who has read in innumerable passa
ges that " all men are by nature children of wrath ;"
that "God is angry with them every day;" that "his
wrath is revealed from heaven against them ;" that it is
" coming upon them ;" that " the whole world is guilty
before him?"* Would the sacred writers have spoken
thus if they had known that all men are already for
given ?
Others, who affirm that Christ died for all men, ex
plain their views in a different manner. He may be
said to have died for all, because, inconsequence ofhis
death, a dispensation of grace is established, under
which all men are placed ; a new covenant is made with
them, which promises eternal life to sincere, instead of
perfect obedience ; and such assistance is affor led to
them as, if rightly improved, will enable them to work
out their salvation. To every person who understands
the Scriptures, it will be evident that this scheme is
false in all its parts, and consequently, that the doc
trine which it is brought forward to support, is destitute
of any solid foundation. If this is the sense in which
Christ died for all, he did not die for all, because the
scheme is a gross and manifest perversion of the Gos
pel. The fundamental error of the advocates of univer
sal redemption lies in an inaccurate idea of the nature
of an atonement. We have shown that it consisted in
vicarious suffering, the suffering of one in the room of
another. The one bare the sins of the other ; the one
suffered that the other might not suffer. From the ap
plication of the terms of the ancient law to the death
of Christ, it appears that his death was a sacrifice of the
same kind with those which had been offered by Divine
appointment from the beginning ; that he was the sub
stitute of sinners ; that their guilt was imputed to him ;
that he bore the punishment to which they were ex
posed; and bore it with this design, that they might
not be punished. In consequence of having offered a
sacrifice, the Israelite, who had transgressed, was ac
quitted, the penalty was not executed upon him. Must
not this be the effect of the sacrifice of Christ ? Must
not those for whom it was offered be freed from con
demnation ? Does not justice require that they should
be dismissed with impunity, since it has already re
ceived full satisfaction ? The surety has paid the debt,
and shall the debtor himself be called upon to pay?
No ; the claim of the creditor has ceased ; the debtor is
under no obligation to him, and is as free as if he had
never owed a single farthing. If, then, Christ died for
all men, it necessarily follows that all men will be
saved. The inference is obvious, and cannot be eva
ded. If an atoning sacrifice was offered for all men,
all men must be forgiven. Will God punish sin twice,
first in the person of the Surety, and then in the persons
themselves, in whose place he stood ? It will be ac
knowledged, without a dissenting voice, that in any
other case this would be a manifest injustice. But, is
there unrighteousness with God? God forbid: the
Judge of all the earth will do right." Either then al
men will be finally saved, or Christ did not die for all.

* Eph. ii. 3. Ps. vii. 11. R°m ' 18'
Rom. iii. 19.

Eph. v. 6.

316

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

But few will he so bold as to maintain, no person who
has any reverence for Scripture will maintain, univer
sal salvation ; and to be consistent, he ought also to
renounce the doctrine of universal redemption.
Our Lord, speaking of those for whom he died, calls
them his sheep. " I lay down my life for the sheep."*
He explains who his sheep are by saying, that they are
such persons as " hear his voice and follow him ;" and
he adds, " that he gives to them eternal life, and they
shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of
his hand."! Does it not plainly follow from his words,
that those for whom he died shall be saved, that he
died for none but those upon whom the gift of faith
should be bestowed? And does he not signify, by par
ticularizing them as the persons for whom he laid down
his life, that he did not die for others of an opposite
character ? If he died for all, there would be. no mean
ing in saying that he died for his sheep, because in this
case there would be nothing peculiar to them, nothing
by which they were distinguished from any other des
cription of men. Again he says in his solemn prayer
to his Father, " I pray for them ; I pray not for the
world, but for those whom thou hast given me,forthey
are thine."! He prayed for the disciples, and not for
them alone, but for those in all ages and places who
should believe on him through their word ; but he did
not pray for the world. Intercession is a part of the
pries dy office of Christ, as well as sacrificing; and it
may be assumed as certain, that the same persons are
the objects of both. On what ground could we sup
pose, that his Sacrifice embraced a wider range than his
intercession, that he willingly shed his blood for the re
demption of some, but afterwards declined to pray to
his Father for them. It was not so with the Jewish
priests, who were types of him, for they bore the names
of all the tribes -on their breastplate, when they went
into the holy of holies, and represented all without ex
ception, for whom the annual atonement was made. So
also does Christ. He intercedes for those whose sins
he bore in his own hody on the tree, and therefore, as
he does not intercede for all men, he did not die for all.
This argument may be considered as conclusive, till
some better reason is given, why Christ prayed for his
disciples, but would not pray for the world.
It is acknowledged there are some passages wbich
seem to favour the doctrine of universal redemption ;
but if there are others which represent the design ofhis
death as limited, — and it has appeared from the nature
of the case, that his sacrifioe was not offered for all,
since all are not forgiven, — we must endeavour to give
a consisient sense to the former passages, and show
that Scripture is in harmony with itself. It is said that
Christ " taketh away the sin of the world,"|| and is
" the propitiation for tbe sins of the whole world. "§
Bui in these, and some other places, the world does not
signify every individual of mankind, but the nations in
general, as distinguished from the Jews, who were long
the peculiar people. It is said again, that Christ " died
for all ;" but the meaning is explained by the words
which follow, "that they who live should not hence
forth live unto themselves, hut unto him which died
for them, and rose again ;"lf and they signify that by
all we ought to understand, not all men without excep
tion, but all those who are made spiritually alive by his
death, and consecrated to the service of their gracious
Deliverer. It is farther said, that he " gave himself a
ransom for all."** But if every individual of the hu
man race is meant, it necessarily follows that, the ran
som being paid, all must be redeemed from the bondage
of sin and the curse of the law, unless we are prepared
to admit that, in respect of many, he died in vain. By
all, and oilmen, mentioned in another verse,!! it appears,
* John x. 15. f lb. 3, 4. X John xv'i- 9- II John i. 29.
jlJobnii. 2. IT 2 Cor. v. 15. ** 1 Tim. ii. C. ft lb. 4.

on considering the passage, that the Apostle included
persons of every tribe, rank, and condition; Jews and
Gentiles, high and low, rich and poor. Once more, it
is said, that "by the grace of God he tasted death for
every man ;"* but although the language is strong, and
seems to be conclusive, some of the advocates of uni
versal redemption honestly acknowledge that it does
not prove the point ; and lhat there is a reference to the
"many sons" mentioned in the following verse, whom
the Captain of our salvation was appointed to bring to
glory; — he tasted death for every one of them. It
would be tedious to go over all the passages in which
the universality of the atonement is supposed to be
taught. I shall conclude with this observation : — That
the sacred writers do not always use universal terms,
in the strict and usual sense ; that the world sometimes
signifies a part of the world, and all is put for many;
and that it is not by such terms that we are to deter
mine the extent of the atonement, but by a view of the
whole case and all its bearings.
I shall close this discussion, by calling your atten
tion to the objections which are advanced against this
doctrine. First, It is objected, that the doctrine of the atone
ment is repugnant to all our notions of justice ; for,
what is more manifestly unjust, than that the innocent
should suffer for the guilty ? But the assumed maxim,
that it is contrary to justice that a person should suffer
except for his own sins, is too sweeping, and is not
agreeable to the common sentiments of mankind. It
is acknowledged that, in certain cases, one man may
put himself in the place of another, and bear the conse
quences of such substitution. We have an example in
cases of suretiship, when the surety is compelled to do
what the principal has failed to perform. There are
even instances in the matter of life and death, of one
man engaging to save the life of another hy the sacri
fice of his own. Here, however, suretiship is extended
beyond its due limits, because no man has power to
give away his own life, and therefore no government
has a right to accept it. But the principle of substitu
tion is recognised and acted upon among men, and can
not consistently be condemned, when adopted as a part
of the Divine administration. We cannot reasonably
find fault with God for doing what is done by ourselves,
is sanctioned by our laws, and is acknowledged by all
to be fair and equitable. There are several considera
tions which show that, in the present case, it was per
fectly justifiable. Christ possessed the necessary quali
fication of freedom from the obligation upon all other men
to suffer death ; if he had had sins of his own, for which
to make satisfaction, he could not have been admitted
as a substitule. He was master of his own life as Lord
of all, could make a free gift of it, had power to lay it
down, and power to take it again. No man could take
it from him; he gave it freely, and the law says Volenti
nulla fit injuria;] he is not injured, when that is done
to him, to which he has given his deliberate and cor
dial consent. God, who might have demanded the
death of the guilty themselves, being the supreme Law
giver, was pleased so far to relax the law, as to allow
another to die for them. We see that all things con
cur to make this transaction accordant with justice.
Christ might give his life for us ; he gave it freely, and
his Father accepted it. God certainly knew what was
proper to be done, what became his character, what
would most effectually uphold the authority and honour
of his government; and what man or angel will pre
sume to arraign the dispensation ? In truth, the proper
question is, whether the Scriptures teach that Christ
was a propitiatory sacrifice ; and, if they do, objections
* Heb. ii.9.
t No injury is done to him that consents [that the thing
should be done."]

THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.

317

to the justice of the proceeding are vain and impious,
because it is past all doubt, that whatever God does
is right.
In the second place, it is objected, that this doctrine
represents God as furious and revengeful, delighting in
the miseries of his creatures, and contented only with
torments and blood. He would not be appeased, and
permit sinners to escape, till his Son offered the dread
ful sacrifice of himself. This is an unfair, irreverent,
and malignant representation of a holy and awful truth
of revealed religion. The Scriptures do indeed ascribe
wrath, jealousy, and revenge to God, by anlhropopaihy,
or the figurative attribution of human sentiments and
feelings, and even of human members, to him ; but
every person is aware, that the design of such forms of
speech would be perverted, and great dishonour would
be done to him by supposing that there is any thing in
his nature analogous to the commotions and infirmities
of ours. Far be it from us to conceive so unworthily
of Him who is all-perfect. Such terms are employed
solely to assist us in forming an idea of the contrariety
of sin to his nature and will, of the strong disapproba
tion with which he regards it, and ofhis fixed determi
nation to render the recompense of their deeds to the
transgressors of his law. He has no pleasure in the
misery of his creatures, abstractly considered, as he
has assured us with an oath; he is naturally good to
all, and his tender mercies are over all his works. But
having given a righteous law to man, he will maintain
his authority, by executing the penalty upon those who
violate it : being the Ruler of the world, he will not
permit the disobedient and rebellious to escape with
impunity. When we affirm, that avenging justice is
essential to God, we do not mean to represent him as
cruel and unrelenting, but as one who must do what is
right, and will abide by his original law, which de
nounced death upon transgressors. When we affirm,
that he would not pardon sin without an atonement, we
do not impute to him any want of mercy, but ascribe
to him the perfection of justice, which required that
compensation should be made for the wrong which he
had sustained, and security should be given for the pre
servation of his rights and prerogatives.
In the third place, It is objected, that the doctrine of
the atonement supposes God to be liable to change, to
be first angry, and then pacified. But this objection
might be made to every system of religion which ad
mits that sin is displeasing to God : for the same change.
must take place, when a sinner repents. It might be
made to prayer, the professed design of which is, to ob
tain blessings from him, which he would not otherwise
have bestowed. The atonement did not make God
hate sin less than he did before, or excite feelings of
compassion towards us, which did not formerly exist.
He loved us before he gave his Son ; and sin still is,
and ever will be, the object of his utmost aversion. The
effect of the atonement was a change of dispensation,
which is consistent with immutability of nature. He
could now extend mercy to those whom he was always
willing to pardon, but could not pardon honourably, till
his justice was satisfied. In fact, he demanded anv
atonement, because he does not change; and, therefore,
would not revoke his threatening, nor lay aside his ab
horrence of sin. They represent him as mutable, who
assert, that he pardons sin without satisfaction to his
justice. In the fourth place, It is objected, that this doctrine
supposes a price to have been paid for our redemption,
whereas it is represented in the Scriptures as free. This
objection does not bear particularly upon the doctrine,
as stated and maintained by us, but it is applicable to
the Scripture itself, which says, that we are bought
with a price, and yet declares, that we are saved by
grace. It is true that the blood of Christ was shed as
the ransom of our souls ; but still, in respect to us, re

demption is free, because nothing is given by us in ex
change for it, and it is enjoyed by every man who re
ceives it with humility and gratitude. It is farther evi
dent, that our redemption is of grace, although the death
of Christ was the indispensable condition of it, because
it originated in the free purpose nf God, who might
have left us in a state of guilt and misery ; because, in
this scheme, a surety was admitted instead of sinners
themselves, whom the law had marked out as the ob
jects of the penalty; because the surety was chosen
and appointed by God, on whose part all the advances
were made; and because the office of redeeming us
was devolved upon a person so high in dignity, and
so closely related to God, that his mission will for
ever remain a proof of unmerited and ineffable love.
" Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he
loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for
our sins."*
In the fifth place, It is objected, that to suppose
Christ to have died for our sins, is to suppose him to
have made an atonement of himself; because, if he is
God, he was offended as well as bis Father. The
objection is founded' on our imperfect knowledge of
the doctrine of the Trinity; and it is surely absurd to
oppose to a truth clearly revealed, arguments drawn
from a subject which surpasses our comprehension.
Assuming the doctrine of the Trinity, we must pro
nounce it to be presumptuous to say that a thing was
impossible, although Scripture has told us that it was
done, solely because we cannot conceive how it was
done. If there is a plurality of persons in the God
head, the union and distinctions of whom we do not
understand, shall we venture to say, that one of them
could not act economically in the character of Supreme
Lawgiver and Judge, and another, in a different nature
assumed for the purpose, do what was necessary to
display his justice, and prepare the way for the exer
cise of his mercy ? There have been many instances
of human legislators, who, in a private character, gave
satisfaction to their own laws. That such cases can
be considered as strictly analogous to the present, I
will not say ; it is certain, however, that in Scripture
our Redeemer is represented, during his sufferings, not
as the Lawgiver, but as the subject of the law, — not
as the equal of the Father, but as his servant. The
difficulty of conceiving this arrangement, is not a rea
son why we should call in question the fact, that he
was made under the law, and fulfilled it by his obedi
ence and death.
In the sixth place, An objection is founded on the
sufferings and death of believers ; for how could they
be subject to these evils, if he fully expiated their
guilt? When a debt is paid by a surety, the debtor
is completely and instantly released, because the surety
was included, as well as the debtor, in the original
obligation. But, in a case of punishment, where the
offender alone was the object of the penalty, the ad
mission of a substitute, being an act of grace, may be
accompanied with such conditions as the Lawgiver
shall choose to prescribe. It was not, therefore, in
consistent with justice, that in the present case it
should be stipulated, that sinners should be pardoned,
not immediately after they had offended, but at some
period during their lives; and that, although from that
moment they should be freed from the sentence of
eternal death, they should remain under the original
law of mortality. It was certainly in the power of
the Supreme Legislator to determine, whether the
whole penalty, or only a part of it, should be remitted.
And the efficacy of the atonement appears from the
removal of the principal part of the penalty, in com
parison with which, the evil which is indicted is as
nothing, yea,, less than nothing. Besides, that evil,
* 1 John iv. 10.

318

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

in consequence of the atonement, has virtually the
nature of a blessing, being corrective and not properly
penal, subservient to the good of the soul, affording
scope for the exercise of many virtues, and contribut
ing to prepare the people of God for a happier and
mote perfect state. Death itself proves to be the gate
of life.
_ With regard to the objection, that the doctrine of
vicarious punishment is calculated to remove the re
straint of salutary fear, and to encourage men to go on
in sin that grace may abound, it is so stale, and so
fully refuted by Scripture and experience, that I deem
it unworthy of any farther notice.

LECTURE LIX.
ON THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.
The Intercession of Christ — Place of Intercession — Its Objects,
the Elect — Mode of Intercession, Prayer — The subject of it
— Its Cause or Reason — Christ the only Intercessor — The
Popish Doctrine of the Intercession of Saints and Angels,
contrary to Scripture and Reason.
We have proved that Jesus Christ is the priest, as
well as the prophet of his church, and that there were
two important duties incumbent on him in this charac
ter, sacrifice and intercession. The first he performed
upon earth, when he died upon the cross ; for it has
appeared that his death was a true and proper sacrifice
offered to God, to appease his justice, and to obtain
our eternal redemption. It was, in truth, the sacri
fice by way of eminence, all others being merely types
of it, and having no efficacy in themselves to expiate
guilt. We now proceed to speak of his intercession,
which signifies in general those acts of his priestly
office, the object of which is to obtain the communica
tion of the benefits of his sacrifice to men, for their
pardon and final salvation. — The proper place of his
intercession is heaven, into which he entered not long
after his resurrection, and where he will continue to
minister till all the ends ofhis office are accomplished.
But it is not confined to heaven, for we find him inter
ceding in his state of humiliation. In this sense some
understand that passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
in which it is said, that, "in the days of his flesh he
offered up prayers and supplications to God, with
strong crying and tears."* I doubt the propriety of
this application of it, because the apostle expressly
declares, that he offered his supplication "to Him that
was able to save him from death," representing them
as supplications for himself, that he might be sup
ported under his severe afflictions, and ultimately de
livered from them. The intercession of Christ signi
fies his prayer for us. His prayer on the cross for his
enemies has also been referred to his intercession,
" Father, forgive them, for they know not what they
do."! Here, however, there is equal reason to doubt.
If his intercession is prevalent, or if he always obtains
what he asks in the character of our High Priest, it
would follow, that all the persons who were concerned
in his death will be forgiven. — But, although it is cer
tain that many of them did afterwards repent, and ac
knowledge him to be the Son of God and the Redeemer
of Israel, we are not warranted by Scripture to say,
that mercy was extended to the whole multitude that
demanded his crucifixion, to all the members of the
Sanhedrim who pronounced him to be worthy of death,
to Pilate who condemned him, to the Roman soldiers
who executed the sentence, and to every individual
who consented to the nefarious deed. We must,

therefore, consider this pTayer as expressive of the
spirit of charity, which he has enjoined upon his fol
lowers, and of which his own conduct has afforded a
perfect example. As a man, he forgave his persecu
tors, and it was his desire that his Father would for
give them. His official prayers are founded on his
knowledge of the purpose of God with respect to in
dividuals ; his private prayers on the law, which com
mands every man to desire the good of others, and to
promote it by all lawful means in his power. But,
while we leave out these cases, there remains enough
to show that Christ acted as an intercessor in his state
of humiliation. As he was often engaged in prayer,
and sometimes spent whole nights in it, there is no
doubt that the subject of his supplications was not
himself alone, but his disciples and his church in
every age of the world. He told Peter that he had
prayed for him that his faith might not fail ; and on
the evening before his crucifixion, he presented a
solemn address to his Father for all his followers,
which is recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John:
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also
which shall believe on me through their word."* Al
though he had not yet died as a propitiation for sin,
yet he commenced the work of intercession, because
he was already invested with the priestly office, and
tbe atonement would be soon made, from which all
the efficacy of his prayers is derived. It was allowed
him to anticipate the work of heaven, because it was
certain that he would not fail to satisfy tbe demands
of justice, and to pay the price of spiritual blessings.
The Scripture represents the intercession of Christ
as consisting in his appearance for us in the heavenly
sanctuary. " Christ is not entered into the holy places
made with hands, which are the figures of the true ;
but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of
God for us."! When he had risen from the dead, he
ascended to the celestial temple, the seat of the glorious
presence of God ; and he entered in the character which
he had sustained upon earth, namely, that of our repre
sentative. After his resurrection he showed himself to
his disciples, with the wounds in his hands, and feet,
and side, which his enemies had inflicted, and, as no
thing is said which implies that they afterwards disap
peared, it may be supposed that they remained when
he returned to heaven This may seem to be confirmed
by one of the visions of John : " I beheld, and lo, in the
midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the
midst of the elders, stood alamb as it had been slain;"!
that is, bearing the marks of a violent death. Hence
it has been conjectured, that he appears before God
with the visible tokens ofhis sufferings in his body, as
the Jewish high priest carried into the holy of holies a
part of the blood of the animal sacrifices, in testimony
that they had been slain. It is certain, however, that
this exhibition is not necessary to remind his Father
of his merits, nor is it for this purpose that it can be
conceived to be made. Since it will be acknowledged
not to be essential to the design of his ministrations in
heaven, it may be questioned whether it be consistent
,with the present state of his body; and although it
would be presumptuous to speak decidedly on a subject
of which we know so little, it may be said, with some
appearance of truth, that it is not suitable to our con
ceptions of a glorified body, that it should retain any
vestige of infirmity, any mark, however honourable from
the manner in which it was acquired, which might in
any degree impair its beauty. Laying aside, therefore,
this notion, which is more fanciful than solid, we un
derstand his "appearance for us in heaven" to signify,
that he presents himself before God in the body which
was crucified for our sins, and in the character of out
High Priest, to plead his atonement as the ground on

* Heb. v. 7.

f Luke xxiii. 34.

* John xvii. 20.

f Heb. ix. 24.

X Rev. y. 6.

THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.

319

which the blessings of salvation should be communi
cated to men. It signifies, not the simple presentation
ofhis human nature; for although God manifests him
self in a peculiar manner in the upper world, we are as
really, though not as sensibly, present with him on earth
as in heaven ; but an official presentation of it, or, in
other words, a ministration by which the design of
his office is accomplished. Jesus Christ has left this
world, but he has not ceased to act as our High Priest.
He retains his office, and performs its duties in his state
of exaltation.
Before I proceed to point out more distinctly the na
ture of his intercession, it will be proper to inquire for
whom he intercedes. We may say, then, that he in
tercedes for the elect, whether they are, or are not in a
state of grace  With regard to those who are not con
verted, he does not pray, that, continuing as they are,
they should be saved, or that their state should be im
mediately changed ; but that, at the appointed time,
they should be brought to the knowledge of the truth :
" Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold ; them
also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice ; and
there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."* These
words he spake upon earth, and we cannot doubt that
he is still as mindful of those who have not yet entered
into the fellowship of his Church. Although living in
ignorance and sin, they are dear to him as persons for
whom he shed his blood. He looks forward to their
conversion as the reward of his sufferings ; and it is
owing to his appearance in their behalf, that the Holy
Spirit is sent to "open their eyes, and to turn them
from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan
unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of their
sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified
by faith."! Faith is the gift of God, and is bestowed
upon those alone for whom our Saviour prays ; " for in
him we are blessed with all spiritual blessings."!
Enough has been said with respect to this class of the
objects of his intercession.
The other class comprehends those who are in a state
of grace, and of his prayers for them we shall after
wards speak. He does not pray for all men who are at
present alive, or shall hereafter come into existence.
His intercession is not more extensive than his sacri
fice; and he has told us, that, "as the good Shepherd,
he has given his life for the sheep."|| He has pointed
out its limits in the following words : " I pray for them :
I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast
given me ; for they are thine." " Neither pray I for
these alone," — the few disciples who had attached
themselves to him during his public ministry, — " but
for them also which shall believe on me through their
word."§ Under the Mosaic economy, the names of the
twelve tribes of Israel were engraven upon twelve pre
cious stones in the breast-plate which the high priest
wore when he appeared before God in the most holy
place, and in this manner it was signified that he was
the representative of the whole nation. The twelve
tribes were typical of believers under the gospel,
wh'o are the spiritual Israel ; and Jesus Christ, their
representative, bears them upon his heart in the heav
enly sanctuary. He remembers them with the most
tender affection, and manages their affairs with wisdom
and fidelity. He did not shed his blood at random, as
would have been the case if the sole design of his death
had been to render God placable to sinners, and to pave
the way for the salvation of those who should comply
with the terms upon which it was offered. " The Lord
knoweth them that are his," for they were given to him
by his Father, and he has taken them under his protec
tion. They live in distant ages ; they are. scattered
over the face of the earth ; they are placed in different

circumstances ; and some of them are so obscure, such
solitary and disregarded sojourners in the vale of tears,
that their nearest neighbours know little of their cha
racter, and still less of their wants and sorrows. But
he is as fully acquainted with the case of each individ
ual as if he were the sole object of his care ; and hence,
as he is a merciful, so he is a faithful High Priest,, who
does not neglect the interest of the poorest and meanest
of his followers. He observes them all, who said to
Nathanael, " When thou wast under the fig-tree, 1 saw
thee."* In his intercession, Jesus Christ expresses his de
sire for the salvation of his people. We have seen
that he appears for them in the presence of God ; but
that something more is implied than the simple pre
sentation of himself in our nature,.we may infer from
his own information: "I will pray the Father, and he
will send you another Comforter." We know that,
in reference to men, prayer is the offering up of their
desires to God for the blessings which they need ; and
we have no reason to think that, in the present case,
the meaning is materially different.
Prayer is not inconsistent with the dignity of the
human nature of our Saviour, as united to the second
Person of the Trinity, and at present in a state of ex
altation. In that nature be executed his offices during
his residence upon earth, and in the same nature he
continues to perform the duties of his priesthood. It
is now glorified ; but it is essentially the same as it
was in its state of humiliation. It then was, and it
still is, a creature, and consequently is dependent upon
God, and cannot therefore be dishonoured or degraded
by an act which flows from that dependence, or be
longs to any office with which it is invested. We
have seen that it was not deified when it became the
nature of him who is God; and although, being now
above all want, the man Christ Jesus does not stand
in need of prayers for himself, as related to men, who
are encompassed with sins and infirmities, and have
no resources in themselves, he may be conceived to
pray for them without any diminution of his dignity.
What, indeed, can be more honourable to him than to
interpose between God and the human race, and to
obtain, by his.requests, the supplies of the Holy Spirit,
by which thousands and millions are sanctified and
comforted ?
Prayer, among men, signifies not only mental de
sire, but also the use of words in which the desire is
expressed. Whether it has the same meaning when
it is ascribed to our Intercessor in heaven, we are
unable to determine. We are certain that, even upon
earth, words are not necessary to inform God of our
-desires, although, in respect of ourselves and others,
they serve a variety of valuable purposes. It is pos
sible, therefore, that they are not employed in the in
tercession of Christ, and that it is represented as con
sisting in praying to the Father, solely in accommoda
tion to our ideas and usages, while nothing more is
meant than that he desires the salvation of his people,
and his desire is known to his Father. But we do not
venture to deliver a positive opinion upon a point so
obscure, and the determination of which would con
tribute nothing to our edification.
But although the prayer of Christ, in his present
state, is materially the same with that of men, we
must separate from our notion of his intercession every
adjunct which arises from human infirmity, and con
ceive of it as different from the prayers which he

* John x. 16.
II John x. 11.

+ Acts xxvi. 18. } Eph. i. 3.
} John xvii. 9, 20.

offered up upon earth, " with strong crying and tears. T
t beware of going tt 
opposite extreme, as some

At the same time, we must beware of going to tne
opposite extreme, as some Divines have done, who
talk of his intercession as authoritative. 1 hey do not
mean that his praversarec^nnmands, peremptory
f Heb. v. 7.

John i. 48.

320

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY

orders that what he asks should be done, but that he
speaks as one who has a right to be heard. Yet, al
though it be true that he has a title to receive the
blessings of salvation for his people, because he pur
chased them wdth his blood, it would be altogether
improper to suppose, that the knowledge of this right
gives such a tone to his prayers as would change them
into simple volitions. This would be improper, be
cause they are the prayers of one who, whatever is his
present dignity, and how great soever is his merit, still
sustains the character of a minister or servant, and be
cause it would destroy the nature of intercession, by
substituting for desire an intimation of will. To inter
cede, is to ask something from another. Now, al
though our Redeemer does not ask like us, who ought
to be humble from a consciousness of unworthiness,
yet he undoubtedly continues to feel, and to express,
the same reverence for the majesty and authority of his
Father, by which he was distinguished upon earth.
The passage upon which this view of his intercession
is founded, gives countenance to it only as it appears
in translations, and particularly in our own: "Father,
I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with
me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which
thou hast given me."* Some critics have supposed
that the word Bexu, I will, is expressive of authority.
It is acknowledged that it does sometimes convey this
idea; but it is only from the circumstances in which it
is used that this sense can be inferred ; because, in
other cases, and, I may add, most frequently, it mere
ly imports simple volition, or desire. When our Lord
Said to the Syrophenician woman, yauBnTeo o-oi U Bixao,
"Be it unto thee even as thou wilt,"] Bexec can admit
the sense only of desiring or wishing. The meaning
is evidently the same, when he said to the two sons
of Zebedee, ti Bexne 7roi»o-u> Clliv; " What would ye that
I should do for you?"! I' would be easy to make a
large collection of examples. The common interpre
tation of the word, therefore, should be retained, un
less there be a good reason for deviating from it; and
in the present case there is none, except the mistaken
idea that, by introducing the notion of authority, we
shall add dignity to the intercession of Christ, and
more clearly discriminate between his prayers and
those of sinful men. But critics and commentators
should beware of forming d*8fctrines, however plausi
ble, and even although true, from passages and words
' in which they are not contained. They have com
mitted this error, I apprehend, in the case before us..
They have affixed an arbitrary sense to the verb Bexec,
and, in doing so, have missed their own end; for, in
attempting to give a more exalted idea of the inter
cession of Christ, they have destroyed its nature, as
was formerly observed, by representing it, not as
prayer, which he himself calls it, but as an authorita
tive volition. The proper translation of the word is
not volo, but velim, in Latin; and in English, not/
will, but I would; that is, 'I desire that those whom
thou hast given me may be with me.'
I shall now point out, in some particulars, the sub
ject of his intercession.
First, He prays that his disciples may be preserved
in a state of grace : " Holy Father, keep through thine
own name those whom thou hast given me." " I pray
not that thou shouldest take them out of tbe world, but
that thou shouldest keep them from the evil."|| The
blessing for which he prays is protection, not from the
violence of men, but from the evil of sin, or the evil
one, " who, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking
whom he may devour." One great design of his in
tercession is, to prevent his followers from being over
come by temptation, from yielding to the terrors and

allurements by which their constancy is tried, and to
cherish the principle of grace in their souls, exposed as
it is to the operation of causes which are hostile to its
growth, and threaten its very existence. " Simon, Si
mon, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may
sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy
faith fail not."* We learn from the example of Peter,
to what length a believer would go, if he were left to
himself. In the moment of peril, he denied his Lord ;
and, adding profaneness to treachery, he denied him
with oaths and imprecations. What restrained him
from a total renunciation of his connexion with Christ,
and from becoming a final apostate, like Judas ? It was
the prayer of our Intercessor which upheld his waver
ing faith, as his arm had once saved him from sinking
in'the water, and rekindled the dying flame of love in
his breast. It is a consoling truth, that believers can
not fall from a state of grace; but their stability is not
owing to their own wisdom, and vigilance, and activity.
" Because I live," says their Redeemer, " ye shall live
also."! By seasonable but imperceptible communica
tions of grace, the tendency of their hearts to evil is
checked before it has carried them beyond a state of
salvation ; their holy dispositions, however faint and
languid they may become, are preserved from expiring;
and they live on, amidst fears, and dangers, and fail
ures, till the feeble germ of life burst forth into immor
tal vigour and luxuriance.
Secondly, He prays that their persons and services
may be accepted. When they first believed, they were
received into the favour of God ; but tbey could not
long retain themselves in this happy state. Every day
they commit sin; which implies the same moral turpi
tude, and the same guilt, in the case of a believer as of
an unbeliever. Every day, therefore, the fellowship
between God and them would be broken, if Christ did
not continue to officiate in their name, and obtain, by
his intercession, the pardon of their transgressions.
His appearance before the throne of God secures, that,
although they may incur the displeasure and chastise
ment of their heavenly Father, they shall not fall under
his curse ; that, although the comfortable sense of his
love may be suspended, it shall not be utterly taken
from them. "If any man sin, we have an Advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."! Their
duties are holy, being performed under the influence of
the Spirit of grace ; but they are imperfect. There is
often a mixture of improper motives. There is a want
of intenseness of feeling and affection. The mind wan
ders in devotional exercises; and love is, in some de
gree, divided between God and the world. But the law
requires absolute perfection, and its demands are not
abated in consequence of the mediation of Christ.
Hence, if the best duties of the saints were weighed in
the balance of the sanctuary, they would be found not
to be of standard weight. If God should act according
to justice, — and this is his rule of procedure towards
those who presume to approach to him in their own
name, — they would be rejected. But this consequence,
which would be fatal to the hopes of believers, is pre
vented by the interposition of our Saviour, who inter
cedes for their acceptance on the ground of his own
merits. What is good in their works, God approves,
because it is the effect ofhis own grace. What is evil
he forgives, in consideration of the atonement which he
offered for them, who now ministers continually before
him. We are commanded " to offer to God tbe sacri
fice of praise," and all our sacrifices, " by him,"|| be
cause they will be pleasing to God only when presented
by his Son, who can so powerfully recommend them.
The object of his intercession is, that the Holy Spirit
may be given, to enable believers to walk in the path

* John xvii 24.
|| John xvii. 11, 15.

X Matt, xv 28.

{ Mark x. 36.

* Luke xxii. 31 .
|l Heb. xiii. 15..

\ John xiv. 19.

X 1 John ii. 1.

THE PRIESTLY OFFICE OF CHRIST.

321

of obedience, and so to assist their" humble endeavours
to serve God that they shall find favour in his sight.
We are " accepted in the Beloved." " O Lord God of
hosts, hear my prayer: give ear, 0 God of Jacob. Be
hold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine
anointed."* It has been supposed, with much proba
bility, that the following passage is a figurative descrip
tion of this part of his intercession, and that he is the
angel who is represented as ministering at the altar:
" And another angel came and stood at the altar, having
a golden censer ; and there was given unto him much
incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all
Saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
And the smoke of the incense, which came with the
prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the
angel's hand."!
In the third place, He answers the charges which
are brought against his disciples. Satan is called "the
accuser of the brethren," and is said " to accuse them
before God day and night."+ These are not words
without meaning. We cannot give a distinct account
of his proceedings; but it is evident that he does ad
vance charges against the people of God, some of which
are false, and require no refutation, as was the charge
of hypocrisy against Job ; but some also are true, being
founded upon the sins which they have actually com
mitted. If their consciences at the same time bear tes
timony against them, tbeir minds must be in great dis
tress, and they will feel the necessity of an advocate to
plead their cause, and to prevent the sentence of con
demnation from being pronounced, which they so justly
deserve. Such an advocate is Jesus Christ, who re
plies to every accusation, and assigns valid reasons
why his clients should be acquitted. " Who shall lay
any thing to the charge of God's elect ? It is God that
justifieth ; who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ
that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even
at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession
for us."|| When Satan stood at the right hand of Jo
shua, the high priest, to resist him, "The Lord said
unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan ; even the
Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee : is not
this a brand plucked out of the fire?" And the Angel
said, the Angel of the covenant, who is here called
Jehovah, "Take away the filthy garments from him.
And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine ini
quity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with
change of iaiment."§
Lastly, He prays for tbe eternal happiness of his fol
lowers in heaven. " I will that they also whom thou
hast given me may be with me where I am, to behold
my glory. "If Our faithful High Priest will not desist
from his work till it be finished. As he died, so he
lives for his followers, and will continue to intercede
for them till they come to the perfect enjoyment of sal
vation. Having gone into heaven, he will draw them
to himself. Every man will follow in his order; and
the mansions which he has prepared for them, will be
filled with a glorious and happy company, redeemed
with his blood, " out of all nations, and kindreds, and
peoples, and tongues." When the righteous die, we
lament the loss which the church has sustained by the
removal of persons whose wisdom and virtues edified
and adorned it, and we regret that they have not been
permitted to remain longer upon earth. When our pi
ous friends are taken from us, we are apt to give way
to the violence of our feelings, and to mourn as if a said
calamity had befallen them. But should we not con
sider, that the event which we deplore is to them un
speakable gain, the end of their faith, and the comple
tion of their hope? They have gone to behold him
whom they love, and to rejoice for ever in his presence.

* F.ph. i. 6. Ps. lxxxiv. 8, 9. f Rev. viii. 3, 4. J lb. xii. 10.
U Rom. viii. 33, 34. j Zech. iii. 2, 4. IT John xvii. 24.
2Q

Should we not remember that, in this case, tbe prayers
of Christ have prevailed over our wishes and entreaties1
For why have they died at this time ? Has death come
by chance, or by the blind operation of natural causes?
Have they fallen without special appointment? Had
heaven no concern in what has taken place upon earth ?
If not a sparrow perishes without the knowledge of
God, still less can it be supposed that a good man
leaves the world without his call. His death is the
answer of the Father to the prayer of his Son. It is
the means of introducing into the presence of the
Saviour, and into the embraces of his love, bis dear
disciples, for whom he shed his precious blood. He
desires that they should be with him, and this messen
ger is sent to conduct them to their home. This is the
reason that our tears, and highs, and fervent supplica
tions, were of no avail ; for how could they succeed in
opposition to the prayer of the all-powerful Intercessor!
This is a pleasing view of the death of believers. It
shows us that it is indeed a blessing to them; and, as
it is calculated to moderate our sorrow, so it should
make us pray for their life, with entire resignation to
the will of the Head of the Church.
There is a passage, which, at first sight, may seem
to contradict what has been said concerning the inter
cession of Christ in the heavenly state: " At that day
ye shall ask in my name : and I say not unto you, that I
will pray the Father for you."* But, as in other pas
sages he expressly affirms that he would pray for them,
we must attempt to reconcile them with that now quo
ted ; and the task is not difficult. His intention in the
words before us was, not to deny that he would inter
cede for his followers, but to guard them against mis
taking the design ofhis intercession, and thinking that
there is some reluctance on the part of his Father to be
stow blessings upon them, which his prayers were ne
cessary to overcome. Accordingly, he adds — " For the
Father himself loveth you ; because ye have loved me,
and believed that I came out from God."! He would
have us know, and remember, that the love of the Fa
ther is the source of all spiritual blessings, and that his
intercession is necessary only as the channel in which
they are conveyed.
The Scripture speaks of the intercession of tbe Holy
Ghost; but we must beware of conceiving of itas if it
were of the same nature with the intercession of Christ.
" Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities ; for
we know not what we should pray for as we ought ; but
the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groan-
ings which cannot be uttered."! The Holy Ghost is
not a mediator between us and God, for there is only
one, the man Christ Jesus. He intercedes for believers
not personally, but by his influences ; not without them,
but within them. Their prayers are not presented by
him to the Father; but he enables them to intercede
for themselves, by teaching them what they should
pray for, and by exciting them to pray with importu
nity, and in the exercise of faith.
The intercession of Christ was typified by the en
trance of the Jewish high priest into the most holy
place, where he sprinkled the blood of the sacrifices,
and burnt incense before the mercy-seat. It is not,
however, enough to say that such was the procedure
under the legal economy, when we are inquiring into
the reason of the intercession of our Saviour. It is cer
tain that a type and a prophecy must be fulfilled ; but
neither the one nor the other is the cause of the event
to which it relates. An event does not take place be
cause it was prefigured or foretold ; but tbe typo was
instituted and the prediction was delivered, because the
event was predetermined. Jesus Christ does not inter
cede because the high priest of the law went into the
holy of holies, after he. had offered the anniversary

John xvi. 26. fIb-27- J Rom. viii. 26.

322

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

atonement; but the high priest was appointed to appear
before the propitiatory, to represent the ascension of our
Redeemer, and his ministry in heaven.
The true reason of his intercession appears from some
things which have been already said. The imperfec
tion of the services of the saints requires that he should
recommend them to God, because in themselves, even
although they proceed from a principle of grace, they
would not bear a strict examination, and according to
the rules of justice would be rejected. There could be
no acceptable religion without the intercession of Christ.
His sacrifice upon the cross laid the foundation of reli
gion ; but it could not be maintained if he did not con
tinue to mediate, and by the presentation of himself and
his merits, to secure the covenant of peace from being
broken. The dispensation of grace must be so con
ducted in every part of it, that the holiness of God
shall shine with unclouded splendour. With this view
he avoids immediate commerce with men, in the best
of whom there are remains of sin. Between himself
and them, he has placed our Redeemer, by whom all
his perfections have been glorified, that, bestowing
every favour upon men, and accepting their services
solely for bis sake, he may appear in the communica
tions of his grace to be the Holy One, who is " of
purer eyes than to behold iniquity, and cannot look upon
evil." Contemplating an awful Being who has pub
lished a law which demands perfection, and denounced
punishment against every violation of it, the most emi
nent saints would be alarmed, and say, We cannot
serve him. But the interposition of a person nearly
related to them, who is a partaker of their nature, and
has a feeling of their infirmities, authorises their hum
ble confidence, and revives their expiring hopes. Con
scious of defects in their best services, they yet venture
to engage in them, because by him they are presented
with acceptance to the Father. His intercession is ne
cessary for the glory of God, and the encouragement of
his people ; and this is the reason that it constitutes an
essential part ofhis priestly office. " Wherefore he is
able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto
God by him, seeing he everliveth to make intercession
for them. For such a high priest became us, who is
holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and
made higher than the heavens."*
_ It is acknowledged by Christians of all denomina
tions, if Unitarians are excepted, whose claim to the
Christian name we do not admit, that our exalted Re
deemer intercedes for us in the heavenly sanctuary; but
by a large class of them, a doctrine is maintained which
entrenches upon this part ofhis sacerdotal office. You
will perceive that I refer to the church of Rome, which
teaches that there are other intercessors with God,
namely, angels and glorified saints. The council of
Trent " commands all bishops and others, who are em
ployed in instructing the people, to teach the faithful,
according to the practice of the Catholic and Apostolic
church from the earliest times, the consent of the Fa
thers, and tbe decrees of Holy Councils, that the saints
reigning with Christ offer prayers to God for men ; that
it is good and useful to invoke Ihem, and to betake our
selves to their prayers and assistance in order to obtain
blessings from God through his Son ; that those who
deny that the saints, enjoying eternal felicity in heaven,
ought to be invoked, or who assert either that they do
not pray for men, or that the invocation of them is idol
atry, and is contrary to the word of God, and injurious
to the honour of Jesus Christ, the only Mediator be
tween God and man, hold an impious opinion."! To
prove that to employ the saints as intercessors, is not
derogatory to the honour of Christ, or inconsistent with
the acknowledgment that he is the only mediator, a dis-
» Heb. vii. 25, 26.
t Concil. Trident. Decreta, Sess. xxv. de invocatione, Sec.

tinction has been coined, of which there is not a vestigt,
in the Scriptures, between a mediator of redemption
and a mediator of intercession. The former character
belongs exclusively to him ; the latter is shared by the
saints. The books of devotion in the Church of Rome,
are full, not only of prayers to God lhat, for the merits
and prayers of the saints, he would save the worship
pers from guilt and eternal damnation, but also of
prayers to them, that they would pray to God in behalf
of those w^ho call upon them. How often is the bles
sed Virgin in particular thus addressed, " Sancta Ma
ria, ora pro nobis." " Sancta Dei genetrix, ora pro
nobis." " Virgo virginum, ora pro nobis."* Similar
prayers are offered up to all the apostles, and to all the
saints in the calendar, and likewise to the angels who
are also advanced to the dignity of mediators. " Sancte
Michael, ora pro nobis." " Sancle Gabriel, ora pro no
bis." " Omnes sancli angeli et archangeli, orate pro
nobis."] In the primitive times, those who had died for reli
gion were held in great veneration. Their names were
mentioned with honour: the day of their martyrdom,
which was called their birth-day, because they then en
tered into glory, was celebrated, and the Christians as
sembled at their tombs to offer up prayers to God, and
to excite themselves to faith and patience by the solemn
recollection of their virtues. But they did not worship
the saints, nor for the first three centuries was any me
diator acknowledged but Jesus Christ alone. In pro
cess of time, however, men began to give high titles to
the departed saints, and to address them, at first, it may
be, after the manner of an orator apostrophising those
who are. absent ; but those addresses grew into prayers,
the object of which was to obtain their good offices in
heaven, where their interest was supposed to be great.
" Those who are well," says Theodorit, " ask the pre
servation of their health, and those who are struggling
with any disease, deliverance from their sufferings ; the
childless ask children, and such as are sent upon a jour
ney entreat the saims to be their companions and their
guides on the way ; not approaching to them as gods,
but supplicating them as divine men, and beseeching
them to be intercessors for them." Thus the founda
tion was laid, upon which an immense fabric of idola
try was reared by the church of Rome, where the wor
ship of saints is established by law. These are such
persons as the pope has canonized, or declared by a sol
emn act to be proper objects of worship. Some of them
were unquestionably good men, although unworthy of
this honour, which is due only to God and his Son ; but
others are doubtful characters, or ruffians and impos
tors, whose names should not be mentioned but in terms
of execration, or imaginary beings who never existed
but in fabulous legends.
Protestants have, with good reason, rejected the no
tion of angelical and human intercessors. There is not
one word in the Scriptures to favour it, or rather it is
expressly condemned by them. The worship of angels
is one of the corruptions against which Paul warns us,
in the Epistle to the Colossians ; and still less, surely,
is religious honour to be given to the saints, who are
of an inferior nature. The pretended practice of the
church from the earliest ages, (I call it pretended, be
cause the practice was unknown in the primitive times,)
the consent of fathers and the decrees of councils, are
lighter than vanity in the estimation of those who con
sider human authority as of no value in matters of reli
gion, and weigh all doctrines in the balance of the sanc
tuary. "To the law and to the testimony; if they
speak not according to this word, it is because there is
no light in them."

* Holy Mary, pray for us. Holy mother of God, prav for us.
virgin of virgins, pray for us.
j Holy Michael, pray for us. Holy Gabriel, pra- for m.
All holy anjjcls and archangels, pray for us.

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST.

323

It is unnecessary to add any other argument against
this doctrine, besides the want of scriptural authority;
but we may observe, that the intercession of the saints
presupposes that they hear our prayers, and are ac
quainted with our circumstances. But this is a gratui
tous assumption. How can Papists prove that the
saints in heaven know what is passing upon earth ? To
us it should seem, that being creatures limited in their
powers, and confined to a particular place, they cannot,
in a world so distant from ours, see what is done and
hear what is spoken by men. The doctrine under con
sideration imports that they are omnipresent or omnis
cient ; for how could the blessed virgin, for example,
otherwise have any knowledge of the prayers which are
addressed to her at the same time in ten thousand
places, and it may be by millions of individuals? To
say that the saints see all things in God, must mean,
if it have any meaning, that they are endowed with the
gift of omniscience, or at least that God reveals to them
what he knows ; that is, when men pray to the saints,
God informs them that they are praying, and what are
'their desires, and thus qualifies them to be their inter
cessors. But where is the proof? For all this we
have no evidence, except the evidence of the infallible
church, the mother of lies and all abominations.
It has been said, that it is as lawful to ask the saints
in heaven, as the saints upon earth, to pray for us. Be
tween the two cases, however, there is this difference,
that we have a command in the one case, but none in
the other ; that the saints on earth hear us, while we
have reason to think that those in heaven do not ; that
we do not pray to the saints upon earth, but merely re
quest them ; and that we do not consider them as inter
cessors in the sense of the Roman church, but simply
as friends who will join with us in supplication to hirn
who is the hearer of prayer. We use no such form as
the following, but look upon it as in the highest degree
impious, although it is found among the prayers of the
Antichristian church : " Let the intercession of such a
person, we beseech thee, O Lord, recommend us, that
what we cannot obtain by our own merits, we may pro
cure by his patronage."
I would ask the abettors of this idolatrous worship,
Why should the saints intercede for us? Is it because
Jesus Christ has not interest enough with his Father to
obtain for us the blessings which we need ? This, I
presume, they will not dare to affirm, in the face of the
express declaration, that he is able, by his intercession,
to save us to the uttermost? Is it because he is so
great that we may not venture upon an immediate ap
proach to him? This notion is contrary lo his own in
vitation to come to him, which is accompanied with a
promise of rest to our souls. Is it because the saints
are more nearly allied to us, being men like ourselves?
The supposition is false, because our High Priest is
also a man, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, and
has had full experience of our infirmities. Is it be
cause the saints are more disposed to sympathise with
us? Here also they err to their own ruin, and the dis
honour of our Redeemer, who as much excels all angels
and all men in love and pity, as in dignity. " We have
not a High Priest who cannot be touched with a feel
ing of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted as
we are."* Upon him alone, therefore, we will de-
pond, and say, in opposition both to Popish and to Pa
gan idolatry, which are indeed substantially the same,
with only a change of names, " Though there be that
are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as
there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there
is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we
in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, and we by him."! -^"d if some men will still
put their trust in beings, great in power, it is acknowl

edged, and elevated to tbe highest honours, but less
than nothing when compared with Him upon whom we
rely, we will add, "Their rock is not as our Rock, even
our enemies themselves being judges."*

« Heb. iv. 15.

f 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.

LECTURE LX.
CHRIST'S STATE OF HUMILIATION.
Distinction between the Condescension and Humiliation of
Christ. — Circumstances of Humiliation ; in his Birth, his
Subjection to the Law, the Events ofhis Life, his Death, ar.d
his Burial. — Opinions respecting his "Descent into Hell.'
There are two states in which our Redeemer may
be viewed, very different in themselves, but both ne
cessary to the execution of his offices. The one ex
hibits him humbled and abased ; the other exhibits him
exalted and glorified. The first was not expected by
the Jews, for reasons well known, and formerly men
tioned. Their notions were natural to men who, disre
garding the Scriptures, or attending to those parts of
them alone which were congenial to their feelings and
inclinations, permitted imagination to fill up the general
outline of the character of the Messiah, as the deliverer
of the people of God. What, indeed, should any man
have expected when he first heard of the descent of the
Son of God to the earth, but that he would appear in
circumstances corresponding to his native dignity, and
be revealed to mortal eyes by the rays ofhis Godhead,
giving splendor to the veil of humanity which attem
pered his glory to our weakness ? Might it not have
been expected that his advent would be signalized by
signs in heaven, and signs on earth ; that the celes
tial spirits would wait upon him in a visible form;
that princes and kings would lay their crowns and
sceptres at his feet; that all the tribes of mankind,
and in particular the nation of the Jews, would wel
come him with shouts of joy and triumph ; and that
now, if upon any occasion, the words of prophecy would
receive a literal fulfilment, that seas, and mountains,
and forests, would hreakTout into a universal chorus of
praise ? " But God's thoughts are not as our thoughts."
Our Saviour did not come unnoticed to all the world,
though but few were apprised of the arrival of the illus
trious visitant. A great part of his life was spent in
privacy and obscurity ; when he came forward upon the
public stage, he had to encounter the contempt and ri
dicule of the majority ofhis countrymen, and his short
career terminated in ignominy and blood. All this, al
though foretold by the prophets, had been overlooked
by the Jews, and hence the bitter disappointment which
they felt, and the scorn with which they rejected his
claims : " How can this man save us !"
The design of this lecture is to trace the several steps
ofhis humiliation.
A distinction has been made between the condescen
sion and the humiliation of Christ ; the former consist
ing in the assumption of our nature, and the latter in
his subsequent abasement and sufferings. The reason
why the assumption of our nature is not accounted a
part of his humiliation, is, that he retains it in his state
of exaltation. The distinction seems to be favoured by
Paul, who represents him as first " being made in the
likeness of men," and then " when he was found in
fashion as a man, humbling himself, and becoming obe
dient to the death of the cross."! Perhaps this is a
more accurate view of the subject ; but it has not been
always attended to by Theological writers, some ot
whom have considered the incarnation as a part ot nis
humiliation. As we have already spoken of the incar-

* Deut. xxxii. 31.

f Phil. ii. 7, 8.

324

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

nation, it is not necessary to settle the propriety of in
troducing it at present.
Jesus Christ did not bring his assumed nature from
heaven, as some have dreamed, affirming that the virgin
was merely the conduit or channel through which it
passed ; nor was it formed like the body of Adam, out
of the dust of the ground. It was, indeed, miraculously
conceived ; but it was composed, like the body of every
human being, of the substance of his mother. He was
literally " bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh."
Had his nature not been derived from the same stock
with ours, but only resembled it, there would not have
been such a relation betweeU us as should have rendered
his mediation available for our good. If it was neces
sary that the precepts of the law which we had viola
ted, should be fulfilled, and its penalty should be exe
cuted, the surety must be one of ourselves, that his obe
dience and sufferings might be so far accounted ours,
as to be imputed to us for our justification. Now, there
was only one way in which he could be a partaker of
our nature, namely, by being conceived and born of a
woman ; and surely it was the first step ofhis humilia
tion, that he submitted to a process by which, though
all things were created by him, he was placed upon
a level with his own creatures. He thus became a
child, which, although it possesses all the elements of
our nature, is considered as an imperfect being, because
its faculties are in a dormant state ; and, although des
tined afterwards to display the powers of intellect, it
differs only in shape from the young of the irrational
tribes. As we have no reason to suppose thai, at this
period, there was any other distinction between him and
other infants, except his exemption from the taint of
original sin, we may say that, when he was born, he
knew not into what place he had come, was capable
only of those sensations which every living being must
feel as soon as it comps into contact with external objects,
without being able to reflect upon them, and was help
less and entirely dependent upon others. Let us re
member, that we are describing the state of him who is
now " King of kings," and " Lord of lords," and was
then, " God over all blessed for ever." The apostle
Paul, when speaking of this subject, makes use of a
very strong expression, ktn-sv exv/u-o-e,* which our trans
lators have rendered with a license in which they have
rarely indulged : " He made himself of no reputation ;"
while they ought to have said, " He emptied himself."!
It is evident that Paul does not mean that he divested
himself of his glory literally, but only economically;
that is, he as effectually concealed it as if he had laid
it entirely aside. No trace of Divine perfections could
lie seen in a new-born child. He who is greater than
all, appeared in the lowest stage of human existence.
In addition to the circumstance ofhis birth, let us at
tend to the meanness of his condition. Judging accord
ing to our ideas of fitness, we might have expected that
he would be the son of a mighty princess ; that the
place of his birth would be a magnificent palace ; and
that the king and the nobles of Judea would be assem
bled to receive, with every demonstration of reverence
and joy, this wonderful child, whose career would be
so glorious, and whose future empire would extend over
heaven and earth. But this expectation was not real
ized in a single particular. There were, indeed, some
circumstances which shed a transient splendour on his
birth, as Ihe appearance of angels, who announced it
to the shepherds in the fields of Bethlehem, and the
visit of the eastern Magi, who, conducted by a miracu
lous star, came to adore him, and to present their o-ifts.
God would not permit his Son to come into the world
altogether unnoticed; and, in his deepest abasement,
he bore testimony lo him whom men despised, by signs

He emptied, or divested himself.

t Phil. ii. 7.

and wonders. But, in every other Tespect, nothing
could be more lowly than his entrance upon this earthly
scene. His mother, indeed, was a descendant from the
family which once swayed the sceptre in Jerusalem ;
but this was only a nominal honour, which did not pro
tect her and her offspring from the contempt with which
poverty is regarded by the world. It is an empty hom
age which is paid to the children of kings, who, for
ages, have ceased to reign ; and the honours of blood
are forgotten when all their former glory is obscured by
the meanness of their present condition. Mary was a
woman in the most humble rank of society; and her
husband was a mechanic, who earned his bread by the
labour of his hands. The most illustrious female, it is
true, was unworthy to be the mother of the Son of God,
and her station would have reflected no dignity upon
him ; but we must judge, at present, by a human stand
ard, and, ip this view, he humbled himself, when ho
stooped to be born of the wife of a carpenter.
Conformable to the lowly station ofhis mother, was
the place where he first drew the breath of life. He
was born in Bethlehem, that prophecy might be ful
filled ; but Bethlehem was not the chief city of the
kingdom. It was little among the thousands of Judah,
celebrated, indeed, as the city of David, but a small
town at some distance from the capital. In Bethle
hem, although the city of David, his illustrious Son
did not meet with an honourable reception. When
Joseph and Mary arrived there, it was so crowded
with strangers, who had assembled in obedience to
the decree of the emperor, to be enrolled, that there
was no room for them in the inn. They, therefore,
took up their residence in a stable; and there was he
brought forth who was to rule over the house of Jacob
for ever. In this obscure manner did he make his
appearance upon earth. No person knew who he was
but his parents, and a few shepherds who had received
information from a heavenly messenger. Others, who
might accidentally hear of the event, would consider
him as the lowest of the low, on account of the hum
ble circumstances of his parents, and the unusual place
of his nativity. Who would have thought of search
ing for the Redeemer of Israel, and the Son of the
Most High, in an out-house appropriated to the use
of cattle? Who would have supposed, if he had by
chance seen an infant lying in a manger, and attended
by two unknown individuals, that this was he cf whose
advent and glory prophets had spoken in strains of
enraptured eloquence? Who could have recognised
in this unpromising form, the Saviour of the human
race, the future Judge of angels and men?
" When the fulness of the time was come, God sent
forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law."*
Attend to the important fact, that he was made Under
the law, for it was an eminent part of his humiliation,
and, at the same time, accounts for the other particu
lars in which it consisted. You will perhaps ask,
how he could be humbled by subjection to the law,
since this is the necessary condition of all men, and
all angels ; and it is the glory as well as the happiness
of a creature, to obey his Creator? It is not enough
to say, that his humiliation appears from the consider
ation, that he of whom we speak was more than a
creature, and, in his Divine person, was above the law;
for, although his subjection to it was the act of his
person, as were all his mediatorial acts, yet it was
only as a man that he was or could be under its autho
rity. Let it be observed, that when Christ is said to
be under the law, we do not consider it simply as the
standard of duty, but as possessing that form which
it acquired when God converted it into a covenant with
men. He was made under the law, in all the obliga-

* Gal. iv. 4.

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST.

325

tWis wbich it imposed upon us, both in requiring obe-
drence to its precepts as the condition of life, and
denouncing its penalty as tbe recompense of our trans
gressions. The law regarded him as the represen
tative of sinners, and demanded the unabated fulfil
ment of its terms. It was enjoined upon him, who, in
consequence of his relation to the second Person of the
Trinity, had a title to the highest honour and felicity,
and might have ascended to reign in heaven as soon
as he was born upon earth, to go through a course of
obedience amidst toil and sorrow, in order to obtain
eternal glory for himself, as well as eternal life for his
followers. Notwithstanding his unspotted purity, he
was treated by the law as if he had been a sinner. It
arraigned him before its tribunal, and condemned him
to bear the punishment which it had pronounced upon
the guilty. By being made under the law, he was
made under the curse. The curse .is the sentence by
which the transgressor is doomed to suffer; and he
was subjected to it, by becoming our surety. " Christ
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being
made a curse for us."* A more humiliating situation
cannot be conceived. The Son of God is confounded
with the meanest and vilest of mankind. The law
made no concession to his dignity; it waived none of
its rights in his favour. It spoke to him with the
same high tone of authority in which it addresses a
mere mortal; it was equally strict and unrelenting in
its demands; nothing less would satisfy it than his
blood, as a compensation for the wrongs which it had
sustained from those whom he had undertaken to be
friend. The subjection of our Saviour to the law, accounts
for all the other parts of his humiliation. As it would
not have been fitting, that he who stood in the room
of sinners, should have spent his days in ease and
splendour, so his degradation and sorrows were neces-
.sary to fulfil the demands of the law. The Deliverer
of mankind must submit to the labour, and suffering,
and death to which they were doomed, because it was
not by an exertion of physical strength that his design
should Ue accomplished, but by such moral acts as
should uphold the authority and honour of the law,
although those who had transgressed it were forgiven.
You perceive, then, that the humiliation of Christ was
not the consequence of an arbitrary appointment. It
was an essential part of a great plan, originating in
tbe wisdom and justice of God, for the manifestation
of the glory ofhis attributes in the redemption of the
world. "Although he was rich, yet, for our sakes,
he became poor, that we, through his poverty, might
be rich."!
We know little about our Saviour in the early part
of his life, till, at twelve years of age, he appeared in
the temple, and astonished the doctors by his wisdom;
except that, for the preservation of bis life from the
murderous designs of Herod, he was carried by his
parents into Egypt, and brought back to Galilee when
the danger was past. Many stories, indeed, are to be
found in an ancient composition, called the Gospel of
the Infancy; but they rest entirely upon the authority
of the anonymous author, and are too silly and absurd
to deserve a moment's attention. While a child, he
was dependent, like other children, upon others; and,
although there is no doubt that the blessed Virgin
treated him with the mo«t tender affection, it was im
possible that he should not have suffered through the
inattention, and neglect, and awkwardness of those to
whose care he was occasionally committed. Livino-
among imperfect mortals, he must have experienced
the effect of their ignorance and irregular tempers,
especially while his mental faculties, not being suffi
ciently matured, nor his bodily strength confirmed, he

* Gal. iii. 13.

t 2 Cor. viii. 9.

was not yet qualified to manage himself. His food
might be withheld, when his appetite craved it; his
rest might be disturbed by unseasonable intrusions ;
his mind might be vexed by the peevishness and fro-
wardness of those with whom he associated. These
things are only matters of conjecture; but they are by
no means improbable, as he was placed in circum
stances exactly similar to those in which we find our
selves. It may be thought, indeed, that, as the Son
of God, he would always command profound rever
ence, and uninterrupted attention to his comfort; but
amidst the familiarity of daily intercourse, even his
parents might sometimes think of him only as a child ;
and to his fellow-creatures and neighbours, perhaps,
his dignity was unknown. Of this there can be no
doubt, that it was humiliating to such a person, to be
found in a situation in which he was indebted to others
for the necessaries of life, and for instruction and pro
tection, and was exposed to the rudeness of the young
and the caprice of the old. When he grew up, it is
probable that he was engaged in the same occupation
with Joseph, his reputed father, whoso circumstances
might render it necessary' that Jesus should contribute
his labour for the maintenance of the family. Thus
the Lord of all was reduced to a level with the lowest
of the human race, and literally underwent that part
of the curse, which doomed man " to eat bread in the
sweat ofhis face." He is called not only o tci/ tixtcvco
iioc,* the carpenter's son, but o tvctccv, the carpenter.] The
word is equivalent to the Latin term faber, which sig
nifies a workman, the nature of whose employment is
specified by the adjectives, ferrarius, asrarius, ligneus,
denoting respectively a blacksmith, a brazier or copper
smith, a carpenter or worker in wood. The last is the
occupation in which our Saviour is commonly supposed
to have been engaged.!
Of his public life, there is a more ample detail in the
Gospels, from the narrative in which it appears, that he
was " a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief."
We have no reason to think that he was subject to dis
ease. We never read that he was sick, or that he suf
fered any of those pains which are inflicted upon us by
alterations in the state of our bodies. As he was per
fectly holy, there were no seeds of decay and dissolu
tion in his frame. But he experienced all the other sin
less infirmities of our nature. He was hungry, and
thirsty, and weary; he felt the inconvenience of exces
sive cold and heat: and, as he was endowed with the
common passions and feelings of human nature, he was
not a stranger to disappointment, and vexation, and sor
row, and the pangs of unrequited kindness and violated
friendship. To those evils were added the hardships of poverty.
He became literally poor when he assumed our nature ; ¦
and, in doing so, he humbled himself, because he was
originally rich. The Possessor of heaven and earth
had not where to lay his head ; he could not call the
lowliest cottage in Judea his own. Women minister
ed to him ; he was often indebted for his daily bread to
the hospitality of others ; and, when the tribute for the
use of the temple was demanded from him, he found it
necessary to work a miracle to obtain the small sum of
a stater, equal in value to half-a-crown, for himself and
Peter. During his public ministry, if he was admired and
followed by some, he was hated and persecuted by
others. The indignation of the proud rulers, and world
ly-minded Pharisees, was caused by the loftiness ofhis
pretensions, and the lowliness of his condition. His
doctrine gave them particular offence, because it was
levelled against their corruptions of religion, and ex
posed to public view their base dispositions, and the

* Matt. xiii. 55.
X Justin Mart. Dial, cum Trypho.

f Mark. vi. 3.

32G

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

crimes in which they secretly indulged. Their rage
and malice were vented in terms of obloquy, and every
opprobrious name was applied to him, to stain his rep
utation, and render him odious in the eyes of the peo
ple. He was called a glutton, and a drunkard, a friend
of publicans and sinners, and an emissary of Satan,
who, in concert with that spirit, and aided by his pow
er, was carrying on a nefarious design of blasphemy
and wickedness. To these efforts of malignity he was
not insensible, notwithstanding his consciousness of
perfect innocence. Hence he expresses his feelings in
the following affecting language : " Reproach hath bro
ken my heart, and I am full of heaviness; and I looked
for some to take pity, but there was none ; and for com
forters, but I found none."*
Men of flesh and blood were not the only enemies
with whom he had to contend. The hostility of the old
serpent was awakened by the appearance of ihe seed
of the woman, againsi whom he directed his malicious,
but ineffectual efforts. Immediately after his baptism,
he was carried into the wilderness by the devil, where,
for forty days, he was exposed to his temptations, and
overcame them ; not, however, we may be certain, with
out enduring much mental uneasiness, arising from the
importunate and impudent solicitations of his adver
sary, and from the abhorrence which his impious sug
gestions excited. No subsequent opportunity of harass
ing him would be neglected by the vigilant and unwea
ried malignity of the alarmed and enraged spirit, whose
kingdom he had come to overthrow. Of his final as
sault upon him at the close ofhis life, we have a hint,
and only a hint, so that we cannot explain in what man
ner it was conducted, nor tell what trouble it caused to
bis illustrious opponent : " The prince of this world
cometh, and hath nothing in me."! -^"^ again, " This
is your hour, and the power of darkness."! This, how
ever, we know, that, by his immediate temptations, and
by stirring up wicked men to betray and crucify him,
he accomplished what had been foretold from the be
ginning, that the heel of our Saviour should be bruised.
All these sufferings were severe; but they were light
when compared with the sorrow which he felt from a
sense of Divine wrath. The wrath of God does not
signify furious anger, as in the case of men, but calm
displeasure against sin, expressed in the punishment of
offenders. Our Lord Jesus Christ was the object of
it, not considered in himself, for he was the beloved
Son of God, but as the representative of the guilty, who
had engaged to " bear their griefs, and carry their sor
rows." It was with our sins that his Father was dis
pleased ; and as our Saviour had made them his own
in a legal sense, by the voluntary susception of tbe of
fice of our surety, he experienced the effects of the Di
vine anger, not only in bodily pain, but also in mental
anguish. The scene exhibited in the garden of Geth-
semane was awful : " Being in agony, he prayed more
earnestly, and his sweat was as it were great drops of
blood falling down to the ground. "|| An agony signi
fies, in this case, a violent agitation of the mind, in
which every excruciating feeling was mingled, except
remorse and despair. The intensity of his anguish was
demonstrated by the effect upon his corporeal frame.
It has been questioned, whether this was literally a
bloody sweat, or only resembled blood in the largeness
of the drops. On the one hand, we may conceive his
body to have been agitated to such a degree by the
commotion of his mind, that a part of the blood was
forced from the veins, and mingled with the other moist
ure which exuded from his pores. On the other, we
may plead that the expression used by the evangelist
necessarily implies no more than resemblance, ' ao-ei
Bpo/u/ioi 'cu/x-xtoo, which is rendered in our version, as it
were great drops of blood. Without venturing upon a
* P». lxix. 20. f John xiv. 30. { Luke xxii. 53. || lb. 44.

positive decision of this question, although the latter
opinion seems to be more probable, we observe thattlfe
agony of his mind must have been dreadful ; for, even
upon the lowest supposition, what could have produced
such profuse perspiration in the open air, at a season
when the night may be presumed to have been cold
and in a person of so much fortitude and self-command
but an intensity of mental feeling, which cannot be ac
counted for by any natural cause? The causes of his
agony which some men have assigned, with a view to
evade the evidence which it affords of the expiatory
nature ofhis sufferings, are manifestly inadequate. To
talk of its arising from the foresight of the treachery of
Judas, the desertion ofhis disciples, the unbelief of the
Jews, and the wickedness of mankind, is to say any
thing rather than acknowledge the truth ; and to sup
pose that it arose from the fear of death, would be to
degrade him below his own followers, many of whom
encountered death in as terrible a form, not only with
composure, but with triumph. Nothing but the bur
den of our guilt could have made him lie prostrate on
the ground ; nothing but an appalling sense of Alrnighty
vengeance could have extorted from him the thrice-re
peated prayer : " Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass from me." Bitter must have been the ingredients
of a cup, which he would have put away from his lips,
althouoh it was presented to him by the hand of his
Father, and he bad long purposed to drink it. How
profound was his humiliation ! We see him in extreme
ano-uish, giving signs of ineffable distress by the agita
tion of his body ; shedding tears, and uttering vehe
ment cries ; kneeling in the posture of a suppliant, and
sinking to the earth under the dreadful pressure of his
woes. But his sorrows were not yet at an end. The
solemnity of this scene was disturbed by the intrusion
of a band of ruffians, who, in obedience to the com
mand of their masters, rudely laid hold upon him, and
dragged him as a felon to the tribunal of the high-
priest, where he was accused of the foulest crimes, and
subjected to every indignity. He was reviled and in
sulted in all the forms which inveterate and unmanly
hostility could invent : " I gave my back to the smiters,
and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair. I
hid not my face from shame and spitting."* There,
at the judgment-seat of Pilate, and in the presence of
Herod and his courtiers, he was treated as the vilest of
mankind, and at last was delivered up as a victim to
the clamour of the rabble. We then see him led forth
to Calvary, and nailed to a cross, on which he hung
for some hours, till he bowed his head, and gave up
the ghost.
Of the various modes of taking away life by vio
lence, crucifixion is probably the most tormenting. It
is one of the many contrivances of barbarity, the ob
ject of which is to make the unhappy sufferer feel him
self dying. He was fixed to the cross with nails driven
through his hands and his feet. Besides the exquisite
pain caused by the perforation of so many parts full
of nerves, which are the instruments of sensation,
great torment must have arisen from the distension of
his body, the forcible stretching of its joints and si
news by its own weight. To this circumstance he al
ludes in the twenty-second Psalm : " I may tell all my
bones." " All my bones are out of joint."! There
are some kinds of torture, which, by their severity,
bring speedy relief. Nature sinks under them, and is
released. As, in crucifixion, no vital part was touch
ed, life was sometimes protracted for days. Our Lord
expired sooner than the malefactors on his right hand
and on his left, perhaps because he was partly exhaust
ed by his previous agony ; but even his sufferings
lasted for six tedious hours ; for they began at nine

» Is. i. 6.

t Ps. xxii. 17, 14.

THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST.

327

in the morning, and did not end till three in the after
noon. Some modes of putting persons to death are deemed
more honourable than others, although it is the merest
fiction of imagination to attach an idea of honour to
what is in its own nature a disgrace as well as a pun
ishment. The most ignominious was reserved for
our Saviour, who suffered the death of a slave. Cru
cifixion was a Roman punishment, but was accounted
so infamous that it could not be inflicted on a Roman
citizen; only the offscouring of mankind were nail
ed to the cross. The very manner, therefore, of our
Saviour's death was a part of his humiliation. He
was exhibited on Calvary as a man who had no civil
rightSj who was protected by no law, whom society
regarded as an outcast ; as one who had not only for
feited his life by his crimes, but deserved to be asso
ciated with the lowest and most worthless of our spe
cies- Accordingly, to add to the ignominy of his suf
ferings, and to express the utmost contempt for him,
two malefactors were led forth to be crucified along
with him : two robbers, as the word signifies which we
have translated thieves, who, by their daring outrages,
had called down upon their heads the just vengeance
of the laws. In the midst of these he was crucified,
as if he had been the worst of the three ; and thus the
prophecy was fulfilled, " And he was numbered with
the transgressors."*
The last circumstance which demands our attention,
is, that he suffered an accursed death ; for the law of
Moses had said, " Cursed is every one that hangeth on
a tree."! There is some difficulty in settling the mean
ing of this denunciation. It cannot signify that every
person who was hanged upon a tree, was doomed to
eternal perdition ; because the sentence which affixes
tbe future state of men, depends no more upon the
manner of their death than upon any other trivial cir
cumstance. But whatever be its import, it is applied
to our Saviour ; and we are taught to consider the man
ner of his death as an indication that he died under the
curse of the law. It was Pilate who condemned him
to the cross; but the sentence was ratified at a higher
tribunal, and with aggravations which the power of
the Roman governor could not add to it. He died
by the sentence of his Father acting as a righteous
judge, and subjecting him to the punishment of sin.
Great, therefore, as were his bodily torments, there
were unseen sorrows which were far more severe ;
sorrows of the same kind with those which caused
his agony in the garden, and the extremity of which
drew from him that mournful complaint, " My God,
my God ! why hast thou forsaken me?"!
How great was his humiliation ! The Lord of life
and glory appeared like a common mortal, and was
distinguished only by the intensity of his sufferings,
and the state of complete dereliction in which he ex
pired. The multitude looked on with unpitying eyes :
heaven frowned in preternatural darkness, and all con
solation was withheld from him.
We shall have finished this view of the humiliation
of Christ when we have added, that his body being
taken down from the cross, was committed to the tomb,
where it remained in a state of insensibility for at
least thirty-six hours. Had it been immediately re
stored to life, it would have been said that it did not
die, but only fainted on the cross ; and the evidence of
his messiahship, which his resurrection affords, would
have been weakened. Had it continued longer under
the power of death, the natural process of corruption
would have commenced, unless preserved by a mira
cle. But the Scripture had foretold that the " Holy One
of God should not see corruption ;"|| and, accordingly,

' Is. liii. 12.
Pi. xvi. 10.

f Gal. iii. 13. } Matt, xxvii. 46.

the time was abridged ; and on tbe morning of tbe third
day he arose in triumph from the grave.
When Joseph had taken down his body from the
cross, he laid it in his own sepulchre, which he had
hewn out of a rock. May we not observe in this cir
cumstance an illustration of the poor and destitute
condition to which he had descended ? Although it
was his own world in which he sojourned, yet he was
in it, not as a Lord, but as a servant — not as a posses
sor, but as a stranger who has no interest in any thing
around him. His entrance into it was humiliating;
his passage through it was comfortless ; and when at
last it cast him out as one unworthy to breathe the air,
and see the light of the sun, there was no place to re
ceive him save a tomb which one of his disciples had
prepared for himself. It was the sepulchre of a rich
man — but its present tenant was poor indeed. Yet
why, we may say, should he have had a sepulchre of
his own ? Other men may provide a solitary dwelling
for their bodies, for the sleep of the grave is long. It
is their last abode, of which they will keep possession
for ages ; for " man lieth down, and riseth not ; till the
heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be rais
ed out of tbeir sleep."* But our blessed Lord was
like a way-faring man, who tarries only for a night in
some resting-place which he finds on the road. The
next morning he hastens away from it, and pursues his
journey to his home.
Our Redeemer stooped low indeed when he assumed
our nature, but lower still when he submitted to be laid
in the grave. This is the last degree of humiliation.
All the glory of man is extinguished in the tomb. If
we viewed his prosperity with an eye of indifference,
we now pity him; if his splendour excited our envy,
the feeling dies away and hostility relents, when he,
who, like a flourishing tree, spread his branches around,
now lies prostrate in the dust. Who is this that occu
pies the sepulchre of Joseph ? Is it a prophet or a
king? No; it is one greater than all prophets and
kings, the Son of the living God, the Lord of heaven
and earth ; but there is now nothing to distinguish him
from the meanest of the human race; the tongue which
charmed thousands with its eloquence is mute, and the
hand which controlled the powers of the visible and in
visible world is unnerved. The shades of death have
enveloped him, and silence reigns in his lonely abode.
In the Apostles' Creed, it is said that " Christ de
scended into hell." With respect to the meaning of
this article, there has been a great diversity of opinion.
Some have supposed it to signify his burial ; and, at
first, when his descent into hell was mentioned, his bu
rial was omitted : but both are now found in the creed.
Others, again, have interpreted it of the state of the
dead, or death itself, and of the place of souls, which is
divided into two regions, the one in which the patri
archs and saints who died before his coming were de
tained, and the other the receptacle of the souls of the
damned. Some supposed that he went lo the former to
carry tbe patriarchs and saints with him to heaven ; and
others, that he went to the latter place to triumph over
Satan, and by preaching the Gospel, to deliver such of
his captives as should believe. These are notions
which do not receive the least countenance from Scrip
ture, and may be dismissed without wasting time in re
futing them.
It would not be incumbent upon us to take notice of
the article under consideration, as the creed in which
it occurs, although bearing the name of the Apostles,
is a composition long posterior to their age, were it not
that its language is borrowed from the Scriptures, into
the meaning of every part of which it is our duty to in
quire. The following words are found in the sixteenth
Psalm, and are applied to our Saviour by Peter, in the

* Job xiv. 12.

328

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

second chapter of the Acts : "Thou wilt not leave my
soul in hell ; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to
see corruption."* 'AJV, which is the word used in the
New Testament, is derived from a privative and eiiec,
I see, or iSeiv, the infinitive of the second aorist. It sig
nifies, therefore, the invisible state of the dead ; and,
although it may sometimes denote the grave, it admits
of a more extensive sense, and comprehends the place
of the soul. The same is the meaning of the Hebrew
word, blNty, in the Old Testament. It is derived from
7Xty, to ask ; and denotes the place concerning which
inquiry is made, because it is unseen and unknown.
The word hell, is now used for the place of the damn
ed; but originally it signified something obscure and
concealed, and is of much the same import with VlXK/
and oJV. This, therefore, is the sense of the passage
in the Psalms: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in the
invisible state; nor suffer thy Holy One lo see corrup-
tion." Our Saviour is speaking of his death, by which
his soul and body would be separated ; the one going
into the unseen state, the other being laid in the grave.
The words are a prediction of his resurrection, and are
applied to this event by the apostle: " David, seeing
this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his
soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see cor
ruption."! ^od would bring back his soul from the
invisible state, and reunite it to his body, before it was
corrupted — This explanation frees the passage from
the perplexity in which it has been involved by those
who, supposing Sixty and i.ht to signify only the grave,
understood K?3J and 4u^», which we translate soul, to
mean the body; and thus, besides affixing an unusual
and unnatural meaning to these words, represented the
two parts of the verse as tautological. The view which
we have given, preserves them distinct, and retains the
common sense of the terms. The receptacle of our Sa
viour's soul was the invisible state, and the place of
his body was the grave.
The humiliation of Christ manifests the greatness of
his love, the riches of his grace. It was for us, men,
and for our salvation, that he assumed human nature,
and abased himself to the dust of death. He drew a
veil over his glory, that he might-remove our reproach,
and raise us to heavenly honours ; he groaned and died,
that we might obtain immortal felicity. He has ac
quired a title to our everlasting gratitude, by the most
astonishing sacrifices.
Let us learn humility from his example. Pride should
be for ever renounced by the followers of a lowly Sa
viour. Every part of his conduct, during his abode
upon earth, is calculated to put it to shame ; and we
have in vain traced his progress from the manger of
Bethlehem to the cross of Calvary and the sepulchre of
Joseph, if we retain our unbending attitude, and refuse
to stoop to our brethren at the call of charity. The
scene which we have contemplated should dispose us
to condescend to the meanest, and to divest ourselves
of every worldly honour, when we are called upon to
do so for the glory of God. " Learn of me, for I am
meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto
your souls."!

LECTURE LXI.
CHRIST'S STATE OF EXALTATION.
The Resurrection of Christ — Preliminary Remarks Respecting
it  Statement of the Evidence of his Resurrection.
Although, during the humiliation of our Saviour, a
veil was drawn over his glory, yet some rays occasion-
» Acts ii. 27.- t Acts ii. 31. ., % Matt xi. 29.

ally broke through, which manifested, to attentive spec
tators, his essential and official dignity. The sublime
doctrines which he taught, the astonishing miracles
which he performed, and the testimonies of the Divine
approbation which were given to him, by voices and
signs from heaven, proclaimed that he was the only-be
gotten Son of God, and the promised Redeemer of Is
rael. The dark scene of his death was illustrated by
prodigies, which signified that he was no ordinary suf
ferer ; for, at a time when there could be no natural
eclipse of the sun, because the moon was in full oppo
sition, there was darkness over all the land, from the
sixth to the ninth hour ; and when he expired there was
a great earthquake, which splitted the rocks, .and laid
open the tombs, and the veil which concealed the holy
of holies in the temple was torn, by invisible hands,
from the top to the bottom. Even his burial was not
without honour; for, although, he had been put to death
in the most ignominious manner, and under the impu
tation of the greatest crimes, his body was wrapped in
fine linen and precious spices, by two persons of high
rank, and was deposited in a magnificent sepulchre.
These circumstances, however, gave only a partial
relief to the deep gloom which had settled upon him.
His life, from the manger to the tomb, was a course of
profound abasement. It was not till his resurrection
that the glory which was to follow his sufferings com
menced. That event, which removed the ignominy of !
his cross, revived the hopes ofhis disciples, and is the
sure foundation of our faith in him, it is the design of
this lecture to consider.
It is related by the four evangelists, and referred to
in innumerable places by the other writers of the New
Testament, as a fact, of which no doubt was entertained
among Christians ; insomuch that, assuming it as a
first principle universally acknowledged, they reason
from it in support of the doctrines of the gospel, and foi
the confutation of errors. In the narratives of the evan
gelists there are some discrepancies, which have been
represented by infidels as affecting their credibility.
Learned men have taken great pains to remove the ap
parent contradictions, and to show how the different ac
counts may be reconciled. I shall not enter upon this
discussion at present, but shall content myself with re
ferring you to those who have treated directly of this
subject, and of whom I shall mention two, to whose
writings you have easy access, — West's Observations
on the History and Evidences of the Resurrection of
Jesus Christ; and the seventh preliminary Observa
tion, and the one hundred and fiftieth section of Mac-
knight's Harmony of the Four Gospels. Were we at
present considering the Evangelists as inspired writers,
it would be necessary to examine every thing in the
account which they have left us that might seem to in
dicate that they are as fallible as other authors, and
have actually erred ; at present, however, we appeal to
them, not in this character, but merely as persons who
have related a fact of which they were competent wit
nesses. — Now, although we should allow that they are
at variance in some particulars, this would not invali
date their testimony in the opinion of any reasonable
man, as they all agree in the main fact, and differ only
in some matters which are not of much importance.
In other cases, we deem the evidence sufficient, when
we find substantial truth with circumstantial variety ;
that is, when a number of witnesses positively attest
the same fact, but disagree in some inferior points,
which do not materially affect the truth of the general
statement. Minute accordance rather awakens a sus
picion of previous concert, while occasional discrepancy
affords a strong presumption that the witnesses are in
dependent, and that every man speaks from personal
knowledge. The testimony of the Evangelists would,
I have no doubt, be received as consistent and credible
by any civil court, as not one of them, has denied the

THE EXALTATION OF CHRIST.

829

great fact of the resurrection, or discovered the slight
est hesitation in affirming it ; and the differences among
them, even although they were real, and not merely
apparent, as has been satisfactorily shown, consist only
in circumstances upon which the general truth of the
history does not depend ; as the precise time in the
morning when the event took place, and the number of
individuals who were present at a particular moment.
It is manifest, that they did not write with a design to
obviate objections; and that each of them, without con
sidering what had been said, or might be said by others,
recorded the event in the manner which occurred to his
own mind. It is by comparing all their narratives, that
we come to know the whole circumstances of the case,
and are able to show how one account may be recon
ciled with another. There are some parts of profane
history, the general truth of which no person calls in
question, although the testimony of those who have re
corded them, is far from agreeing, in a variety of points.
Let any of you read the history of Cyrus, by Herodotus
and Xenophon, and you will find not only a diversity,
but a contradiction, in several important particulars;
yet it was never doubted that there was such a man,
who conquered Babylon, and performed the other ex
ploits which antiquity has ascribed to him. There
is a case more to our present purpose, because it is
recent, and is related by eye-witnesses, and others
who are supposed to have received information from
eye-witnesses. Ten narratives have been published,
of the attempt made by the late king of France* to
escape, not long after the commencement of the re
volution, which, in several points, contradict each other
in the most wonderful and inexplicable manner, and
furnish, it has been observed, a striking proof of the
inaccuracy of human observation, and the infirmity of
memory. Yet, notwithstanding the discrepancy among
the witnesses with regard to the details, nothing is
more firmly believed, than that the attempt was made,
and did not succeed. We should have no reason to
call in question the fact of the resurrection, although tbe
differences in the narratives of the Evangelists were
such, that we could not reconcile them, as they relate
only to subordinate circumstances.
The account of the resurrection of our Saviour in the
gospel of Matthew, which I shall quote, because it is
the first, is as follows : " In the end of the Sabbath, as
it began to dawn towards the first day of the week,
came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the
sepulchre. And behold, there was a great earthquake ;
for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and
came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat
upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his
Taiment white as snow. And for fear of him tbe keep
ers did shake, and became as dead men. And the an
gel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye ;
for I know that ye seek Jesus which was crucified.
He is not here; for he is risen, as he said. Come, see
the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly and tell
his disciples that he is risen from the dead ; and behold
he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see
him ; lo, I have told you."! There is subjoined an
account of the appearance of Christ to the women, and
of his subsequent appearance in Galilee, which it is
unnecessary to recite.
I 6hall make some preliminary observations, before I
proceed to lay before you the evidence of our Saviour's
resurrection. First, the event was not impossible, and,
consequently, if sufficient evidence be produced, we
ought to give credit to the narrative, however extraor
dinary it may appear. We indeed have not experienced
such an event, having never seen any person raised
from the dead ; but as it would be a most irrational
lOnclusion, that nothing is possible which we have not

witnessed, so it cannot be denied that the cause assigned
for the resurrection of Jesus was adequate. To a The
ist, a man who believes the existence and almin-htv
power of God, it will not seem incredible that he should
raise the dead ; there being no greater difficulty in the
restoration of a body to life, than there was in origi
nally forming it, and endowing it with a sentient and
intelligent soul.
My second observation is, That if Jesus was the Mes
siah, his resurrection was necessary to vindicate his '
character from the charges with which it was loaded.
The alleged crimes for whic^he was condemned to
die, were imposture and blas^iemy. The Jews, full
of carnal ideas and expectations, did not believe that a
man of an appearance so mean, and a condition so hum
ble, could be the Son of God, and the great deliverei
of their nation, whom their imaginations had invested
with the attributes of worldly grandeur: it seemed to
Ihem that his claim to these dignities was arrogant and
impious. As Providence had permitted him to fall into
their hands, it might have been supposed that it sanc
tioned their proceedings; and this conclusion would
have been fully confirmed, if he had remained in the
state of the dead. It would then have appeared that
they had acted with laudable zeal for the honour of the
Most High, who will not give his glory to another, and
had been ministers of divine justice in awarding due
punishment to one whom their law pronounced to be
unworthy to live. It would have appeared that, instead
of purposing to save mankind from ignorance and sin,
Jesus had come to deceive them with false pretences,
to amuse them with delusive hopes, and to lead them
to final perdition, by persuading them to apostatise from
the living God, and commit themselves to him as their
guide. But his return to life prevented the unfavourable
inferences, which either friends or enemies might have
drawn from his tragical end. His resurrection, by the
power ofhis Father, demonstrated that he acknowledged
him as his Son and his servant. He had permitted
his life to be taken away, because he required it as a
sacrifice for the sin of his people ; he restored it, to
show that the demands of justice were satisfied. Hence
the Scripture says, that " he was declared to be the Son
of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead,"*
and that " the God of peace brought him again from
the dead through the blood of the everlasting cove
nant."! By this event, God acknowledged him to be
his Son, and gave a solemn assurance that he is recon
ciled to guilty men.
A third observation is suggested by what has been
now said, that our Saviour was raised by the power
ofhis Father. Upon this fact depends the evidence,
that he truly was what he affirmed himself to be. If
God raised him from the dead, the sentence pronounced
upon him by the Jews was reversed, and he who had
expired in ignominy and torment was proved to be the
Lord of glory. Sometimes, indeed, the New Testa
ment ascribes the resurrection to our Saviour himself.
Thus, we find him saying, " I have power to lay down
my life, and I have power to take it up again ;_"! and
when he speaks of his body under the image of a tem
ple, he represents its restoration as his own work:
" Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it
up. "|| In both passages, the resurrection is attributed
to him, because his power was exerted in this, as it is
in other external acts, in concurrence with that of his
Father; for as they are one in nature, they are united
in operation; "My Father worketh hitherto, and 1
work."§ But it is the Father who is usually repre
sented as the agent in this event; and this is so fre
quently done, that it is unnecessary to refer to parti
cular passages. According to the order established in

* Louis XVI.
2R

¦)• Matt, xxviii. 1 — 7.

*Rom.i.4. f Heb. xiii. 20. tJohnx.18. || lb. ii. 19.
J John v. 17.

330

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the plan of redemption, the resurrection was not pro
perly the work of the Son, but of the Father. Jesus
died in obedience to his will; he offered himself upon
the cross, to appease his justice; and, to speak in the
figurative style which has been employed on this sub
ject as he had engaged, in the character of our surety,
to pay the debt which he owed to God, it was fit and
necessary that, from the hand of God, he should open
ly receive a discharge.
I observe, in the last place, that he was raised on
the third day after his death. This was the time fixed
by himself, and it was^o well known, that his ene
mies were apprised of^. " Sir," the Jews said to
Pilate, "we remember that that deceiver said, while
he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again."*
He died on the afternoon of Friday, and was buried
before sunset, when the day ended according to the
Jewish reckoning. This was the first day. At sun
set the Jewish Sabbath commenced, during the whole
of which he rested in the grave. This is the second
day. When the sun set again, the third day com
menced. On the ensuing morning, most probably be
tween the dawn and sunrise, the soul of our Redeemer
was re-united to his body, and he left the sepulchre
of Joseph, the glorious conqueror of the king of ter
rors. It is common, in ordinary conversation, when
we do not attend to logical accuracy, to put a whole
day for only a part of it. According to this mode of
speaking, Christ was three days in the grave. It
would seem, that a revolution of the earth around its
axis, which we call a day, the Jews sometimes called
a day and a night. Retaining this form of expression,
they would say of an event which took up a part of
three days, that it was three days and three nights in
accomplishing. It is in this way that we reconcile
with the fact our Lord's own assertion, that " as Jonah
was three days and three nights in the while's belly,
so should the Son of man be three days and three
nights in the heart of the earth."! He used the lan
guage of his country; and his words were fulfilled,
although he was not more than six or seven and thirty
hours in the sepulchre, because these hours were
made up of one whole day, and parts of two of those
divisions of time, which the Jews called a day and a
night. The time was long enough to show that he
was really dead, but not so long as to permit his dis
ciples to sink into despair. Their dejection was great,
and their hopes were ready to expire, when he appear
ed to them, and turned their sorrow into joy : " Then
Were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord."!
But how do we know that Jesus Christ rose from
the dead ? The fact is denied by the Jews, and by
infidels. Do we, who believe it, follow a cunningly
devised fable, or does our faith rest upon a solid foun
dation? Persisting as we do, in maintaining the fact
in the face of opposition, we should be able to give a
reason of our hope to every man who asks us. We
find an account of the resurrection in the Scriptures ;
but how do we know it to be true ? on what grounds
do we give credit to it ? and what are the arguments
by which we can demonstrate the reasonableness of
our own faith, and repel the objections and cavils
of unbelievers? I shall endeavour to lay before you a
summary of the evidence upon which this important
article of oui religion depends.
First, The fact that the body of Jesus, which had
been deposited in the sepulchre of Joseph, was mis
sing, is undisputed. It has been acknowledged by all
classes of men, by enemies as well as by friends, that
"by some means it was removed. Had it been in the
power of the Jews to show it after the third day, the
report of his resurrection would not have obtained cir
culation ; or if it had gone abroad among the credulous

* Matt, xxvii. 63. t Matt- xii- 40- t John xx- 20-

vulgar, who remembered his prediction, it would have
been instantly quashed. The story which was con
trived to prevent the people from believing it, and
which will be afterwards considered, was a confession
that the body could not be found. This is the first
step in the proof. Jesus, having been taken down
from the cross, was buried, but when the sepulchre
was examined on the third day, it was empty.
In the second place, The body was not carried away
by the disciples. They were so alarmed and terrified
when they saw him seized by the emissaries of the
priests and rulers, that they cannot be conceived to
have engaged in such an enterprise, which was mani
festly full »f danger; for it would be absurd to sup
pose that their fears had been allayed by his death,
which was obviously calculated to .ncrease them.
But although, from some unaccountable cause, they
had resumed their courage, and become bold at a mo
ment when other men would have sunk into absolute
despondency, the thing itself was impossible, because
the sepulchre was strictly guarded by a band of sol
diers, whom the unarmed disciples, unaccustomed to
violence and blood, would not have ventured to en
counter; not to say that forcible means would have
completely defeated their design, even if they had
been successful, as it would then have been known
that there had not been a resurrection, but merely a
removal of the body by his friends. To evade the
argument from the disappearance of the body, not
withstanding the guard upon the sepulchre, the Jews
industriously circulated a report that it was stolen by
the disciples while the soldiers were asleep. Nothing,
however, is more improbable than that a whole guard
of soldiers should be asleep at their post, and espe
cially of Roman soldiers, who were under the strictest
discipline, knew that a severe punishment awaited
them if they should neglect their duty, and in the pre
sent case, had received particular orders to be vigilant.
In these circumstances, it is incredible that they should
have all fallen asleep, and slept so soundly as not to
be awakened by the rolling of the stone which closed
the door of the sepulchre, and to give an opportunity
to the disciples to accomplish their design in the most
deliberate manner; for the body was not carried away
in haste, but was stripped of the grave clothes, which
were not. scattered up and down, but regularly depo
sited in the tomb. The soldiers had not endured any
uncommon fatigue by which they might have been
overpowered. The watch had continued only about
thirty-six hours ; and during that period the guard had
no doubt been changed. The story clumsily contrived
by the Jewish rulers, contains internal evidence of
falsehood. It makes the soldiers confess that they
were asleep, and at the same time affirm what they
could only have known if they had been awake. If all
their senses were closed, how could they know that
the disciples had stolen the body? For aught that
they could tell, the theft had been committed by some
other persons. How could they know that it bad been
stolen at all ? The only fact which they were compe
tent to attest, if they were really asleep, was, that
when they awoke, the stone was rolled away and the
body was gone. Whether it had been restored to life
and had removed itself, or had been removed by the
agency of others, they were manifestly unqualified to
say. The story therefore, although that part of it had
been true, which supposed the soldiers to be asleep,
proves nothing against the solemn declaration of the
disciples, that their Master was raised by the power
of God.
In the third place, Although it had been possible for
the disciples to remove the body of our Saviour, we
cannot conceive what should have induced them to
make the attempt. The transference of his body from
one place to another would not have restored him to

THE EXALTATION OF CHRIST.

331

life; and if he had continued under the power of death,
it was of no importance to them in what spot his mor
tal remains were deposited. No place would have
been more honourable than tbe sepulchre of Joseph.
He was no longer their master, he was not the Son of
God, he was not the messiah. He had excited hopes
which he was not able to realize ; he had completely
deceived them, and was no more worthy of their atten
tion. Why should they have put themselves to any
trouble, or have exposed themselves to any danger on
his account ? Why should they have incurred the risk
of being detected and punished by tbe Jews ? It ap
pears from the evangelical history, that the intention
of taking him away had never entered into their minds.
Several women visited the sepulchre early in the morn
ing of the third day, when the Sabbath was past ; but
they came to weep over the body of their Lord, and
to lay new spices upon it ; and when they found that
the body was not there, they were thrown into the
greatest distress, considering its removal, perhaps, as
the deed of his enemies, who envied him this honour
able tomb. " Sir," said one of them to Jesus himself,
whom in her confusion she supposed to be the garden
er, " if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou
hast laid him, and I will take him away."*
In the fourth place, If Jesus did not rise from tbe
dead, and the whole was a fraud contrived by the dis
ciples to save themselves from the reproach of having
been the dupes of an impostor, it is astonishing that it
was never discovered. It is astonishing that a few
simple and uneducated men should have been able to
devise and execute a plan, which has eluded all search,
and has obtained credit among the wise and learned, as
well as among the vulgar, for the space of eighteen
hundred years. No person is able to produce a simi
lar instance. How has it happened that the 'Secret has
not transpired ? Was there no Judas among the dis
ciples, who would go and tell the. chief priests and
rulers all that he knew ? Was there not one honest
man among them who was compelled by his con
science to make a disclosure for the glory of God and
the best interests of mankind ? The disciples were
strictly examined, and punished for preaching the res
urrection, and threatened with severer treatment if they
would not be silent; but they persisted in their origi
nal testimony. No flaw was ever discovered in the
evidence, no contradiction, no hesitation. There was
a boldness in their manner which confounded their ad
versaries, who, unable to refute their allegations, were
compelled to supply the want of argument by violence
and intimidation. Is this the character of false wit
nesses ? Nay, there were traitors among them, men
whom the fear of suffering and the love of the world
prevailed upon to apostatise from the gospel; but not
one of them was able to reveal a single circumstance,
tending to impeach the truth of the resurrection. Had
any such discovery been made, it would have been tri
umphantly published to check the progress of Chris
tianity ; but not a surmise of this kind is found in the
records of antiquity. Many slanderous reports against
the followers of Jesus were propagated ; but there is
not so much as a hint that the secret had been blabbed
out, and the story of the resurrection had been proved
to be an imposture. «,
In the fifth place, If Christ did not rise from the
dead, it is impossible to account for the conduct of his
disciples, who endeavoured to persuade the world
that he had risen. Men, we know, may be very zea
lous in propagating a false opinion, which they them
selves believe; there have been martyrs for error, as
well as for truth. But who ever heard of a set of men,
who devoted their time and talents, and exposed their
life to hazard, with a view to establish a fact, of the

falsity of> which they were fully convinced ? If Christ
did not rise from the dead, the disciples knew that the
story of his resurrection was an invention of their own.
Why should they have been anxious to make others
believe it ? It appears, from what was formerly said,
that it could not be from regard to their Master. The
attachment to him, which they felt during his life,
could not continue after his death, which had termina
ted his projects and their hopes, and proved irresisti
bly that in whatever way his miracles might be ac
counted for, he was not the Messiah. The natural ten
dency of this discovery, and of their bitter disappoint
ment, was, by a violent revulsion, to turn their former
love into fixed hatred, and, when tbe first emotions of
surprise and shame were over, to make them the loud
est in exclaiming against the deception which he had
practised upon them. It could not be from a wish to
support their own credit by perpetuating the imposture,
for how could they expect to succeed in their design?
Was the authority of fishermen and publicans so great,
that their countrymen would be persuaded by their
simple affirmation, of so great a miracle as the resto
ration of a dead body to life ? Mankind are not com
monly so credulous; and, in the present case, they
were the less ready to give their assent upon insuffi--
cient evidence, because they were strongly prejudiced
against our Saviour, on account of his humble appear
ance and his ignominious sufferings, wbich were at
variance with all their ideas of the character and state
of the messiah. It could not be from the expectation
of worldly advantages, of which there was no pros
pect. Wealth and honours could not be looked for, till
they had gained a number of proselytes ; and no man
in his senses could have calculated on a single prose
lyte, except among the dregs of the people, to a cause
so unpopular in itself, and supported by advocates so
ill qualified to recommend it. Toil, and reproach, and
perils, and death, stared them in the face. The world
would rise up in arms against them. They would be
derided and despised by the Gentiles, to whom the res
urrection of the body seemed incredible and impossi
ble. They would be persecuted by the Jews, who
would transfer their hatred from Jesus himself, to those
who were endeavouring to rescue his name from infa
my, and to uphold the error which they were so eager
to crush. In the' absence of all the usual motives of
action, we must attribute their conduct to a full convic
tion of the fact, "We cannot but speak the things
which we have seen and heard."*
In the sixth place, Since it must be admitted, that
there is no evidence of a design, on the part of the
apostles, to impose upon the world by a fabricated sto
ry, it may be insinuated, that they were themselves de
ceived by the power of imagination, which, it is known,
has sometimes subjected individuals to the most ex
traordinary delusions. They have fancied that they
distinctly saw objects, which were mere phantoms of
the brain. But there is not a single circumstance, in
the present case, which will authorise us to account,
in this way, for the conduct of the disciples. Their
minds were not in that state of eager expectation which'
is favourable to the workings of fancy; for it appears
that they were not looking for his resurrection, both
from the visit of the women to the sepulchre, to see his
body, and to lay fresh spices upon it, as if it had been
to continue in the state of the dead ; and from the in
credulity of the rest, to whom, when they told them
that he had risen, their words seemed as " idle tales, j
The two disciples, on the road to Emmaus, exPre!^"
ed themselves in the language of despondency, " We
trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed
Israel;"! and, although they added, that some women
who had been at the sepulchre, had reported that he

* John xx. 15.

* Acts iv. 20. t Luke X3"v- 11- * Ib- 21*

332

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

was nstn, they appear not to have believed them. In
such a state of mind, there was no room for imagina
tion to operate. It will be still more evident that they
Were not misled by it, if we consider that the appear
ances of Christ were frequent, not less than eight be
ing recorded; besides, that many more may be sup
posed during the forty days between his resurrection
and ascension ; that some of them were made, not to
a solitary individual, but to several of the disciples in
company, — in one instance, to five hundred, who could
not all be deceived ; that the appearances were not tran
sient, but lasted for a considerable time, so that the
spectators had full leisure to examine them ; that, while
some of them were sudden, or without warning, others
were the consequence of previous appointment; that
they took place, for the most part at least, not in the
night, when the mind is more subject to illusion, but
in the day, when the disciples were composed, and
their senses were awake ; and, that the interviews
were not distant and silent, but intimate and familiar,
Jesus, having mingled with his followers, conversed
freely with them, and gave them all the satisfaction
which the most incredulous could demand, saying to
one of them in particular, who was slow in giving his
assent, " Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands ;
and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side;
and be not faithless, but believing."* When all these
circumstances are considered, we may pronounce it to
have been impossible that they should be deceived.
The supposition, indeed, is so palpably absurd, that it
would hardly be worth while to reason with a person
who should seriously maintain it.
In the last place, To these arguments for the resur
rection of Christ, founded on the competency and hon
esty of the apostles as witnesses, we may add the
success of their preaching, which is inexplicable on
any other hypothesis but the truth of their testimony.
To what cause was it owing, that multitudes of Jews
and Gentiles gave credit to their report, acknowledged
a crucified man to be a Divine Person, and the Saviour
of the world; embraced his religion, with its humilia
ting doctrines and holy discipline, made a sacrifice of
ease, and honour, and life, in bis service, and trusted
in the promises of one whom they had never seen, for
a recompense in the world to come? The apostles had
no personal authority to overcome those whom they ad
dressed ; no learning to mislead, or eloquence to per
suade them; norewards to tempt their cupidity ; no pun
ishments to inflict on the incredulous. As men, they
were contemptible in the eyes of the world ; and the
doctrine which they taught had no charms which might
atone for the defects of the publishers. It is unneces
sary to speak of their success, because it is universal
ly acknowledged. They effected a mighty revolution
in the state of human affairs, and established a religion
which superceded all the ancient systems, and has been
professed, for seventeen centuries, by all the enlight
ened nations of the earth. Every effect must have an
adequate cause. The first missionaries of Christianity
possessed no natural means of insuring its reception ;
they must, therefore, have been assisted by supernatu
ral power. Unless they had been able to bring for
ward to view a higher authority than their own, the
world would not have listened to them.
Now, the only way in which this could be done,
was by the performance of such miracles as are as
cribed to them in the New Testament ; works evidently
exceeding human ability, and wrought by the imme
diate interposition of Heaven. If a man should come
and publish a new religion, and at the same time
should give sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and
the use of their limbs to the lame, and life to the dead,
we should be authorised to conclude that it was not
* John xx. 27.

an invention ofhis own, but was a revelation from the
Lord of Nature, who alone could controul its laws.
The apcstles were invested with the power of working
miracles. Their Master had therefore risen from the
dead, for they performed the miracles in his name, or
referred to him as their author; and, consequently, he
was alive, and had supernatural gifts at his disposal.
It is astonishing that any person who saw diseases
cured, and demons dispossessed, by the name of Jesus
of Nazareth, should have refused to give credit to the
report of his resurrection. Yet we know that there
were men so obstinate in unbelief; and there is proof
in tbe Scriptures, that the evidence of miracles is not
irresistible. We must therefore proceed a step far
ther in accounting for the success of the disciples, in
prevailing upon mankind to believe in their crucified
Master. We must acknowledge an exertion of Di
vine power, in working internal as well as external
miracles; in subduing their prejudices, fixing their
attention seriously upon the subject, and disposing
them to give their assent to the fact, notwithstanding
the painful sacrifices which tbeir conversion might re
quire. We are thus presented with a new proof of the
resurrection of Christ. If he had been in the state of
the dead, he could have employed no power in favour
of his religion. He could not have sent the Spirit,
"to convince the world of sin, and of righteousness,
and of judgment."* The general success of the gos
pel, which, extending beyond the limits of Judea, es
tablished itself throughout the Roman empire, and
among nations which never submitted to its sway, and
its effects in our own age, upon individuals whom it
sanctifies, and inspires with peace and hope of immor
tality, furnish satisfactory evidence that the apostles
spake the words of truth and soberness, when they
confidently affirmed that their Lord, having been cru
cified and buried, rose again on the third day, and
showed himself alive by many infallible proofs. " We
are witnesses of these things, and so is also the Holy
Ghost, whom God hath given to those who obey him."!
It has been said, that if Christ really rose from the
dead, he should have shown himself to the priests and
rulers of the Jews, that they might be convinced, and
become witnesses of the fact. Their testimony, it is
insinuated, would have had much greater weight than
that of his disciples, being the testimony of enemies.
This objection is not worthy of much attention. It is
a demand for a degree of evidence wbich has not been
given, and it would be of force only if the evidence
which has been given were defective. ' But if it is suf
ficient, it is plain that the demand is capricious and un
reasonable, and, consequently, that its being withheld
affords no ground of suspicion or complaint, and will
not excuse the unbelief of those who deny this funda
mental article of our holy religion.
Had Jesus appeared to the priests and rulers of the
Jews, they would, either have acknowledged him to be
the messiah, or they would have persisted in rejecting
him. If they had not believed in him, the evidence, in
stead of being strengthened, would have been weaken
ed ; for it would then have been triumphantly said, al
though a few obscure and illiterate persons had been
deceived by the artifice of his followers, others were
more sagacious, had examined the matter with greater
care, and had discovered it to be an imposture. We
should have been told by infidels, that the pretended
resurrection was a trick of the disciples ; that it was a
different person whom they endeavoured to pass off as
their Master returned from the grave ; and that the cheat
had been found out by tbe great men of Judea, whom
they would have adorned with the high-sounding titles
of learned, prudent, and intelligent. It is obvious that,
although their unbelief might not have entirely invali-

* John xvi. 8.

f Acts v. 32

THE EXALTATION OF CHRIST.

333

dated the evidence, it would have encumbered it with
difficulties, which might have greatly disquieted our
minds. If, on the other hand, they had believed in
Christ, it does not follow that the evidence would have
acquired additional strength. Consider how, upon this
supposition, the matter would have stood. Instead of
a few witnesses, we should have had many ; the whole
Jewish nation, or the greater part of it, instead of five
hundred disciples. But the value of the. testimony is
to be estimated by the character, not by the number of
the witnesses. At present, we have a competent num
ber of persons, who delivered their testimony in such
circumstances as afford security for its truth; in the
presence of enemies, who possessed the means of de
tection, if there was any fraud, and in the face of the
most formidable opposition, and who sealed it with
their blood. If the whole Jewish nation had been con
verted, we should have been deprived of these proofs
of veracity. There would have been no trial of the
witnesses, no conflict of opinion, no parlies to watch
each other's proceedings ; the voice of the nation would
have been unanimous ; but for this reason it would not
have been so convincing, because it might have been
alleged, and infidels would not have failed to bring for
ward the objection, that it was a contrivance of the
Jews, who were ready to give credit to any story which
seemed to realise their hopes of the messiah. We
should have heard them loaded with abuse, as an illit
erate, credulous, superstitious people, whose testimony
was utterly unworthy of attention. The story, it would
have been said, was promulgated where it was sure to
be received, and no person had power or inclination to
detect it. You will all agree with me, I trust, that the
evidence, as it stands, is more conclusive than it would
have been if the proposal of infidels had been complied
with. I shall only add, that it is not made by them
from a wish that Jesus had appeared to his enemies,
and thus furnished irresistible demonstration of the
truth of his religion, but with a design to prove that
this want destroys all the other evidence, and that the
story of the resurrection is a fable.
There is an objection against the resurrection of our
Saviour, founded on the narrative of the Evangelist
John, which, however, is hardly worthy of notice, and
may be speedily dismissed. He relates that, on two
occasions when the doors were shut, Jesus came and
stood in the midst of the disciples.* As one solid sub
stance cannot pass through another solid substance
without dividing it, either what John relates did not
happen, and consequently the narrative is false, or
Christ did not appear in a real body, and it was only
a phantom which the disciples saw. The simple an
swer to this trifling objection is, that, although the
evangelist plainly signifies that he entered in a miracu
lous manner, he does not determine the nature of the
miracle. The doors were shut, and no doubt locked,
for fear of the Jews ; but Jesus might have opened
them without being perceived. It is childish to cavil
at a circumstance which can be so easily explained,
especially as all the other facts of the narrative clearly
show that the disciples believed that he was appearing
in a true body, and that they fully ascertained the fact
during their personal intercourse with him.
The resurrection of Christ vindicated his character
from the aspersions ofhis enemies. It demonstrated,
at the same time, that he had accomplished the work
which his Father appointed him to perform, and had
obtained eternal redemption for his people. ^ It gives
an assurance to those who believe in him, of a future
triumph over death and the grave. He rose as their
representative, and they shall also rise after his exam
ple, and through his merits and power. "Now is
Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits

of them that slept. For since by man came death, by
man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as
in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made
alive. But every man in his own order : Christ tbe
first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his
coming."* We cannot more properly conclude this
lecture than with the following words : — " Blessed be
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who,
according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us
again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible,
and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in
heaven for them who are kept by the power of God
through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in
the last time."!

LECTURE LXII.
CHRIST'S STATE OF EXALTATION.
Ascension of Christ ; its Time ; tbe Nature in which, and the
place to which, he ascended ; its Witnesses, and his Attend
ants. — His Seat in Heaven, at " God's Right Hand."' — Opin
ions respecting this Phrase. — It implies the possession of su
preme Honour, Felicity, and Power.
Jesus Christ having finished the work assigned to
him by his Father, it was not necessary that he should
prolong his stay upon earth. It was rather necessary
that he should leave it in order to perform those bene
volent offices by which the benefits of his humiliation
and death would be communicated to his followers ; and,
in particular, to make way for the coming of another
Divine Person, not in a visible form, but in a powerful
dispensation of light and holiness, and consolation.
" But now I go my way to him that sent me ; and none
of you asketh me, Whither goest thou ? But because
I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled
your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is
expedient for you that I go away ; for if I go not away,
the Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I depart,
I will send him unto you."! Accordingly, we read.
that after he had given all necessary instructions to his
disciples, he led them forth to Bethany, where he was
parted from them, and received up into heaven.
First, The ascension took place forty days after bis
resurrection. " To the apostles," Luke says, " he
showed himself alive after his passion by many infalli
ble proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking
of the things pertaining to the kingdom of beaven."|
During this interval, he denied himself the full posses
sion of his glorious reward, for the benefit of his disci
ples, and of the world, to whom they were to minister.
The instruction which he imparted to them, they greatly
needed, and it was adapted to their present circumstan
ces. From the opportunities wbich they enjoyed of
hearing bis public discourses, and conversing with him
in private, they had undoubtedly derived much advan
tage ; but their progress was not such as it ought to
have been. In consequence of the influence of the na
tional prejudices upon their minds, although they were
forewarned of his death, it came upon them by surprise
and almost drove them to despair; so inconsistent was
it with their preconceived notions of the character and
work of the Messiah. It was necessary, therefore, to
rectify their misconceptions, and to show them that his
sufferings were an essential part of the plan which he
had undertaken to execute; and that, although nothing
was less expected by them, they had been expressly
announced by the prophets. That he was thus em-

* John xx. 19, '.

* 1 Cor. xv. 20— 23. tlPe'-'-3-5' * Joh" XV'' 5~7-
II Acts i. 3.

334

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

ployed in the interval between his resurrection and as
cension, we are informed by the evangelists : " He said
unto them, These are ihe words which I spake unto
you, while I was yet with you, that all things must
be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses,
and In the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.
Ihen opened he their understanding, that they might
understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it
is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to
rise from the dead the third day."* This exposition
of the Scriptures was calculated to give relief to their
minds, which, although comforted by the return of their
Master from the grave, must have been perplexed and
confounded by the unexpected events which had befal
len him. For this reason it was now given ; but their
full instruction in the nature of his kingdom, or of the
new dispensation which he designed to establish, was
deferred to the day of Pentecost, when, according to his
promise, he sent the Spirit to lead them into all the
truth. This was not the only reason why our Lord did
not immediately return to heaven. He continued upon
earth, to give his disciples a full opportunity to be as
sured of the truth of his resurrection, as they were to
be the witnesses of it to the world. To qualify them
for this office, it was necessary that he should not merely
pay them a transient visit, lest unbelievers should have
said, that they were deceived by the force of imagina
tion; but that he should appear so often, and in such
circumstances, as not to leave the slightest ground for
suspicion or cavil. Accordingly, he showed himself
not once only, but many times ; not to separate individ
uals alone, but to several in company, and, on one occa
sion, to more than five hundred persons ; he conversed
with them, allowed them to touch him, ate and drank
with them. In any ordinary case, the evidence would
have been deemed sufficient, even by the most scepti
cal, to establish the most important fact. So far there
fore, as respects their opportunities of being acquainted
with this fact, the testimony of the apostles cannot be
reasonably called in question. They could all say,
with the beloved disciple, " That which was from the
beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our
hands have handled, of the Word of life; that which
we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye
also may have fellowship with us."!
Secondly, Our Lord ascended in human nature. The
man Christ Jesus has left the earth, and entered into
that invisible region of the universe where God sits on
the throne of his Majesty. To his followers, it is a
source of high consolation to know, that he has not laid
aside their nature, but retains it amidst his glory ; be
cause they can look up to him with confidence, in the
full assurance of his sympathy, and see, in his exalta
tion, an earnest of their future glory. But this is not
the principal idea to which I request your attention.
The point to be considered at present is, that it was
solely in human nature that he ascended to heaven ; or
that, like his death, burial, and resurrection, the ascen
sion can be predicated of him only as a man. As God,
he could neither descend nor ascend, because his Di
vine essence, filling heaven and earth, cannot change
its place, and does not admit of that exaltation, or that
accession of glory which the ascension implies. It is
acknowledged, indeed, that his divine glory, which,
during his residence among mortals, had been con
cealed, was then unveiled, although even this conces
sion requires to be explained, to make it consistent
with truth ; the obscuration and manifestation of his
glory properly referring to his human nature, and to
men, not to the inhabitants of heaven, in whose eyes it
always shone with undiminished lustre. But because,
in a certain sense, it may be said to have been revealed

» Luke xxiv. 44—46.

1 1 John i. 1—3.

when be ascended, some have maintained, that the as
cension may be considered as relative to his divine na
ture, as well as his human. But, in doing so, they are
chargeable, when speaking of a plain fact, with substi
tuting figurative for literal language, and thus confound
ing two things, which are distinct, and should be care
fully separated. The subject of discussion at present
is, not a change of state, but a change of place', which
was competent to that nature alone, which, being finite,
could exist only in a certain portion of space, and might
be at one time on earth, and at another in heaven. The
words of our Lord are worthy of attention : " No man
hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down
from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven."*
There is an apparent confusion and contradiction in this
passage; and, had it related to any other person, it
might have been pronounced to be unintelligible. Of
the Son of man it is said, that he has come down from
heaven, and yet was in heaven. To those who are con
vinced ofhis divinity, the passage presents no difficulty.
His two natures being personally united, that is justly
affirmed of the one, which is strictly true only of the
other. The existence ofhis human nature commenced
upon earth, and it had never been in heaven ; for the
opinion of the elder Socinians, that he was taken up to
it before he entered upon his ministry, to be instructed
in the doctrines of the gospel, is a dream, or a dishon
est figment, devised with a view to evade the evidence,
arising from this and other passages, of his pre-exist
ence and divinity ; but he had come down from it, by
the manifestation of himself in human flesh, yet was
still in it, by the immensity of his essence. Of a literal
change of place, as God, he was incapable; it was in
his assumed nature, that he who had first descended,
afterwards ascended, "that he might fill all things,"
heaven with his glory, and the earth with the blessings
of his grace.
Thirdly, The place to which he ascended was hea
ven, as the Scriptures declare, in many passages. One .
apostle affirms, that he ascended " above all heavens ;"
but his meaning is ascertained by a reference to tbe
prevailing opinion of his age. According to the sys
tem of the Jews, there were three heavens ; — the aerial
heaven, which is the region of clouds and meteors ;
the starry heaven, in which the celestial luminaries
are fixed ; and the heaven of heavens, in which the
throne of God is erected. Our Redeemer ascended
above the two former, or the visible heavens, and
entered into the latter, which is concealed from mortal
eyes by an impenetrable veil. Where the highest
heaven is seated we cannot tell ; but, agreeably to an
idea which seems to be natural because it is common,
it is said to be above us; and hence his passage to it
from this world is called an ascent. It is the place in
which the glory of God, which is partially seen in his
works, is fully revealed, angels and the departed
spirits of the just at present reside, and tbe redeemed,
after the resurrection, will have their everlasting habi
tation. Heaven may be considered under the two different
notions of a palace and a temple. In the one view it
is the seat of power and majesty, in the other it is the
place of solemn worship. Into heaven, considered as
a palace, Jesus entered in the character of a king, who,
having vanquished his enemies, and established his
title to the crown, went to take possession of his king
dom. To this event the following passage is applica
ble, although, in the first instance, it may be under
stood to have referred to the entrance of the ark into
the tabernacle: " Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and
be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of
glory shall como in. Who is this King of glory I
The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in
* John iii. 13.

THE EXALTATION OF CHRIST.

335

battle. Lift up your heads, 0 ye gates; even lift
them up, ye everlasting doors," and the King of glory
shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The
Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory."* Into
heaven considered as a temple, he entered in the cha
racter of a priest ; and his ascension was prefigured by
the entrance of Aaron, and his successors in office, into
the most holy place, to sprinkle the blood of the sacri
fices, and to burn incense before the mercy-seat. The
first and fundamental duty of the priesthood he per
formed upon earth, by offering that immaculate and
invaluable sacrifice, which appeased divine justice,
and obtained eternal redemption for his people; it re
mained to plead the merits of his death, and obtain,
by his intercession, the blessings for which he had
paid the price of his blood. For this purpose he as
cended, as we are informed by an apostle in the fol
lowing words: "Christ is not entered into the holy
places made with hands, which are the figures of the
true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the pre
sence of God for^us."!
Fourthly, The witnesses of his ascension were his
disciples, whom he had assembled for this purpose.
We are not informed, how many of them were toge
ther at this time. On one occasion he was seen by
more than five hundred brethren ; but whether it was
at his ascension, or when he met with his followers
in Galilee, we cannot certainly say. But although we
should suppose, what, however, is not very probable,
that none were present but the twelve apostles, the
number was more than sufficient to attest the fact.
They were witnesses qualified in every respect; and
as their testimony would be readily received by the
other disciples, who had full confidence in their vera
city, so it is entitled to credit among all other men,
confirmed as it is by miracles, which they performed
by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, whom their master
promised to give them after his ascension, and whom
he did actually send on the day of Pentecost. Jesus
did not withdraw secretly from our world, lest it should
have been said by unbelievers, that we know not what
is become of him, and there is no reason why we
should take any farther concern in him. As his en
trance, although obscure in respect of his parentage,
and the place where he first saw the light, was illus
trated by a vision of angels, who proclaimed it to the
shepherds of Bethlehem; so his departure, although
unknown to the great men of Jerusalem, and the inhab
itants in general, was an object of attention to his
-chosen friends. It might have been afterwards re
vealed to them by the Spirit, who instructed them in
many other secret things ; but the importance of the
fact required, that it should take place in such a man
ner as to be attested by ocular witnesses. It appears
that he was not carried away by a sudden rapture, but
slowly rose from the earth, and that the disciples had
leisure to follow him with their eyes, till he had as
cended to a considerable height, when a cloud received
him out of their sight, or intervened between him and
the earth. Their wistful looks were fixed upon the
spot, where they had caught the last glimpse of their
beloved Master; and they would have stood in the
same posture, till night had enveloped tbe heavens in
its shade, in the vain expectation of seeing him again,
had not two angels appeared to them and said, " Ye
men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
This same Jesus which is taken up from you into hea
ven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen
him go into heaven."!
The place from which he ascended was the Mount
of Olives, and in the vicinity of Bethany. Gethse-
mane was also on the Mount of Olives. On this co
incidence it has been remarked, that the place was

» Ps. xxiv. 7—10.

f Heb. ix. 24.

J Acts i. 11,

chosen, that as he had there given a proof of human
weakness, while he endured the wrath of his Father,
and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood fall
ing to the ground, so he might there, by rising to hea
ven, display the power and glory of his divinity ; that
his exaltation might commence on the same spot
where he had been in the lowest state of abasement
and sorrow ; and that from the scene in which he had
struggled with the powers of darkness, he might soar
above principalities and powers. And hence, it has
been said, we should learn that we are not to expect
a triumph, till we have encountered the toils and perils
of the contest, and that we should not despair of ob
taining the kingdom when our warfare is accomplished.
These are pious reflections ; but their solidity depends
upon the fact, that he ascended from the very spot
which had witnessed his agony. Of this, however,
we have no certainty. The Mount of Olives was of
some extent; and for aught that we can tell, the place
of the ascension might be at a considerable distance
from Gethsemane. If this should be the truth, the re
flections founded on the presumed identity of the
places, however good in themselves, must be classed
with many other suggestions of fancy.
Our Lord was attended at his ascension by the glo
rious inhabitants of heaven. Only two of them, accord
ing to the Scriptures, were seen ; but we have reason
to believe, that thousands were present, although in
visible to human eyes : " The chariots of God," says
the Psalmist, " are twenty thousand, even thousands
of angels : the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the
holy place. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led
captivity captive : thou hast received gifts for men ;
yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might
dwell among them."* They were present not like the
Roman soldiers, who followed their victorious general
as having a share in his triumph, because by their val
our his battles had been won ; but, to add to the splen
dour of the scene, and to celebrate his mighty achieve
ments. The thrones, and dominions, and principalities,
and powers of heaven, were put in subjection to him:
and they came, on this occasion, to do homage to their
Lord, and to swell his train when he took possession
ofhis kingdom.
His leading captivity captive when he ascended, de
notes his triumph over the infernal powers. They who
had made men captives by their successful stratagems,
saw the spoils wrested from their hands, and were
themselves made captives by our Almighty Redeemer.
Whether they were compelled to be present, and were
exhibited as vanquished foes, disgraced and ruined, and
reserved to everlastingpunishment, we are not warranted
by a single expression, of which no explanation is giv
en, to affirm. There is no doubt that our Saviour tri
umphed over them while he ascended ; that in his ex
altation to the throne of heaven, they beheld a fearful
presage of the final overthrow of their kingdom.
Let us now proceed to consider what followed the
ascension of Christ: "So then," says the Evangelist
Mark, "after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was
received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of
God."! Every person is sensible that this language is figu
rative. Neither the right hand of God, nor the posture
ascribed to our Saviour, can be literally understood.
God is a pure Spirit, and has no bodily members. The
Scriptures expressly forbid us to make any visible rep
resentations of him, because they must be false and ^ de
grading; and the Israelites were particularly reminded,
that, in the day God spoke to .heir fathers, they sawno
similitude. When mention, therefore, is made ot the
eyes, the ears, the feet, and the hands of God, it is evi
dent that we ought to explain them inconsistency with
.ft.-I„j;i.I7il8. ~ t M«k xvi. 19.

336

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the spirituality of his essence, and to consider them as
metaphors, employed to assist us in conceiving his per
fections and operations. Hence, although our Redeem
er in his state of exaltation, has a material body, which
is capable of corporeal actions and postures, it requires
little reflection to perceive that " his sitting" is figura
tive, as well as " the right hand," at which he is said
to sit. We are as ignorant of the nature and employ
ments of glorified bodies, as we are of the nature and
employments of spirits. Besides, the Scriptures are
not uniform with respect to the posture which they as
sign to our Redeemer ; for as at one time he is said to sit,
he is at another said to stand, at the right hand of God.
We are, therefore, under the necessity of supposing,
that their design is not to fix our attention upon the pos
ture itself, but upon the state of which it is expressive.
Instead, then, of inquiring separately, what is meant
by the right hand of God, and what by sitting at it, I
shall consider them conjunctly, and point out their
united import.
Before I proceed, however, I shall make a remark or
two upon the other posture which is sometimes assigned
to him. When the blessed martyr Stephen was sur
rounded by his infuriated enemies, being full of the
Holy Ghost, he looked up steadfastly into heaven, and
saw Jesus " standing at the right band of God."* If
you bear in mind that it is not the posture, but the state,
which, in bolb cases, should be considered, you will
perceive that the different representations are not con
tradictory. Sitting is the posture of a sovereign, or a
judge, or a person who has finished his labours, and is
enjoying ease; standing is the posture of a man who
waits to receive a friend, or is prepared to defend him.
On the present occasion, when a holy man was under
going a dreadful trial ofhis faith, Jesus rose, if we may
speak so, from his throne to send to him the necessary
succours of his grace, to meet and welcome his spirit
as soon as it should escape from its persecutors, and to
introduce him into the presence of his Father, that be
might receive, from his hand the recompense of an un
fading crown. To Stephen the sight was consoling.
It sustained his courage amidst the terrors of a violent
death, and enabled him to resign his mortal life in the
joyful hope of a better : " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
Having subjoined another petition for his murderers,
"he fell asleep."
There is scarcely a doctrine or fact in Scripture,
which folly or malignity has not perverted, when it
happened to stand in the way of some favourite opin
ion. The sitting of Christ at the right hand of God,
instead of being considered as expressive ofhis exalta
tion, has been converted into a proof of his inferiority
to the Father, because the left hand was the place of
honour, as the abettors of this notion endeavour lo show
by quotations from ancient writers. It might be said
to such men, that, as our Saviour ascended to heaven
in the character of mediator, nothing is gained by prov
ing his inferiority to the Father in that character ; for
we readily acknowledge it, but at the same time main
tain, that it is not inconsistent with his essential equal
ity. But the argument on which they found their con
clusion is false. Whatever may have been the practice
of some other nations, as the Scriptures were written
bv Jews, and addressed to them in the first instance,
it" is by their usages that we must explain this expres
sion, and others of a similar nature. Now, among them
the right hand was the place of honour. " The man
of God's right hand,"! is the man whom God delights
to honour. "A wise man's heart" is said to be "at
his right hand," because he engages in honourable pur
suits ; but " a fool's heart" to be " at his left" hand,
because he acts imprudently and shamefully.! When
Joseph presented his two sons to his father, he set the
elder on his right hand and the younger on his left; but
* Acts vii. 55. t P9- Iixx- "• t Ecc- *¦ 2-

Jacob, to show his preference of the younger, laid his
right hand on his head.* Nothing is more decisive of
the point, than the order in which men will be arranged
on the day of judgment, when " some shall awake to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting
contempt;" for then the judge will set the former on
his right hand, and the latter on his left. Enough has
been said to expose this abortive attempt to wrest the
expression which we are now considering, to serve the
purposes of a party-!
There is another opinion still more strange, that
Christ's sitting at the right hand of God, denotes that,
in a certain sense, he is higher than the Father. It is so
extravagant, and in fact so unintelligible, that it would
be a waste of time to attempt to refute it. He is supe
rior, it is said, to the Father, not in reality, but in the
administration of his kingdom. It is sufficient to op
pose to this impious assertion the words of an apostle ;
"The Father hath put all things under his feet. But
when he saith, all things are put. under him, it is man
ifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under
him."! The right hand is the place of honour. It is so es
teemed among us, and was so accounted by the Jews.
When Solomon's mother came to him, "he sat down
upon bis throne, and caused a seat to be set for the
king's mother, and she sat on his right hand."|j It is
implied, therefore, in the position assigned to our Sa
viour in heaven, that he is invested with great dignity
and glory. I showed, in the former part of this Lec
ture, that the ascension related solely to his human
nature, because his Divine was incapable of change
of place, being always in heaven as well as upon earth.
I now observe, that it was equally incapable of any
accession of glory, because it was already infinitely
glorious, in the possession of all possible perfection.
But its glory was veiled during his humiliation, and
only a few rays of it were seen in the miraculous
works which he performed, and the sublime doctrines
which he published. As the sun, having scattered the
clouds which covered his face, pours his bright efful
gence upon the earth, so our Redeemer, upon his exal
tation to heaven, appeared in all the majesty of his
character, and showed to all its blessed inhabitants,
that the Son of man is also the Son of Gcd, and the
equal of the Father. To this manifestation of his ori
ginal dignity, after the temporary obscuration which
it had suffered, these words of his intercessory pTaycr
may be referred: "And now, O Father, glorify thcu
me with thy own self, with the glory which I had with
thee before the wurld was."§
But there was honour conferred upon our Savicur in
human nature, and in the character of Mediator; and
to this there is a particular reference, when he is said
to be seated at the right hand of God. It is elevated
above men and angels; it is the highest of the works
of God. Even in "its ftate of humiliation, its powers
surpassed these cf the most richly gifted creature; no
wisdom, for example, equal to that which he displayed,
being found among the inhabitants of heaven ; and
now, we may presume, its faculties are expanded to
the utmost limit of wbich they are susceptible. Of
the external glory of his human nature, we can form
no idea, because we have received no information on
the subject; but this we may venture to say, that in
him is displayed the perfection of majesty and beauty.
His appearance to John, in the isle of Patmes, was
awful and majestic, but, partly at least, symbolical,
like the visions of the prophets. On the mount of
transfiguration, his countenance shone as the sun, and
his raiment was white, as the light. Without entering
into particulars, the Scriptures declare that his body

* Gen. xlviii. 14.
t Vide Witsius, in Symb. Apost. Exer. xxi. { 5.
{ 1 Cor. xv. 27. ||~1 Kings ii. 19. j John xvu. o.

THE EXALTATION OF CHRIST.

337

is glorious, and is the pattern according to which tbe
bodies of the saints will be fashioned. It is not in
consistent with the ascription of transcendent honour
to him, that he promises to give his saints to sit down
with him upon his throne. They will share in bis
glory, but not in equal measure ; their glory will be
similar, but not in the same degree. He is "the first
born among many brethren ;"* entitled to a double
portion ; the heir and the lord of the family. Hence,
notwithstanding their elevation, they will acknowledge
him as their superior, and do him homage. While
the angels adore him, the saints will cast down their
crowns before his throne, and both will join in expres
sions of admiration, and gratitude, and praise. "And
I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round
about the throne, and tbe beasts, and the elders : and
the number of them was ten thousand times ten thou
sand, and thousands of thousands; saying with a loud
voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive
power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and
honour, and glory, and blessing."! ^4 's unnecessary
to refer to a distinction formerly made, and to remark,
that he is not the object of worship as man, nor pro
perly as Mediator; because, as he is in this character
the servant of the Father, so it is by him that our
prayers and praises are presented. It is enough to
know, that it is the incarnate God who is worshipped
by the heavenly congregation, and that, although the
foundation of this worship is the divine perfections of
which he is possessed, the great motive to it is his
redeeming love, and it is addressed to him without
distinction of natures. " We see Jesus crowned with
glory and honour."!
But this is not the only idea suggested by his sitting
at the right hand of God. It imports the possession
of happiness; but whether this idea is founded, as
some suppose, on the fact that gifts are usually con
ferred by the right hand, or is derived from some other
source, it is not material to inquire. That the expres
sion admits of this sense, is evident from the follow
ing passage: "In thy presence is fulness of joy; at
thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore."! B
is to be particularly noticed, that these words are
spoken by the Messiah, and with a view to his exalta
tion. They follow the declaration of his confident
hope, that God " would not leave his soul in hell, nor
suffer him to see corruption, but would show him the
path of life," or raise him from the grave.
For the joy which was set before him he endured
the cross, and despised the shame; and he has now
entered into it. Sitting at the right hand of God, he
is nearer to him than any man or angel ; and his near
ness implies not only a closer relation, resulting from
the union of his human nature to the divine, but also
more intimate fellowship. The presence of God is a
source of felicity. The place which we call heaven,
Would not be happier than the most desolate spot upon
earth, if he did not there impart the fulness of his love ;
and a day in the sanctuary would not be preferable to
a day of bodily rest at home, were it not the chosen
scene on which he displays the wonders of his grace.
The light of his countenance awakens emotions of joy
in the souls of the righteous, with which the most in
tense sensations of worldly pleasure are not to be com
pared. If the meanest saint is destined to enjoy a de
gree of felicity which it has not entered into the human
mind to conceive, what must be the communication of
divine love to him, who is nearer to God than all the
saints, is the object of his infinite approbation and de
light, and has glorified him in the -highest in the work
of redemption ! What shall be done to the man whom
he delights to honour? The reward is proportioned
to his merit, the height of his joy may be estimated

by the depth of his previous sorrow. " The king shall
joy in thy strength, O Lord ; and in thy salvation how
greatly shall he rejoice! Thou hast given him his
heart's desire, and hast not withholden the request of
his lips. For thou preventest him with the blessings
of goodness ; thou settest a crown of pure gold on his
head. He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him,
even length of days for ever and ever. His glory is
great in thy salvation; honour and majesty hast thou
laid upon him. For thou hast made him most blessed
for ever; thou hast made him exceeding glad with thy
countenance."* While he partakes of all the plea^-
sures which are at the right hand of God, he rejoices
to reflect that bis great undertaking is accomplished,
to behold around him the fruits of his labours, and to
know that in due time heaven will be filled with mil
lions of the redeemed, who will for ever praise him as
the author of their happiness. "He sees of the tra
vail ofhis soul, and is satisfied."!
Again, the right hand is an emblem of power. This
is the general idea which is suggested, when hands
and arms are attributed to God, because it is with our
arms and hands that we exert our strength. The right
hand is most commonly used, and whatever cause may
be assigned for this curious fact, is a more powerful
instrument than the left hand. The sitting of our
Saviour at the right hand of God, signifies on this ac
count that he is exalted to authority and dominion.
" Hereafter," he said to the Jewish council, " shall ye
see the Son of man sitting on theright hand of power."!
The Psalmist refers to the power of the Messiah in
his state of exaltation in these words : " The Lord said
unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make
thine enemies thy footstool. "|| It was exhibited to Dan
iel iii the night visions, when " he saw, and behold,
one like the Son of man came with the clouds of hea
ven, and came to the ancient of days, and they brought
him near before him. And there was given him do
minion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, na
tions, and languages should serve him : his dominion
is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away',
and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. "§
Our Saviour announced it to his disciples after his
resurrection : " All power is given unto me in heaven
and in earth ;"K" and Paul speaks thus of it in his epis
tle to the Philippians: "Wherefore God also hath
highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above
every name ; that at the name of Jesus every knee
should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth;
and things under the earth ; and that every tongue
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory
cf God the Father."** There is a distinction to be ob1-
served between his essential and his mediatorial king
dom. The former he always possessed, and since it
belonged to him as God the Creator of all things, he
could not lay it aside even during his humiliation.
The latter he received when he ascended ; for although
he had a right to it, when he rose from the dead, and
therefore told his disciples, that it was already given
to him, it was upon his entrance into heaven, that he
sat down upon his throne. His mediatorial kingdom
comprehends power to establish, and govern, and de
fend, and bestow eternal salvation upon his church,
and power to render all other things subservient to its
interests. He ought to be considered not only as the
King of Zion, but as the Lord of the UniveYse. Hence,
when we say that the world is under the government
of God, we should reflect, that properly it is not the
Father of whom we speak, except in this sense, that
he always acts in concurrence with the Son ; but that
the declaration of our Saviour, that " the Father judg-
eth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the

* Rom, viii. 29. + Rev. v. 11, l£. X Hel>- »-9- II p»- *«¦ «¦
2S " 8»

*Ps.xxi.l-6. fls.liii.ll. tMatt.xivi.64. II.Ps.cx.1.'
j Dan. vii. 13, 14. 1 Matt, xxviii. 18. ** Phil. '¦• 9~»-

338
Son,"* :

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

Our' uZtT °l t* \h°le ad™™*tration of affairs.
"n4fatd ml °HS **"*?«*> ™* sways it over
feel He hath Put a11 thines un°-er his
th Jri!^ °Uf °*erjdea connected with his sitting at
rion t ' ™d °f G°d' WhIch il may be P™Per to men-
tton,as ,t is suggested by the following contrast be
ef a £"? a,nd the PTiests of the law : "Every priest
standeth daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the
same sacrifices, which can never take away sins ; but
this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for
.ever sat down on the right hand of God, from hence-
torth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool."!
Ihe posture of the legal priests imported that they
were constantly engaged in the service of the altar,
and, consequently, bad not accomplished tbe design
of their office, by the perfect reconciliation of the peo-
.ple to God. The high priest never sat down in the
most holy place, but having stood for some time before
the mercy-seat, he retired to offer new sacrifices, and
again to go the round of the sacred offices. But Jesus
Christ, when he entered into heaven, sat down at the
right hand of God, and is " a priest upon his throne."
His posture signifies that his work is finished. His
one oblation has satisfied the demands of justice, and
his Father has testified his approbation of it, by con
ferring upon him honour and authority.
The present exaltation of Jesus Christ is a source
of great consolation to his followers. It was not solely
for his personal glory that he ascended, but also for
the good of his people, in promoting which he employs
all the interest and power which he possesses. His
intercession insures the acceptance of their duties, not
as the condition of salvation, but as testimonies of their
love to God, and their filial subjection to him. His
government is calculated to tranquillize and comfort
their minds amidst the vicissitudes of life. As they
are assured that nothing can happen to themselves
without his appointment, and that every word will
be overruled for their final welfare, so they may look
upon all the dangers in the world, as under the
control of his power, and the direction of his wis
dom, as constituting parts of his plan, working for
ends worthy of him, and subservient to the establish
ment of his kingdom. Affairs may not proceed in a
train agreeable to our views and expectations ; but it
will repress every murmur and every wish for a differ
ent order, to reflect that he presides over them, who is
the patron of truth and righteousness, and the faithful
guardian of those who love him : " The Lord reigneth ;
let the earth rejoice: let tbe multitude of isles be glad
.thereof."! The security of the church depends upon the exer-
,cise of the power with which Christ was invested at
his ascension. The gates of hell shall not prevail
against it, because it is defended by his omnipotent
arm. It has been deemed a proof of Cesar's greatness
of mind, although, in truth, it proved nothing but his
presumption and impiety, that he said to the sailors in
a storm, " Fear not, this ship carries Caesar;" as if the
elements would have done homage to that ambitious
spirit. The wind and waves did indeed respect him
on that occasion, but only as they have since respect
ed, and will always respect, the meanest and most
worthless of mankind, whose hour is not come. The
ocean will not swallow up those who are doomed to
perish by the sword. But the church may assume the
attitude and the language of confidence and defiance
when she is menaced by the powers of earth and hell,
because Ho is her protector, who can render their coun
cils and efforts abortive, and scatter them with his
breath : " God is our refuge and strength, a very pres
ent help in trouble : Therefore will we not fear, though
• John v. i£ f Heb. x. 11-13. J P.. xcvii. 1.

the earth be removed, and though the mountains be
carried into the midst of the sea ; though the waters
thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains
shake with the swelling thereof."*
To him who is exalted above principalities and pow
ers, profound reverence and prompt obedience are due.
This is the command of the church : " He is thy Lord,
and worship thou him." We are under law to Jesus
Christ; and as our consciences should recognise his
authority, and bow to it, so it will render our obedi
ence the homage of the heart, devoutly to remember,
that his right to demand it is founded on the deep hu
miliation and exquisite sufferings to which he submit-
ted for our salvation. Although we have not seen his
glory with our eyes, as the beloved disciple did in the
isle of Patmos, yet, being admitted to contemplate it
through the medium of revelation, which gives such de
scriptions of it as are fitted to excite mingled emotions
of reverence and confidence, let us, like him, fall at bis
feet, and say with another saint, " Truly, we are thy
servants ; we are thy servants, thou hast loosed our
bonds : we will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiv
ing, and will call upon the name of the Lord."!

LECTURE LXIII.
CHRIST'S STATE OF EXALTATION.
The General Judgment, a Doctrine of Revelation— The Time
and Duration of it — The Place of Judgment — The Parties-
Christ the Judge : his Fitness for the Office— Circumstances
of bis appearing — Standards of Judgment — The Sentences,
and tbeir Execution.
Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into
heaven? This same Jesus, who is taken up from you
into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have
seen him go into heaven."! These were tbe words
of the two angels who appeared on Mount Olivet to
the disciples, while they were wistfully looking after
their Lord, who had ascended in their sight, and was
now concealed by a cloud. He will come again at
the appointed time ; and it will be the purpose of his
coming to close the administration which he is at pre
sent carrying on at the right hand of his Father, by
the public distribution of rewards and punishments.
To this consummating act of his royal authority, ]
shall, in this lecture, direct your attention.
In treating this subject, it is usual to bring forward
arguments suggested by reason, in support of the de
clarations of Scripture respecting the future judgment
of the human race. Were we to deny that justice is
essential to the Supreme Governor of the universe, we
should divest him of all moral excellence, and leave
only those physical attributes which distinguish bim
from men, as almighty power, perpetual duration, and
immensity of essence. We should transform him,
whom even the heathens called Optimus Maximus,
into the Arimanes of the Persians, a being of malig
nant dispositions, the author of darkness and confusion,
and every evil work. But we find that, at present,
justice is only partially exercised, and the common
course of things is conducted without any marked re
gard to the character and actions of men. Those
whom we call good, because their actions are conform
able to moral distinctions, are often left to struggle
with poverty, and to pine in affliction; while bold
transgressors, men who set their mouths against the
heavens, and give loose reins to their appetites and
passions, not seldom enjoy outward peace, and pass
their days amidst affluence, and a succession of de-

» Ps. xlvi. 1,2.

t Ps. cxvi. 16, 17.

I Acts i. 11.

THE EXALTATION OF CHRIST.

339

lights. The exceptions serve the more clearly to
illustrate the imperfection of the present system ; to
_6how us more distinctly what, in our apprehension,
might be, and ought to be: and call more loudly for a
different order of things. Human laws, which, in so
.far as they are just, may be considered as making a
part of the moral administration of the universe, be
cause they are sanctioned by Heaven, supply this de
fect in part, but only in part. Besides that, in general,
they afford no reward to the obedient, but simple pro
tection, there are innumerable cases of delinquency
which they cannot reach, in consequence of the limited
.knowledge and power of those who execute them, and
of other causes which obstruct the exercise of autho
rity. Many crimes are secret, unknown to all but the
guilty ; and, of public crimes, the authors are not al
ways discovered, or they escape from justice by flight,
.or they set it at defiance ; or, what is worst of all, they
find means to prevent it by bribery and perjury. What
then is the result of this view of the state of human
affairs? Shall we conclude, in opposition to the clear
dictates of reason, and the consent of all nations, that
there is no God ? Or shall we say, with some impious
philosophers, that he is regardless of the actions of
men; and that, instead of a wise and righteous Provi
dence, blind fortune presides ? Or rather, compelled
by the best sentiments of our minds, which recognise
a Deity, and invest him with every moral perfection,
shall we not rest in this obvious inference, that, since
justice is not at present fully displayed, another dis
pensation will follow, under which there will be an
exact retribution ; that a time will come when the
wrongs of the injured shall be redressed, when the
proud transgressors shall stoop to a superior power,
when every work shall be brought into judgment, and
every secret thing shall be revealed ?
To this reasoning no person of candour will object,
so far as it goes to prove a future retribution. If there
is a just God, it must ultimately be well with the
righteous, and ill with the wicked. Accordingly, a
recompense in another state was expected by those
who did not enjoy the benefit of Divine revelation, and
the expectation was founded- partly upon traditional
authority, and partly also upon argument. They be
lieved, tbat, when the souls of men left their bodies,
they appeared before certain judges appointed to take
cognizance of human actions, Minos, Rhadamanthus,
and ^Eacus, who, after an impartial investigation, pro
nounced sentence upon them, and consigned them to
the fields of bliss, or to the region of torment. But
the judgment which the Gentiles anticipated at the
close of their mortal course, was individual and pri
vate, like the sentence which Christians believe will
be pronounced upon every man immediately after his
death ; and this is all that the reasoning proves. Di
vines, therefore, are chargeable with inaccuracy, when
they employ it in support of the doctrine now under
consideration, since it serves only to establish the fact,
tbat men will be recompensed, not that they will be
recompensed by a procedure carried on in the presence
of assembled generations. Having convinced our
selves that God will render to every man according to
his works, we can advance no farther by the light of
reason than the heathens did, who held that men ap
peared individually before the infernal judges, or at
most along with those who happened to arrive in the
ether world at the same time, and, that they were dis
missed, without any farther solemnity, each to his
proper place.
It is to revelation alone that we are indebted for the
knowledge of a general judgment, in which the pro
ceedings will take place in the sight of angels and
men; the righteous and the wicked will be arranged
in separate classes, and all will be witnesses of the
Divine justice in the reward of the good, and the

punishment of the bad. I shall content myself with a
few passages in which it is announced. "He hath
appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world
in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained;
whereof he hath given assurance unto all men in that
he hath raised him from the dead."* " We must all
appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every
one may receive the things done in his body, accord
ing to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."! '
" When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and
all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon
the throne of his glory : and before him shall be
gathered all nations ; and he shall separate them one
from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from.
the goats."!
It may be thought that the ends of justice are an
swered when individuals are treated according to their
desert, and as this is done immediately after death,
that no further procedure is necessary. Justice, as it
respects private persons, consists in regulating their
conduct by its dictates, in their transactions with
friends, neighbours, and mankind in general; and if
they uniformly preserve inviolate the rights of others,
all its demands are fulfilled. But the justice of a gov
ernor belongs to the public, who claim not only that it
should impartially execute the laws, but that it should
be exercised in such a manner as is most conducive to
the general interests. The rewards to which merito
rious individuals are entitled ought not to be conferred1,
and the punishment which transgressors have incurred
ought not to be inflicted, in silence and secrecy, bat
both should be openly dispensed for the honour of the
governor's character, and the advantage which will
redound to the community from tbe salutary influence
of example. As God is the governor of the world, it
is not sufficient that he is just, unless he also appear
to be just. The retribution which takes place aftei
death is unknown. We see men of different charac
ters die; but we cannot trace the flight of their souls
into the invisible world, nor hear the sentence pro
nounced from the tribunal before which they appear;
and our conjectures upon the subject may often be
very far from the truth. Hence a general judgment,
at which all the descendants of Adam will be present,
seems necessary to the display of the justice of God,
to such a manifestation of it as will vindicate his
government from all the charges which impiety has
brought against it, satisfy all doubts, and leave a con
viction in the minds of all intelligent creatures, that
he is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his
works. It is expedient that at the winding up of the
scheme, all its parts should be seen to be worthy of
Him by whom it was arranged and conducted. In this
way, those who have witnessed, with many disquiet
ing thoughts, the irregularity and disorder in the pre
sent system, will have ocular evidence that there never
was the slightest deviation from the principles of
equity, and that the cause of perplexity, was the delay
of their full operation. They will see the good and
the bad no longer mingled together, and apparently
treated alike, but separated into two classes, the one
on the right hand of the Judge, and the other on his
left, and distinguished as much at least by their re
spective sentences, as by the places which they oc
cupy. We perceive, then, the reason that the judg
ment passed upon each individual at the termination
of his life, will be solemnly ratified at the end of the
world. There may be another reason for the public
exercise of justice in the final allotment of the human
race. It may be intended to be a spectacle to the uni-
veTse; it may be an act of the divine administration,
which will extend its influence to all the provinces
of his empire. We are sure that angels will witness
» Acts xvii. 31. f 2 Cor. v. 10. t Matt. xxv. 36, 32.

340

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

it; and if there are other orders of rational creatures,
it may be a solemn lesson to them, by which they will
be confirmed in fidelity to their Creator, and filled with
more profound veneration of his infinite excellences.
The time of the general judgment is a secret which
God has reserved to himself. " Of that day and hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven."* An
opinion seems to have been entertained by some persons
in the primitive church, that the awful event was not
distant; but only the lying lips of such a man as Gib
bon could dare to say " that its near approach had been
predicted by the apostles ; the tradition of it was preserv
ed by their earliest disciples ; and those who understood
in their literal sense the discourses of Christ himself,
were obliged to expect the second and glorious coming
of the Son of man in the clouds, before that generation
was totally extinguished, which had beheld his humble
condition upon earth."! "^ he prophecy of our Saviour
to which he refers, evidently relates to the destruction
of Jerusalem, and is interspersed with several circum
stances which clearly prove, that, although the style is
bold and highly figurative, it is a local calamity which is
announced, a desolation beyond the limits of which it
was possible to escape, an event which would be fol
lowed by other events in a long succession; in a word,
that the prophecy does not foretell the end of the world.
It is so far from being true that its near approach was
predicted by the apostles, that, when the notion began
to prevail, they set themselves to oppose it, as we learn
from the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, in which
Paul beseeches them in the most solemn terms, not to
be shaken in mind or troubled, as if the day of Christ
were at hand, and proceeds to inform them of other
events which would precede it, and consequently prov
ed that it was still remote. It is commonly said that
the design of keeping it secret, is to excite us to watch
and to be always prepared. This is the improvement
which we should make of the fact that there is a future
judgment; but it will not seem to an accurate thinker
to arise properly from the uncertainty of the time, be
cause amidst our total ignorance of the day and the hour,
we are assured, as men in past generations might have
been, thatit will not take place during our lives. There is
a long series of prophecies which will be fulfilled before
the coming of Christ, and by the details of which ages
will be consumed. This may be a topic of popular de
clamation, but it will not bear exact inquiry. Some
things in Scripture which are understood to favour the
idea, relate to the destruction of Jerusalem. It may op
erate in this way upon the men who shall live after the
prophecies are fulfilled, and who, if they rightly discern
the signs of the times, may justly conclude that the end
of all things is at hand. In our age, the immediate mo
tive to vigilance and activity, is the uncertainty of the
time of our death, which will be precisely the same to
us in its effects as the second coming of Christ ; for after
death is the judgment, when the state of every man will
be immutably fixed.
As we have no means of ascertaining the time of tbe
general judgment, so it is impossible to say any thing
respecting its duration. It is called a day; but the use
of this term in the Scriptures is indefinite, and it marks
at one time a shorter, and at another a longer period.
There is no doubt that the Judge could in a moment se
parate tho righteous from the wicked, and having then
passed sentence upon them, send them immediately
away to their respective abodes ; but we cannot con
ceive tbat this summary process would answer the end
of the judgment, which we apprehend to be not simply
the reward of the good, and the punishment of the bad",
but the display of justice in particular cases. If our no
tion of a detailed procedure is correct, as the design of
it will be to convey just ideas of the divine character to
* Mull. xxiv. 36, f Gibbon's Decline end Fall, chap. xv.

the minds of creatures, whose thoughts follow in a train,
a natural day seems to us too short for the disclosure of
so many secrets, the correction of so many apparent ir
regularities, the solution of so many perplexities, the
determination of so many cases. But we speculate in
ignorance, and it is wiser to rest in the general conclu
sion, that the business will be so conducted, as to pro
duce in every mind a full conviction of the consummate
rectitude of the divine government.
" Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall
be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"*
This question of the disciples related to our Saviour's
prediction of the destruction of the temple, and his an
swer must be considered as bearing upon that point. It
is a great mistake, therefore, lo bring forward the cir
cumstances enumerated by him as signs of his second
coming, because they were to precede the fall of Jeru
salem ; and he expressly told his disciples that the gen
eration then existing should not pass away till all these
things were fulfilled. We know of no signs but the
fulfilment of prophecy. The Gospel will be preached
to all natioqs ; antichrist will fall ; the Jews will be
converted ; the millennium will succeed, or tbe thousand
years of his spiritual reign upon earth ; and, it should
seem, will be followed by a period of impiety, when the
wicked will go up on the breadth of the earth, to com
pass the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city-!
Then the Judge will appear upon his throne ; but, in the
order of events, the intervals are not marked, and the
whole is expressed in such figurative and general terms
as to convey no definite information respecting tbe time.
Past prophecies have been gradually, and sometimes in
sensibly fulfilled. We may, therefore, presume that,
although those who shall live towards the end of the
world, when the predictions are accomplished, may
know that the end of all things is approaching, they
will be as incapable as we are of calculating the time;
and that, even to them, the day of the Lord will come
as a thief in the night, suddenly, and without previous
warning. The place where the judgment will be held is this
world ; and as it is said thai the saints shall be caught
up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, it should
seem that the wicked will be left standing upon the earth-
What region of it will be chosen for the last and solemn
scene, it would be presumptuous to conjecture. The
following passage in Joel has no relation to the subject :
" Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley
of Jehoshaphat ; for there will I sit to judge all the heath
en round about."! The valley of Jehoshaphat, lying
between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives, is of small
extent; but the scene of the last judgment will afford am
ple space for the countless millions who will be assem
bled upon it to hear their final doom. All nations shall
be gathered before the Son of man. The judgment,
therefore, presupposes the resurrection, of which, how
ever, I shall not at present speak, as it will occur in an
other part of this course. The whole order of angels
was created at once ; it has received no increase, and
sustained no diminution since its commencement. The
human race consisted, at first, of a single pair, from
whom successive generations are derived, according to
the peculiar law of their nature ; and as they were made
subject to death in consequence of sin, they have pass
ed along the stage of life, and after a short display, van
ished from sight. It is but a small portion of mankind
that is alive at any particular period. Multitudes have re
tired into the land of darkness and oblivion; multitudes
will yet be raised up by the creating power of God, to
spend their transient day in the light of the sun, and
then descend into the shades of death.
When the Son of man shall be revealed in his glory,
he will call upon the earth and the sea to give up their

* Matt. xxiv. 3.

t Rev. xx. 9.

X Joel ui. 12.

THE EXALTATION OF CHRIST.

341

dead, and all who ever breathed the breath of life from
Adam to his last son, who, like him, returned to the
dust, shall arise, and, together with those who are then
alive, shall stand in their lot at the end of their days.
The men of the present age will be mingled in the same
crowd with the antediluvians, and with those who shall
be summoned from their dwellings and their occupations
by the voice of the archangel. All ranks and conditions
will be confounded. Those whom birth, and office, and
wealth, and talents placed at a distance from each oth
er, will stand upon the same level ; the great without
their ensigns of dignity, and the poor without their marks
of abasement, for then only moral distinctions will be
regarded. The oppressor and the oppressed will be
there, the one to obtain the redress of his wrongs, and
the other to have his violence returned upon his own
head. Statesmen, whose avarice or profusion impov
erished nations, and whose intrigues involved them in
wars; princes, who imagined that mankind were made
for them ; and blood-stained heroes, who acquired an il
lustrious name by desolating the earth, will stand be
fore the tribunal, amidst the cries and execrations of
millions whom they ruined with impunity. Jews and
Gentiles, Mahometans and Christians, the learned- and
the unlearned, the bond and the free, the high and the
low, will appear divested of all adventitious circum
stances, to render an account to Him who is no respect
er of persons, and whose omniscient eye will distin
guish each individual in the immense throng as easi
ly as if he were alone. Not one of the righteous shall
be forgotten, and not one of the wicked shall find a hid
ing-place from the justice of the Judge.
The Judge is Jesus Christ, as we are informed in
the passage formerly quoted. As sustaining this char
acter, he is to be considered, not simply as the second
Person of the Trinity, to whom, in common with the other
persons, the government of the moral and natural world
belongs, but as mediator. His divinity is presupposed,
as we shall afterwards see ; but, in the final retribution,
he will act as the Father's delegate, and exercise official
power. For this statement we have his own authority :
"The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all
judgment unto the Son. As the Father hath life in him
self, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
and hath given him authority to execute judgment also,
because he is the Son of man."* The communication
of power to him is expressly asserted ; and the reason
assigned, " because he is the Son of man," imports that
it is imparted to him in his mediatorial character to
reward his humiliation and sufferings, and to qualify
him to accomplish all the ends ofhis office. Hence he
will appear not only in his own glory, but in the glory
of his Father, bearing this honourable commission
which will exalt him so highly in the eyes of angels and
men. There is a manifest congruity in appointing him, who
was the Saviour, to be the judge of the human race. It
was fit that the promises which he had made, and the
threatenings which he had denounced, should be carried
into effect by himself; that, from his hand, those who
had submitted to his law should receive their reward,
and those who had heen disobedient their punishment.
It was fit that he should bring to a close the dispensa
tion which he had established by his personal interposi
tion, and should fulfil, in his eternal state, the destinies
of those for whom its henefits were intended. Besides,
as the judgment is appointed for the public manifesta
tion' of the righteousness of the divine government, it
was necessary that there should be a visible judge,
whose proceedings all should witness, and whose voice
til should hear. The proper person, therefore, is Jesus
Christ, who, having assumed our nature, will appear in
it unchanged in essence, although invested with glory

* John v. 22, 26, 27.

suitable to tbe dignity of his person and the rank wbich
it holds as the head of the creation of God. On Sinai
the Israelites beheld the awful tokens of the. divine pre
sence ; but they only heard the voice of their law-giver.
When Jesus Christ comes with clouds, "every eye
shall see him, and they also that pierced him ; and all
kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him."*
It is a man who will be revealed from heaven as the
Judge of men ; but that man being also the Son of God,
is possessed of all the attributes of divinity. These are
necessary to the execution of his office. The decision
of so many cases involving innumerable particulars, in
themselves intricate and perplexed, and connected with
other cases by multiplied aspects and relations, will
manifestly require knowledge not inferior to omnisci
ence. Whobut God could distinguish every individual
in this vast assembly ? Who but God could remember,
if I may be permitted to use this term, all the incidents
of their lives? Who but God could form a just esti
mate of their actions, by a direct and unerring reference
to the circumstances in which they were performed, and
the motives from which they proceeded ? Who but
God could bring to light the secrets of the heart, upon
which the sentence will be founded in all cases, but
more particularly in those where the external conduct
was a superficial show; and where it is only by a dis
closure of principles carefully concealed, that the per
sons will appear to be deserving of the doom ? No cre
ated mind is capable of comprehending all the details
of this multifarious transaction, or of attaining to the pre
rogative of God, who says, " I search the heart and the
reins." Upon the adequate knowledge of the judge will
be founded the rectitude ofhis decisions. He cannot err
in judgment ; and besides, he is essentially just. As he
loves righteousness, loves it as necessarily as he exists,
so he is exposed to no influence which might counteract
the dictates of equity. He is subject to no partialities ;
he feels not the disturbing effects of pity or anger; he
proceeds calmly, but steadily, to his purpose ; and every
sentence which he pronounces, rests upon the immuta
ble basis of law. A mong the multitude of the condemn
ed, however severe may be their punishment, and how
ever impatiently they may bear it, there will not be one
who will dare to accuse his judge of injustice. In the
mind of every man a consciousness of guilt will be deep
ly fixed ; he will be compelled to blame himself alone,
and to justify the sentence which has rendered him for
ever miserable. The power of Jesus Christ is infinite,
as well as his knowledge and his justice. The works
which will signalize the great day, are operations of
omnipotence. Omnipotence only could raise the dead
from their graves, bring all nations to the tribunal, how
ever reluctant to obey the summons, cast the ungodly in
to the flames of hell, and open the gates of heaven, to give
admission to the righteous. " The Lord Jesus shall be
revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming
fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and
that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who
shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the
presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power."!
Several circumstances are mentioned in Scripture,
which will attend the coming of our Saviour to judg
ment. "Behold he cometh with clouds."! There
seems to be no reason why these words should not be
literally understood, as the coming is not figurative,
and the manifestation of Christ will be made to the
bodily eyes. When God descended to publish the
law to the Israelites, there was a thick cloud upon the
mountain, from which issued peals of thunder and
flashes of lightning. It may be the design of the
apostle to sicnify, that something similar will take
place on the day of the Lord. He will be surrounded
with clouds, in form and magnitude, and dazzling

* Rev. i. 7.

f 2 Thess. i. 7— 9.

X Rev. i. 7.

342

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

fnT a T' corresPOTcl'ng to the grandeur of the occa
sion, and the majesty of the person who will come on
tnern as his magnificent chariot. Among these clouds
his throne will be erected. It is called in Scripture, a
great white throne; and, as there will be a real repre
sentation to the senses, this may be understood to sa
nity the appearance of a seat, on which he will sit, as
human judges do, when causes are tried before them.
He win be elevated above the assembly, and all eyes
will be raised to him, in solemn expectation of his
final award.
"The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with
a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the
trump of God."* Three sounds are distinctly men-
tioned,_but I do not pretend to know what they are.
There is probably an allusion to an important circum
stance in the awful appearance of God upon Sinai :
" On the third day, in the morning, there were thun
ders, and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount,
and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud." " And
when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed
louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered
him by a voice;"! that is, Moses said, as we are in
formed by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
•I exceedingly fear and quake."! Those will be ter
rible sounds, which will shake the hearts of the guilty
with fear, and be a solemn prelude to that more terri
ble voice, which will consign them to everlasting woe.
I may remark in passing, that the opinion of those who
affirm, that there is no such creature as an archangel,
and that under this title, our Lord himself is described,
is refuted by this passage, in which the Lord is plainly
distinguished from the archangel; the most blundering
Writer meaning to say that, in the descent of Christ,
his own voice will be heard, would not have changed
the designation from Lord to archangel, and thus have
led his readers to think of two persons, instead of one.
It is certain that the judge will be attended by the
heavenly host. He will come with his holy angels,
perhaps in a visible form, who will not only increase
the pomp and splendour of his appearance, and be
Spectators of a scene So interesting to the whole intel
ligent creation, but will have high and honourable
offices to perform, both to the righteous and the wicked.
"The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and
they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that.
offend, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them
into a furnace of fire." These are the tares growing
in the field of the world ; but the wheat shall be also
gathered into the barn by the same ministry, and
"then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun, in
the kingdom of their Father."||
The saints being caught up into the clouds, by the
ministry of the angels, to meet the Lord in the air,
and the wicked being left upon the earth, the judg
ment will proceed. Into the details we cannot enter,
because our information is very general, and some
things are expressed in figurative language. It is
evidently the design of the following passage to teach
us, that an exact inquiry will be made, and the judg
ment will be conducted with a strict regard to justice.
" And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before
God; and the books were open: and another book
was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead
were judged out of those things which were written in
the books, according to their works."§ No person
can suppose that books will be literally used on this
occasion. The books, therefore, seem to signify the
different laws under which men have been placed, and
bv which justice requires that they should be tried :
and the correctness of this idea may be inferred from
statement, that they will be "judged out of the

the

. Thess. iv. 16. t Exod. xix 16, 19. J Heb. xii. 21.
§ Rev. xx. 1A

(I Matt. xiii. 41, 43.

books, according to their works," importing that there
will be a comparison of their actions with a standard,
and that the sentence will be founded upon the result.
First, Those who were not favoured with divine
revelation, will be judged by tbe law of nature, or the
law originally given to man as the rule ofhis conduct.
Some portion of this law has been preserved among
the Gentiles, partly by reason and partly by tradition;
and although tbe traces of it are in some instances
obliterated, and in others obscured, yet so much re
mains as to render them accountable beings, and to be
the foundation of a judicial trial. Men have not lost
all sense of justice, of truth, of humanity, of the duties'
arising from the various relations which they bear to
one another. The Apostle Paul refers to their know
ledge of morality, in these words: "WThen the Gen
tiles which have not the law," that is, the law in
writing as the Jews had, "do by nature the things
contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a
law unto themselves : Which show the work of the
law written in their hearts, their conscience also bear
ing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accu
sing or else excusing one another."* How far their
ignorance will exempt them from responsibility, is a
question of some difficulty, which is rashly decided
when ignorance is pronounced to be a complete excuse.
If the ancient Gentiles became so vain in their imagi
nations as to worship the creature instead of the Crea
tor, and so blind in moral distinctions as to account
gross sensuality no crime, and to practise unnatural
lusts without a blush, "Hoes it follow that their idolatry
and abandoned profligacy were not sins? To this
conclusion the plea set up by some men in behalf of
ignorance would lead us, but it receives no counte
nance from Scripture, which speaks of the conduct of
those Gentiles in the strongest terms of reprobation.
Ignorance may procure an alleviation of punishment,
but unless absolutely invincible will not entitle any
man to exemption from it. I have no doubt, however,
that if we should fix the standard for the Gentiles by
what they actually knew, not one , of them would
escape condemnation ; not even their most celebrated
teachers of morality, who were accused in their own
time of indulging the vices against which they loudly
declaimed. " As many as have sinned without law,
shall also perish without law."!
Secondly, The Jews will be judged by the law of
Moses and the prophets, which placed them in much
more favourable circumstances than the Gentiles, for
the knowledge of their duty; and vain will be their
boast of the law, if they are not at last found to be
transgressors. " As many as have sinned in the law,
shall be judged by the law."! They are the servants
who knew their master's will ; and if they neglected
to do it, tbey "shall be beaten with many stripes."
Thirdly, Christians in general will be judged by
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and
will be subjected to a heavier doom than either Hea
thens or Jews, in consequence of their superior privi
leges. The ignorance of individuals will not excuse
them, because they might have known their duty in
all its details ; and equally unavailing will be the
usual pleas of the infirmity of human nature, and the
strength of temptation. In revelation there is every
enforcement of duty which is fitted to operate upon
the reason and conscience of intelligent beings; and
the means are provided by which the guilty may
obtain the favour of God, and the weak may be ena
bled to perform acceptable service. "This is the con
demnation, that light is come into the world, and men
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds
were evil."||
Lastly, The saints will be judged out of the book

* Rom. ii. 14, IS. f Rom- "• 12- t Ib- || John iii. 19

THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST.

343

of life, which some understand to be the decree of God
appointing them to salvation ; but it seems rather to
be the gospel, or the law of faith, which says, "He
that believeth shall be saved; and he that believeth not
shall be damned."* On comparing their exercise and
conduct with this law, it will be found that they are
believers, and consequently that they have a claim to
the glorious recompense promised to faith. Their
title will be made manifest by their works, for accord
ing to their works all the dead will be judged. They
will be produced as evidences of the genuineness of
their faith ; and it is on this ground that our Lord re
presents himself as saying to them, " I was hungry,
and ye gave me meat." "I was thirsty, and ye gave
me drink." I shall afterwards have an opportunity
to consider more fully the judgment as it respects the
righteous, and shall therefore pass over at present
some important particulars.
The declaration of the Judge concerning those on
his right hand that they are righteous, and concerning
those on his left hand that they are wicked, will be
sufficient to convince all in the immense assembly,
that the sentence, pronounced upon each individual is
just. There will be no need of witnesses as in human
courts, because the Judge is omniscient and unerring
in his decisions. There will be a testimony to their
rectitude, as it respects himself, in the bosom of every
man. All his past actions will be recalled, and with
all their circumstances will pass before his mind in
rapid succession ; his conscience will then be faithful,
and it will re-echo the voice of the Judge, and draw
from every tongue an acknowledgment that be is " a
God of knowledge, by whom actions are weighed."
When the investigation is finished, and every man
is prepared to hear his doom, the Judge will say to
those on his right hand, " Come, ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world :" And to those on his left,
"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, pre
pared for the devil and his angels."! The execution
of these sentences will take place in an inverse order,
if we are to understand the following words, as stating
the succession of events : "These shall go away into
everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life
eternal."! The wicked will be driven from the place
of judgment, by the power of the Judge and the min
istry of angels; while the saints will witness this
awful display of justice and wrath, and then, in the
train of the Redeemer, enter into the mansions of glory.
As I shall have another opportunity to direct your at
tention to the state of the righteous in the world to
come, I shall reserve till then the remarks which may
be made upon this interesting subject.
The punishment of the wicked will consist, in the
first place, in being driven from the presence of Christ,
which will be a far heavier doom than to be excluded
for ever from the light of the sun. It is to be de
prived of happiness and of hope. Whatever con
nexion may have subsisted between him and them in
this world, where many of them were members of his
church, he will hold no more intercourse with them :
" I know you not, ye workers of iniquity." It is re
presented, in the second place, as punishment by fire;
but it is doubtful whether this ought to be literally
understood. It is certain that another description of
their doom admits of a figurative explanation, — when
it is said that their worm shall never die ; and as the
worm and the fire are coupled togetherfthe same mode
of interpretation may be applied to both. The design
probably is, by this terrible image, to give us an idea
of the excruciating nature of the sufferings which they
will endure in body and soul. It is a punishment in
which they will be associated with the devil and his

* Mark xvi. 16.

f Matt. xxv. 34, 41.

} lb. 46.

angels. The place was prepared for those apostate
spirits, and will be the common receptacle of them
and of wicked men, who joined the standard of revolt
which they raised against the government of God.
Throughout the whole extent of his mighty empire,
purity and bliss will prevail, except one dark and re
mote region, the prison of the universe, the accursed
spot to which rebels and outcasts are exiled. In a
word, it will be everlasting punishment. By some,
its eternity is denied ; and their hypothesis is main
tained by a train of reasoning founded on ignorance
and presumption, and by violent perversion of Scrip
ture. To every man who reads his Bible with atten
tion and submission of mind, their arguing proves
nothing, but the earnestness of their wishes to obscure
the evidence of truth. They would have it that future
punishment is temporary, and therefore it must be so.
The same word is used by our Lord to express the
duration of the life of the righteous and the punish
ment of the wicked ; and if the one is eternal, so must
be the other.
Time having run its course, eternity will commence.
The earth, on which men were appointed to act the
preparatory part, will pass away, or be changed, for
the precise import of the passages which relate to this
subject is doubtful. This chosen theatre of the moral
administration of God towards the human race, seems
to be no longer wanted, when all his designs are ac
complished. The event is announced in terms suitable
to its grandeur, which awaken in the mind an indis
tinct but awful idea of a tremendous display of al
mighty power. " The day of tbe Lord will come as a
thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass
away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt
with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that
are therein, shall be burnt up."* The impression
which the breaking up of the present system should
make upon us, is at the same time pointed out, and a
prospect is opened to us of a new order of things, of a
regenerated system, of an earth which will never be
polluted by sin, and of heavens whose brightness no
clouds will obscure, and whose serenity no storms will
disturb. "Seeing then that all these things shall be
dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in
all holy conversation and godliness ; looking for and
hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein
the heavens, being on fire shall be dissolved, and the
elements shall melt with fervent heat ? Nevertheless
we, according to his promise, look for new heavens
and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness."!
" The angels which kept not their first estate, but
left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlast
ing chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the
great day."! I have said nothing respecting them,
because the Scripture has furnished us with no details.
They will then be deprived of their present liberty,
and shut up for ever in Tartarus. Their punishment
will be augmented, and the end of the world is the
time of torment, to which they now look forward with
dread. "Art thou come to torment us before the lime ?"|)

LECTURE LXIV".
THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST.
The Kingdom conferred on the Mediator — Distinguished from
Christ's natural Kingdom— In what nature he administers ita
Affairs— Its Universality — View of it in Reference to the
Church — Inquiry into the Duration of the mediatorial King
dom and Office.
Having seen that our Lord, after his resurrection,
ascended to heaven, and sat down at the right hand
*2Pet.iii. 10. fib-"-13- tJaie6- II Matt. viii. 29

344

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

of God, let us inquire into the nature of the kingdom
which was conferred upon him. Before he left the
world, he said to his disciples, "All power is given
unto me in heaven and in earth."* David thus ad
dressed him, by the spirit of prophecy, "Thy throne,
O God, is for ever and ever : the sceptre of thy king
dom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness,
and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath
anointed thee with tbe oil of gladness above thy fel
lows."! His kingdom is expressly mentioned in this
passage ; and it is described by the usual ensigns of
royalty — a throne, on which the Monarch sits, and a
sceptre, which he holds in his hand as an emblem of
authority. The design of the sacred writer in using
these figures — for in the present case the words cannot
be literally understood — is to lead our thoughts to the
thing signified by them, the Sovereign dominion of
Christ. It is his mediatorial kingdom of which I am at pre
sent speaking, or the kingdom which belongs to him,
considered not simply as the Son of God, but as medi
ator. Upon due attention to the woTds already quoted,
and others of a similar import, it appears to be a king
dom given to him, a kingdom to which he was anoint
ed, a kingdom held by gift and delegation from God
his God, or the Father, who engaged in the eternal
covenant to reward his obedience with the empire of
the Universe. As the Son of God, he does not reign
by gift or delegation, but by original right; for, being
the Creator of all things, he is by necessary conse
quence their Governor, possessing absolute authority
over his own works, a power to continue, to change,
to annihilate them according to his pleasure, and for
the manifestation of his glory. Creatures are essen
tially dependent upon him who made them, for the act
of creation gave them being, but did not render them
self-existent; and this truth will be evident whether
we consider them as inanimate, or as endowed with
life and activity. As matter is known from experience
to be inert, incapable of changing its state, the move
ments and arrangements which we observe in the
material system, must be attributed to an external
cause, namely, the power of its Author. Living beings,
and particularly men, who are possessed of under
standing and will, often act capriciously and perverse
ly, so that no steady plan could be pursued, no design
worthy ofhis Maker could be accomplished, if he did
not constantly interpose to restrain them within cer
tain bounds, and to overrule their actions to an end
very different from that which they contemplate. " He
doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and
among the inhabitants of the earth."! He maketh
the wrath of man to praise him, and the remainder of
it he restraineth."|| Such is the natural government
of the Son of God over the works of his hands, visible
and invisible, on earth and in heaven.
His mediatorial kingdom is not different in respect,
if I may speak so, of its territory and its subjects
When we say that he received a kingdom from the
Father, we do not compare him to an earthly monarch,
who, reigning over one country by original right, ac
quires dominion over another by inheritance or by con
quest. A new kingdom in this sense was impossible ;
for where should it have been found, since already
every region of space acknowledged his sway? In
order to prevent confusion of ideas, and to avoid per
plexing ourselves with the inquiry, how Jesus Christ
could receive a kingdom, if he was from the beginning
Lord of all, we have only to consider his mediatorial
kingdom as being his original kingdom, invested with
a new form, wearing a new aspect, administered for a
new end. The proper view of the subject is this : that

* Matt, xxviii. 1.
II Ps. Uxvi. 10.

f Ps. xiv. 6, 7.

X Dan. iv. 35.

our Saviour being, as — mediator, the servant of the
Father, was authorised by him to conduct, in subser
vience to the design of his office, the affairs of the
universe, which had always been under his direction.
Strictly, his investiture with a kingdom was his inves
titure with a right to exert the power which he had
always possessed, for a specific purpose, namely, the
salvation of the church; and it may be imperfectly
illustrated by supposing a son, who was conjoined
with his father in the kingdom, to begin by his consent
a new system of administration, with a view to the
good of his subjects. In this case his power would
not be augmented, but it would be exerted in a differ
ent series of operations. In consequence of his ad
vancement to this kingdom, the mediator makes all
things directly or indirectly, by a more remote or a
nearer influence, work together for the establishment,
the trial, the purification, the increase, the final triumph
and perfection of that select society, which he redeem
ed with his blood, and which is placed under his im
mediate care. He is " bead over all things to the
church which is his body."* Hence we perceive that
they err, who confine his mediatorial kingdom to the
church, not considering that, while it is the chief ob
ject ofhis attention, the whole system of things is so
managed as to be subservient to its interests; in the
same way as, by the constitution of nature, the earth,
with its mountains and valleys, its springs and rivers,
and various, productions, was designed to minister to
man. " All things are yours ; whether Paul or Apollos,
or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things
present, or things to come; all are yours, and ye are
Christ's, and Christ is God's.!
In consequence of this constitution, the course of
events is changed, not sensibly, but in respect of the
influence which they exert, and the point in which
they will terminate. While the providence of our
exalted Redeemer extends its vigilance and care to
every being and every occurrence, there is one design
which is contemplated and pursued amidst the ever-
varying scenes of the world. There is a plan within
a plan; and that which is least considered, and by
many is entirely overlooked, is first in his intention,
and will be most glorious in its completion. When
this plan is finished, the complicated machinery by
which it was carried on will be demolished ; the succes
sion of generations will stop; the frame of society will
be dissolved; and the heavens and the earth which
now are, will be annihilated or changed. Jesus Christ
reigns as the King of his church ; and that he may
afford all the protection and advantage to his people
which they need and expect, he is also King of the
world. Empires rise and fall, individuals are born
and die, the Gospel visits one country and retires from
another, under his superintendence and agency. Angels
descend from their bright abodes to minister to the
heirs of salvation, and grace falls gently like the dew
upon the souls of his people, to prepare them for a
more perfect state. As a King, he distributes royal
gifts: "Therefore, being by the right hand of God
exalted, and having received of the Father the promise
of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye
now see and hear."! To his kingdom, as it respects
the church, your attention will be afterwards more
particularly directed.
The mediatorial kingdom is administered by our in
carnate Redeemer. This is a view of the subject, which
demands particular attention. The kingdom is admin
istered by Jesus Christ, considered not simply as a di
vine person, but as a divine person united to human na
ture, which shares in the dignity and glory of his stale
of exaltation. Human nature was the organ by which
he manifested his love to our race. Having assumed

* Eph. i. 22, 23. f 1 Cor. iii. 21—23. { Acts ii. 31.

THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST.

345

it, he humbled himself, endured the contradiction of sin
ners and the evils of life, and submitted to the ignomi
nious death of the cross. May we not conceive that our
nature is the organ, by which he manifests the glory
which the Father has conferred upon him, as the reward
of his voluntary and meritorious sufferings ? Let me
not be understood to insinuate, that it is now endowed
with divine perfections. I know that, as it is a created
nature, its powers must always be comparatively limit
ed, although enlarged beyond calculation, so as to leave
the loftiest angel at an inconceivable distance. It is in
human nature that he is contemplated and acknowledged
by angels and men in heaven, as the Lord of all worlds.
In the symbolical descriptions of his exaltation, he ap
pears as " a lamb that had been slain," that is, in his as
sumed nature, which alone was capable of suffering and
dying;, and is hailed by the voices of ten thousand times
ten thousand around the throne, and by a chorus of praise
from every part of the creation. According to the Psalm
ist, it is man whom God " has crowned with glory and
honour :" it is man whom he has " set over the works
of his hands ;" it is under the feet of man that he has
put the " fowl of the air and the fish of the sea, and what
soever passeth through the paths of the seas."* From
the commentary of an apostle, we learn, that these things
are spoken of our Saviour-! I' 's Dy man that the last
and solemn act of the divine government will be perform
ed, when the millions of mankind shall be assembled be
fore the tribunal, and judged according to their works.
" As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given
to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him
authority to execute judgment also, because he is the
Son of man. Marvel not at this ; for the hour is coming,
in the which all that are in their graves shall hear his
voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done good,
unto the resurrection of life ; and they that have done
evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."!
Revelation unfolds to our wondering eyes, a view of
the state of the universe altogether new. The conclusion
to which reason conducts us, is, that He who created
all things, upholds them by his power, and guides them
by his wisdom. This conclusion is not contradicted,
but rather is confirmed by the Scriptures, which throw
new light upon this as well as other truths which were
formerly known, and extricate it from the obscurity and
perplexity in which it was involved by the speculations
of science falsely so called. We still say that men and
angels, beings visible and invisible, animate and inani
mate, are sustained by the almighty arm which gave them
existence, and are subject to its controul. But instruc
ted in the personal distinctions of the godhead, which un
aided reason could not have discovered, we learn that the
administration of universal jiature is the peculiar province
of Him, who, on the ground of a mysterious relation, is
called the Son ; and that he exercises this high office in
human nature, which, by an act equally mysterious, he
has made his own. To this wonderful fact we rever
ently give our assent ; but perhaps it is not so often, and
so distinctly present toour minds as it ought to be, when
its importance is considered ; and we are apt to forget,
when we are surveying tbe diversified scenes of crea
tion, that every movement is effected by him who died
upon the cross, as a sacrifice for out sins. What an in
teresting thought, that heaven and earth are obedientto
the voice of one who is bone of our bone, and flesh of
our flesh, and who retains amidst his glory the feelino-s
of a friend and brother ! What honour has God confer
red upon our nature, by setting it far above all princi
palities, and power, and might, and dominion, and every
name that is named, both in this world and that which
is to come. It was this instance of the divine goodness,
which excited the admiration and gratitude of the holy
Psalmist, when, contemplating the heavens, he burst

* Ps. viii. 4.

2T

fHeb. ii 6

X John v. 26—29.

out into this devout exclamation, "What is man, tbat
thou art mindful of him, and the Son of man that thou
visitesthim ?"* This is the true system of the universe,
full of consolation and hope to believers, although phil
osophers may be ignorant of it, or may treat it with
scorn. " The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice ; let
the multitude of the isles be glad thereof. Clouds and
darkness are round about him ; righteousness and judg
ment are the habitation of his throne."!
I have already said, tbat the mediatorial kingdom of
Christ is a gift of the Father, and properly ought to be
considered as the recompense of his humiliation and suf
ferings. This connexion is stated in the following pas
sage, which at the same time gives a sublime view of
the exalted state of our Redeemer, and shows the un
limited extent of his dominions. " Let this mind be in
you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who being in the
form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
God ; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon
him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness
of men : And being found in fashion as a man, he hum
bled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly
exalted him, and given him a name which is above every
name ; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things un
der the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."!
It appears from this and other passages, that nothing is
exempt from his authority. He gives law to matter,
and to the irrational tribes; he commands the armies
of heaven ; he claims the inhabitants of the earth as his
subjects ; he rules over the spirits of darkness ; he is the
Lord of the dead and of the living. But it is not neces
sary to our present purpose to take a minute survey of
his mediatorial kingdom in all its extent. Let us view
it in relation to the church, which is the peculiar object
of his care, and for the sake of which all power in heav
en and on earth was given to him. The proper object
of his mediatorial kingdom is the church, although it
embraces many other things ; the world engages his at
tention no farther than it is subservient to the present
good and final salvation of the church : " Yet have I set
my King upon my holy hill of Zion."||
I remark, in the first place, That, having ascended
to heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father,
he founded the church by the ministry of his apostles.
During his personal ministry, he announced that the
kingdom of heaven was at hand. The disciples, im
bued with Jewish prejudices, asked, after his resur
rection, "Wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom
to Israel ?"§ dreaming of a temporal monarchy. It
commenced on the day of Pentecost, when he poured
out the Holy Ghost upon his disciples, to qualify them
for the work of preaching tbe gospel, and erecting the
church. Peter, referring to what they had witnessed,
called upon the Jews to consider it as a proof of the
great authority with which our Redeemer was invested :
" He being by the right hand of God exalted, and hav
ing received of the Father the promise of the Holy
Ghost, hath shed forth this which ye now see and
hear. Therefore let all the bouse of Israel know as
suredly, that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye
have crucified, both Lord and Christ."1T Having van
quished on the cross the god of this world, be proceed
ed to rescue from bis power unhappy men whom he
had long held in bondage, and to make them the sub
jects of his own kingdom. The difficulties with which
the enterprise of the apostles was attended, were many
and formidable; sufficient, it mjght have been thought,
to render their endeavours abortive. There never was
an undertaking, the failure of which might have been

* Ps. viii. 4.
U Ps. ii. 6.

f Ps. xcvii. 1, 2.
j Acts i. 6.

t Phil. ii. 5—11.
T lb. ii. 33—36.

346

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

more confidently predicted. Were twelve fishermen to
convert the world to a religion repugnant to their for
mer notions, and habits, and tastes, and to unite the
most hostile sects in one society of love ? What folly
in uneducated men to make an attempt which would
have been too arduous for the learned and the eloquent !
Yet they did succeed ; and Christianity obtained such
an interest in the minds and affections of thousands,
as paved the way for. its subsequent diffusion over a
considerable part of the earth. Jews and Gentiles
were brought together in holy fellowship ; and a com
munity of faith, and worship, and interest, was estab
lished among men of different countries and languages.
The design of employing instruments so inadequate,
in respect of natural talents and accomplishments, was
to illustrate the power of Jesus Christ, and to show
that be is the author of the second as well as of the
first creation. "The Lord shall send the rod of thy
strength out of Zion : rule thou in the midst of thine
enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of
thy power."* The first act of royal authority which
he performed after ascending his throne, was to estab
lish his kingdom upon earth; and tbe means corres
ponded to its nature. It is a spiritual kingdom; and
was not erected by force of arms, but by the persua
sive influence of the truth, and the invisible operations
of grace. " He shall come down as rain on the mown
grass, and as showers that water the earth."! The
kingdom of heaven came not with observation, with
noise and external pomp ; but its progress was silent
and gradual, and was illustrated by the apt similitude
of seed cast into the ground, which springs and grows
up, a man knows not how. On the day of Pentecost,
a train of events commenced, which will ultimately
realize the vision and the prophecy. A stone, cut out
without hands, brake in pieces the image which Nebu
chadnezzar saw; and it became a great mountain, and
filled the whole earth. This is the interpretation : —
" In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven
setup a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed:
and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but
it shall break in pieces and consume all these king
doms, and it shall stand for ever."!
In the second place, He prescribed the form and
order of his church, enacting laws and ordinances to
be observed in it, and claiming absolute authority over
the souls and consciences of the members. Before he
ascended to heaven — for even then be possessed regal
power, although he had not been formally invested
with it — he appointed baptism and tbe sacred supper,
and commanded the Gospel to be preached ; and after
wards he enabled the apostles, by the spirit of wis
dom, to arrange all the parts of the system. The
church is a voluntary society in this sense, that no
person is compelled by force to enter into it, and he
only is a genuine member who has joined it from con
viction and choice; but there is this important differ
ence between it and other voluntary societies, that the
members have no right to settle the terms of their
union, but must implicitly submit to its original con
stitution. Strictly human legislation has no place
here; the proper province of the rulers is to execute
the laws already made by the sovereign ; their decrees
possess only subordinate authority, and are not bind
ing, except as they are declarative of his will. " One
is our Master, even Christ." "He is thy Lord, and
worship thou him."|| The duty of the church is to
submit to his authority; and it is not performed unless
his word be received as the only rule of faith and
practice, and every thing which is done in religion be
exactly conformable to his commands. In the world,
nis law may be disregarded and violated ; but it should

* Ps. ex. 2. t lb. lxxii. 6. t Dan. ii. 44.
|| Matt, xxiii. 8. P». xiv. 11.

be held sacred in the church, which is his kingdom.
In the exercise of his authority, he abrogated tho law
of Moses, which had been binding for fifteen hundred
years, ani was fondly supposed by the Jews to be of
perpetual obligation. He published a new and spirit
ual law, wh.'ch will continue in force till the end of
time; he removed the priests and Levites from the
altar, and established in their room apostles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors, and teachers; he changed the
nature of the society, by associating the Gentiles with
the Jews; he insdo all places sacred as well as Jeru
salem, and ordained that, from the ris:.ng to the setting
of the sun, incense rhouid be offered to his name, and
a pure offering. As soon as he had announced to his
disciples that all power was given to him in heaven
and in earth, he said, "Go j3 therefore, and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, ,»nd
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you :
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of
the world."*
The authority of Jesus Christ over the church, is
exclusive of the authority of man. Councils may be
assembled to declare the truth, and condemn heresies,
but they can make no new article of faith ; they may
regulate subordinate matters, the determination of
which lies within the sphere of experience and pru
dence; but they can neither increase nor diminish the
sum of our moral obligations. The supremacy claimed
by the Pope, is an invasion of the royal prerogative
of Christ, although he calls himself his vicar or sub
stitute. He has intruded into this office, and assumes
a paramount power; pretending to forgive sins, chang
ing the ordinances, and repealing the laws of heaven,
and extending his jurisdiction over the visible and the
invisible world. "He exalts himself above all that is
called God, and is worshipped ; and, as God, he sitteth
in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."
Hence, instead of being the vicar of Christ, he is justly
called Antichrist, his rival and antagonist, who has
usurped dominion over the church, and supplanted the
authority of its only lawful head by his own. The con
nexion between church and state has been generally,
and, as some think, uniformly productive of the same
evil, in a greater or a less degree. The alliance is
formed on this principle, that the church shall yield
something in return for the favour and protection of
the state. Without entering upon the question re
specting the lawfulness of civil establishments, I con
tent myself with remarking, that, if an earthly sove
reign is constituted head of the church, and its affairs
are conducted according to acts of parliament, a foreign
power is admitted, which, to a certain extent, secular
izes his kingdom, and intrenches upon his paramount
authority. The form of the church, under the present dispensa
tion, is not delineated with the same minuteness which
we observe in the law of Moses. There every thing is
prescribed, the place, and the times, and the ministers
of worship, the oblations to be presented, and the riteS
to be performed, in public and in private ; nothing is left
to human discretion. The New Testament furnishes
only an outline, or general principles deduced from oc
casional hints, and the example of the primitive times.
We are fully satisfied with the constitution of our own
church, as agreeable to the Scriptural model ; but find
ing that wise and good men adopt different views, and
are equally confident that they are conformable to the
apostolical standard, we should beware of contending
about the subject with the vehemence and bitterness of
zeal, which it has too often elicited ; and should culti
vate charitable sentiments toward those who hold the
same faith, although they do not, in all things, walk

* Matt, xxviii 19, 20

THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST.

347

according to the same rule. Above all, let us guard
against the narrow, unchristian idea, that we alone are
the true church, and consequently, that the kingdom of
Christ is confined to our little society. All belong to it,
who sincerely acknowledge him as their Lord, and are
willing to be guided by his word ; mistakes about inferi
or points, and occasional deviations, through ignorance,
from the rule which he has prescribed, will not hinder
them from being owned as faithful subjects. The king
dom of Christ is catholic. As it is universal by right,
so it comprehends within its boundaries all who believe
and obey the truth, however diversified by external pro
fession. Some of them may be found even in that pre
tended church, which is in reality a synagogue of Satan,
although it is not easy to conceive how they can retain
their allegiance to Christ wiihin the dominions of his
adversary ; but it is supposed that a remnant will be
left there to the last ; for immediately before the fall of
the mystical Babylon, this warning is given ; " Come
out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her
sins, and tbat ye receive not of her plagues ; for her sins
have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered
her iniquities."*
In the third place, He upholds the church throughout
all generations, by a constant succession of members.
The great promise of eternal life, which he has made to
his followers, will be performed in another world ; their
interest in his salvation secures them against the sting of
death, but not against death itself; each in his order, when
he has completed his term of obedience and trial, lies
down in the grave. When we observe the havock which
iS daily made among the ranks ofhis disciples, and see
those, who professed the truth, and evinced their sinceri
ty by the stedfastness of their faith and the devoted zeal
with which they served him, removed, one after another,
into the house of silence, where there is no work, or
wisdom, or device, we might be tempted to prognosti
cate the most gloomy result; and we naturally exclaim,
" Help, Lord, for the godly man ceaseth ; for the faith
ful fail from among the children of men." But, while
the individuals perish, the race remains : genus immor-
lale manel.] " Instead of the fathers, he takes the chil
dren ;" the places of those who have fallen, are supplied
by their own families, and more frequently by strangers ;
and thus his promise is fulfilled, that the gates of hell,
of a<F»!, the invisible world, into which the souls of the
departed enter, and the grave, which may be considered
as its portal, shall not prevail against the church. In
fulfilling this promise, several acts ofhis royal authori
ty and power are exerted. Having received from his
Father, after his ascension, the gifts of the Spirit, he
bestows them upon those persons whom he is pleased
to employ, to qualify them for preaching the Gospel,
which is the grand means of gathering subjects into his
kingdom of grace ; or, in the words of an apostle, "for
the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the minis
try, for the edifying of the body of Christ ; till we all
come in the unity qfthe faith, and of the knowledge of the
Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the
stature of the fulness of Christ."! Papists, and some
Protestants, boast of the regular succession of their clergy
from the apostles ; but the latter must acknowledge that,
as the Church of Rome was the medium of communica
tion, it is a very corrupt channel in which power has been
conveyed to them. This we know, that, in every age,
men have been found, who willingly consecrated them
selves to his service, and their labours havebeen crowned
with a blessing. Notwithstanding the opposition which
it may encounter, he preserves the Gospel in a particu
lar place, tili all the elect there are converted; and he
sends it into any country, where he has designs of mer
cy to accomplish, in spite of the efforts of men and de-

» Rev. xviii. 4. 5.
\ Eph. iv. 12, 13.

f The race remains immortal.

vils to exclude it. The power of Rome, wbich had
conquered the world, could not hinder the propagation
and triumph of the truth : and the obstacles lo its en
trance, or its progress, in India, in China, in Turkey, will
give way when the time to favour those regions iscome
The words of God respecting the temple, are equally
applicable to ihe opposition with which the spiritual
kingdom of the Messiah has to contend : " Who art
thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt
become a plain : and he shall bring forth the head-stone
thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it."*
He exerts a secret power upon the heart, which the
strongest prejudices and the most inveterate habits of
sin are not able to resist. As the kingdom of Christ is not
of this world, his servants do not fight for him ; and it
is only in a figure that the church is represented as " ter
rible, like an army with banners." Our religion forbids
the employment of external force in its propagation and
defence, and leaves it to Antichrist, who in the want of
arguments, has recourse to the sword, and terrifies into
compliance those whom he has failed to persuade. The
weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but they are not
therefore ineffectual. They are mighty, through God,
to pull down the strongholds of sin, to cast down lofty
imaginations, and to bring every thought into captivity
to Christ. There is no man who may not become a sub
ject of this kingdom. However remote he may now
be from this character, however hostile may be his sen
timents and feelings, he may undergo a change as sud
den and wonderful as that of Paul, who, from being a
persecutor, became an apostle, and a preacher of tbe
faith which once he destroyed. The grace of our exalted
Redeemer operates silently, but surely ; it always gains
its end ; and there are daily added to the church such
as shall be saved. "All they that be fat upon earth,
shall eat and worship : all they that go down to the dust
shall bow before him ; and none can keep alive his own
soul. A seed shall serve him ; it shall be accounted to
the Lord for a generation. They shall come, and shall
declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be
born, that he hath done this."!
In the fourth place, He defends the church against
her enemies. These may be considered as invisible
and visible. By the former, we mean the spirits of dark
ness, who have a kingdom of their own to maintain, the
overthrow of which will be the sure consequence of the
establishment of the kingdom of Christ. Besides the
the efforts which they make, by the instrumentality of
men who too readily concur with them, they labour im
mediately to accomplish their designs, by temptations
so contrived as to disquiet the faith of Christians, and
allure them into the paths of sin. How they are fitted
for the conflict, and by what means, although the strug
gle be severe and injuries be sometimes sustained, they
prove ultimately victorious, we learn from the following
exhortation ; " Take unto you the whole armour of God,
that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and
having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your
loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate
of righteousness ; and your feet shod with the prepara
tion of the gospel ofpeace; above all, taking the shield
of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the
fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of sal
vation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word
of God."! The truth, couched under this figurative
language, is, that grace is communicated to believers, by
which, if skilfully and actively employed, they shall ren
der abortive the attempts of their spiritual adversaries.
The power by which they conquer, is not their own,
but the power of Jesus Christ, and to him the glory of
the victory is due. The visible enemies of the Church
are ungodly men, and especially such of them as are
possessed of secular authority, or can boast of talents

* Zech. iv. 7. f F»- *»'¦ 29—31. \ Eph. vi. 13—16.

318

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

and learning, who, in many instances, have united to
arrest the progress of the truth by the terrors of the
sword, and to bring it into discredit by argument, mis
representation, and ridicule. Hitherto they have not
prevailed ; and experience shows us, as well as the word
of God, that we have nothing to fear from the greatest
efforts which they may yet make. The repeated perse
cutions to which the Church was subjected in the first
three centuries, are recorded in history. Every thing
was done by the combined wisdom and power of the
Roman empire, to crush the rising religion ; and hopes
were entertained and expressed, that the Christian su
perstition, so it was called, would be extirpated from the
earth. But it emerged from the scene of suffering and
blood, with increased stature and renovated strength,
still contending with paganism for the victory ; and the
struggle was closed by the conversion of Constantine,
who planted the cross upon the capitol of Rome- We
have heard of the dreadful conflict which the church had
to sustain with the antichristian power, of the cruelties
which where inflicted upon the friends of truth, and the
torrents of blood which were shed ; and how the faithful
were driven into obscure retreats, and compelled for
a long season to " prophesy in sackcloth." But at the
Reformation, the church rose from her ashes more
glorious than ever. Now, what has protected the fee
ble? what has given power to the faint? what has ena
bled the -minority to maintain a contest so alarm
ing to flesh and blood, and in which no human glory
would be gained ? It was the grace of Jesus Christ
which supported the faith and patience of his follow
ers ; it was his Providence which counteracted the de
signs of their enemies, and marked the boundary be
yond which their violence should not pass. " Ye are
of God, little children, and have overcome them; he-
cause greater is he that is in you, than he that is in
tbe world."* This is the declaration of him who sits
at the right hand of the Father: "No weapon that
is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue
that shall rise against thee in judgment, thou shalt
condemn."! The adversaries of Zion have succes
sively fallen, and, if their memorial has not perish
ed from the earth, their names are branded with infa
my ; but the church has survived the revolutions of
empire, and will continue a monument of the power and
love of her exalted Head, till he shall appear in the
clouds of heaven, to terminate the warfare, and to re
ceive his people into his eternal kingdom. " He must
reign, till all his enemies be put under his feet."!
Having taken a view of the Mediatorial kingdom of
Christ upon earth, chiefly in relation to the church, I ob
serve, in the last place, that he reigns in the kingdom of
glory. He is the Lord of the invisible, as well as of the
visible world, and nothing is done in either but according
to his will. Heaven was purchased with his blood, and
it is fit that to him should be committed the uncontrolled
disposal of its glories and joys. He ascended to take
possession of it as the reward due to his obedience and
death, and to prepare it for his followers. Seated upon
the throne, he sways the sceptre of universal dominion,
and wears a crown which will never fade away. Upon
earth his right to rule is disputed, and his authority is
resisted by men of corrupt minds, who do not choose to
submit their licentious liberty to the restraints of his
law ; but, in heaven, every tongue acknowledges him to
be Lord, and every heart rejoices to obey hirm To him
it belongs to admit into the kingdom of glory, or to ex
clude from it; for he opens, and no man can shut; he
shuts, and no man can open. When the saints die, he
receives their spirits into the mansions of rest, and as
signs his place to each individual ; for the rank which
they hold, and the degree of felicity wbich they enjoy,
are apportioned by his wisdom and love. Accordingly,

» John iv. 4.

t Isa. liv. 17.

} 1 Cor. xv. 25.

tbey are represented as prostrating themselves, and cast
ing down their crowns, in humble acknowledgment that
they hold them as the gifts ofhis bounty, not as the re
ward of their personal merit, or of the services which they
performed to him upon earth : " Thou art worthy, 0
Lord, to receive glory, and honour, and power."* The
angels join with them in adoration and homage: "Wor
thy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and
riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honpur, and glo
ry, and blessing."! We know little of the invisible
state ; the revelation is partial, and the notices are ob
scure ; but we are assured that it is under the adminis
tration of our Saviour, and that its inhabitants are hap
py under his care. His glory will not be always con
cealed. At the destined hour, he will appear in the
clouds, and display his power in pronouncing sentence
upon the assembled human race ; and every knee shall
bow before him, and every tongue shall confess that he is
Lord. There is a passage which is confessedly obscure, and
has exercised the diligence of commentators, upon
which, on account of its close connexion with the present
subject, it will be proper to bestow some observations :
" Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up
the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall
have put down all rule, and all authority and power.
For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his
feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then
shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put
all things under him, that God may be all in all."!.
It is evident that nothing in this passage can be un
derstood to import, that the time will come when the
Son, considered as the second Person of the Trinity,
shall be reduced to a state of inferiority to the Father.
If he is at present equal, the equality will ever continue,
because it is not founded on favour or temporary arrange
ment, but on the possession of the same essence and the
same infinite perfections. Between persons to whom
the same nature belongs, there may be a distinction of
order, but there can be no difference of rank and dignity.
In what sense, then, is it said that the Son himself shall
be subject to the Father ?
In order to obtain some light upon this point, it is ne
cessary to refer to what is said before : " Then cometh
the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom
lo God, even the Father." The words in the one place
serve to explain those in the other ; for what is first call
ed the delivering up of the kingdom to the Father, is af
terwards expressed by the subjection of the Son to him.
The kingdom which he will deliver up to the Father,
is not the kingdom pertaining to him as a Divine per
son having an original and indefeasible right to govern
his own works, to reign over his own creation. This
dominion is founded in the relation between him and
his creatures, and could be conceived to cease only by
their ceasing to exist. While they continue to be, he
cannot be divested of his authority either by the autho
rity of "another, or by his own voluntary act; not by
the authority of another, because he has no superior;
not by his own act, because he could not renounce the
essential prerogative of Godhead.
We have seen that there is another kingdom which
he possesses by gift, and which was conferred upon
him for a particular purpose, namely, that by his power
he might accomplish the design of his death upon the
cross, in the conversion and final salvation of his peo
ple. He rules, if I may speak so, in the Father's
place, and by delegated authority; and this arrange
ment is founded on their mutual counsels for the re
demption of the church. To the eye of faith, guided
in its researches into the economy of the universe by
the light of revelation, Jesus Christ appears seated

* Rev. iv. 11. f lb. ». 12. X ! Cor. xv. 24—26, 28.

THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST.

349

upon tbe throne, and exercising his mighty sway over
all its provinces. -
From this view of the mediatorial kingdom of Christ,
it is evident that the purpose for which it was estab
lished was temporary. Hence we perceive what may
be understood to be tbe meaning of " delivering up the
kingdom to God, even tbe Father." The kingdom
will end when its design is accomplished ; he will
cease to exercise an authority which has no longer an
object When all the elect are converted by the truth,
and being collected into one body, are presented to the
Father a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle,
or any such thing; when idolatry, superstition and
heresy are overthrown, and all evil is expelled from
the kingdom of God ; when the plans and efforts of
evil spirits are defeated, and tbey are shut up in their
prison, from which there is no escape; when death has
yielded up his spoils, and laid his sceptre at the feet
of his conqueror ; when the grand assize has been held,
his impartial sentence has pronounced the doom of the
human race, and tbeir everlasting abodes are allotted
to the righteous and the ungodly, nothing will remain
to be done by the power with which our Saviour was
invested at his ascension ; and his work being finished,
his commission will expire.
On this subject we cannot speak with certainty, and
are in great danger of error, because the event is future,
and our information is imperfect. Here analogy fails,
and the utmost caution is necessary in borrowing an
illustration from human affairs ; but, without insinuat
ing that the two cases are exactly similar, may we not
say that, as a regent or vicegerent of a king, to whom
the royal authority has been intrusted for a time, re
signs it at the close, and the sovereign himself resumes
the reins of government; so our Redeemer, who how
sways the sceptre of the universe, will return his dele
gated power to him from whom he received it, and a
new order of things will commence, under which the
dependence of men upon the Godhead will be imme
diate; and Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one in es
sence, counsel, and operation, will reign for ever over
the inhabitants of heaven. This is the probable mean-
ingof the words, " Then shall the Son himself be sub
ject unto him that put all things under him."
It may be objected, that what has been now said con
cerning the termination of the mediatorial kingdom of
Christ, is contrary to those passages of Scripture which
represent it as an everlasting kingdom. But, although
the objection is worthy of attention, it is not unanswer
able. The terms everlasting and for ever do not always
impart absolute eternity, but sometimes signify only a
long duration. The ordinances of the ceremonial law
are called " statutes for ever," although they have for
centuries been abolished, because they were to con
tinue throughout all the generations of Israel. The
kingdom of the Messiah is contrasted with the king
doms of men ; and in tbe book of Daniel, where the
epithet everlasting is applied to it, it is opposed to the
four great monarchies of ancient times, and notice is
given that, while they should disappear in succession,
it would survive all civil commotions and political
changes, and be commensurate with tbe world itself.
It will not cease till the frame of nature is dissolved,
and then it will merge in the eternal kingdom of God.
The glory of having once possessed this kingdom, and
administered it with wisdom and righteousness, will
ever remain to him, and will call forth a tribute of
praise from the countless myriads of his subjects.
Perhaps the words of tbe apostle may be understood
to import the termination not only of the mediatorial
kingdom, but of the mediatorial office; for he says,
that the Son will be subject to the Father, that " God
may be all in all ;" that a new mode of intercourse
with the divine nature may commence, and the com
munion be immediate and complete.

In the present state, we have not immediate access
to the Father; our fellowship is carried on through the
mediation of the Son. Even after men have been re
conciled to him, the interposition of the third person
is necessary, that their friendship may not be broken
by their daily transgressions, and that the purity of
bis nature may be unsullied by his intercourse with'
the frail and guilty children of the dust. Hence it
was necessary, that Jesus Christ should continue a
priest after he had died upon the cross, and should
enter into heaven with his own blood, to make interces
sion for us. When the present dispensation has come
to an end, this necessity will no longer exist. The
design of the mediation of Christ, was to bring men
back to God, by sacrifice and intercession. It is ac
complished, when pardoned, purified, and translated
from earth to heaven, they are so holy that their Maker
can look with unqualified approbation upon his own
work, and, as in the beginning, pronounce it to be
good. May we not, therefore, conceive the mediation
to terminate like any other plan, in the execution of
which the intention of the contriver has been fulfilled ?
Why should intercession continue, when there are no
sins to be forgiven, and; no wants to.be supplied, and
when the objects of redeeming love are established in
a state of perfection beyond the possibility of failure?
It will still be true, that Jesus Christ did once sus
tain, and gloriously execute, the high office of media
tor between God and man. He will still be the object
of the love, and gratitude, and praise of the saints. He
will still shine as the sun of the celestial world. The
millions of the redeemed around the throne will still
be the monuments of his triumph. The exercise of
his office will cease for the most honourable of all rea
sons, because its end has been fully gained ; but the
glory of it will be for ever celebrated in the songs of
the blessed: "Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy
blood." What has now been said, is proposed solely as a
probable opinion ; it would be presumptuous to speak
confidently upon a subject so obscure. There are
some passages of Scripture which seem to militate
against the idea of the termination of the mediatorial
office of our Saviour. His continued agency in this
character, may be inferred from the declaration, that
the Lamb will be the light of the heavenly city.* B«.
the apparent discrepance will be removed by conced
ing, as we most willingly do, that he will retain all
the honours due to him as the person who achieved
the redemption of the church ; and that the great mani
festation of the divine glory which will engage the
attention of the saints, will be that which is made in
him as the incarnate Son and servant of the Father.
Again, it is said, that " the Lamb who is in the
midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead
them unto living fountains of waters;"! and hence it
may be inferred, that he will continue the exercise of
his office as the medium through which the happiness
of the saints will be communicated. But the words
admit of an interpretation in perfect unison with our
doctrine ; for the felicity of the world to come will be
the exclusive effect of his mediation, and it will be
owing solely to bim, that they who were reconciled to
God upon earth, have immediate access to his throne,
and know even as they are known.
Onee more, it is said of him as mediator, that he
ever liveth to make intercession.! But the word for
ever, as we have already said, does not always denote
eternity; for the ordinances of the Mosaic dispensa
tion are called statutes for ever, although they were
abolished by the death of Christ. The passage now
quoted may therefore be understood to signify nothing
more, than that his intercession will last till its der

* Rev. xxi. 23.

t lb. vii. 17.

1 Heb. vii. 25.

350

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

signs are accomplished. He ever lives to make inter
cession, and does not die like the sacrificing and in
terceding priests of the law; as he reigns for ever, or
from age to age, and does not, like earthly princes,
descend from the throne and lie down in the grave.
"When this work is finished," says Dr. Owen,
"then shall all the mediatory actings of Christ cease
for evermore; for God will then have completely
finished the whole design of his wisdom and grace in
the constitution of his person and offices." He adds,
"I would extend this no farther than as to what con-
cerneth the exercise of Christ's mediatory office with
respect to the church below, and the enemies of it.
But there are some things which belong to the essence
of this state which shall continue unto all eternity."*
I subjoin the words of Dr. Smith: "When all the de
signs (of the kingdom of Christ) are accomplished,
the mediatorial system as to all these (its present)
modes of exercise shall cease; Christ will no longer
have to act as a redeemer and saviour, the number of
his elect will have been accomplished, and his church
presented perfect and complete to himself, and to his
Divine Father; as a faithful ambassador, whose com
mission is finished, he will honourably give it back to
him who appointed him, and will return to his own
personal station, as the Divine and Eternal Son; and
then will a new order of the moral universe commence,
and tho unspeakably vast assemblage of holy crea
tures, delivered and for ever secured from sin and
misery, shall possess the immediate fruition of the
Father. In his sovereign love the scheme of media
torial redemption originated, and its blessed comple
tion shall be, in the most sublime and eternally ad
mirable manner, "unto the praise ofhis glory." God
will be all things in all to those happy beings."!

LECTURE LXV.
ON THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION.
Tbe Application of Redemption: its Necessity, and what it
implies — External Means of it: the Word and Ordinances —
Difference between the External and Internal Call of the
Gospel — The latter the work of the Holy Spirit — Proof that
Conversion is the Ell'ect of Divine Grace.
The purchase of salvation was made by Jesus
Christ in the character of high priest, when he paid
the price ofhis precious blood. But although it was
the consequence of this transaction, that the salvation
of his people was certain, yet something farther was
necessary to make them actual partakers of it. Not
withstanding the propitiatory sacrifice of the cross,
they come into the world in a state of guilt and depra
vity, and often remain in that state for a considerable
time. It might seem to us consonant to justice, that
the atonement having been made, the benefit of it
should be enjoyed by every individual for whom it
was offered, as soon as he is in a capable state; or
that, in the first moment ofhis existence, he should be
set free from the curse of the law, and regenerated by
the Spirit even in the womb of his mother. We find,
however, that such is not the case ; and in order to ac
count for it, we should reflect, that God is not bound
by our notions of fitness and propriety, which are often
founded on narrow views; that reasons are manifest
to his understanding, which give rise to a procedure
different from what we should have expected ; that he
had an undoubted right, when he purposed the redemp
tion of mankind, to settle according to his own will
the season and order of its application; and that the

* Owen on the Person of Christ, chap. xix. xx.
f Smith's Scripture Testimony, Book iv. chap. 4.

demands of justice will be fully satisfied, if all the
elect are delivered from condemnation and misery,
whether the event take place at an earlier or a later
period. It is enough, that the terms of the covenant
which was made with Christ are ultimately fulfilled.
The grand stipulation was, that if " he would make
his soul an offering for sin," he should "see of the
travail ofhis soul and be satisfied;"* and all the cir
cumstances relative to the communication of its bene
fits, were the subject of subordinate arrangements.
The sovereignty of God in the dispensation of grace
is displayed, not only in the selection of the persons,
to whom it is exercised without any reason on their
part, and often with a disregard of the grounds of
human preference ; but also in calling some of them at
the first hour, and others not till the last. With respect
to the time, nothing that we know of is necessary, but
that they should be called during the course of their life,
beyond which the season of mercy does not extend.
The purchase of Redemption by Christ in the cha
racter of our Priest, secures the salvation of his people.
But, as they are by nature children of wrath even as
others, they must undergo a change both relative and
real; relative in respect of the law, by being acquitted
from its charges, and real in respect of their views and
dispositions. In the language of Scripture, "their
blind eyes must be opened, and they must be turned
from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan
to God, that they may receive the remission of their
sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified
through faith which is in Christ."! Accordingly, the
divine procedure towards them is represented in the
following order : " Whom he did predestinate, them
he also called; and whom he called, them he also jus
tified;" and these are preliminary steps to their final
salvation: for, "whom he justified, them also he
glorified."! The external means which God employs in the ap
plication of redemption, are his ordinances, and parti
cularly his Word, read and heard. " It is the power
of God unto salvation to every one that believes. "||
Some, indeed, have supposed, that there is a revela
tion of grace, (which, however, they acknowledge to
be obscure) in the dispensations of providence. They
can only mean, that there are such appearances in the
course of the moral government of God, as may lead
to the conclusion that he is placable, and will pardon
sinners who repent. It is enough to say that, with
respect to this revelation, the Scriptures are silent, or
rather they virtually deny it, while they declare that
it is from themselves alone that we derive authentic
information of his gracious designs. We see his
goodness and patience in providence; but, although
thoughtless men may infer, that he is an easy indul
gent Being, and such a one as themselves, the indica
tions of nature will not relieve from its fears, a mind
conscious of guilt and deeply sensible of demerit. By
a person under a conviction of sin, the anxious ques
tion will be asked, " Wherewith shall I come before
the Lord, and bow myself before the Most High
God ?"§ and ignorant of the effectual means of appeas
ing his wrath, he will be ready to offer his flocks and
herds as an atonement, and even his first-born son, as
men have sometimes done in the madness of despair.
If there is a revelation of grace in the dispensations
of providence, the abettors of this opinion may be
called upon to produce instances in which it has been
effectual to turn sinners to God. Nothing is more
vain than speculations concerning what may be ; let
it be shown that the thing has actually happened.
Where shall we find those converts of natural light?
Is it among the ancient philosophers who talked of

* Is. liii. 10, 11.
|| Rom. i. 16.

t Acts xxvi. 18.
{ Mic. vi. 6.

J Rom. viii. 29, 30.

THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION.

351

virtue, but did not practise it ? Is it among modern
heathens, who, amidst the dreadful penances to which
some of them submit for tbe expiation of their sins,
discover gross ignorance of the character of God, and
of the genuine nature and spirit of religion?
This opinion has been adopted by a late writer in
his New Literal Translation of the Epistles, with this
difference, that he traces the notions entertained by
heathens of the placability of tbe divine nature, to the
source of revelation. "The heathens in general,"
says Dr. Macknight, "believed their deities placable,
and, in that persuasion, offered to them propitiatory
sacrifices, and expected to be pardoned and blessed by
them even in a future state. But these hopes they did
not derive from the law or light of nature, but from
the promise which God made to the first parents of
mankind. For that promise being handed down by
tradition to Noah and his sons, they communicated
the knowledge thereof, together with the use of sacri
fices, to all their descendants. So that the hope of
pardon and immortality, which tbe pious heathen en
tertained, was the very hope which the gospel hath
now clearly brought to light, and was derived from
the same source, namely, from divine revelation."*
It seems from this statement, that the heathens have
the means of salvation without the written Word. It
may be objected that Paul expressly affirms, that men
are justified by faith, which implies a revelation of the
Saviour, and seems to exclude those who have not
been favoured with it ; for he tells us that it comes by
hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. But, fatal
as this objection' may be deemed to his hypothesis,
this writer removes it with great ease by a definition
of faith contrived for the purpose. "Faith does not
consist in the belief of particular doctrines, far less in
the belief of doctrines which men never had an oppor
tunity of knowing, but in such an earnest desire to
know and do the will of God, as leads them conscien
tiously to use such means as they have for gaining the
knowledge of his will, and for doing it when found.
And inasmuch as the influences of the Spirit of God
are not confined to them who enjoy revelation, but are
promised in the gracious covenant made with mankind
at the fall to all who are sincere, a heathen by these
influences may attain the faith just now described, and
thereby may please God. For faith is more a work
of the heart than of the understanding. So that, al
though the persons to whom revelation is denied, may
not have the same objects of belief with those who
enjoy revelation, they may have the same spirit of
faith."! Nothing is wanting to this scheme but evi
dence of its truth, proof that the influences of the Spirit
are communicated to heathens, and that faith consists
in a sincere desire to know, and a disposition to do,
the will of God. Such proof this celebrated theolo
gian has neglected to give. He asserts these things,
and then reasons from them, as if they were self-evi
dent, or had been established by a prior demonstration.
It is curious to observe, how, having laid down his
arbitrary definition of faith, he proceeds with as much
confidence as if it were an axiom, to explain by it the
Epistle to the Romans, and other passages in the
writings of Paul. If you peruse his works with at
tention, you will find many instances of gratuitous as
sumption ; and indeed there is hardly any author who
more freely deals out his ipse dixit] as argument both
in doctrine and in criticism, or who is more remark
able for wresting and misinterpreting the Scriptures.
The present hypothesis is a baseless fabric; it is false
in all its parts, and is such a barefaced contradiction of
the doctrine of the Apostle, as is not surpassed by the
most perverse commentary upon his writings.

* Com. on Romans, chap. i. View.
} He said:" his say so.

f lb. chap. ii. View.

While I deny, that there is any revelation of grace
but in the Scriptures, and any external means of sal
vation but the word and the ordinances of the Chris
tian religion, I admit, that the dispensations of provi
dence are subservient to God's merciful designs.
They can be considered, however, only as subordinate
means, operating in concurrence with the word, and
having no efficacy without it. By calamities, and
dangers, and the prospect of death, men may be
awakened to a concern foT their souls; but they will
not return to God, and obtain the well-grounded hope
of future happiness, till their minds are directed to the
Scriptures, in which pardon is promised to believers.
"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word
of God."* "The" grace of faith," says our Confes
sion, " whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the
saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ
in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the min
istry of the word; by which also, and by the adminis
tration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased
and strengthened."!
The Word of God consists of two principal parts,
the Law and the Gospel, which are both employed in
the conversion of sinners. " By the law is the know
ledge of sin."! When it is applied to the conscience,
it shows the sinner his depravity and guilt, makes him
sensible of his danger while he is under its curse, and
convinces him of his utter inability to relieve himself,
because he is incapable of obeying its precepts, and
of satisfying for his manifold violations of them.
These discoveries create an earnest desire for deliver
ance from the. wretchedness of his natural state, and
prepare him to accept it when offered to him; but they
are calculated in themselves to drive him to despair,
and would have this effect if they were alone. But the
Gospel comes with its proclamation of mercy, exhibits
the Saviour in his fulness of merit and grace, makes a
free offer of his salvation to sinners, and calls upon every
man to accept the gift of God with gratitude, and in tbe
exercise of faith. It is evident that it is the Gospel
which is properly the instrument of conversion, and tbat
the law is only subsidiary, by'producing that state of
mind in which salvation becomes desirable, and with
out which it will be regarded with indifference, and the
preference given to the transitory interests of the present
life. It is by the Gospel that true penitence is awaken
ed, which implies not only the fear of wrath, but the
hatred of sin arising from the love of God. The mind
is enlightened, the heart, is changed, and all those ex
ercises which are called the graces of the Spirit, as
faith, and love, and hope, and submission, and a de
sire for perfection, are excited by its doctrines and
promises. God externally calls men by his word, which is ad
dressed to persons of every nation, of every condition,
and of every character. " Unto you, O men, I call ;
and my voice is to the sons of men." " Go into all
the world, and preach the Gospel to every oreature."||
It has been affirmed, indeed, that all men are not the ob
jects of this call, but that it is confined to sensible sin
ners ; by whom are meant persons who have been awak
ened, and are serious in their desire for salvation.
So far, indeed, has this idea been carried, that some
have denied that the Gospel should be preached to sin
ners, as such, in the common acceptation of the word.
They will preach it before them, but not to them ; that
is, they will not offer salvation to them, and invite them
to believe. The plainest points of theology have been
made the subjects of controversy and misrepresentation.
This is one of the refinements of orthodoxy, and has
been deduced from high notions respecting the decrees ;
but it happens to be in direct opposition to many pas-

•Rom.x. 17.
1 Rom. iii. 20.

¦f Conf. xiv. 1.
j| Prov. viii. 4. Mark xvi. 15.

352

DICK'S DECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

sages of Scripture, and particularly to the commission
of Christ to the apostles, which was quoted above. I
do not approve of the method of some divines, who have
endeavoured to explain away those passages of Scrip
ture in which sensible sinners are supposed to be ad
dressed, and to show that the characters by which they
are described are applicable to sinners in general. It is
the way of disputants, who are more zealous than wise,
to make every thing bend to their favourite opinion.
Surely we may grant, that awakened sinners are. some
times the objects of the invitations of Scripture, as it
would be surprising indeed if no particular notice were
taken of them; and, at the same time, we may believe
that the offer of salvation is universal. It was a mixed
congregation, or rather a congregation composed entire
ly of unbelievers, (for they were all Jews and proselytes,
who then for the first time beard the Gospel,) whom
Paul addressed in the following words : — " Be it known
onto you, men and brethren, that through this man is
preached unto you the forgiveness of sins."* After the
cure of the lame man in the temple, Peter did not in
quire whether those who crowded around him were the
elect, or sensible sinners, but said, without hesitation, to
the whole multitude, " Repent ye, and be converted, that
your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refresh
ing shall come from the presence of the Lord."! To
preach the Gospel, is to proclaim pardon through Jesus
Christ, to every man who shall believe ; and as this is
the sense in which it is commonly understood among us,
so it will appear, I am persuaded, to every unprejudiced
person, to be the Scriptural meaning of it. " Whosoever
will, let him come, and take of the water of life freely."!
God calls men externally by his word. But as the word
is preached to all men without distinction, it follows,
that he calls many to whom he has purposed not to give
salvation. A question, therefore, naturally arises, What
is the reason of this procedure, and how can it be recon
ciled with his sincerity? The difficulty is substantial
ly the same in the system of those who admit that God
had a certain knowledge of future events, whether they
are followers of Calvin or Arminius. For how shall
we account for his conduct, in not only offering salva
tion to men who he knows will not accept it, but in us
ing the most earnest entreaties, and cogent arguments,
to persuade them ? I acknowledge that the difficulty,
although it presses upon both systems, is greater in that
of those who hold the doctrine of absolute and uncondi
tional decrees ; because it follows from this doctrine,
that God does not intend to bestow salvation on the re
probate; while the others are at liberty to ascribe to
him the intention, if they can only reconcile it with the
foresight of the event, and explain how, in innumerable
cases, it should fail of the effect. Several distinctions
have been proposed, in order to throw some light on this
dark subject. The external call, it has been said, is ex
tended to the elect and the reprobate in a different man
ner. It is addressed to Ihe elect primarily and directly,
the ministry of the Gospel having been instituted for
their sake, to gather them into the church, insomuch
that, if none of them remained to be saved, it would
cease. It respects the reprobate secondarily and indi
rectly, because they are mixed with the elect, who are
known to God alone, and consequently it could not be
addressed to them, without the reprobate being includ
ed. This dispensation has been illustrated by rain,
which descending upon the earth according to a general
law, the final cause of which is the fructification of the
soil, falls upon places where it is of no use, as rocks and
sandy deserts. Again, it has been said, that the end of
the external call may be viewed in a twofold light, as it
respects God, and as it respects the call ; and these may
be distinguished as the end of the worker, and the end of
the work. The end of the work, or of the external call, is

* Acts xiii. 33.

t lb. iii. 19.

X Rev. xxii. 17.

the salvation of men, because it is the natural tendency
of the preaching of the Gospel to lead them to faith and
repentance. But this is not the end of the Worker, oi
God, who does not intend to save all who are called, but
those alone to whom he has decreed to give effectual grace.
I shall not be surprised to find that these distinctions
have not lessened the difficulty in your apprehension.
While they promise to give a solution of it, they are
neither more rtbr less than a repetition of it in different
words. I shall subjoin only another observation, which
has been frequently made, that, although God does not
intend to save the reprobate, he is serious in calling them
by the Gospel ; for he declares to them what would be
agreeable to him, namely, that they should repent and
believe, and he promises, most sincerely, eternal life to
all who shall comply. The call of the Gospel does not
show what he has purposed to do, but what he wills
men to do. From his promises, his theatenings, and
bis invitations, it only appears that it would be agree
able to him that men should do their duty, because he
necessarily approves of the obedience of his creatures,
and that it is his design to save some of them; but the
event demonstrates that he had no intention to save them
all ; and this should not seem strange, as he was under
no obligation to do so.
Mr. Burke, in his treatise concerning the sublime and
beautiful, has observed, when speaking of the attempt
of Sir Isaac Newton to account for gravitation, by the
supposition of a subtle elastic ether, that "when we go
but one step beyond the immediately sensible qualities
of things, we go out of our depth. All we do after, is
but a faint struggle, that shows we are in an element
which does not belong to us." We may pronounce, 1
think, these attempts, to reconcile the universal call of
the Gospel with the sincerity of God, to be a faint
struggle to extricate ourselves from the profundities of
theology. They are far indeed from removing the dif
ficulty. We believe, on the authority of Scripture, that
God has decreed to give salvation to some, and to with
hold it from others. We know, at tbe same time, that
be offers salvation to all in the Gospel ; and to suppose
that he is not sincere, would be to deny him to be God.
It may be right to endeavour to reconcile these things,
because knowledge is always desirable, and it is our
duty to seek it as far as it can be attained. But if we
find that beyond a certain limit we cannot go, let us be
content to remain in ignorance. Let us reflect, however,
that we are ignorant in the present case only of the
connexion between two truths, and not of the truths
themselves, for these are clearly stated in the Scriptures.
We ought therefore to believe both, although we can
not reconcile them. Perhaps tbe subject is too high
for the human intellect in its present state. It may be,
that however correct our notions of the Divine purposes
seem, there is some misapprehension which gives rise
to the difficulty. In the stridy of theology, we are ad
monished at every step to be humble, and feel the ne
cessity of faith, or an implicit dependence upon the tes
timony of Him who alone perfectly knows himself, and
will not deceive us.
When we say that the Word of God is the external
instrument of conversion, we must be understood to
speak of persons who are capable of knowing and be
lieving it. As infants are not fit subjects of instruction,
their regeneration must be effected without means, by
the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit on their souls.
There are adult persons, too, to whom the use of rea
son has been denied. It would be harsh and unwar
rantable to suppose that they are, on this account, ex
cluded from salvation ; and to such of them as God
has chosen, it may be applied in the same manner as
to infants. This is the doctrine of our church : "Elect
infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved
by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and
where, and how he pleaseth ; so also are all other

THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION.

353

elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly
called by the ministry of the word."*
The word of God, which reveals truths so great and
interesting, is calculated to illuminate the minds of
men, to impress their consciences, and to excite their
affections. But. often it either entirely fails to produce
these effects, or produces them only in such a degree,
tha,t no radical and permanent change ensues. We af
firm that the Word is the ordinary instrument, but we
deny that it is the efficient cause of conversion. We
are borne out in this assertion by the express and re
peated declarations of Seripture, from which we learn
that Paul may plant, and Apollcs may water, but God
gives the increase-! Hence we distinguish between
the external and the internal call, of which the former
extends to all to whom the Gospel is preached, while
the latter takes place only in case of the elect. The
Cause of the difference which we observe in the hearers
of the Gospel, of whom some believe, and others re
ject it, is not free-will, but Divine grace, which wrorks
effectually in the former, to will and to do.
This is the doctrine of our church, and, as we shall
endeavour to show, is also the doctrine of Scripture.
But, as it directly tends to humble the pride of man,
to annihilate his pretensions to merit, and to appro
priate to God the whole glory of his salvation, it is
not palatable to his vitiated taste, and hence it has met
with much opposition in ancient and modern times.
Pelagius and his followers maintained that our na
ture was not corrupted by the fall : that we come into
the world in the same state of innocence in which
Adam was created ; that we have free-will, and are
able to do good if we please. According to this sys
tem, such a change as we mean by regeneration or
conversion is unnecessary. They did, indeed, talk of
grace, and Divine assistance in the performance of
good works ; but these words were used solely in
compliment to the phraseology of Scripture, and to
impose upon those who might be so simple as to be
satisfied with sounds, without inquiring into the sense.
When they explained their own meaning, the illusion
vanished. "The grace of God, and the assistance
which he affords us to preserve us from sinning," says
Augustine, " they place either in nature and free-will,
or in the law and doctrine; so that when God is said
to assist men to shun evil, and to do good, nothing
more is meant than that he shows them by revelation
what they should do." Thus tbey admitted only the
external call. Men were indebted to God solely for
the knowledge communicated by his word, and the
exhortations addressed to them in it; the use which
was made of these depended entirely on themselves.
In modern times, the doctrine of Pelagius has been
adopted by Socinians, and some of the followers of
Arminius, who have carried the principles of the sect"
to the utmost length. With respect to the necessity
of Divine grace, and the degree in which it is neces
sary, there has been a variety of opinions, distinguish
ed by slight shades of difference, which it would be
tedious and useless to enumerate. An opinion which
has been maintained by many, both Papists and Pro
testants, is that of sufficient grace, which has been de
fined to be " grace by which God so calls, excites,
and is ready to assist men, in directing, protecting,
and co-operating with them, that they are, indeed,
able to will, to believe, and be converted, and do good
works, although they do not actually will it." It is
the same with universal grace, which is so called be
cause it is given to all men. God, who is willing to
save all men, has given them sufficient means of faith
and repentance ; but these means are subject to free
will, which has the power to use this grace or not, to
believe or not to believe. Some have gone so far as to

* Conf. chap. x. 5 3.
2U

t 1 Cor. iii. fi.

23

maintain, that God was bound by the new covenant to
furnish every man with this grace, because otherwise
he would have been chargeable with demanding from
us what we had not strength to perform.
Similar sentiments are general, and are entertained
by many who have not studied the systems in which
they are defended, and do not arrange themselves un
der the standard of Pelagius, or Arminius, or any
other heresiarch. They are agreeable to human na
ture ; they seem to arise spontaneously in the mind.
It is supposed that we have a power to convert our
selves, not so strong perhaps as it originally was, but
still sufficient, especially if we are favoured with pro
per means and opportunities ; that God is ready to as
sist our sincere endeavours ; that, although we must
be indebted, in some degree, to his grace, our conver
sion depends chiefly upon ourselves ; and that, if we
will only reflect seriously on the subject of religion, and
resolve in earnest to forsake our sins, the purposed
change will be effected. This doctrine is taught from
the press and the pulpit; is received in its most un
qualified form, without any doubt of its truth, by the
grossly ignorant, who, almost in every place, consti
tute the majority ; and, by some who affect to be more
wise, is regarded, when set out in proper phrases, as
the pure Gospel of Christ.
In opposition to all the modifications of error upon
this subject, we affirm, that conversion is effected by
the almighty grace of God ; that, although man does
concur in it, he is in the first instance passive, and
his concurrence is the consequence of supernatural
power communicated to him ; and that he does not
come to God till he is effectually called by the opera
tions of the Holy Spirit in his soul.
The truth of this doctrine appears from tbe accounts
given in Scripture, of the corrupt state of mankind by
nature. They are said to be not only diseased and
weak, but " to be dead in trespasses and sins ;"* to be
not only blind, but "darkness" itself;! to be "natu
ral" or animal men, who "do not receive, and cannot
know, the things of the Spirit ;"! to be " the servants
of sin ;"|| to be " the enemies of God,"§ who are not
and cannot be subject to his \aw.% Now, if these
things are true, how is it possible that men have free
will to good as well as to evil ; that they possess a
degree of moral power, which, by culture, may in
crease in strength, so as to change the current of their
affections and actions ; that with some assistance they
can work out their salvation ? It is not sufficient to
open the eyelids of a blind person, to pour the full
blaze of light upon his face ; you must remove the im
pediment of vision, or form the organ anew. It is not
sufficient to go to the grave of a dead man, and with a
loud voice call upon him to arise; you must bring
back his spirit from the invisible regions, and unite it
again to his body. It is not sufficient to tell the slave,
that his condition is wretched and degraded, and to
awaken his natural desire for liberty; you must break
his fetters, and rescue him from the power of his op
pressor. The situation of the sinner is more hopeless
than that of this man ; for he is a willing slave, he
hugs his chains, he thinks himself already free, and
despises the liberty which the Gospel offers, as the
most grievous bondage. There is, indeed, a differ
ence between a person physically, and one morally
dead. The body in the grave is destitute of all life,
and has lost all its energies ; while the sinner is still
a rational being, and is capable of acts of understand*
ing and will. But he is divested of every moral
habit; he cannot discern spiritual things in a spiritual
manner, nor choose what is spiritually good, till his
natural powers be renovated and invigorated. Hence.

* Eph. ii. 1.
1] Rom. vi. 17.

t lb. v. 8, etc.
§ Col. i. 21.

X 1 Cor. ii. 14.
T Rom. viii. 27.

354

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

" the light shines in darkness, and the darkness com
prehends it not."* Hence, although commanded and
exhorted, and addressed by every argument, to return
to the service of God, he refuses, till he be roused and
persuaded by something of greater efficacy than the
clearest demonstration, and the most impressive ora
tory which men can employ.
The necessity of almighty grace to the conversion
of the soul, is farther evident from the terms which
are used to describe its operations, as a creation, a re
surrection, a new birth, the taking away of the heart
of stone, and the giving of a heart of flesh. Surely
something more is implied in such terms, than an ex
ternal proposal of the truth, or such faint assistance,
that it remains in our power to accept or reject it at
our pleasure. If the words and phrases employed by
the Holy Ghost have any meaning, they import such
an exertion of Divine power as was made in bringing
all things at first out of nothing, and in raising Laza
rus or Christ from the grave ; or is still made in the
production of organised bodies out of pre-existing ma
terials, and infusing into them a principle of life.
How do such expressions agree with the notion, that
God merely persuades us, as one man persuades an
other, by rational arguments ; or, that he merely af
fords us a little help, as we give our arm to a person
who is able to walk, but, labouring under a certain de
gree of weakness, might stagger and fall if he were
left alone ? How could he be said, upon this supposi
tion, to create us, to raise us from a state of death, to
give us a heart entirely new ? It would not comport
with the wisdom of God, whose design in the Scrip
tures is to give us just and accurate notions of his dis
pensations, to use expressions which obviously signify,
that the work of converting sinners is wholly his own,
while something very different is intended, and the
truth is, that they convert themselves. If we would not
cast a reflection upon him, as having spoken loosely,
and in such a manner as to mislead us, we must con
clude that a mighty and uncontrollable power is dis
played in the regeneration of the soul. It-is no objec
tion, that sinners are commanded to " make" to them
selves " a new heart, and a new spirit," to " repent
and turn" to the Lord-! One passage of Scripture
should be compared and explained in consistency with
another ; and we must therefore infer, that such com
mands do not suppose any power in man to obey them,
but are intended to point out his duty, to declare, not
what he can do, but what he ought to do, and what he
will do when God enables him by his grace. Upon
this view of such commands, is founded the celebrated
Saying of Augustine in his Confessions : Da quod ju-
bes, et jube quod vis, " Give what thou commandest,
and command what thou wilt."
I may mention, as another proof, all those passages
of Scripture which represent divine grace as necessary
to the reception of the world ; and consequently, the
external call as insufficient to accomplish the end.
The Psalmist prays, that God would open his eyes, to
see wondrous things out of his law:! and Paul, that
God would give to the Ephesians tbe spirit of " wis
dom and revelation in the knowledge of Christ."||
These prayers suppose something more than an exter
nal proposal of the truth, which David and the Ephe
sians already enjoyed, and would have been super
fluous, if they had possessed, in their own minds, the
power of spiritual discernment. Our Saviour is said
to have opened " the understandings" of the disciples
" to understand the Scriptures ;"§ not only to have
explained the Scriptures to them, but to have enabled
them to apprehend their meaning, by an internal ope
ration on their minds. Lest, however, this passage

* John i. v .
|| Eph. i. 17.

f Ezek. xviii. 30, 31.
j Luke xxiv. 45.

X Ps. cxix. 13.

should be supposed to refer to a miraculous illumina
tion, intended to qualify them for the apostolical office,
let me remind you of what is said of Lydia, that the
" Lord opened her heart, tbat she attended to the
things which were spoken of Paul."* There was noth
ing in her case, which required a peculiar interposi
tion, and we must therefore consider what was done to
her, as done to all who are converted. The opening of
the heart, or an exertion of divine power upon the un
derstanding and tbe will, is necessary to dispose men
to attend to the Gospel, and to receive it with faith.
It is not the word itself which opens the heart, as if
nothing more were necessary to conversion than the
use of external means ; but this is a work of God, dis
tinct from the exhibition of the truth. The opening
of the heart signifies the removal of the obstructions,
whether arising from the prejudices or the influence of
corrupt inclinations, and can be effected only by him,
who "makes old things pass away, and all things be
come new." The distinction between the preaching
of the word, and the application of it by divine power,
is stated in other passages. " Our gospel came not
unto you in word only, but in power, and in the Holy
Ghost."! " I have planted, Apollos watered ; but
God gave the increase. So then, neither is he that
planteth any thing, neither he that watereth ; but God
that giveth the increase."! If ministers are said to
be workers together with God, it is only because they
perform the external and subordinate office of preach
ing the word, and administering the other ordinances
of religion. It is the Spirit of God who has access to
the soul, and "turns it as the rivers of water."
In the last place, I may refer you to those passage8
of Scripture, which attribute to God an internal and
immediate agency upon the soul in conversion, as
when he is said to work in us " both to will and to
do;"|| "to fulfil in us the work of faith with power ;"§
to work in us " that which is well-pleasing in his
sight ;"^f to put his laws within us, and write them in
our hearts ;** to give us a new heart, and to put a
right spirit within us, that we may walk in his stat
utes, and keep his judgments-!! These expressions
cannot be softened down, to mean only that he pre
sents sufficient motives to incline our hearts to obey ;
or that he affords us such a degree of assistance, as
may prove altogether ineffectual. There is an implied
contrast between the mode in which men operate upon
one another, and the action of God. They propose
objects, and endeavour to fix the attention upon them,
and to awaken activity by arguments and persuasives ;
but he moves and changes the heart.
We conclude, from these arguments, that as the ex
ternal call is by the Word, the internal call is by the
Spirit. The persons of the Godhead have each a pe
culiar province in the work of redemption. As it orig
inated with the Father, on whose love the eternal pur
pose of saving sinners was founded, and was obtained
by the obedience and death of the Son, so it is applied
by the Holy Ghost, the author of spiritual wisdom, and
faith, and holiness, and consolation. Hence, this office
is expressly ascribed to him. He is called " the Spirit
of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Christ."!!
God promises, as we have already heard, to " put his
spirit within us, that we may walk in his statutes, and
keep his judgments, and do them."|||| In a word, we
are said to be born of the Spirit. " Except a man be
born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God."§§
When our Lord taught this doctrine to Nicodemus,
he did not understand it, and seems to have totally mis-

* Acts. xvi. 14. f 1 Thess. i. 5. f. 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.
]| Phil. ii. 13. 6 2 Thess. i. 11. H Heb. xiii. 21.
** lb. viii. 10. ff Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27.
tt Eph. i. 17. |||| Eiek. xxxvi. 27. {{ John iii. 5.

THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION.

355

apprehended tbe subject, so great was his ignorance of
one of the first principles of religion, although he was
a teacher among the Jews, or, the teacher, by way of
eminence, as the original imports, in which he is called
iStfztrxcLxec. " How can a man be born when he is old ?
Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb,
and be born ?"* There is not the same gross miscon
ception among Christians ; but many of them wonder
as much, when the necessity of regeneration is assert
ed, and may be addressed in the words of our Saviour,
.— " Marvel notthat I said unto thee, ye must be horn
again."! No man will wonder at the doctrine, who
believes upon tbe authority of Scripture, and is con
vinced by experience, that human nature is wholly de
praved. Admitting this principle, he will perceive
that men must undergo a radical change, to qualify
them for entering into the kingdom of heaven, and that
it can be effected only by the almighty power of God.
The doctrine gives rise to no dispute among those who
are awakened to a just sense of their moral condition by
nature. As they rejoice that God has promised to re
new us after his image, and has for this purpose sent
the spirit of grace, so it is tbeir earnest prayer, that
they may be the subjects of his operations, and thus be
enabled lo love and serve their Creator and Redeemer.
The doctrine is opposed by cold hearted speculatists, by
men full of prejudice and lofty notions of the dignity of
human nature, who will not stoop to be absolute debtors
to divine grace. Hence they make every effort,by wrest
ing the Scriptures, and by an apparatus of sophistical ar
guments, to reserve to themselves, wholly, or in part, the
glory of conversion, if they admit that there is such a
thing. But all things are of God in redemption, as well
as in creation. Every good thought, every devout emo
tion, every holy action, is the effect ofhis grace ; for " we
are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good
works, which God hath before ordained that we should
walk in them."!
Nothing is a clearer proof of the alienation of man
from God, than his reluctance to receive this doctrine,
and others of a similar nature. The idea which we
should naturally form of a holy and devout creature is,
that he would feel his obligations to his Maker as ben
efits; that, with ineffable pleasure, he would render
the due return of gratitude and praise for favours al
ready conferred ; and that, if I may speak so, he would
open his soul to receive new communications of his
goodness. But man, blinded by prejudices, elated with
pride, admiring himself, and seeking his own glory,
would break all the ties of dependence, and be the arti
ficer ofhis own fortune in this world, and in the next.
We cannot conceive an angel in heaven to be actuated
by such sentiments and feelings ; to balance accounts
with his Creator, and to settle how much he owes to
himself, and how much to the author of his being.
This strange procedure is reserved for our world where
the most helpless of all creatures, through a singular
infatuation, boast of their powers ; and, when the arm
of Omnipotence is stretched out to assist them, deem
their honour engaged scornfully to reject its aid. Such
is the conduct of those who cavil at the doctrine of re
generating grace, and labour to prove, by an array of
what they deem rational arguments, that man can at
tain, by hts own efforts, the moral excellence which
the Scripture pronounces to be the gifjt of Heaven.

LECTURE LXVI.
ON THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION.
Farther Observations on the Spirit's Agency in Conversion —
Divine Grace, its Mode of Operation and its Invincibility —

* John iii. 4.

f lb. 7.

* Eph. ii. 10.

Its Effect, Regeneration — The Change Implied in Reg-cnera-
tion, Illumination of the Mind and Renovation of the Will 
Consequences. The application of redemption commences with the
call of God, by which sinners are brought from a state
of nature into a state of grace. This call is external
by the gospel, in which salvation is offered to them,
and they are invited and commanded to receive it ; and
internal by the Spirit, who persuades and enables them
to comply. The former is ineffectual without the lat
ter, as we showed from the corruption of human nature,
which has sunk into a state of complete spiritual disa
bility, and from the express and varied language of
Scripture, which ascribes our conversion to the power
of God, and represents its influence upon our minds
and hearts as indispensably necessary to our cordial
reception of the truth.
The many passages to which we referred obviously
teach, that the true cause of the efficacy of the external
means is, the invisible power of God silently influen
cing the soul. Unless the Scriptures were intended to
mislead us by the use of figurative and hyperbolical
language, which means much less than meets the ear,
or means something very different from what the terms
naturally suggest, there can be no doubt that our doc
trine is legitimately deduced from them. It maybe
asked in what other manner the inspired writers would
have expressed themselves, if it had been their ac
knowledged intention to teach that, besides the exter
nal call of the word, there is necessary the internal call
of the Spirit, and that this consists in an exertion of
power, the object of which is not merely to assist us,
as if we possessed a certain degree of strength, but to
perform the whole work, and to leave us only the of
fice of concurring in its progress ? Would they have
made use of any other terms, or, in the whole compass
of their vocabulary, could they have found terms more
appropriate to their design, or which would have more
definitely pointed out the exclusive operation of Om
nipotence? What more could any person have said,
who intended to signify that the spiritual change of
the soul is the work, not of himself, but of God, than
to call this change a creation out of nothing, and a res
urrection from the dead?
We have seen that, notwithstanding the explicit tes
timony of Scripture, many attempts have been made
to assign to men an important agency in the application
of redemption. Pelagius, who denied original sin, at
tributed it wholly to ourselves, and spoke of Divine
grace only in deference to the phraseology of Scripture,
and in compliance with the common language of Chris
tians. When he said that God enlightens us by his
heavenly grace, he meant nothing more than that he
has given an external revelation. All are followers of
Pelagius, who maintain that man is by nature possess
ed of a power to comply with the call of the gospel.
Some talk of sufficient grace, and others of concursive
grace, understanding in fact the same thing, namely, an
ability given to all men to believe, so that those who do
actually believe are not more indebted to God than un
believers, but may take praise to themselves for having
made a better use of their power : in direct opposition
to Scripture, which declares that it is not of him that
willeth, but of God that showeth mercy.
We shall not be surprised at the attempts which have
been made to bring forward man, as in whole or in
part, the author of his salvation, if we reflect upon the
pride of his heart, which prompts him, like our first pa
rents, to aspire to be a God, possessing not only the
knowledge of good and evil, but also the power to do
the one as well as the other. To gratify this principle,
Scripture is tortured and perverted, and is made to
speak a language most foreign to its obvious design,
and to the unquestionable sentiments of the writers.
We may remark also in this, as in other cases, the un-

356

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

happy influence of philosophy, falsely so called, upon
the doctrines of revelation. The sentiments of the an
cient sects of philosophers have been introduced into
Christianity, and have produced the unhallowed com
pound of what is called rational theology. The power
of man to make himself virtuous was held by them all :
many professed disciples of Christ have chosen rather
to adopt their proud and presumptuous conclusions,
than to acquiesce in his humiliating lessons. When
some divines talk of the human heart as the true source
of virtue, and of the necessity of its originating in our
independent choice, that it may possess the nature of
virtue, we seem to be listening to a philosopher of the
Porch, who described his good man as superior to the
gods, because the latter were virtuous by nature, while
the virtue of the former was derived from himself.
When we ascribe conversion to the grace of God, it
is necessary to ascertain the meaning of the term grace,
which, in Scripture, bears a variety of senses. It some
times signifies the free favour of God, or his unmerited
love, considered as the source of our salvation, and of
all our blessings and privileges : " Who hath saved us,
and called us according to his own purpose and grace,
which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world
began."* It signifies again the gospel, in which the
love of God is revealed, and by which the blessings
flowing from it are communicated. This is the saving
grace of God, which " hath appeared to all men,"! and
the grace of God which we are exhorted " not to receive
in vain."! Lastly, the term is used to denote the oper
ation of Divine love upon the soul, as when Paul says,
" By the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace
which was bestowed upon me was not in vain."|| It is
in this sense that we speak of the grace of God, when
we call it the efficient cause of the conversion of sin
ners. In speaking of spiritual things, we are often under the
necessity of employing terms originally intended to ex
press material objects, and we are always in danger of
tranferring to the former, ideas borrowed from the lat
ter. The grate of God is sometimes spoken of, and
sometimes probably conceived, as if it were something
substantial, something distinct from, and inherent in the
soul, like a portion of matter mingled with another, by
which its qualities are corrected or changed. But it is
manifest, upon the slightest reflection, that such notions
are improper when applied to a spiritual subject. The
grace of God must be understood to signify simply his
power freely exerted to produce a change in the moral
state of the soul, or, by a metonymy, the change itself,
the name of the cause being given to the effect.
It is not contrary to the analogy of nature, that the
grace of God, as denoting the exertion ofhis power up
on the soul, should be employed in the conversion of
sinners. It is certain, from reason as well as from the
express declarations of Scripture, that creatures are de
pendent upon their Maker for the continuance of tbeir
existence, and the exercise of their faculties. As the
various parts of creation are linked together, and afford
each other mutual support; as the heavens fertilize the
earth, the earth supplies its inhabitants with food, its
inhabitants propagate their kind, rear their offspring,
and co-operate for the purposes of society; so the whole
system is supported by the providence of God, as the
Heathens acknowledged, when they represented it as
suspended from the throne of Jupiter by a golden chain,
and his energy as the primary cause of its movements.
It is no objection that we cannot explain the manner in
which God acts upon his creatures, if the fact is certain,
that it is owing to his constant influence that we live,
and think, and will, and move our limbs, and perform
all our bodily and mental functions. " In him we live,
and move, and have our being." There is no such dif-
* 2 Tim. i. 9. f T'"„ :':. 11- \ 2 Cor. vi. 1. || 1 Cor. xv. 10.

ference between this case and the conversion of sinners,
that we sho :ld hesitate to concede in the one what we
admit in the other. If the influence of Providence in
upholding, exciting, and directing us, is not destructive
of our rational nature, I should wish to know upon what
ground the influence of grace, in giving us new moral
inclinations and habits, is supposed to be subversive of
it. The operation of the power of God in regeneration,
may be considered as of the same kind with its opera
tion in providence, although it is exerted for a different
purpose. Some, indeed, may choose to say that it is
of a different kind, lest we should confound nature and
grace, and represent grace only as nature carried to a
higher degree of perfection. But this danger is ima
ginary. There are two powers in God ; but his energy
is one, and is distinguished by the objects on which, and
the ends for which, it is exerted. It is the same power
which creates, and upholds in existence: the same pow
er which forms a stone and a sunbeam ; the same pow
er which gives vegetable life to a tree, animal life to a
brute, and rational life to a man. In like manner, it is
the same power which assists us in the natural exercise
of our faculties, and enables us to exercise them in a
spiritual manner. Hence it does not appear that there
is any reasonable ground on which we should reject the
doctrine of regenerating grace, any more than the doc
trine of providential influence.
That the grace of God, in ihe application/of redemp
tion, is mighty, may be inferred from the effect. It is a
change of the whole man, ofhis views, and principles,
and inclinations, and pursuits. Now, this is a change
which no means merely human have ever been able to
accomplish. Not to mention the total failure of philoso
phy to reform mankind, or even in a single instance to
inspire true virtue, we may remark, that the superior
instructions, and precepts, and motives of Christianity,
although employed with great diligence and earnestness,
prove so often ineffectual, as to convince every person
of reflection, tbat when they do take effect, their success
should be attributed to a higher cause than their intrin
sic excellence, or the eloquence of the teachers. The
hand of God is clearly seen in the sudden, command
ing, and lasting impressions which are often made upon
the mind. When the thoughtless are compelled to think,
and to think with an intenseness and seriousness which
they never formerly felt; when the careless are in a mo
ment affected with a sense of their most important inter
ests : when the lips which were accustomed to blaspheme,
learn to pray; when the proud assume the lowly attitude
and language of the penitent ; when those who were de
voted to the world, give evidence that now the object of
their desires and pursuits is a heavenly inheritance ; and
when this revolution, so wonderful, has been effected
by. the simple word of God, and by the word which the
subjects of this change, had often heard before unmoved,
we must be convinced that some mighty influence has
been exerted, and that that influence is divine. Here,
if anywhere, we perceive the finger of God. Hence his
power is represented as displayed in the success of the
Gospel ; " The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength
out of Zion : rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy
power."* The power of God, exerted in the regeneration and
conversion of sinners, is invincible. I make use of this
term rather than the word irresistible, because, when
the latter is taken in its natural import, it does not ex
press what is the fact. Resistance is made to the
grace of God, not only by the finally impenitent, but
also by those who ultimately yield to it. In particu
lar, when they begin to feel convictions of sin, they
often endeavour to suppress them, or resort to im
proper expedients for relief; " going about," for exam-

* Ps.cx.2,3.

THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION.

357

pie, " to establish their own righteousness, and not
submitting to the righteousness of God."* In these
instances, they are chargeable with opposition to
grace. Those, therefore, who speak of irresistible
grace, mean that it cannot be finally resisted ; that it
will overcome all the efforts of corrupt nature to coun
teract its design ; and that it will ultimately render
sinners obedient to the faith. But this idea is more
properly expressed by the term, invincible. Man
must submit in the end to tbe power of God ; and this
will be the more evident, if we consider that his power
is not only sufficient to compel the most refractory to
yield, although with the greatest reluctance, but that
it can take away the spirit of opposition, and so in
fluence the hearts of men, that this submission shall
be voluntary.
Were we to say that the grace of God is not invin
cible, we should be under the necessity of adopting
the opinion, which we have already proved to be un-
scriptural, that there is a power in man to comply or
not to comply with the call of the Gospel. We should
take the work of conversion out of the hand of God,
and commit it to man himself. After God had done
all that he could do for our salvation, it would depend
upon ourselves whether the intended effect should fol
low. Hence the result of the dispensation of the Gos
pel would be altogether uncertain. It would not be
known beforehand whether all would believe, or all
would disobey. If the grace of God was effectually
resisted in one case, it might be effectually resisted in
every case ; and, consequently, although Christ shed
his blood that he might bring sinners to God, and the
whole economy of grace has been instituted with a
view to carry the design of his death into effect, it
might happen that not an individual of the human race
would be saved. The very possibility of such an is
sue, by which the scheme of redemption would be
frustrated, furnishes a strong presumption in favour
of the doctrine, that the grace exercised in the conver
sion of sinners is not of such an equivocal character,
that it may or may not accomplish its design, but that
its operation is mighty and efficacious, bearing down
all opposition, and " bringing into captivity every
thought to the obedience of Christ."
The great objection against the invincibility of Di
vine grace is, that it is subversive of the liberty of the
will. It seems inconceivable to some, that a man
should be free, and at the same time should be infal
libly determined to a particular purpose. But, the ob
jection proceeds upon a misapprehension of the mode
of operation. The idea occurs of external force, by
which a man is compelled to do something to which
he is averse. It is not considered that the power
of grace is not compulsive ; that it puts no force upon
our minds; that, instead of disturbing our mental con
stitution, it goes along with it ; and that, in a manner
at once natural and supernatural, it secures the concur
rence of the will. True liberty consists in doing what
we do, with knowledge and from choice ; and such
liberty is not only consistent with conversion, but es
sential to it ; for if a man turn to God at all, he must
turn with his heart; God does not lead us to salvation
without consciousness, like stones transported from
one place to another; nor without our consent, like
slaves who are driven to their task by the terror of
punishment. He conducts us in a manner suitable to
our rational and moral nature. He so illuminates our
minds, as we shall afterwards see, that we most cor
dially concur with his design. His power, although
able to subdue opposition, is of the mildest and most
gentle kind. While he commands, he persuades ;
while he draws, the sinner comes without reluctance :
and never in his life is there a freer act of volition
* Rom. *. 3.

than when he believes in Christ, and accepts of his
salvation. It is an important question on this subject, whether
a sinner is merely passive in the first moment of his
conversion, or his will co-operates with the grace of
God ? It will facilitate the answer to it, if we distin
guish between regeneration and conversion. Those
who, with Pelagius, deny original sin, and maintain
that there is no depravity in us, but what has been
contracted by our own acts, make regeneration to con
sist in a voluntary change and reformation of life; and
therefore hold that man is a worker with God from the
commencement of it. Indeed, according to this scheme,
God merely commands him to reform, and he obeys
by his own power. But, according to the Scriptures,
regeneration is a change effected by divine grace in the
state of the soul, the supernatural renovation of its fa-
cullies, the infusion of a principle of spiritual life. It
is evident that, if this is a just definition, the sinner is
passive ; for, till divine grace is exerted upon him, he
is incapable of moral activity, and, in the language of
inspiration, is " dead in trespasses and sins." He is
in the same situation with a man who is literally dead,
and who, when lying in the grave, cannot contribute
in any degree to the restoration ofhis life. He is like
Lazarus, who had no concern in his own resurrection,
knew not that our Saviour had come to his sepulchre
to deliver him from death, and could not have obeyed
the voice which called upon him to come forth, if the
power which accompanied it had not brought back his
spirit from the invisible world, and re-united it to his
body. Regeneration is the effect of preventing grace,
or of grace which precedes our endeavours, and ope
rates alone. Conversion is the turning of the soul to
God, and is expressed by our seeking the Lord, our
coming to him, our forsaking our evil ways, and turn
ing to him, and by other phrases which import activity,,
and allude to the motion of the body in changing its
place. It obviously implies the exercise of repent
ance and faith, the love of God, and the choice of his
service ; and these are positive acts of the soul. In
this view, the sinner co-operates with the grace of
God. He does not aid grace, or render it effectual by
the exertion of his own natural power, but he yields
to it, goes along with it, and works under its influence.
Let it be carefully observed that, while we say that
the sinner, although passive in regeneration, is active
in conversion, we do not ascribe to him any indepen
dent activity, or represent any part of the work as pro
perly his own. His province consists solely in con
currence. He acts because he has been acted upon.
The motion of his soul towards God is the effect of the
Spirit of life, who has entered into him, as the motion
of the body is the effect of his inward thoughts and
volitions. His conversion is, therefore, wholly of
grace, that is, to grace are owing both the power to
turn to God, and the actual exercise of that power ;
and his own convictions on this subject accord with
the sentiments of Paul, who says, "I laboured more',
abundantly than they all ; yet not I, but the grace of
God which was in me."*
Regeneration, I have said, Is a change of the moral
state of the soul, a renovation of all its faculties. It
constitutes the sinner a new creature, not in respect of
his essence, but ofhis views, and habits, and inclina
tions. It is the introduction, of a new and powerful
principle into the soul, under the influence of which
its natural faculties are exerted in a different manner
from that in which they were formerly employed ; and
in this sense, " old things pass away, and all things
become new."! ^s thoughts are new, the ob
jects of its choice are new, its aims and motives are
new ; and by this internal revolution, the external de-

1 Cor. xv. 10.

f 2 Cor. r. 17.

358

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

portment is affected. The infusion of divine grace,
ike the ingrafting of a tree, alters, if I may speak so,
the quality of the soul ; so that, instead of the sour
and crabbed fruits which it formerly produced, it now
yields fruit of the most excellent kind, acceptable to
l*od and to men. The instrument of the change, as
we have already observed, is the Word of God ; and
the agentis his Spirit, who, moving as in the begin
ning of time upon the dark and turbulent mass, re
duces it to order.
The first effect of divine power in the new, as in the
old creation, is light. The regeneration of the soul
commences with the illumination of the mind. " God,
who commanded the light to shine out of darkness,
hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."* When
our Saviour gave Paul a commission to the Gentiles,
he sent him " to open their eyes, and to turn them
from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan
unto God."! By the same means his own conversion
was accomplished ; for he tells us, that " when it
pleased God to reveal his Son in him, immediately he
conferred not with flesh and blood."! This, indeed,
must be the mode of procedure in every conversion,
because God will always act upon us according to the
nature which he has given us; and his purpose being
to make us willing and obedient, there is no way in
which it can be accomplished, but by the communica
tion of clear and impressive views of truth to the mind.
The Scriptures are a perfect revelation of the will of
God, containing all the doctrines which we are required
to believe, and all the precepts which we are bound to
obey. But, although their instructions are full, plain,
at least with respect to every essential point, and ad
mirably fitted to arrest the attention and engage the
heart, yet the human mind is so blinded by prejudices,
so captivated and misled by the illusions of sense,
and the maxims of worldly wisdom, that it either re
jects the information which they bring, or contents it
self with a cold and careless assent to it. An unre
newed man may have perused the Scriptures, and may
have acquired such distinct notions of the subjects of
which they treat, as to be qualified to be a teacher of
others, but at the same time he does not perceive their
real excellence, nor experience their spiritual efficacy.
Hence it is evident that, while he remains under this
mental incapacity, the intended effect of the word will
not be produced, and that an operation is necessary,
analogous to that performed upon the eyes of a blind
man to admit the rays of light, or upon the eyes of a
man whose vision is imperfect, to enable him to see
objects distinctly.
The illumination of the mind does not consist in the
discovery of unknown truths. To represent this as the
design of it, would be derogatory to the fulness of the
Scriptures, and would furnish those who are not con
verted, with the apology, tbat they do not possess ad
equate means, if there were some truths necessary to
be known, which are not contained in written revela
tion. " The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the
soul ;"|| that is, it is sufficient for conversion as an
external mean, and there is no defect which needs to
be supplied. Enthusiasts may talk of dreams and vi
sions, and revelations, but every sober-minded Chris
tian can trace all his spiritual perceptions, and holy
tempers, and devout feelings, to the records of the
apostles and prophets ; and if he was first awakened,
or has been since impressed by the words of men, the
sentiments which they conveyed were agreeable to the
Scriptures, and were derived from them.
The illumination, therefore, of which we speak,
consists in enabling those who are the subjects of it,

* 2 Cor. iv. 6.
II Ps. xix. 7.

f Acts xxvi. 13.

X Gal. i. 16.

to apprehend, in their true sense and importance, truths
which they find in tbeir Bibles, and which they may
have often read before, without being affected by them,
because there was " a veil upon their hearts." It is
impossible to explain how this change of views is ef
fected, because we know not the way of the Spirit ;
and impossible to make it intelligible to any man
who has not experienced it. No person ever succeed
ed in an attempt to give a blind man an idea of colours.
The regenerated themselves cannot tell how they were
illuminated, or make others understand the specific
difference between their present and their former con
ceptions. They may assure them that their views of
truth were once obscure and uninteresting, and now
are clear and enlivening ; but such information is gen
eral, and indefinite. One thing, however, they know,
that whereas they were blind, now they see.
The sinner is enlightened in the knowledge of his
own character and state ; that, sensible of bis guilt,
and wretchedness, and danger, he may be prepared to
accept the offers of mercy; in the knowledge of the
love, and grace, and compassion of God, that he may
be disposed to return to him, instead of hating, and
dreading, and avoiding his presence ; in the knowl
edge of Christ, ofhis substitution, and righteousness,
and fulness, that he may trust in him for the supply
ofhis wants, and, believing in him, may be restored
to the favour of God. His views, indeed, upon all
subjects are changed. He now is convinced of the
evil of sin ; he now feels the vanity of the world; he
now appreciates the value of time; he now perceives
the excellence of holiness ; he now forms a just esti
mate of the realities of the invisible state. Divine il
lumination leads him to view things as they are,
whereas he formerly contemplated them through the
false medium of prejudice and misconception. He
awakes, as from a dream, and finds himself surround
ed with the solemn and interesting objects of religion.
All Christians are " renewed in knowledge, after the
image of him who created them." " Ye were some
times darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord."*
Having seen the effect of divine grace upon the in
tellectual part of our nature, let us proceed to consider
the change on our moral and active principles. In
giving an account of regeneration, it is usually ob
served, that the illumination of the understanding is
followed by the renovation of the will. To renew the
will is to incline it to good, to render it conformable
to tbe will of God. This change is necessary, be
cause the will is naturally rebellious, and its practical
language is, " Who is the Lord, that I should obey
him ?" It is, therefore, said, that " thy people shall
be willing in the day of thy power ;"! and how this is
done we learn from an apostle : " It is God that work
eth in us, both to will and to do ofhis good pleasure."!
The renovation of the will may be considered as the
natural consequence of the illumination of the under
standing. While we speak of different faculties of the
soul, we should reflect that, strictly, these are only
different modes in which the soul exerts itself. The
understanding is the soul apprehending and contem
plating; the will is the soul choosing or refusing;
good is the object of its choice ; and in order to secure
a right determination, nothing more seems to be ne
cessary than that the object should be presented in
such a light, as to obtain the deliberate and final deci
sion of the understanding in its favour. Yet we re
member the words of the poet, and their truth is too
often confirmed by our personal experience.
Video meliora proboque
Deteriora sequor.||
* Col. iii. 10. Eph. v. 8. f Ps. ex. 3. t Phil. ii. 13.
|| I see and approve the better conduct, but I practise the

THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION.

359

But although the heart may oppose, and often does
oppose, slight and transient convictions of truth and
duty, it does not follow that it will act the same part,
when the evidence is full and irresistible, or when the
word comes " in demonstration of the Spirit, and with
power." As the understanding was intended to be
the leading faculty of the soul, it may be conceived,
when illuminated by divine grace, actually to lead it
in that train and order which is pleasing to God.
However, since we do not know how he acts upon the
soul, nor to what extent his influence is necessary, it
is more modest to avoid determining whether his
agency upon the will is mediate or immediate, and to
rest in the declarations of Scripture, that " he puts his
Spirit within us, and gives us a new heart, a heart of
flesh."* The pffect of regenerating grace extends to every
power of the soul, and all its movements are controlled
by it. The affections have been considered by some
as various modifications of the will ; but whatever
philosophical theory we adopt with respect to them,
they are all influenced by the change. They are re
fined, regulated, and directed to their proper objects.
New feelings and emotions, new tendencies and exer
cises, are the native consequences of the new views of
divine things, which have been communicated to the
mind. The revelation of the Saviour in his righteous
ness and grace, accompanied as it is with a heartfelt
sense of guilt, and wretchedness, and helplessness,
gives rise to faith, or that act of the soul by which it
receives his offered salvation, trusts in him for accept
ance with God, and finds peace, and" hope, and- joy, in
the contemplation of his character and work. Repent
ance is the effect of a clear and impressive apprehen
sion of the infinite purity of the Divine nature, to
which sin stands opposed as darkness is to light ; of the
goodness of God, whom it has offended and dishonour
ed ; and ofhis mercy in- Christ, the serious considera
tion of which is sufficient to melt the hardest, and to
subdue the most stubborn heart. Godly sorrow for
sin, hatred of it, prayers for deliverance from it, a pur
pose instantly to forsake it, and the. commencement
of a course of resistance and mortification, are the in
gredients or the fruits of repentance. The dislike of
the human heart to God flows partly from misconcep
tions of his character, and partly from its own corrupt
inclinations. Both are removed in regeneration, when
the mind is enlightened, and the will is renewed.
How is it possible that that man should not love God,
to whom he appears the most amiable of all beings,
and who is tasting that he is gracious ? It would be
tedious to give an enumeration of the emotions and af
fections which are excited in the heaven-born soul. All
the fruits of tbe Spirit are produced, all his graces are
imparted, and the heart of man, which was lately like
a wilderness, overgrown with briers and thorns, is
transformed into the garden of the Lord.
In treating of regeneration, it is strictly necessary to
direct our attention only tp the change which takes
place in the state of the mind. It is here that grace
operates, and here that the holy principles which it
produces reside. But the seed being sown, the fruit
will speedily appear. Reformation is not regenera
tion, but it will always be the result of it, when the
conduct has been previously irregular : for " whoso
ever is born-of God doth not commit sin; for his seed
remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is
born of God."f The Corinthians were adulterers, for
nicators, idolaters, covetous, and extortioners, before
God called them by his grace ; but they were " washed,
and sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."! A change will
even take piace in the deportment of the most moral
* Ezek. xxxvi. 26. f John iii. 9. } 1 Cor. vi. 11.

unconverted man, as soon as be is born from above.
There are no gross sins, we will suppose, from which
he needs to be purified ; but he will become more
spiritual in his conversation, more attentive to religious
and relative duties, less eager in pursuit of the world,
more scrupulous in the selection of his company, more
cautious in avoiding the occasions of sin and appear
ances df evil. The eye of an attentive and practised
spectator will perceive, notwithstanding his former fair
show, that even he is become a new man. But it is
in the secret recesses ofhis breast that he will be him*
self deeply conscious of the spiritual revolution. He
will be sensible of a new temper of mind, or a new
feeling, as it may be called, in the performance of his
duty; for whereas it was formerly a drudgery, it will
now constitute his highest pleasure. Engaged in tho
service of God, he will find himself in his proper ele
ment; and instead of confining himself to the narrow
round of duties in which he moved, while his sole aim
was to maintain a decent appearance, or to silence the
clamours of conscience, he will labour to be extensive
ly useful to others, and unweariedly active for the
glory of God. The praise of man is no longer the mo
tive which stimulates his activity ; another, of a purer
and more exalted kind, has assumed its place ; a de
sire for the approbation of his Maker. A reference to
God in all his thoughts and actions, a regard to his
authority, and love, compounded of esteem, gratitude,
and desire for his favour and presence, are the princi
ples by which he is governed. There is a lofty eleva
tion of sentiment and affection above the standard of
nature, however carefully improved. He is still in the
world, but he is no longer of it; and although he at
tends to its affairs, and feels joy or sorrow from its
changes, he gives the decided and habitual preference
to nobler objects, and, like the ancient sojourners in
Canaan, whose faith we are exhorted to follow, de
clares plainly, that he is seeking a country, even a
heavenly one.*
Regeneration is specifically tbe same in all who are
the subjects of it ; a spiritual change, the transformation
of the soul into the image of God : " That which is
born of the Spirit, is spirit."! But, although every
regenerated person is a new creature, and possesses
all the constituent parts of the new nature, it is not
necessary to maintain that, to all, the same measure
of grace is communicated. They may differ from
each other as children do at their natural birth, some
of whom are much more lively and vigorous than oth
ers. Even at the commencement, God, according to
his sovereign pleasure, may give more ample knowl
edge, stronger faith, and all the other virtues in a ma-
turer state, to this man than to that. But there is no
difference in respect of their state ; the same work has.
been performed in them all, and they are all partakers
of " that one Spirit."
A change from darkness to light, and from sin to ho
liness, is necessary, not only to those who, having
been educated in a false religion, must adopt new
views and principles of action before they can be re
ceived into the communion of the church, and to those
who, having lived long in the practice of vice, and ac
quired depraved habits, must reform before they can
be acknowledged as Christians, but to all the descend
ants of Adam, whatever may have been their external
advantages, and their previous character. No opinion
is more unscriptural, than that there are some men
who do not need to be regenerated. They may bd
well instructed in the principles of religion, and may4
be devout and virtuous in tbe estimation of the world;
they may observe divine ordinances, be just in their
dealings, sober in tbeir personal deportment, and dis
tinguished by their deeds of beneficence. Such, how*

* Heb. xi. 13—16.

f John iii. 6.

3C0

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

ever, were the Pharisees, whom our Saviour con
demned with severity ; and it was in reference to them,
and to other persons who resemble them, that he re
minded us that the outside of the cup may be clean,
while within it is full of impurity. Human nature is
the same in all men, although it is subject to various
modifications from education, and temper, and tbe. cir
cumstances in which individuals are placed. Whether
gentle or fierce, placable or unmerciful, licentious or
temperate, selfish or benevolent, it is, according to the
testimony of Scripture, carnal, alienated from God,
and full of enmity against his law. The mildest and
most amiable of mankind, therefore, stands in need of
regenerating grace ; and if he has not experienced its
influence, is only a nominal Christian. With the aid
of external advantages, he himself may change his
conduct, but Divine grace alone can change his heart.
Strange as this doctrine may seem to those who have
studied the writings of philosophers more than the
Bible, and mortifying as it is to our pride, it is un
questionably true. Our Lord made no exception when
he said, " Except a man be born of water, and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."* It
is worthy of attention, that these words were addressed
to a man who had received the circumcision of the
flesh, had been brought up in the true religion, and
was of so respectable a character, that he had been ele
vated to the rank of a ruler of the Jews. Hence it fol
lows, that no man can be a disciple of Christ, unless he
have undergone this spiritual change: "If any man be
in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature ;"] but, " if any
man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."!
The change effected in the souls of men by re
generating grace, is the foundation of all their sub
sequent attainments in religion. I mean, that they
are effects or consequences of it, as the growth of
a vegetable, the rising of the stem, the formation
of the buds and flowers, the opening of the leaves
and blossoms, and the concoction of the fruit, are
the effects or consequences of the living principle in
the seed. Hence an apostle, having represented true
Christians as the circumcision, or the regenerated, pro
ceeds to state, that " they worship God in the Spirit,
and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in
the flesh. "|| To the performance of certain functions,
certain powers are necessary ; and there are properties
belonging to one nature which no man expects to find
in another. An animal without wings could not fly,
without legs could not walk, without eyes could not
see, without intellect could not understand. We
never look for the peculiar properties of one species
of animals in another; we never look, for example, for
speech and reasoning among brutes. All the actions
of a living being, and all its improvements, bear a re
lation to the nature originally given to it by its Maker.
These things are obvious, not only to philosophers,
but to every person of common sense; yet, although
just reasoning requires that we should transfer them to
religion, men often proceed in a different manner. Re
ligion manifestly implies a different train of sentiments,
and feelings, and actions, from those which are brought
into operation by the ordinary business of life. Yet
many imagine that, because man has understanding,
and will, and affections, is capable of managing his
worldly affairs, and of performing the duties incum
bent upon, him as a member of society, he is fully
qualified to answer the demands of religion, and re
quires only to have his attention directed to it, and to
be roused to the exercise of his powers. It is taken
for granted, that religion is one of the original princi
ples of our nature, which it is sufficient to direct and
strengthen by discipline. It is supposed that men
have a natural capacity or disposition for religion, and
» John iii. 5. f 2 Cor. v. 17. i Rom. viii. 9. « Phil. iii. 3.

may be trained to habits of piety and virtue by oxter*
nal means. Amidst these speculations, the doctrine
of human depravity is forgotten or denied, and hence
it is not considered that, to attempt to educe religion
from our nature as it is, is as absurd as to attempt to
elicit the operations of intellect from an irrational ani
mal. Holy actions must proceed from holy princi
ples, and these must be created in the soul, which,
since the fall, is barren of all good. Men must be re
generated before they can make progress in religion,
or perform a single action which the Searcher of hearts
will approve.
There are two states, in either of which every man
is, — the one carnal, and the other spiritual ; and his
actions correspond to his state. The knowledge of a
carnal man, is a cold light glimmering in his mind ;
his prayers are the service of the lips, or have only
such animation as they derive from his natural fears
and hopes; his praises are equally defective; his
hearing of the Gospel is without faith, and his com
municating without penitence and love; his obedience
is a form without the substance. Every thing is the
reverse in the case of the spiritual man ; into whose
duties, at least when his frame is good, there are in
fused the energies of a heart sanctified and moved by
the spirit of grace. He prays and praises, and does
all things in the Holy Ghost ; he makes advances in
holiness, and "his path is as the shining light, which
shineth more and more unto the perfect day."*
These two states are essentially different; there is
not a single point in which they meet, or touch each
other. They are both predicable of human beings;
but while the natural endowments of their respective
subjects are the same in kind, their moral qualities are
of opposite classes. The one is represented as in a
state of non-existence, the other is in a state of being;
and the change which has been effected upon the latter
is called a creation. In the one state, men are dead,
like those who are lying in the grave ; in the other,
they are alive, like those who were re-animated by our
Saviour in the land of Judea, or like the saints at the
last day, who will exchange corruption for incorrup-
tion. There may be an error in the conclusion which
individuals draw with respect to themselves, and,
from various causes, they may be unable to ascertain
their own character with exactness ; but between those
who have, and those who have not, experienced re
generating grace, there is a radical distinction, and by
the omniscient Judge they are never confounded.
" We know that we are of God, and that the whole
world lieth in wickedness."!

LECTURE LXVII.
ON THE UNION OF BELIEVERS TO CHRIST.
Union of Believers to Christ formed in Regeneration— lis Na
ture illustrated — It is real; spiritual; without confusion.
of persons; and indissoluble — Its Effects.
The design of God in calling sinners by his word
and spirit, is to bring them to himself by Jesus Christ,
who is the only mediator between God and men, "the
way, the truth, and the life." As it is for his sake
that God bestows the blessings of salvation upon us,
so, according to his constitution, they can be enjoyed
only in a state of connexion with him. This connex
ion, which is formed in regeneration, it shall be the
business of the present lecture to explain.
There are two kinds of union between Christ and his
people — a legal union, and a spiritual, or, as it is some-

* Prov. iv. 18.

f 1 John v. 19.

THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION.

361

times called, a mystical union. The reason of the lat
ter denomination is, that the union is obscure or myste
rious ; but the term is not discriminative, because there
are other unions to which it may be applied with equal
propriety, as the union of the three persons in the God
head, and the union of the two natures of our Saviour.
Notwithstanding, however, the generality of the term,
its meaning is understood in theology, and it may con
tinue to be used as custom has defined and limited it.
The legal union is that which was formed between
Christ and his people, when he was appointed their fed
eral head. It is a union in law, in consequence of which
he represented them, and was responsible for them ; and
the benefit of his transactions redounds to them. It
may be illustrated by the case of suretyship among men.
A relation is formed between a surety and the person for
whom he engages, by which they are thus far consid
ered as one, that the surety is liable for the debt which
the other has contracted, and his payment is held as the
payment of the debtor, who is ipso facto absolved from
all obligation to the creditor. A similar connexion
was established between our Redeemer and those who
are given to him by his Father. He became answer
able for them to the justice of God ; and it was stipu
lated that, on account of his satisfaction to its demands,
they should receive the pardon of their sins. Neither
could their sins hg.ve been imputed to him, nor could
his righteousness have been imputed to them, if they
had not been one in the eye of the law.
But something farther was necessary to the actual
enjoyment of the benefits of his representation. God,
on whose sovereign will the whole economy of grace
is founded, had determined not only that his Son should
sustain the character of their surety, but that a real, as
well as a legal, relation should take place between
them, as the foundation of communion with him in the
blessings of his purchase. It was his will that, as
they were one in law, they should be also one morally or
spiritually ; that his merit and grace might be imparted
to them, as the holy oil poured on the head of Aaron
descended to the skirts of his garments.
There are many passages of Scripture in which this
connexion with Christ is represented as the foundation
of our fellowship with him in spiritual and heavenly
blessings. Thus, it is said that, as we were " chosen
in him," so we are "accepted in the beloved ;" that in
him we " obtain an inheritance," and in him " are sealed
with the holy spirit of promise ;" that the church is his
body, "and that we are baptized into Christ;" "that
we are all buried with him in baptism," " and are plant
ed in the likeness of his death and resurrection ;" that
" we are crucified with him," and " live with him,"
and that " he lives in us ;" and that the earnest desire
of every believer is to be found in him.* These, and
many similar expressions, denote a close relation be
tween the Saviour and his genuine disciples ; a rela
tion more intimate than any which may be formed by
external bonds.
This will be more evident, if we attend to some of
the similitudes by which it is illustrated in Scripture. It
is compared to the union between a tree and its branches,
which constitute one whole, and possess the same prin
ciple of vegetable life: "I am the vine, ye are the
branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the
same bringeth forth much fruit : for without me ye can
do nothing."! — It is compared to the union between
the building and the foundation by which it is support
ed : " To whom coming as unto a living stone, disal
lowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and pre
cious, ye also, as living stones are built up a spiritual
house."! — It is compared to the union between hus-

*F.ph.i. 4. 6.11,13. Col. i. 24. Rom.vi.3.4. Col.ii. 12.
Rom. vi. 5. 6, 8. Gal. ii. 20. Phil. iii. 9.
f John xv. 5. t 1 Pe'- "• 4. 6.
2V

band and wife, who are one in the eye of the law, and
have a mutual interest in the person and property of
each other : " For this cause shall a man leave his fa
ther and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and
they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery;
but I speak concerning Christ and the church ;"* that
is, there is a relation between Christ and the church, of
which marriage is a figure. This similitude occurs in
the forty-fifth Psalm, where our Saviour is represented
as the king, and the church as the queen, standing at
his right hand, in gold of Ophir-! — It is compared to the
connexion of the head and the members of the body,
which receive life and nourishment from the head, and
are directed and governed by it. " But speaking tbe
truth in love, we may grow up into him in all things,
which is the head, even Christ : from whom the whole
body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which
every joint supplieth, according to the effectual work
ing in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the
body, unto the edifying of itself in love."! In these
similitudes, not only is there a representation of the
union of Christ and believers, and of the communion
which takes place between them, but it is imported,
that he is the primary source of their life, and strength,
and perfection.
There are three great unions mentioned in Scripture,
which are totally different in kind, and should there
fore be carefully distinguished. The first is the union
of the persons of the Trinity; but, although the union of
which we are now speaking, is compared to it in the
following words of our Saviour's prayer, " that they all
may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that
they also may be one in us,"|j yet it is only a genera]
resemblance, consisting in the unity of the members of
the body of Christ. The persons of the Godhead have
one numerical essence; whereas Christ and believers,
in respect of nature, are distinct individuals. The sec
ond great union is that which subsists between the
two natures of our Redeemer. They are not blended
together, but are so closely conjoined, that there is on
ly one person of Christ, and it may be said with truth,
that the man is God, and God is man. But there is no
such union between him and his people. And this
leads me to remark, that the mystical union does not
consist in community of essence, or in oneness of per
son, but in a close relation between different, persons.
It may be illustrated, but not fully, by the union between
a chief or leader, and his faithful and devoted follow
ers, who, although distinct individuals, are engaged in
the same pursuits, and are animated by the same spirit,
or by the same sentiments and feelings.
It is not fully illustrated, I say, by this, or by any
other comparison of a similar kind. Thus, it would
be a great mistake to suppose that there is no closer re
lation between Jesus Christ and his church, than that
which subsists between a king and his subjects. This
is the only relation which some persons admit. He
gives his word, and ordinances, and laws to his people,
and they acknowledge his right to govern them, and
obey him. But although it should be added, that they
feel all the warmth of a sincere attachment to him, yet,
according to this opinion, he would be onty the political
head of the church ; and the difference between its rela
tion to him, and that of subjects to their sovereign, would
consist solely in the nature of the sentiments and feel
ings of his followers, which are of a religious kind, and
in the superior value of the benefits which they expect
to receive from him. The doctrine of Scripture is, that
he is the head, not only of government, but of influence ;
that the ties which connect him and his people are in
visible and spiritual ; and that the conjunction is so in
timate, that he lives in them, and they live in him.

* Eph. v. 31,32.
X Eph. iv. 15, 16.

f Ps. xiv. 9.
|| John xvii. 21.

362

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

The bonds of this union are, the Spirit and faith.
The Spirit being in him and in them, makes them truly
one. The distance between Christ who is in heaven,
and believers who are upon earth, is no obstacle, because
the Spirit is omnipresent. Through his intervention,
not merely a figurative, but a real union is effected ;
there is one living principle in the head and the mem
bers : "He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit"
with him. — " By one Spirit are we all baptized into
one body, whether we be Jews or Greeks, whether we
be bond or free ; and have all been made to drink of
that one Spirit." — " Hereby we know that he abideth
in us, by the spirit which he hath given us." " Here
by know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, be
cause he has given us of his Spirit."* There is much
more implied in these words than the reception of the
gospel, and the formation of a heavenly temper. They
import the actual presence and inhabitation of the Spir
it himself. The fact is plainly asserted; but it is mys
terious, and cannot be distinctly explained. It may be
observed, in order to prevent misconception, that the
presence of the Spirit with any individual, is not
analogous to the presence of one man with anoth er. He
who is willing to give his company to another, goes to
the place where the other is, and, while associating
with him, separates himself from those whom he does
not choose to admit to the same intimacy. The coming
and inhabitation of the Spirit must be understood in a
different manner, because, being a Divine Person, he
is omnipresent ; and, consequently, as he is incapable
of change of place, he cannot withdraw from one man,
and approach to another. In respect of his essence, he
is as much present with unbelievers as with believers.
His dwelling in the latter must therefore signify, that he
manifests himself in their souls in a peculiar manner ;
that he exerts there his gracious power, and produces
effects which other men do not experience. Without
knowing him, or being aware of his influence, other
men are sustained by his power, and enabled to exer
cise their natural faculties ; for we must conceive him to
be the source of life and activity throughout the whole
intelligent creation ; but the regenerated are the subjects
of a peculiar work, by which they are transformed into
the image of God . We may ill ustrate his presence with
them, as distinguished from his presence with men
in general, by supposing the vegetative power of the
earth to produce, in the surrounding region, only com
mon and worthless plants, but to throw out, in a select
spot, all the riches and beauty of a cultivated garden.
By the fruits of tbe Spirit in the heart and life of an
individual, it is known that he is working silently, but
powerfully, within him. Where love, joy, peace, long-
suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, faith and
temperance are found, there he has taken up his abode.
In this way we may understand the inhabitation of the
Spirit, and it seems to be the only rational idea which
we can form of it. It is impossible to conceive any
peculiarity in respect of his essential presence in the
case of the regenerated, for he necessarily fills all pla
ces and all persons. But he works when and where
he will, and is said to enter into the soul, when he be
gins to exert his gracious operations in it, as God is
said to come to the assemblies of his people, and to
dwell in Zion, because he there manifests his glory,
and dispenses the blessings of his grace.
The principal bond of union between Christ and his
people, is the Spirit. But, as the union is mutual,
iomething is necessary on tbeir part to complete it;
and this is faith. Hence, Christ is said to dwell in
our hearts by faith. This faith is not merely a natural
act of the mind, assenting to the truth of the gospel,
as it assents to any other truth, upon credible testimo
ny ; but it is a supernatural act, an effect produced by

* 1 Cor. vi. 17. xii. 13. 1 John iii. 24. iv. 13.

tbe power of the Spirit of grace, and is such a persua
sion of the truth concerning the Saviour, as calls forth
exercises suitable to the nature of its object. It is a
cordial approbation of the Saviour, a hearty consent to
his offers, an acceptance of him in his entire character,
as " made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness,
and sanctification and redemption."* Strictly, faith is
an act of the understanding alone, and thus logicians
would define it; but whatever is the abstract meaning
of a term, we should observe whether it is used by a
writer in a peculiar sense, and accommodate ourselves
to his ideas, instead of rigidly adhering to our own.
Here some expounders of the sacred oracles err, and
explain them according to the standard of philosophy,
instead of allowing them to explain themselves. If
we carefully attend to the use of the word faith, in the
Scriptures, we shall find that it often signifies more
than an assent of the mind, and implies the concurrence
of the will, or an exercise of the heart, embracing the
truth believed, and trusting in the object revealed.
When thus understood, it will appear to be a fit instru
ment for completing our union to Christ, although it
might be difficult to perceive how it could have this ef
fect, if it were merely an assent. The Scriptures, in
describing faith, represent it by a variety of bodily mo
tions and actions, to express its activity. It is called
" a coming to Christ," — " a receiving of him," — " an
eating of his flesh, and a drinking ofhis blood." When
man believes with the heart, he obtains an interest in
the object of his faith. Christ becomes his, according
to the constitution and promise of God. He enters in
to covenant with him ; and while he takes him as his
Saviour, he devotes himself to him as one of his people.
Thus the union is formed by mutual consent. Our Re
deemer expresses his consent, not only in his gracious
offers and declarations, but also by sending the Spirit to
dwell in his heart, and the Christian expresses consent
by his faith. " My Lord and my God," is its language.
" Lord, I am thine ; save thou me." If we consider
the Song of Solomon, as intended to describe this uni
on, and the intercourse founded upon it, the following
words of the church are apposite to the present sub
ject — " I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine."!
From this account, it appears that it is in truth, and
not merely by a figure of speech, that Jesus Christ and
his disciples are said to be one. They are one, not on
ly in sentiment and affection, by consent of mind and
heart, as Nestorius is reported to have explained the
union of the two natures of our Saviour, and Socinians
the union of the Father and the Son, but by a real con
junction, their persons being united to his person. The
reality of the union is manifest from the similitudes by
which it is illustrated ; for the stones are a part of the
building, the branches a part of the vine, and the mem
bers a part of the body. The Spirit of Christ actually
dwells in the souls of believers, and, by faith, they re
ceive not only the benefits of Christ, but himself.
Hence he is said to live in them, and they are said to
abide in him. Some men treat the idea of such a uni
on with ridicule ; in their opinion, it is a dream of en
thusiasm ; and they confound it with the wild notions
of the mystics, pronouncing what they do not see, and
cannot feel, and have not experienced, to be the base
less fabric of a vision. But the humble Christian is
content to believe the testimony of Scripture, and cannot
withhold his assent to a fact, of which, although he is
unable to explain it, the evidence which he finds in
himself is conclusive. He who is led by the Spirit, en
lightened, assisted, and comforted by him, cannot
doubt that Christ dwells in his heart.
Let it be observed, in the next place, that it is a spir
itual union. It is on this account that it is difficult to
conceive it, and by some it is rejected as imaginary.

* 1 Cor. i.. 30.

f Sol. Song vi. 3

THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION.

363

Influenced as we are by our senses, we are apt to think
of it as being the union of two material substances, by
juxta-position, or by commixture ; or, if we study more
refinement, we may suppose it to be only like the un
ion of two friends, in mind and affection. But, as the
former union is too gross, so the latter, as we have
seen, falls short of the truth. As every corporeal idea
should be carefully excluded, so we must elevate our
conceptions higher than the most intimate connexion
which can be formed between two individuals, by the
operations of intellect and will. The same Spirit lives
in our exalted Redeemer, and in his people upon
earth ; and hence, although separated from him, and
from one another, they are but one. It may seem
strange to illustrate a fact by a mere creation of fancy ;
but if you should conceive a body composed of many
parts, and those parts to be disposed of in different
and distant places, but to be animated and moved by
the same principle of life, you would have some idea
of the union of the members of the church to Christ,
and to one another, although dispersed over the face
of the earth. In this case, the union would not be lo
cal, but spiritual, as it is in the other.
I remark again, that this union is without confusion.
It is a union of persons, which imports, that the par
ties concerned in it, continue as much distinct indi
viduals as before. There is no communication of the
properties of one to another ; they are, in every respect,
what they were, except that the Spirit of Christ, who
is in the souls of his people, exerts an influence upon
them, by which their moral nature is renewed. Incau
tious language has been sometimes used in speaking
upon this subject. Gregory Nazianzen has employed
the two terms Bioiroieiy and £gwr«rut», as if the saints
were deified, or chrislified. What his meaning was, I
pretend not to say; perhaps he intended only to ex
press strongly the closeness of the relation, and the
intimacy of the communion founded upon it ; but when
we do not rigidly adhere to the words of truth and so
berness, they mislead others, and suggest false notions
to them, into which they were in no danger of falling
themselves. Such language prepared ^he way for the
extravagances of the mystics, who, in more modern
times, have not scrupled to use the phrases of being
" godded in God," and other expressions equally wild.
But, although the union is stricter than any human re
lation, it has its limits, necessarily arising from the
nature of the parties. As our Saviour cannot partici
pate in the infirmities of his people, except by sympa
thy, so they cannot participate in his divine excel
lences, which are incommunicable. Christ and they
are truly united, but there does not result a unity of
essence, or of person ; for it is not effected immediate
ly, but through the intervention of the Spirit, and, con
sequently, there is no confusion of nature or persons,
so that Christ is incarnate in believers, or they are
deified in him.
Lastly, this union is indissoluble. We must not
imagine that a man may be in Christ to-day, and out
of Christ to-morrow. The union could be dissolved
only by his act or by ours. There is no reason to ap
prehend that he will dissolve it ; because he is not
fickle in his attachments, apt to be disgusted, and
easily irritated, but having a gracious design to ac
complish, will persevere till it be completed. Those
whom he loves, he loves to the end. It will not be
dissolved by any act of his people. They, indeed,
have inconstant hearts, and, from their own changea-
blenesS, or from the influence of external temptations,
they might renounce their connexion with him : but,
as he prays that their faith may not fail, so the Spirit,
dwelling in their hearts, preserves it amidst the dan
gers to which it is exposed. There may, indeed, be a
temporary apostacy from Christ, in consequence of
the decline of grace, or the suspension of the activity

of the spiritual principle. We have an example in.
Peter, who disowned his Master, and disclaimed, with
the most solemn asseverations, the character of his
disciple. But even then he had not utterly lost faith ;
and the impressive look by which he was awakened
to repentance, as well as the affectionate treatment
which he afterwards experienced, showed that, not
withstanding his unworthy conduct, Jesus had not re
jected him. We are borne out by the Scripture in
maintaining, that the saints cannot fall totally or finally
from grace. Who shall separate us from the love of
Christ ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution,
or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword ? Nay, in
all these things we are more than conquerors through
him that loved us."* The design of the apostle is
not to inform us, that external violence cannot dissolve
the union of believers to Christ, for on this point
there is no ground of apprehension; but to give an as
surance, that it never shall have such influence upon
the minds of the saints as to prevail upon them to for
sake him. His grace will keep them in the evil hour,
and enable them to hold out to the end. " They shall
never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my
hand."! ^eath w''* break all other ties, and separate
the soul from the body ; but this union will not be af
fected by the fatal stroke. The soul will rise to hea
ven, and enter into the immediate presence of Christ,
to enjoy more intimate fellowship with him, than was
permitted in this sublunary state. The body, although
lifeless, and corrupted, and reduced to dust, will still
be a part of his mystical body. It is united to him
even in the grave, as his human nature was united to
the divine, notwithstanding the temporary separation
of his 'soul and his body. The saints are said to " die
in the Lord," and to " sleep in Jesus;" and ages after
their death, God announced himself as the God of
Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.!
The sacraments of the new covenant are signs and
seals of this union. With respect to baptism, this is
evident from the words formerly quoted : " By one
Spirit we are all baptised into one body."|| The sub
ject of which the apostle is speaking, is the union of
believers to the body of Christ, and consequently to
Christ himself; and while he represents it as effected
by the baptism of the Spirit, he unquestionably al
ludes to the baptism of water as the sign. There is
the same reference to this ordinance, when we are said
to be " baptised into Christ."§ The sprinkling of wa
ter in his name and by his authority, imports the ap
plication of his blood, and the communication of his
spirit to the soul ; in other words, it imports that we
are brought into such a relation to him, that we have
fellowship with him in the benefits ofhis death; and
of this fellowship union is tbe basis. We must first
be in Christ, before we can be blessed with all spirit
ual blessings, as the branch must be in the vine, be
fore it can partake of the juice which ascends from the
root. The Lord's supper has the same signification.
" We are one body," Paul says to Christians, " fcr
we are all partakers of that one bread. "If Their joint
participation of that bread is an emblem of their union,
or shows that they compose one holy society, having
common feelings and interests. Now, if their fellow
ship with one another in this ordinance is a token of
their union among themselves, it still more clearly de
monstrates their union to Christ,, as he is exhibited
under the sacred symbols, which they take and use.
" The bread which we break, is it not the communion
of the body of Christ? The cup of blessing which
we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of
Christ?"** The acts of taking and using the ele-

* Rom. viii. 35, 37. f John x. 23.
t Rev. xiv. 13. 1 Thess. iv. 14. Exod. iii. 6.
|| 1 Cor. xii. 13. } Gal. iii. 27. IT 1 Cor X. 17.
** 1 Cor. xi. 16.

364

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY

merits, are expressive of certain acts of the mind.
ihey are expressive of faith, by which Christ is re
ceived, and which we have seen is the bond, on the
part of the believer, by which he is united to him.
} he symbols of the incarnate suffering Redeemer are
incorporated with our bodies by the process of diges
tion ; and although this is not an exact representation
of the union, in which it has been shown there is no
confusion or commixture of the parties, yet it is un
doubtedly intended to remind us of the closeness of the
connexion, by which those who were originally separ
ate are brought together, and conjoined in the most in
timate bonds. To the eye of a careless spectator, the
sacraments of the church may appear mere ceremonies,
which are of little use, and have little meaning. But
they are emblematic of one of the most important facts
in the Christian religion. They are visible signs of
an invisible relation, upon which the enjoyment of all
spiritual privileges and blessings depends. They at
test that, although Jesus Christ is in heaven, and his
followers.are upon earth, yet distance of place does not
divide them ; for that he is present with them as he is
not present with the world ; that he is as near to them
as are the elements which are applied or received into
their bodies, and that he works as efficaciously in their
souls as these do in tbeir bodies.
Among the consequences or effects of this union, we
may mention, in the first place, that all who belong to
Christ are possessed of spiritual life. He said to his
disciples, " Because I live, ye shall live also,"* and
he fulfils his word by the inhabitation of the Holy Ghost.
By nature they " are dead in sin ;" but they are " quick
ened together with him,"! tazt ls< ln connexion with
him, and after the example of his resurrection. As in
the natural body the head is the seat of sensation, and
feeling and motion are communicated to all the mem
bers by means of the nerves, which have their origin in
the hrain ; so from him flow those influences, by which
believers are endowed with moral sensibility, and per
form the various functions of the Christian life. "I
live," says Paul, " and yet not I, but Christ liveth in
me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, is by
the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave
himself for me."! Observe how careful he is, when
he represents himself as living, to put us on our guard
against supposing that this state was owing to himself,
and to refer his spiritual power and activity, to the Sa
viour, who dwelt in him, and from whom he derived
constant assistance by the exercise of faith. Grace in
the most eminent state, if it were left alone, would fail,
like the water of a stream which is supplied only by
occasional showers ; but connected as it is with Christ
as its source, it is like a stream from a perennial spring
which always flows, although it may sometimes swell,
and at other times sink. "The water that I shall give
him, shall be in him a well of living water, springing
up unto everlasting life."||
The second effect of their union to Christ, is their
communion with him in all the benefits which he pur
chased. " Ye are complete in him, who is the head
of all principality and power."§ Being united in him,
they enjoy an interest in his righteousness, by wbich
he fulfilled the law in their room, and are thus entitled
to the blessings of justification. "There is no con
demnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. "If Hence
Paul " counted all things but dung that he might win
Christ, and be found in him, not having his own right
eousness which is of the law, but that which is by the
faith of Jesus Christ, even the righteousness which is
of God by faith."** They are adopted into the family
of heaven, and made heirs of God, and joint-heirs with
Kis Son Jesus Christ. "To as many as received him,

to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even
to them who believe on his name."* They are sancti
fied in soul, body, and spirit, being enabled by his grace
to die more and more unto sin, and to live unto right
eousness. " Ye are washed, ye are sanctified in the
name of the Lord Jesus, and by the. Spirit of our God."!
The outlines of the divine image, which were drawn
upon their hearts in regeneration, are gradually filled
up, or, in the language of an apostle, " they are changed
into it from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the
Lord."! Lastly, they are glorified together with him,
in whom, as their head, they now sit in heavenly places.
Of God he is made to them redemption, which imports
deliverance from every evil, and introduction intc a
state of perfect. and eternal felicity.
The last effect of their union to Christ which I shall
mention, is their union to one another. They are one
hody, because they are partakers of that one Spirit.
They compose a society closer and more compact than
can be formed by civil institutions, or a community of
interests, or the endearments of friendship. They were
born in different countries, they speak different lan
guages, they are engaged in different temporal pursuits,
and are distinguished from each other by natural tem
per, education, condition, and other particulars ; but
they are like the parts of a complicated machine, which
are not only externally joined together, but are acted
upon by one mainspring, and perform one harmonious
movement. They are united in their views of divine
truth. They all believe the depravity of human na
ture, the divine character and atonement of the Saviour,
the necessity of supernatural grace to renew and sanc
tify the soul. Their modes of expression on certain
points may be different, but their faith is substantially
the same. If there are some particulars in which they
do not agree, they are inferior matters, (although unen
lightened zeal may magnify their importance,) of which
a man may be ignorant, and not only be safe, but enjoy
uninterrupted communion with God. As they have
one baptism, so they have also one faith. They are
united in love. We sometimes see, it must be ac
knowledged, persons of whom we entertain a favoura
ble opinion, keeping at a distance from, and even op
posing one another. In certain cases there may be good
reasons for this conduct, because one of the parties is
not walking according to the gospel ; but it does not
always admit of this apology. Being imperfect, even
saints sometimes fall out by the way without any suffi
cient cause, and sometimes their disputes originate in
mistake. They do not know one another; they con
tend in the dark ; they suppose the friends to be the
enemies of truth. But one saint never hates another
knowing him to be a saint. He loves the image of
Christ wherever he perceives it, and loves every man
in whom it appears. So far as the disciples of Christ
do know one another, they dwell together as brethren
in unity, overlooking minor differences for the sake of
great points on which they are agreed, and their com
mon relation to the Saviour. In a word, they are
united in design. Animated by one Spirit, they have
the same end in view, the glory of their Saviour, who
died that they should not live to themselves, but to
him. Hence we see their zeal awakened, and their
powers called into action, by any object which will
conduce to accomplish this design. If a spark be
struck out, it increases into a flame, which spreads
with rapidity from breast to breast, and from country
to country, till the whole Christian world is illumina
ted and warmed by it. We have an example in the
schemes which are at present carried on for the circu
lation of the Scriptures, and the propagation of the gos
pel ; and in which Christians of all denominations,
laying aside party feelings, most cordially combine theit

» John xiv. 19. f Eph. ii. 5. X Gal. ii. 20. || John iv. 14.
} Col. ii. 10. H Rom. viii. 1. ** Phil. in. 8, 9.

* John i. 12.

flCor. vi. 11.

J 2 Cor. iii. 18.

THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION.

365

counsels and their efforts. Thus, tbe prayer of Christ
is answered, that his disciples may be one ; and we look
forward to the time when the union will be more com
plete, and more widely extended ; when " there shall
be one Lord, and his name shall be ope," and when this
prophecy shall be fulfilled, "Thy watchmen shall lift
up the voice, with the voice together shall they sing,
when the Lord shall bring again Zion."*
The honour to which believers have been admitted
by their union to Christ should excite their gratitude
and their admiration of his condescension and grace.
"What is man that thou art mindful of him? and the
son of man that thou visitest him?"! "Will God in very
deed dwell with man upon the earth ?"! They should
firmly and constantly adhere to him by faith, for he is
their life and strength ; and their peace, comfort, and pro
gressive sanctification depend upon the continuance of
their relation, and the assiduity of this fellowship with
him. " Be strong in the grace which is in Christ Je
sus."! I" a word, they should walk worthily of their
high privilege, and guard against every thing which has
a tendency to separate them from him, and to impede
their intercourse with him. Sin is infinitely offensive
to him, and is contrary to the design with which he has
united them to himself. As he who hath called them is
holy, so they should be holy in all manner of conversa
tion. " What ! know ye not that your body is the tem
ple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have
of God, and ye are not your own : For ye are bought
with a price ; therefore glorify God in your body, and
in your spirit, which are God's."§

LECTURE LXVIII.

ON FAITH.

Failh the Bond of Union to Christ — Different kinds of Faith
— Saving Faith ; its nature and qualities — Justifying Faith de
fined and explained— Is Assurance of the Essence of Faith 1
In illustrating union to Christ, I have shown that the
bond on our part, by which we are connected with him,
is faith. It is a fruit of the spirit of regeneration ; and
although the soul which he has quickened begins im
mediately to exert itself in all the acts of spiritual life,
yet faith is eminently entitled to attention, because it re
ceives Christ, and has a direct and powerful influence
upon our peace, and comfort, and sanctification. Much
as it is undervalued by many, it is of indispensable ne
cessity in religion ; and while the question has been fool
ishly proposed, whether faith or morality is preferable,
the truth is, that the idea of separating them should not
be admitted for a moment ; and that, as faith without
morality is a mere pretence, so morality without faith
is worth nothing.
Different kinds of faith are enumerated by theological
Writers, and are mentioned in Scripture. The first is
called historical faith, which is a simple assent to the
truths of revelation, and may be found in unregenerated
men, who are sometimes said to believe. It receives
this denomination, not because its object is limited to
the histories of Scripture, for it comprehends also the
doctrines, but because it is an assent of the same kind
which we give to any credible history, and is a simple
act of the understanding. This is the only faith which
is produced by a rational demonstration of the truth of
revelation : and hence we may observe by the way, that
those ministers who dwell much upon the evidences of
religion, are chargeable with misspending their time;
because, in the first place, those whom they usually la-

* Is Iii. 8. ¦ f Ps- viii. 4. {2 Chron. vi. 18.
|| 2 Tim. ii. 1. { 1 Pet. i. 15. 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20.

bour to convince, entertain no doubt of Christianity;
and, in tbe second place, although they should succeed
in establishing conviction in the minds of their sceptic
al hearers, they would make them only such believers-
as were Simon Magus and many others, who perished
in tbeir sins. The second, which is called temporary
faith, consists in such a persuasion of the truths of reli
gion as is accompanied with some impression upon the
conscience and affections. Of this kind is the faith of
those whom our Lord compares to the seed which fell up
on stony ground, and hastily sprang up, but soon with
ered away. It has no root ; it does not proceed from a
mind enlightened, and a heart renewed by the spirit; and
hence, when it is exposed to a severe trial, it fails.
"When tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the
truth, by and by they are offended.1'* On this account
it is called temporary faith, although in some instances
it may last long, and, like the hope of the hypocrite, per
ish only at death, because, during the course of life, no
cause occurred of sufficient force to extinguish it. The
third kind of faith is called the faith of miracles ; by
which is meant, a persuasion supernaturally wrought in
the mind of the person, that God would perform some
miracle by him, or for him. Of the former persuasion
our Lord speaks, when he says to his disciples, " If ye
have faith as a grain of mustard-seed, ye shall say to
this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it
shall remove ; and nothing shall be impossible unto
you."! To the latter persuasion he refers, when be
said to two blind men, who besought him to have mer
cy on them, " Believe ye that I am able to do this ?"!
and it was found in the cripple at Lystra, of whom it is
related, that Paul " perceived that he had faith to be
healed. "|| It is evident that this kind of faith was con
fined to particular persons, and a particular period of
the church, and consequently is not a subject of general
interest. The last kind of faith is called saving faith,
because by it the salvation offered in the Gospel is re
ceived and enjoyed. It is the design of this lecture to
explain it, — first, in general, as it respects the whole of
divine revelation ; and, secondly, in particular, as it re
spects the offer of pardon and eternal life through the
Saviour. In this view, it is commonly called justifying
faith. In speaking of faith in general, I shall direct your at
tention to the definition of it, which is given by Paul in
the first verse of the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to
the Hebrews : " Now faith is the substance of things ho
ped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith, wheth
er human or divine, is the belief of a testimony. The
faith which we are now considering, is the belief of the
testimony of God. How it operates in reference to the
subjects of this testimony, whether they be considered
simply as invisible, or as both invisible and future, the
apostle explains in the words which we have quoted.
Of things hoped for, or future good, it is the substance.
Concerning the import of the original term — i7roo-Tcicnt
— translated substance, there has been a good deal of dis
cussion, and it has been understood to signify confidence
or subsistence. Faith is the confidence of things ho
ped for; because it assures us not only that there are
such things, but that, through the power and faithful
ness of God, we shall enjoy them. It is the substance
of things hoped for ; because it gives them, although
future, a present subsistence in the minds of believers,
so that they are influenced by them as if they were ac
tually present. Thus the word was understood by some
of the Greek commentators, who were the most com
petent judges of its meaning. " Since things which we
hope for," says Chrysostom, " seem not to subsist,
faith gives them subsistence, or rather it docs not give
it, but is Itself their substance. Thus, the resurrec-

* Matt. xiii. 21.
} lb. ix. 28

t lb xvii. 20,
II Acts. xiv. 9.

3G6

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

tion , of the dead is not past, nor does it subsist, but
mm gives it subsistence in our souls." "Faith"
fiT (?"othf. "gives subsistence to the resurrec
lion of the dead, and places it before our eyes." In
Human hopes there is a mixture cf uncertainty ; and
reason itself will, in many cases, justify anxiety ; but
the foundation of Christian hope being the word and
promise of God, the doubts which may arise in our
minds are the consequences of the weakness of our
faith; for, if our faith corresponded with the nature of
the testimony, we should be as fully assured of what
is future, as we are of what is present or past.
The objects of faith are not only future good, "bat
invisible things, both good and evil, which are made
known by divine revelation; and of these it is the evi
dence, exeyxee, the demonstration or conviction. By our
senses we become acquainted with the material world ;
by consciousness we are assured of the existence of
our souls and their various faculties; and by reasoning
we deduce one truth from another. But, besides these
sources of information, a great part of our knowledge
is derived from testimony. Thus, we know that there
are cities and countries which we never saw; that
events have happened at which we were not present ;
that certain persons lived in former ages, and perform
ed certain actions ; and that there are persons now alive
who have not come within the sphere of our observa
tion. Although there is a difference between the evi
dence of demonstration and the evidence of testimony,
yet, in particular circumstances, there is no difference
in the conviction produced ; for no person in his senses
entertains any more doubt that there is such a country
as Greece or Italy, although he has not travelled from
home, than he does of a proposition in mathematics
which he fully comprehends. We depend upon testi
mony in matters of commerce and science, in all our
ordinary transactions, and even in the important con
cerns of life and death. " If then we receive the testi
mony of men, the testimony of God is greater."* In
the latter case, there is no possibility of mistake or
deception. Besides, his testimony relates to many
things of the utmost importance, with respect to which
man could give us no information, — things which eye
had not seen, ear had not heard, and it had not entered
into the heart of man to conceive. Of these, faith is
the evidence .or demonstration. Being past, and future,
and invisible on account of their distance from us, or
the spirituality of their nature, they cannot be dis
covered by our senses ; but the conviction of their
reality is as strong in the mind of a believer, as if they
weTe placed before his eyes.
This is a general account of faith, according to the
definition of Paul ; but, with a view to illustrate its
nature more fully and distinctly, I request your atten
tion to the following observations.
First, The objects of religion are invisible, and.future,
and hence arises the indispensable necessity of faith.
The objects with which worldly men are conversant,
are present, or are considered not very distant; they
are, or are. expected soon to come, under the cognizance
of their senses^ Nothing seems to them to be impor
tant, which may not be seen, and felt, and enjoyed, in
this sublunary state. If there be any thing which does
not fall under this description, any thing which cannot
be made subservient to the purposes of the present life,
they regard it as a nonentity, or as a matter with which
they have nothing to do. Christians are deemed en-
. thusiasts or fools, who neglect the substance, and grasp
at a shadow, dreaming of another world, which no man
ever saw, instead of labouring to make themselves
comfortable in this. In a certain sense, indeed, the
things of this world are the objects of religion, because
it regulates our conduct and affections in reference to
* 1 John v. 9.

them; but the motives by which it influences our
minds, are derived from the invisible state, and the re
ward, to which it teaches us to aspire, lies beyond the
narrow boundary of time and sense. A Christian is a
citizen of the Jerusalem above; his conversation is in
heaven ; be looks at the things which are not seen, and
eternal ; he declares plainly, that he is seeking a coun
try, even a heavenly one; he obeys the exhortation,
"Set your affection on things above, not on things on
the earth ; for ye are dead, and your life is hid with
Christ in God."*
In the second place, Of those objects with which re
ligion is conversant, we can have no knowledge but by
Divine revelation. It is on this account that they are
objects of faith. We believe that they exist, upon the
testimony of God. It may be supposed that this state
ment of the source of religious knowledge is not strict
ly true, for that some parts of it, at least, are discover
able by reason. By reason, we demonstrate the exist
ence of God and infer a future state, in which men will
be rewarded according to their works ; but, without in
quiring how far unassisted reason would advance in its
researches, it is certain that, with respect even to these
fundamental truths, it is to revelation alone that we are
indebted for those views of them, which are the proper
objects of religion. It is from revelation that we have
derived the knowledge of that character of God, with
which we, as sinners, are concerned. It is revelation
which informs us that he is love ; that he is merciful,
and ready to forgive ; that he has given his only-begot
ten Son for the salvation of the world ; and that whoso
ever believes in him, shall not perish, but shall have
everlasting life. On these important subjects nature is
silent; reason says nothing, because it is profoundly
ignorant: they were so far from being suggested by
meditations of the human mind, or according with its
natural conceptions, that when they were first proposed,
they were derided as folly. With respect to a future
state, although the heathens entertained some obscure
notions of it, for which, however, it is probable they
were indebted more to tradition than to reasoning,
it does not admit of a doubt that, without revela
tion, we should not have had the faintest idea of
the heaven of Christianity, and should have known
nothing concerning the means by which admission
into it is obtained. It is the unrivalled glory of Jesus
Christ, that "he hath abolished death, and brought
life and immortality to light through the Gospel."!
Our religion is a free gift of God to our sinful race. It
originated in tbe purpose which he purposed in him
self before the beginning of time, and into which no
man or angel could have pried ; it is delivered to us in
the Scriptures, which were not written by the will of
man, but at the suggestion, and with the assistance of
the Holy Spirit; and like some other gifts of God, it
has not yet been imparted to all men, but, in the exer
cise of his sovereignty, has been granted to one nation,
and withheld from another.
In the third place, Faith is an assent to the revela
tion which God has made of the truths of religion.
We assent to a testimony, when we are persuaded of
the veracity of the testifier, into which our faith is re
solved. But, while this is a general definition of faith,
it varies its aspect, if I may speak so, according to the
subject of the testimony. When the testimony relates
to a matter of indifference, a fact in which we take no
interest, the assent is very slight, and may be called
simple belief. But if the subject come home to our
business and bosoms, a stronger impression is made.
When a person, for example, is in distress or danger,
and the testimony informs him of some generous friend,
who is both able and willing to deliver him, and is
exerting his power for his relief, the act of the mind

* Col. iii. 2, 3.

f 2 Tim. 1. 10.

THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION.

367

lises higher than simple belief, and is properly deno
minated trust or confidence. If we are looking forward
with desire to an object, the possession of which will
make us happy, and the testimony assures us that we
shall obtain it, expectation is added to desire, and both
united constitute hope. When wc attend to the nature
of the Christian religion, and consider that the subjects
of which it treats are of infinite importance, that it
exhibits the character of God in its grandest and most
interesting features, displays all the miracles and bless
ings of redemption, and directs our views to the reali
ties of eternity, we perceive that the faith which it de
mands must be very different from a cold naked assent.
It being admitted, that a faith corresponding to the
nature of the things revealed, implies the concurrence
of the heart, as well as the conviction of the under
standing, it will be easily conceded that its exist
ence is rare. There are many who profess to believe
the Gospel, and who do believe it in this sense, that
they entertain a vague and confused notion of its truth ;
but their faith is merely a careless passive assent.
They have been told that it is true, and perhaps^haye
given attention to the evidences by which its truth is
established, and they feel no disposition to call it in
question. There is no particular reason why they
should controvert the evidence, because they regarded
the subject as a mere speculation, which they are
under no necessity of reducing to practice; there are
several reasons which incline them to yield to it, as
the prejudices of education, the wishes of their friends,
a»regard to character and to their worldly interests.
They do not enter into a close examination of the sub
ject, nor institute an inquiry whether their assent be
sincere and cordial. They are not infidels in the com
mon acceptation of the word, and therefore they are
believers. But their faith is totally different from a
practical conviction. It has no influence upon their
hearts ; and were they tried by the standard of Scrip
ture, or even by the laws of reason and common sense,
it would be found that they do not really believe those
truths, of which they probably think that they never
entertained a doubt.
In the fourth place, Faith conveys to the mind a full
conviction of the truths of religion. It is the substance,
or confident expectation of things hoped for, the evi
dence or demonstration of things not seen. The ground
of this conviction of the existence, and nature, and im
portance of its objects, is the infallible testimony on
which it depends. What God has attested must be
true, because, being omniscient, he cannot be mista
ken, and being holy, he will not deceive. It may be
objected, that this assurance, which is said to belong
to faith, is not always found in believers, and that they
are sometimes disturbed with doubts. The fact can
not be denied ; but it is not at variance with the defi
nition formerly given, which merely describes what
faith is in itself, and what it ought to be in our expe
rience. We should reflect that, like other graces, it
subsists in imperfect beings, and has to contend with
difficulties, by which its full exercise is impeded.
Consciousness of personal demerit, and of the remains
of sin in the heart, the appearances of Providence
which seem to be opposed to the declarations and pro
mises of Scripture, the temptations of Satan, and the
suspension of Divine influences for the sins into which
they have fallen, may involve Christians in mental
distress, and lead them to call in question truths to
which, in their happier hours, they yielded an unwa
vering assent. " 0 thou of little faith, wherefore
didst thou doubt ?"* When these obstacles are re
moved, and the believer fixes his undivided attention
upon the faithfulness of God, he feels the same assu
rance of the truths of religion, however mysterious,
» Matt. -xvi. 31.

and however contrary to the natural suggestions of the
mind, which he does ofhis own existence, or of that
of the material world. No conviction could be stronger
than that of Abraham, when, without hesitation, he of
fered up Isaac, upon whose life the promises depended,
and yet continued to hope for the blessings exhibited
in them ; and when he confidently expected a son, al
though he himself was old, and his wife was barren,
and the time of child-bearing was past. This was
faith in its highest state. It is proposed for our imi
tation ; and as it is implied, that the same trust in God
is attainable by others, so there is no reason to doubt
that many have trodden, and are still treading in the
steps of that illustrious man, and are glorifying God
by an unqualified dependence on his word.
Lastly, through faith, the truths of religion exert
influence upon the mind, as if they were perceived by
the senses. It considers them as realities, and is suit
ably affected by them. It has been said that, if the
solemn and awful scenes which revelation describes
were actually disclosed to view, tbe sight would over
whelm us, and all worldly affairs would be suspended
as too insignificant to engage our attention. This may
be true ; and it may have been for this reason the will
of God, that, in this sublunary state, we should walk
by faith and not by sight. Yet such is the assurance
of the existence and magnitude of invisible things
which faith produces, that they not only excite power
ful emotions in the hearts of believers, and give a new
direction to their conduct, but they often make a
stronger impression upon them than is made by the
things which are visible and present. Hence, they
renounce the pleasures of sin for the happiness pro
mised by religion; and abandon the world as their
portion, in the expectation of the heavenly inheritance.
The sacrifices which a Christian has often made, of
his will, his ease, his honour, his wealth, his friends,
and even of his life, are proofs of the mighty power
of faith. These are the trophies which adorn its tri
umphs. " This is the victory that overcometh the
world, even our faith."*
Thus far I have given you an account of faith in
general, as it respects the whole revelation contained
in the Scriptures, and makes all the doctrines and
facts recorded in them bear upon the mind, so as to
promote our conformity to the will of God, and cur
final salvation. Being founded upon his testimony, it
respects every thing which he has attested, and im
proves it for the purpose which it was intended to
serve. It is conversant with things past as well as
with things to come, with things awful and alarming,
as well as with those which are calculated to impart
peace and consolation to the soul. By faith, we are
assured of the threatenings of the law, as well as of
the promises of the Gospel ; we are moved with fear,
as well as animated with hope. It is of great utility
and indispensable necessity to the Christian, in the
present life ; it excites him to tbe performance of his
duty, and supports him in adversity, and fortifies his
mind against temptation. " The people that know
their God, are strong, and do exploits."! They re
sist the assaults of Satan whether violent or insidious,
overcome the allurements and terrors of the world, and
persevere to the end in a course of holy obedience.
I now proceed to speak of justifying faith, or the
faith by which a sinner obtains an interest in Jesus
Christ, and the blessings of salvation. Let it be ob
served, that 'it is not different in its nature from the
faith already described, for it is the same grace which
operates in the believer, whatever is the object upon
which it is fixed. It is called justifying faith, on ac
count of the design to which it is subservient ; and, m
this view, its exclusive object is that part of revela-

* 1 John v. 4.

f Dan. xi. 32.

368

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY

tion which relates to the Saviour, or the Gospel,
Strictly so called.
The first remark which I make is, that the object
of justifying faith is Jesus Christ, and redemption
through his blood. Paul said to the jailor of Philippi,
" Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved."* The person addressed was a sinner, con
vinced and alarmed, dreading the vengeance of his
Maker, and anxiously inquiring how he might be de
livered from it. The words are an answer to his
question, and must, therefore, point out the object
which alone could dispel his fears, and inspire him
with hope. This design can be accomplished only by
the revelation of a Saviour, or by the Gospel as dis
tinguished from the Law. The faith of the law an
awakened sinner already possesses, for his fears pro
ceed from his belief that it is holy and just, and that
its threatenings will be executed upon those who have
transgressed it, unless they find out some method of
escaping its penalty. Nothing will relieve the mind
of a criminal condemned to die, but authentic informa
tion that his sovereign is willing to pardon him ; and
nothing will set free the convinced sinner from the
terror which he feels, but the knowledge of the mercy
of God, through the mediation of his Son. The ob
ject, then, of justifying faith is Christ crucified, —
Christ lifted up on the cross, like the brazen serpent
in the wilderness, — Christ as having borne our sins in
his own body on the tree, his blood shed as a propi
tiation for sin, and the everlasting righteousness which
he brought in as the foundation of hope to those who
had no hope in themselves. It is false and foolish to
suppose, that men may be saved by faith in God as
their Creator, and Preserver, and Lawgiver. If they
considered him in no other light, and understood the
full import of these characters, they would perceive
that he is inaccessible to the guilty, a consuming fire,
the avenger of such as do evil. It is in the Gospel
only, that a sinner will find those views ofhis charac
ter which will quiet the agitation of his mind, and
hold out encouragement to return to him. He will
never look to his Maker with comfort and hope, till he
behold him in Christ, reconciling the world unto him
self, not imputing their trespasses to men. There is
no other refuge from his wrath but the atonement.
Secondly, To the revelation of the Saviour in the
Gospel, the awakened sinner, under the influence of
the Spirit, yields a cordial assent; and this act of his
mind is therefore denominated faith. Faith is the be
lief of a testimony ; and is called human faith, when
its object is the testimony of man : divine faith, when
its object is the testimony of God. The cold and list
less assent which is every day given to the Gospel, by
thousands who take no interest in it, and are in no de
gree influenced by it in their practice, if it be called
faith at all, is evidently inferior to the faith of devils,
who "believe and tremble," while those persons believe
and disregard. The awakened sinner is under the con
duct of the Spirit, who presents the Gospel to his mind
with an evidence which has all the force of demon
stration. To this internal revelation, this illumination
of the mind by supernatural grace, the Scriptures re
fer, when they speak of " the opening of the blind
eyes," and of the coming of the Gospel " in power,
and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance."! ^l
is impossible to describe the operations of the mind,
so as to render them intelligible to those by whom
they have not been experienced ; but-we can all con
ceive the difference between the assent that we give
to a truth, which we have not properly considered and
about which we feel no concern, and our assent to a
truth which we understand, and know to be intimately
connected with our interests. Such is the difference

* Acts xvi. 31.

f lb. xxvi. 18. 1 Thess. i. 5.

between the faith of nominal Christians, and tbe faith
by which we are saved. The latter is founded on
clear perceptions of the truth, and excellence and in
finite importance of the Gospel. An evidence accom
panies it, which dispels all doubts, Temoves all objec
tions, and creates the highest assurance; Christ cru
cified is seen to be the power of God and the wisdom
of God unto salvation. The Gospel appears to be wor
thy of all acceptation, because it is so admirably adapt
ed to the circumstances of men, and redounds so much
to the glory of God. It bears upon it the signature of
Heaven. It is the truth, and in the judgment of the
enlightened sinner, the only truth which deserves his
attention. This is the "excellent knowledge of Christ,"
for which he is willing to count all things loss.*
Thirdly, Faith implies the reliance or dependence
of the soul upon Jesus Christ for salvation. The sin
ner not only assents to the testimony of God concern
ing his Son as true, but regards it as worthy of all ac
ceptation. Some indeed, as I remarked in a former
lecture, make faith consist in simple assent, because
this is the strict and logical definition of the term, and
consequently consider it as an act of the understanding
alone. But as the Scriptures make use of new words
and phrases to express new ideas, so they employ
some old words in a sense peculiar to themselves ;
and we should proceed with them as we do with any
other book, when we endeavour, by comparing one
passage with another, to ascertain the meaning of a
particular term which occurs in it. That, in the
phraseology of Scripture, faith is not simply an assent
of the understanding, but implies an act of volition
accepting the Saviour and confiding in him, is evident
from the metaphorical terms by which it is described.
It is called a receiving of Christ, a coming to him, a
fleeing for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before
us, an eating ofhis flesh, and a drinking ofhis blood.
These terms import such motion or activity as the soul
exerts, when it not only contemplates, but desires and
embraces the good which is presented to it. In the
Old Testament, faith is called trusting in the Lord.
Now we know that to trust in a person, is not merely
to believe that he is able and willing to deliver us
from danger and distress, and to bestow favours upon
us, but to accept his proffered assistance, and to com
mit our interest to his care and disposal. If we re
flect upon the situation of a sinner when he believes,
we shall more distinctly perceive what is, and natu
rally must be, the exercise of his mind. Finding him
self condemned by the law of God and his own con
science, and disappointed in his endeavours to relieve
himself, by his prayers, and tears, and fasts, and good
works, how is he affected when Jesus Christ is re
vealed as the only Saviour from sin ? Is he not like
the drowning man, who eagerly grasps the plank
thrown out to support him ; or like the manslayer,
who, seeing the avenger of blood close at his heels,
ran for safety into the city of refuge ? He does not
content himself with saying, 'the blood of Christ is
infinitely meritorious, and happy should I be, if I
could share in the blessings procured by it.' This,
we need not doubt, devils could say; for they are
aware of the efficacy of his sacrifice, and would rejoice
if it were possible to be delivered by it from torment.
He farther says, ' I desire to be sprinkled with his
blood, that, like the Israelites in Egypt, I may escape,
when the wrath of God shall go forth against his ene
mies. I place my hope upon the great Atonement, by
which the justice of heaven has been appeased ; I will
draw near to God, pleading the merit of his Son ; I
will present to him his all-perfect righteousness, of
which he has testified his high approbation.' It re
mains, that faith is an acquiescence in the plan of re-

# Phil. iii. 8.

THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION.

369

demption through the mediation of Christ, a reliance
upon him as our Saviour, and consequently, that, if
there has not been a concurrence of mind and heart in
receiving the testimony of the Gospel, our faith is vain,
we are yet in our sins.
Lastly, Faith implies the renunciation of our own
righteousness as the foundation of our hope. This is
an obvious inference from the preceding remarks, with
out attention to which the nature of faith will not be
understood. It is not a partial, but an unreserved re
liance upon Christ for salvation. To believe, is not tp
call upon him to assist us in what we have commenced
and carried on to a certain extent, but from a con
sciousness of our utter inability even to begin, to com
mit the work of our salvation wholly to him. This is
the test of genuine faith. This is the faith of God's
elect, which leads away the sinner from himself to the
Saviour, fixes his undivided attention upon the cross,
and derives his peace and hope solely from the sacri
fice which was offered upon it. It is a spurious faith,
which, forminga treacherous alliance with good works,
attempts to introduce them as a partial cause of our
acceptance with God. " To him that worketh," says
Paul, " the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of
debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth in
him that justifieth tbe ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness."* These words are worthy of atten
tion. To work and to believe are opposed to each
other. He who believes, does not work, that is, he
does not work that he may live, perform duties with
a view to obtain the divine favour, associate his own
obedience with that of our Redeemer as the ground of
his justification. He simply believes ; that is, he re
ceives the testimony of God concerning his Son, and
expects salvation through him alone. It is on this ac
count that true faith is so rare. Men would not object
to the aid of Jesus Christ, so far as their own power
is insufficient to save them: but to depend upon him
to the exclusion of all their own qualifications and
good deeds, to owe every thing to him, and to have
nothing left of which they may boast as their own, —
all this is so contrary to the natural bias of the heart,
so mortifying to pride, so destructive of our schemes
for appearing respectable in our own eyes, and main
taining what we falsely call the dignity of human na
ture, that at first we all revolt from it with secret in
dignation, and will not submit to the humiliating plan,
till we have been prepared by the discipline of ihe law,
and the grace of the Gospel, It is the office of faith to
receive Christ, as he is revealed in the Scriptures. He
is offered freely, and we must receive him without pre
senting any price in exchange. He is exhibited as the
only Saviour; and to receive him as such, is to trust,
neither in the merits of any saint, nor in the interces
sion of any angel, nor in our own repentance and obe
dience, but in him whose arm brought us salvation,
and who claims the undivided glory of a work, which
he accomplished without an associate. To believe, is
to submit to the righteousness of God ; it is to desist
from our vain attempts to establish our own righteous
ness, and to say, "In the Lord have we righteousness
and strength."!
What has been said concerning faith in general, and
justifying faith in particular, is conformable to the doc
trine of our church. " By this faith," says our Confes
sion, " a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is
revealed in the word, for the authority of God himself
speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that
which each particular passage thereof containeth ;
yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the
threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for
this life, and that which is to come. But the principal
acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and rest-

* Rom. iv. 4, 5.
2 W

f Is. xiv. 24.

21

ing upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification,
and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace."*
When the question is proposed, whether assurance
is of the essence of faith, it is necessary, before we re
turn an answer, to know what is meant by assurance.
If it mean a full persuasion of the truth of the divine
testimony, to whatever subject it relates, we answer,
that it is essential to faith. Faith is not a doubting,
hesitating assent, but "the substance of things hoped
for, the evidence of things not seen." The Christian
is firmly persuaded of every doctrine and fact which
God has attested, and of every promise which he has
made. He believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God and the Saviour of sinners; that his death was an
atonement for guilt; that there is redemption through
his blood, even the forgiveness of sins ; that he is freely
offered to him and others in the Gospel, and that every
man who trusts in him shall be saved. But if assur
ance mean an explicit assurance of our own salvation,
we deny that it is of the essence of faith.
In opposition to Papists, who made faith consist in
an assent to the truth of the Scriptures in general, and
denied that any man could be certain ofhis final salva
tion, the Reformers represented it as a firm persuasion,
that Christ died for us in particular, and that our sins
are forgiven. The founders of our religious society
adopted this notion, and in one of their public deeds,!
have defined faith to be a persuasion on the part of the
sinner, that Christ is his; that what he did and suffered
he did and suffered for him, and that he shall have life
and salvation by him. It may be questioned whether
in avoiding one extreme, they have not run into another ;
or, at least, have not employed language, which must
be explained and qualified, in order to make it accord
with the truth. A sinner cannot say, in the first in
stance, Christ is mine in possession; because this be
comes true, only when he has believed, and cannot
belong to the nature of faith, as it is a consequence of
it. If the words mean only, that Christ is his in the
offer of the Gospel, or is offered to him in particular,
we allow it, but have a right to complain, that a fact
about which there is no dispute, should be expressed
in terms which are apt to suggest a quite different
sense. The sinner cannot say, till he have believed,
that Christ died for him, unless he died for all men
without exception ; but, consistently with the doctrine
of particular redemption, no man can be assured that
he was one of the objects of the sacrifice of the cross,
unless he have first obtained an interest in it by faith.
Neither can every sinner say, in the first moment of
faith, that be shall certainly have eternal salvation.
He desires salvation no doubt, and his faith implies an
expectation of it; hut how many believers have been
harassed with doubts at first, and during the whole
course of their lives have rarely been able to use the
language of confidence ! This the advocates of this
definition are compelled to admit; and it is curious to
observe how, in attempting to reconcile it with their
system, they shift and shuffle, and almost retract, and
involve themselves in perplexity and contradiction, as
those must do who are labouring to prove that, al
though it is a fact that many believers are not assured
of their salvation, yet assurance is of the essence of
faith. It is manifest that, if assurance is of the essence
of faith, it can never be separated from it. — The exer
cise of faith is regulated by the word of God, and its
object is there defined. But it is nowhere revealed in
the Scriptures, that Christ died for any particular per
son, and that his sins are forgiven. How, then, can
an assurance of these things belong to the nature of
faith ? How can it be our duty to believe what is not
in the testimony? It is an objection against this defi
nition, that it makes faith consist rather in the beliof

* Confes. ch. xiv. } 2. f Act of Assoc. Pres. 21st Oct. 1742.

370

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

of something regarding ourselves, than in the belief of
the testimony of God; in the belief of the goodness
of our state, rather than of the all-sufficiency and will
ingness of Christ. It may be farther objected, that it
confounds the inferences from faith with faith itself;
¦nothing being plainer than that these propositions,
' Christ died for me,' 'my sins are forgiven,' are con
clusions to which the mind comes, from the previous
belief of the doctrines and promises of the Gospel.
Farther, it is chargeable with this error, that it defines
faith in its highest and most perfect state, and excludes
the lower degrees of it, and thus lays a stumbling-block
before thousands of the people of God, who, not find
ing in themselves this assurance, are distressed with
the melancholy thought that they are unbelievers. Al
though adopted by our fathers, it is contrary to the doc
trine of our standards, to which only we are bound to
conform, and in which it is expressly said, " This in
fallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of
faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and con
flict with many difficulties, before he be a partaker of
it."* In a word, this definition of faith has been re
jected by many of the greatest divines. I shall men
tion only one, the learned and pious Bishop Davenant,
who observes, in his work entitled Delerminationes
Quasstionum quarundam Theologicarum,] that the word
confidence or assurance has two meanings. It signifies
the act of resting upon, and adhering to Jesus Christ,
by which we embrace him as with both our arms, and
seek to obtain pardon, grace, and glory from the Father.
Justification follows this act, whether the sinner be
fully persuaded of the remission of his sins or not.
But sometimes it denotes an effect consequent to justi
fication, namely, the full persuasion and lively sense
of pardon, and the favour of God. We confess, he
says, that this confidence or assurance is not justifying
faith, but its daughter, and that the justified soul is not
wont to obtain it, but after many exercises of faith and
holiness. It is admitted, that an assurance of salvation is at
tainable in the present life. An apostle exhorts Chris
tians "to make their calling and election sure."! The
exhortation implies that they may not be assured of
the goodness of their state, for no man would be ex
horted to seek what he already possesses, and, conse
quently, that this persuasion is not found in every be
liever, as it would be if it belonged to the nature of
faith. They are called upon to examine themselves,
whether they be in the faith ; but this would be unne
cessary, if there were an evidence in faith itself which
satisfied the mind. The assurance of which we speak,
is not obtained by the direct act of faith, but by reflec-
.tion. It is the result of evidence, collected by obser
vation and inquiry, that the person is possessed of the
faith to which salvation is promised. It is " founded,"
our Church says, " upon the divine truth of the pro
mises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces
unto which these promises are made, the testimony of
¦•the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that
we are the children of God ; which Spirit is the ear
nest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the
day of redemption."]! By many theological writers
this assurance has been called the reflex act of faith,
¦but with manifest impropriety. It is not an act of
faith, but a process of reasoning founded upon' faith,
and may be reduced to a regular syllogism : Every
.man who believes in Jesus Christ shall be saved ; but
I have believed in Christ, as is proved by the opera
tions of divine grace in my heart; therefore I shall be
saved. The major of this proposition is a matter of
faith, because it is a revealedjBith ; the minor is a

*Kpt-

* Conf. cb. xviii. \ 3.
f Determination of certain Theological Questions.
t 2 Pet. i. 10. || Conf. chap, xviii. } 2.

matter of experience; and the conclusion is of a mixed
nature, partaking of the character of both. It is more
accurate to call it the assurance of sense, because it is
founded on our feelings and dispositions. " We know
that we have passed from death unto life, because we
love the brethren." " Hereby we know that we are of
the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For
if our heart condemn us, God is greater that our heart,
and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart con
demn us not, then have we confidence toward God."*
It is evident, from the preceding account, that
"faith is not of ourselves, but is the gift of God."!
Without particular assistance, we may assent to the
Gospel, upon perceiving the evidence of its truth ; but,
unless our minds be enlightened, and our hearts be re
newed by almighty grace, we will not cordially em
brace it, and comply with its design, by placing our
whole dependance. upon Christ and renouncing every
other foundation of hope. Faith is an act, not of the
carnal, but of the regenerated man. This important
truth we should always bear in mind, that we may
seek faith from Him who only can bestow it ; and, if
we have obtained it, may give all the praise and glory
to God. It is explicitly laid down by our Lord in the
following words : " No man can come to me, except
the Father, which hath sent me, draw him: and I will
raise him up at the last day. It is written in the
prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every
man therefore that hath heard, and bath learned of the
Father, cometh unto me."!

LECTURE LXIX.
ON THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS :—
JUSTIFICATION.
Importance of the Doctrine — Meaning; of the term Justification
— The Author and Subjects of Justification — Implies that a
Sinner is pardoned, and accounted righteous — Ground of
Justification, not the Works of the Law.
The subject wbich we are now to consider is enti
tled to the most serious attention, on account of the
important place which it holds in the system of reli
gion. To a man who acknowledges himself to be a.
sinner, no inquiry is so interesting as that which re
lates to the means of his restoration to the favour of
God ; and, if he is thoroughly convinced of his guilt
and danger, he will find no rest till he has obtained a
satisfactory answer to it. Till this point is decided,
all other information respecting religion will be una
vailing. Demonstrations of the existence of God will
only serve to confirm, and more deeply impress upon
his mind, the awful truth which he already believes,
that there is a righteous Judge, before whom he must
appear, and by whose sentence his final doom will be
fixed. To explain tbe moral law to him, and incul
cate the obligations to obey it, will be to act the part
of a public accuser, when he quotes the statutes of tha
land in order to show that the charges which he has
brought against the criminals at the bar are well
founded, and, consequently, that he is worthy of pun
ishment. The stronger the arguments are by which
you evince the immortality of the soul, the more clear
ly do you prove that his punishment will not be tem
porary, and that there is another state of existence, in
which he will be fully recompensed according to his
desert. Hence you perceive how defective is not only
natural religion, but that spurious Christianity, the
publication of which Unitarians affirm to have been
the sole design of the mission of our Saviour. There

1 John iii. 14, 19—21. t Eph. "¦ 3. X John'vi. 44.

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

371

fs nothing in a pure morality, and the doctrine of the
lesurrection and a future state, to relieve the mind of a
ginner. It is the glory of the gospel, that it reveals the
method according to which a sinner may obtain peace
with bis Maker, and may rise to the possession of eter
nal life. It resolves the important question, bow a
rnan may be just with God. But although the infor
mation which he gives on this subject is sufficiently
clear, it may be misapprehended, through carelessness
and prejudice; and, accordingly, we find that there
has. been, and still is, a diversity of opinion among
professed Christians with respect to the ground of ac
ceptance. An error upon this point is fundamental ;
foe, as there is only one way to heaven, if we miss it
and take another, it is certain that we shall not arrive
at that happy place. If we entertain right views of
the doctrine of justification, we cannot go far wrong
with respect to any other essential truth of Christian
ity ; but a mistake here will affect the whole system,
and give rise to false conceptions of the character of
God, of the mediation of Christ, of the law, of the gos
pel, of grace, and of works. It was justly termed by-
Luther, articulus slaniis vel cadenlis ecclesias, " the arti
cle of a standing or falling church :" because, accor
ding to the views which are adopted in any church
witii respect to the means of regaining the favour of
God, true piety or holiness will flourish or decline in
it. I may add, that it was -eminently through the
preaching of the seriptural doctrine of justification,
that the reformation from Popery was effected. The
light of this truth discovered to men the abominations
of Antichrist, and made them renounce the merit of
good works, the efficacy of fasts, and pilgrimages, and
penances, the intercession of saints and angels, the
sacrifice of the mass, and all the other tenets by which
the mediation of Christ had been virtually set aside,
and sinners had been led to rest their hope upon a
foundation of sand.
It is necessary, in the first place, to ascertain the
meaning of the term justification. It is a Latin word,
which, however, is not of classical authority, and is
found, I believe, only in the works of ecclesiastical
writers. If we explain it according to the laws of ety
mology, it will signify the making of a person just, as
sanctification signifies the making of a person holy.
Hence some of the ancients were misled with regard
to the meaning of the term, and confounded justifica
tion with sanctification. The church of Rome has
fallen into this same error. The justification of a
sinner is declared by the council of Trent to be not
only the remission of sin, but also sanctification and
the renovation of the inward man, by which a person
who was unjust is made just, and instead of an enemy
becomes a friend, so that he is an heir according to the
hope of eternal life. — " The formal cause of it is the
righteousness of God, not that by which he is himself
righteous, but that by which he makes us righteous ;
and by which, bestowed upon us as his gift, we are
renewed in the spirit of our mind, and are "not only ac
counted, but are truly called, and are righteous, receiv
ing each of us righteousness in ourselves according to
our measure, which the Spirit distributes to every man
as he wills, and according to the peculiar disposition
and co-operation of every man." The council then
proceeds to enact the following decree : — " If any man
shall say that men are justified solely by the imputation
of the righteousness of Christ, or solely by the remis
sion of sins to the exclusion of grace and charity which
is shed abroad in our hearts by the Spirit, and is inhe
rent in them, or even that the grace by which we are
justified is only the favour of God, let him be ac
cursed."* This is called the first justification, and il

* Cbncil. Trident. Sess. vi. Decret. et Canon, de justificatione.

is said to be by faith, in a sense, however, which does
not altogether exclude merit and predisposing qualifi
cations. The second justification is said to be by
works, performed by the aid of the grace which was
infused in the first.
Justification is a forensic term, which denotes not a
change of a person's dispositions, but a change ofhis
state in relation to the law. It does not make him
righteous by an infusion of holy habits, but pronounces
him righteous on valid grounds. This appears from
many passages to be the meaning of the Hebrew word
ply, and the Greek word Sikcuox. "If there be a contro
versy among men, and they come into judgment that tbe
judges may judge them, then they shall justify the
righteous and condemn the wicked."* To justify the
righteous is not to make him, but to pronounce him,
righteous upon proof of his innocence, and of the good
ness of his cause. For this alone is the office of a
judge. "To justify the wicked," signifies to pro
nounce him just, or to acquit him in judgment, and is
declared to be an "abomination to the Lord,"! as it is
to condemn the righteous, or pronounce him to be
guilty. " He is near that justifieth me; and who is he
that will contend with me?"! These are the words
of our Saviour, and refer to the sentence ofhis Father,
by which he was acquitted from every false charge
brought against him by his enemies, as well as from
tbe demands of law and justice which he had fully
satisfied. The word is evidently used in the same
sense when the Psalmist says, "Enter not into judg
ment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man
living be justified."!! He is speaking to God as his
Judge, and he intreats him that he may not be brought
to trial ; because neither he nor any other person could
expect a sentence, in his favour.
In the New Testament, the word cTixuiow always bears
a forensic sense, or a sense closely connected with it,
importing not to make, but to pronounce righteous.
When wisdom is said to be "justified of her chil
dren,'^ the meaning is, that she is approved or vindi
cated by them, exhibited in her true character, and
cleared from the aspersions of her enemies. The man
who is desirous to justify himself, is a man who is
eager to prove tbat there is no defect in his obedience.
Of this description were the Pharisees, who maintained
that men were accepted by God on the ground of their
good works, and made a show of righteousness before
the world. "Ye are they that justify yourselves be
fore men. "If The publican went down to his house
"justified,"** that is, acquitted and pardoned by God,
whose mercy he had humbly implored. "The doers
of the law shall be justified,"!! that is, they, and they
alone, shall be esteemed righteous by the law, or rather
by the Lawgiver. The forensic sense of justification
is manifest from its being opposed to condemnation.
"It is God tbat justifieth ; who is he that condemn-
ethl" "Judgment was by one to condemnation ; but
the free gift is of many offences unto justification."!!
It is unnecessary to multiply proofs, as the matter is
abundantly plain. Justification is a change, not of our
nature, but of our state. Those who are justified are
also regenerated ; but the two privileges, although in
separable, are perfectly distinct.
The author of justification is God. " It is God that
justifieth." The person to be justified is accountable
to him as his Creator and Lawgiver, and by his sen
tence he must stand or fall. In this transaction he sus
tains the character of the guardian of the law, who will
take care, if I may speak so, that its authority shall
not be subverted, and its rights be violated by any sen
tence which he may pronounce in favour of its subjects ;

* Deut. xxv. 1. f Prov. xvii. 15. t Is- 1- 8.
|| Ps. cxliii. 2. } Matt. xi. 19. H Luke xvi. 15,
** lb. xviii. 14. ff Rom. ii. 13. }f lb. viii. 33, 34, v. 16

372

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

and of tbe God of grace, who receives into favour those
whom he might have justly excluded from his pre
sence. It is said, indeed, in the Book of Daniel, that
"they who turn many to righteousness," or literally,
who justify many, " shall shine as the stars for ever
and ever."* But their justification of others is merely
ministerial, and must be understood of their agency
under God in bringing men to that faith through which
they are justified. In the same way we must explain
those words of Christ, which seem to put the power
of eternal life and death into the hands ofhis apostles:-
"Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are re
tained."! If there is no reference to the miraculous
gift of discerning spirits, by which they could certainly
judge of the state of individuals, and pronounce a sen
tence upon them which would be ratified in heaven,
nothing further can be intended than that, as preachers
.of the word, they were authorised to declare the cha
racters of those who should be justified, and of those
who should be condemned, to assure believers of eter
nal life, and unbelievers of eternal death.
The person who is justified is a sinner. God "jus
tifieth the ungodly."! He is considered as one who
has violated the law, and the design of the sentence is
to set him free from the consequences of transgression.
If he were not a sinner, he woulcl be under no neces
sity to make anxious inquiries respecting the means
of restoration to the favour of the Lawgiver. He would
be already justified, for God always beholds the righte
ous with a pleasant countenance.
"Those whom God effectually calleth," says our
confession of Faith, "he also freely justifieth, not by
infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning
their sins, and by accounting and accepting their per
sons as righteous. "|| Although justification is repre
sented as a single act, and is commonly spoken of as a
single blessing, yet it consists, according to this defi
nition, of more parts than one, to which, when attempt
ing to explain its nature, we must separately direct our
attention. The person to be justified is a sinner; and
justification is a sentence declaring him to be just in
the eye of the law. Two things are necessarily involved
in this sentence; first, that he is acquitted from every
charge of transgression which is brought against him
by the law; and secondly, that he is accounted to have
fulfilled, or on some ground treated as if he had ful
filled, its demands.
Justification implies tbe acquittal of the justified per
son from the charges of the law. It may here be ob
served, that the person in whose favour a legal sentence
is pronounced, may be viewed as innocent or guilty.
If he is innocent, the law acquits him, by declaring the
charge to be unfounded, or, in the language of Scrip
ture, by "bringing forth his righteousness as the noon
day." It is impossible that a trial on false grounds
can take place at the tribunal of God ; but cases of ihis
kind frequently occur in human courts of justice. If he
is guilty, as all those are who obtain the blessing of
which we are speaking, the law grants him a pardon,
or, to express myself more accurately, as pardon is not
the act of the law, he is forgiven by the Lawgiver, or
the person in whose hands the administration of justice
and mercy is lodged.
_ The pardon of sin consists in tbe absolution of the
sinner from the obligation to punishment under which
he was lying. This is the nature of remission, whether
it refer to crimes committed against the law of God, or
to crimes committed against the laws of men. Obe
dience is not merely recommended to us in the way of
counsel, which leaves a person to act as he may think
proper, but is enjoined by authority, and enforced by

* Dan. xii. 3. f John xx. 23. J Rom. iv. 5.
|| Westra Conf. ch. xi. { 1.

tbe most solemn sanctions : " Cursed is every one that
continueth not in all things which are written in the
book of the law to do them."* As soon, therefore, as
a man transgresses the commandment, he becomes
guilty ; or, in other words, he is liable to the penalty,
and bound to suffer it by the sentence of the Lawgiver.
To pardon this man, is to declare, upon grounds which
will be afterwards specified, that, although he has vio
lated the law, it shall not have its course upon him ;
that he shall be exempted from the fatal effects of his
transgressions, and be treated as if he were innocent.
Remission places him in the same relation to the law
as if he had not sinned. He is no more under a sen
tence of condemnation than Adam was before his fall.
As one sin subjects the offender to the penalty, if God
should enter into judgment with him, it would be im
possible that he could escape, since his sins are nume
rous as the stars of heaven, or the sand upon the sea
shore. But God will not enter into judgment with him,
nor listen to any of the charges which the law or his
conscience may advance, because his justice has re
ceived full satisfaction for all his acts of disobedience.
Hence the Scriptures employ a variety of metaphorical!
expressions to show that the guilt of pardoned sin is
completely cancelled, and that those who are forgiven
are secured against every penal evil. God is said to
have "blotted out their sins;" "not to remember
them :" to have " cast them behind his back ;" to have
"cast them into the depths of the sea ;" "not to im
pute them ;" and they are represented as so hidden,
that when they are "sought for, they shall not be
found."! I' >s evident that these things must be un
derstood, not literally, but as alluding to the various
ways in which an object may be concealed from the
eyes of men, or banished from their minds. They in
timate that, although the sins are ever present to the
knowledge of God, who, being infinitely holy, must
always view them with abhorrence, yet he will deal
with believers in the same gracious manner as if he
had forgotten their offences, and they were actually re
moved out of his sight. Hence, it has been said that
God beholds no sin in believers. The proposition
gave rise to controversy, and we cannot wonder that it
did so, as it is expressed in a paradoxical form. If it
mean that, literally, God sees no sin in them, it would
be false, because he knows them to be chargeable with
many transgressions; but nothing more is intended
than that he sees in them no obligation to punishment,
no ground on which he may proceed against them as a
judge. This is a Scriptural truth ; which ought to
have been expressed in plain and simple terms ; no
good purpose could be gained by throwing it into a
form calculated to surprise and perplex. We may say
of this and some other paradoxes relative to the same
subject, which caused much discussion more than a
hundred years ago, — such as, that believers contract no
new guilt by new crimes ; that God is not offended by
their sins ; that confession, and repentance, and prayer,
are not necessary to pardon ; we may say of them that,
if not altogether false, they are a pitiful play upon
words ; and that, while the sentiments which they were
meant to convey, so far as agreeable to Scripture,
might be defended, the language ought to have" been
universally condemned. It is a poor employment to
turn the doctrines of religion into riddles.
Such, then, is the nature of remission. It delivers
the guilty from the curse of the law; it places those
who were devoted to destruction in a state of safety ;
it averts the judgments which were hanging over their
heads, and threatened to overwhelm them for ever.
They may confidently say, " O Lord, we will praise
thee : though thou wast angry with us, yet thine anger
* Gal. iii. 10.
f Is. xliv. 22. xliii. 25. xxxviii. 17. Micah vii. 19. J'».
xxxii. 2. Jer. I. 20.

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

373

is turned away, ana liou hast comforted us."* Sin,
although a deadly poison, cannot now destroy them,
because an effectual antidote has been administered.
Its influence, indeed, is pernicious, and they should
guard against it with the utmost circumspection, be
cause it will pollute their souls, disturb their peace,
and displease their heavenly Father ; but, although it
may subject them to chastisements, it will never ex
pose them to his avenging wrath : " There is now no
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus."!
The pardon which is granted in justification is full,
extending to all the transgressions of the guilty per
sons : " All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be for
given unto men." " By him, all that believe are justi
fied from all things, from which they could not be jus
tified by the law of Moses."! That law appointed sa
crifices for many offences, but there were some for
which no atonement was provided. The sacrifice of
Christ was an atonement for sins of every kind and de
gree. Hence, in the Gospel a promise of pardon is
made to every man who believes, without any excep
tion ; and if there is no sin which shall not be forgiven,
it is excepted, not because there was not sufficient vir
tue in the blood of Christ to expiate it, but because it
consists in a deliberate and wilful rejection ofhis sa
crifice ; so tbat the unhappy man is in the same condi
tion with the patient under a dangerous disease, who
will not take the only medicine which could cure him,
and is therefore abandoned by his physician. With
respect to past and present sins, there is no douht that
they are immediately remitted, so that the only ques
tion relates to those of which the believer may be af
terwards guilty. To some it has appeared improper to
say, that they also are forgiven as soon as he believes ;
because there is an absurdity, they think, in supposing
a debt to be cancelled before it is contracted. To this
objection it may be replied, that there is no more
ground for the charge of absurdity in this case than in
that of our Saviour, to whom all the sins ofhis people,
past, present, and to come, were at once imputed ; for
"ihe Lord laid upon him the iniquity of us all ;"|| and
who consequently made satisfaction for millions of sins
which had not yet been committed. There is no diffi
culty in the pardon, which does not occur in the expia
tion, of future sins. It should be considered that we
are speaking of a Divine transaction; and that, to him
whose prerogative it is to justify the ungodly, the fu
ture is as the past, as fully known, and equally the
subject of his purposes and proceedings. When a sin
ner believes, he obtains an interest in the atonement
which was made for all his sins. It is not conceiva
ble, therefore, that only a part of his sins should be
pardoned ; the blood of Christ, which secures him
against condemnation for those which are past and
present, must secure him, at the same time, with re
spect to those which are future. This is all that is
meant by the pardon of these sins. He is placed in
such a situation, that they shall not be imputed to him.
He is delivered from the curse, or the sentence pro
nounced upon the transgressors of the law ; so that,
although he may afterwards transgress, the sentence
shall not pass upon him. He may daily offend, for
there is no man that"liveth and sinneth not;" but
whatever his own apprehensions may be, God is at
peace with him: " I will be merciful to their unright
eousness ; Iheir sins and their iniquities will I remem
ber no more."§
Hence it appears, that the pardon granted in justifi
cation is irrevocable. The man whom his sovereign
has forgiven for one act of rebellion, may revolt from
bis allegiance a second time, and again fall under his
displeasure. But " the gifts and the calling of God are
* Is. xii. 1. f Rom. viii. 1. } Matt. xii. 31. Acts xiii. 39.
|| Is. Iiii. 6. j Heb. viii. 12.

without repentance." We must not imagine that, like
an earthly prince, he frequently changes the objects of
his love, and that those who are his favourites to-day,
may incur his hatred to-morrow. A foundation is laid
for the permanent exercise of his mercy and good-will
towards believers, in the never-failing efficacy of the
atonement ofhis Son. His blood answers every charge,
covers every sin, enforces every plea, and itself pleads
with irresistible eloquence in behalf of those for whom
it was shed. The sins into which the believer may
fall through the treachery of his heart and the influence
of temptation, are not a reason why his pardon should
be revoked. Conscious of demerit, he may dread the
consequence, and be alarmed when he thinks of divine
justice, which he has offended and cannot appease;
but while repentance and humiliation are his duty, his
fears of final condemnation are unfounded, because the
sin which disquiets him was expiated on the cross,
and the justice before which he trembles requires his
absolution. " Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom
the Lord imputeth not iniquity."* Man would have
been blessed if he had never sinned, and, continuing to
obey his Creator, had enjoyed the happiness which
would have flowed from his favour. Since he has fal
len, he can now only be blessed when the anger of God
is averted from him, and he is treated as if he were in
nocent. The forgiveness of sins is not the only blessing
which is implied in justification. Although a criminal
were fully pardoned, yet, if nothing more were done,
he would have no title to the privileges and rewards
which were promised to obedient subjects. It is ne
cessary that the sinner should not only be delivered
from guilt, but should also be accounted righteous, or
treated, on some valid ground, as if he had fulfilled the
demands of the law.
Some indeed maintain, that justification consists
solely in the remission of sins ; but it may be easily
shown that this is a mistake. The Scripture describes
this privilege as comprehending the imputation cf
righteousness to us, and as the constituting of us
righteous before God, when it speaks of the " blessed
ness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteous
ness without works."! "-^s Dy one man's disobe
dience many were made sinners; so by the obedience
of one shall many be made righteous."! The term, to
justify, implies something more than the pardon of sin,
for it signifies to pronounce a person to be just; and
the criminal is not just in the eye of the law, merely
because he is pardoned. There is, indeed, now no
charge which can be alleged against him as the reason
why he should be condemned and punished ; but there
is a great difference between simple innocence and
righteousness. Righteousness supposes that the wholo
law has been fulfilled ; innocence imports only that it
has not been transgressed. I may remark by the way,
that even innocence is not the effect of pardon, because
pardon pre-supposes that the law has been violated ;
and the only effect of it in respect of a believer, is to
place him in the same situation with an innocent per
son in so far that the penalty will not be executed any
more upon the one than upon the other. No man can
be pronounced just by him who judges according to
truth, unless he be possessed of justice or righteous
ness. In the case of a sinner, therefore, the imputa
tion of righteousness is pre-supposed as the ground of
his justification, Which, consequently, implies some
thing more than simple remission. Besides, let it be
considered that, allhough the remission of sins is a
blessing of incalculable'value, it does not fully answer
the design of the substitution of Christ in our room, or

« Ps. xxxii. 1, 2. f Rom. iv. 6. 1 Rom. v. 19

374

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the expectations and desires of the sinner. The object
ofhis suretyship and sacrifice was, not only to recon
cile us to God, but to restore the happiness which we
had forfeited by disobedience; and the sinner who be
lieves, aims at the enjoyment of a complete and ever
lasting salvation. But the whole effect of pardon is to
deliver a criminal from punishment; it does not rein
state him in the favour of his prince. Were nothing
more, therefore, included in justification than the par
don of sin, this privilege might be enjoyed, while at
the same lime the person was destitute of a title to
heaven. Perhaps the reason that seme theological
writers are so eager to confine justification to the re
mission of sins is, that a right to future felicity being
still wanting, room may be left for the introduction of
works as the procuring cause of it. But Jesus Christ
will not share his glory with those whom he saves,
nor does he bestow his blessings by halves. Those
who are forgiven, are made heirs according to the hope
of eternal life, and a righteousness is imparted to them
which is the foundation of their claim to it. Were a
sinner merely pardoned, he would be acquitted, but not
properly justified. The law of God would still have a
demand upon him, because, although he did not owe
the debt of suffering, he would still owe the debt of
obedience. The privilege would be incomplete; his
state would be imperfect ; and although secured against
the danger of being cast into hell, he would be in the
utmost uncertainty whether he should ever be admitted
to the happiness of heaven.
There are two ways in which a man may become
righteous. First, he may become righteous by his per
sonal obedience. " He that doeth righteousness," says
John, "is righteous."* In this way, Adam would
have been righteous, if he had faithfully exerted in the
service of God the moral power with which he was en
dowed. In this way, those angels are righteous who
kept their first estate when many of their fellows apos
tatized, and who are now confirmed in holiness beyond
the possibility of failure. In this way, some imagine
that fallen man may become righteous, because, in
iheir opinion, he has not lost his original ability to
obey; or, if it is in some degree impaired, God has
lowered his demands to meet our infirmity. Secondly,
a man may become righteous by imputation. If he can
not himself fulfil the law, another, taking his place, and
coming under his obligations, may fulfil it in his name ;
and the obedience of this surety may be placed to his
account. Jesus Christ, for example, might become the
representative of all mankind, or of a portion of man
kind, and, by obeying the precepts of the law in their
stead, might bring an everlasting righteousness, which
should be reckoned to them as the ground of their jus
tification. The justification of a sinner must be founded, either
upon his personal righteousness, or upon the righteous
ness of Christ. The grand question is, to which of
these is he indebted for acceptance with God?
The Apostle Paul repeatedly declares, " that by the
works of the law shall no flesh be justified." I have
no doubt that his meaning was distinctly apprehend
ed by those whom he addressed ; but the spirit of
controversy has endeavoured to involve it in obscu
rity, and even to put a sense upon his words directly
contrary to what he certainly intended. It has been
asked, of what law does he speak? and what are the
works which he excludes from justification ? By the
law, some understand the ceremonial law : and their
design in so limiting it, is to prove that, notwithstand
ing the express exclusion pf works, we may be justi
fied, in part, at least, by our obedience to the moral pre
cepts. But to suppose Paul to have used so many ar
guments as are brought forward in his epistles, to show
* John iii. 7.

that we are not justified by the works of tbe ceremo
nial law, is to represent him as having spent much time
and labour in vain ; for there is no evidence that there
were any persons in his days, who imagined that eter
nal life could be gained by ceremonial observances
alone. It is plain, from several parts of his writings,
that, by the law, he meant the ten commandments
which were engraven upon two tables of stone; but,
in the more extensive acceptation of the term, it signi
fied the law of Moses, comprehending moral as well as
ceremonial precepts, and was the name for ihe whole
system of duties which God had enjoined upon his
people by the ministry of that illustrious man. Ad
mitting, then, that the apostle refers to the law of Mo
ses, we have an answer ready to the second question,
What works are exclnded from justification ? All
works are excluded, without exception ; the works of the
first and the second table; moral and ceremonial works;
every act of man, performed in obedience to a com
mandment of God. Nothing is more absurd and per
verse, than to ask what works are meant to be excluded,
when Paul in twenty places has excluded works in
general, without once hinting that he intended only
those of a particular kind. The subject is perfectly
intelligible to those who are willing to understand ;
and all the difficulties and objections which have been
started, arise from aversion to bis doctrine.
In proving that a man cannot be justified by the
works of the law, we may begin by observing, that
the point is determined by this single consideration,
that he is a sinner, and that his present conduct, how
ever dutiful, cannot compensate for his past disobe
dience. He is bound to obey, every moment of his
life ; and consequently, the obedience w hich he now
performs, being due by a prior obligation, cannot, a3
if it were a free gift or gratuitous service, cancel the
debt which he had formerly contracted. There is not
a single sentence of Scripture which authorises us to
think, that, if a man who has transgressed shall return
to his duty, his past offences will be overlooked. Such
an idea is contrary to common sense, and to the ex
press sanction of the law. " The soul that sinneth it
shall die."* Hence we see, that by works alone jus
tification is impossible. The utmost which the oppo
nents of our doctrine can plead for, is, that our justifi-,
cation is in part owing to our works. The fact, that
all men are guilty, demonstrates that some expedient
must be found to appease our offended Creator, and
that we must be indebted to something more effica
cious than our repentance and amendment of life for
the pardon of our sins. But, passing this difficulty
which meets us at the outset, I observe, that the obe-.
dience which the law of God demands is so high, that
he must be miserably ignorant of the present state of
human nature, who imagines that any of the descend
ants of Adam is able to perform it.
First, The law demands obedience to all its pre
cepts. — " Cursed is every one that continueth not in
all things which are written in tbe book of the law to
do them." It is thus tbat Paul quotes these words
of Moses, " Cursed is he that confirmeth not the words
of this law, to do them."! The chief difference is,
that the word "all" is inserted by the apostle ; but
the original passage implies universal obedience, as
well as the quotation. The law is a declaration of the
will of tbe supreme Lord, and the authority which
enacted it, extends alike to all its precepts. Whatever
duty is enjoined in the law, there is the same reason
for performing it as for performing any other, name
ly, the command of the lawgiver. If a single du
ty is omitted the law is not fulfilled ; and so high
is this matter carried, that the Scripture declares,
that " he who offendeth in one point, is guilty of

* Ezek. xviii. 20.

f Gal. iii. 10. Deut. xxvii. 26.

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

375

all."* He virtually subverts all the precepts by the
violation of one ; for, by disowning the Divine authority
in this instance, he in fact disowns it in every instance.
All the precepts depend upon the will of the Lawgiver;
and, if bis will is not a sufficient reason for obedience
in one case, it cannot be a sufficient reason in another.
Our claim, then, to the favour of God will be invali
dated by omission, as well as by positive transgres
sion ; and it is preposterous to dream of making one
duty a compensation for another. The law admits of
no lower terms. We must give all or nothing. We
may now ask the man who seeks to be justified by
works, whether he thinks himself able to comply with
this demand ? whether he has always performed his
duty in its fall extent? whether he has never neglect
ed it, or forgotten it, or omitted it through ignorance ;
foT ignoranee, let it be remembered, is not an excuse
unless it be invincible. If God has published his law,
and we through inattention and carelessness are unac
quainted with its contents, our ignorance is voluntary,
and we Shall in vain hope for impunity. Although a
man may have done many things, yet, if he have not
done every thing, his plea is lost; for, to justify him
in such circumstances would be to declare falsely,
that he has fulfilled the whole law, while in truth he
has fulfilled only a part of it.
Secondly, The law demands obedience absolutely
perfect. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment. And the
second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself."! This is the sum of the law, and the stan
dard of our duty. It requires such love to God as is
worthy of him who is infinitely excellent and good ;
the highest love of which our nature is capable; love
not merely sincere, but perfect; love which not only
prevails over opposite affections, but extinguishes
them, and reigns alone in the heart. It is inconsistent
with the perfection of this love, that it should ever
lean towards any rival, that it should be suspended for
a single moment, that it should abate and languish in
its exercise. The law is violated by the slightest re
mission of its intensity, or by the temporary cessation
of its activity in producing the proper fruits and ex
pressions of it. The love to our fellow men which is
required, is equally perfect. We must love our neigh
bour as ourselves ; if not with a love exactly of the
same degree, yet certainly of equal sincerity ; desiring
his welfare as we desire our own, and willingly exert
ing ourselves to promote it. A regard to our own in
terests is not to be laid aside ; but it must be so moder
ated as not to degenerate into selfishness. Not only
hatred and malice are transgressions of the law, but
even indifference to our brethren ; nay, it is violated
not only by indifference, but by a love not sufficiently
ardent, and by efforts not sufficiently vigorous for
their good. In short, the law demands not only the
form, but the spirit of obedience, [t demands in every
act of obedience, the full exertion of all the moral
power with which we were originally endowed by our
Creator. There must be no languid endeavours, no cold
and feeble services. No motives must influence our
minds but the right ones ; no ultimate end must be
proposed but the glory of God. Nothing must be
wanting in matter or in manner, in external actions
or in internal principles ; for a deficiency in the mea
sure or degree of our obedience, would prove fatal to
our hopes. Enough, I presume, has been said to show
that no man can be justified by the works of the law.
I shall add, however, in the last place, that the law
demands an uninterrupted course of obedience to the
end of our lives. In the case of Adam, the time of trial
was limited and probably would have soon terminated.

* James ii 10.

f Matt. xxii. 37— 3.9.

But in our case, I know of no limitation ; there is no
period within the bounds of our mortal existence at
which we might claim the reward. Every day calls
for new labour; every year extends the term of our ser
vice, and multiplies the probabilities of a failure; it is
only when the shades of evening descend, that man
finishes his task and retires to rest. We must not
therefore think that we have attained, and are already
perfect; but, forgetting the things which are behind,
and reaching forth to those which are before, we must
press towards the mark, if we would bear away the
prize of immortality. This we must do, notwithstand
ing our natural disposition to grow weary of every
exercise which is long continued, and in the face of
many discouragements and temptations, calculated to
divert our attention from our duty, to seduce our affec
tions, and to create impatience of restraint. Should
these causes overcome our resolution ; should we,sjus-
pend our services for a time ever so short; should we
begin to faint, or even admit a wish to be released
from our obligations, we should immediately become
criminal in the eye of the law, and forfeit all claim to
the expected recompence. He who runs a race will
not be crowned, although he run well, unless he reach
the goal.
The plan of justification by works appears to be ab
solutely impracticable. The labour is difficult, and
man is weak and inconstant. If we take into the ac
count the strength and waywardness of his passions,
his liableness to error, the obstacles which lie in his
way, and the numerous causes by which his attention
may be diverted from his duty, disgust and weariness
may be created, and opposite considerations may ob
tain a predominant influence upon his mind, we shall
be convinced of the probability, or rather the certainty,
that he will fail, not in one instance only, but in a
thousand. There is ho man that liveth and sinneth
not in deed, or word, or thought. Besides the invinci
ble difficulties attendant upon this plan of justification,
it is in itself comfortless, and a source of continual
anxiety to every person who in earnest attempts it.
No such thing is possible as the assurance of hope ; his
mind is a stranger to ihe peace and joy which arise
from the belief of the record of the Gospel, because a
fear must always haunt him, that, after all his pains,
he shall in some unpropitious hour lose his labour.
"When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall sure
ly live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and com
mit iniquity, all his righteousness shall not be remem
bered ; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he
shall die for it."* The spirit, therefore, by which he
is necessarily animated, is a spirit of bondage, which
from its nature destroys the value of his obedience by
converting it into the task of a slave, who toils under
the dread of the lash.
In an inquiry, whether it is possible to be justified
by works, it was necessary to ascertain what are the
requisitions of the law. The law is the standard of
works ; and if they are not conformable to it, the hopes
founded upon them are vain. The question is not,
What measure of obedience we are disposed to yield,
or what measure we are capable of yielding? but.
What is the obedience which God requires from us?
This we learn from his precepts, fairly and honestly
interpreted ; and so high is the demand, that every mail
may justly despair of being able to fulfil it.
But will God be satisfied with nothing less than
perfect obedience ? Yes, some reply ; he has bad com
passion upon his frail and erring creatures, and is wil
ling to receive them into favour upon easier terms.
He has given them a milder law, more suitable to
their present condition, which, through the assistance
of his grace, they are enabled to obey. This notion,
• Ezek. xxxiii. 13.

376

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

which is exceedingly prevalent, and by which the
scriptural doctrine of justification is subverted, will be
examined in the next lecture.

LECTURE LXX.
JUSTIFICATION.
Ground of Justification continued; not Repentance and Sincere
Obedience — Righteousness of Christ, the sole ground — Ob
servations on the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to
Believers. In the preceding lecture, I showed you that justifica
tion is a legal term, and denotes the sentence pro
nounced by a judge upon a person who has been
brought before him for judgment. If the person is
righteous in himself, the sentence merely ascertains
and declares in a judicial manner what he is; but in
the case of men who are standing before the tribunal
of God, a different process is necessary. As they are
unquestionably guilty, an act of grace must be passed
in their favour, cancelling the obligation to punishment ;
and, accordingly, the remission of sins is an essential
part of our justification. But this is not all. The
acquitted criminal is not necessarily restored to the
favour of his prince, and entitled to the reward which
was promised to an obedient subject. Pardon frees
the sinner from the pains of hell, but gives him no
right to the happiness of heaven. He must somehow
be possessed of a complete righteousness, which shall
answer all the demands of the law, that he may be
accepted by his Maker, and obtain the eternal inheri
tance. It may be proper by the way to remark, that our
common language on this subject may give rise to
misapprehension. We often speak of the pardon of
sin, and the possession of a justifying righteousness,
as if they were distinct; and hence it may be supposed,
that the one might be enjoyed without the other. This
is the inference suggested, when it is sometimes inac
curately stated, that justification consists in the forgive
ness of sin and tbe imputation of righteousness. But
the truth is, tbat the imputation of righteousness is the
foundation of pardon, as well as of restoration to the
favour of God. The righteousness of Christ, although
it is strictly one and cannot be divided, is distinguished,
for the sake of explanation, into active and'passive ;
the former denoting his obedience to the precepts, and
the latter his endurance of the penalty. There is an
imputation of his whole righteousness to the believer,
and, in the language of scholastic theology, it is the
material cause of our justification. These remarks
have led me to anticipate a subsequent department of
the doctrine ; but I deemed it necessary to make them
at this time, to guard against any misapprehension
of what I have said, that more than pardon is neces
sary to the sinner, and that he must be possessed of a
complete righteousness, a righteousness corresponding
to the precept, as well as to the penalty, in order to his
being accepted by his Maker.
It is therefore an important question, how this
righteousness may be obtained; and there are only
two ways in which it can be conceived to be acquired ;
by our personal obedience, or by the imputation of the
righteousness of another. I have endeavoured to prove,
that the attainment of it in the first way is impossible,
by showing you that the demands of the law are so
extensive that no man living can comply with them.
It requires obedience to all its precepts, without a
single exception ; obedience absolutely perfect, a fail-
are in one act, or in the motive from which it is per
formed, being sufficient to invalidate the whole; and
obedience continued to the end of life, because no prior

term is fixed, and it is after death tbat tbe final judg
ment will take place. To every person who considers
the extent of these demands, it will appear as impos
sible for the descendants of Adam, in their present
state of weakness and depravity, to fulfil them, as it
is to Temove mountains by a word, or to ascend to
heaven by a wish. The notion of sinless perfection
as attainable in this life, which has been broached in
modern times, could arise only in minds disordered by
enthusiasm, ot blinded by profound ignorance of human
nature, and the Divine law.
I might therefore proceed to show you that we arc
justified by the righteousness of another, did not a
new obstacle present itself, which it is necessary to
remove out of tbe way. The pride of the human
heart, unwilling to forego its claims to the favour of
God, has exerted its ingenuity in devising a method
of evading the force of the argument -founded on the
high demands of the law. It is granted, we are told,
that we are unable to fulfil them; but it is added,
that the original terms upon which eternal life was
promised are relaxed. God has been graciously plea
sed, for the sake of Christ, to make a new covenant
with us, in which he promises to pardon our sins upon
repentance, and since we cannot perform perfect, to
accept of sincere obedience as the ground of our justi
fication. This doctrine is laid down in a variety of
terms, and with greater or less degrees of plainness ;
but I have stated the substance of what is maintained
by Divines of a particular class. To give it the more
plausibility, it is acknowledged, that still our salva
tion is of grace, because there is grace displayed in
lowering the demands of the law, and grace is com
municated to assist us; although it turns out to be
such aid as we may use or not, as we please, and as
will be of little avail without vigorous exertions of
our own. It is also acknowledged, that we are under
high obligations to our Saviour, in consequence of
whose mediation this new law has been given, and
what may be wanting in our obedience is supplied by
his merit. The scheme, however, is manifestly an
attempt to establish our own righteousness, from a
reluctance to submit to tbe righteousness of God. It
is a miserable mixture of the law and the gospel, an
illicit association of the righteousness of Christ and
that of the sinner, an abortive effort to defend the doc
trine of justification by works, against the solemn de
nunciations of Scripture. Upon this scheme I make
the following remarks:
First, There is not tbe slightest vestige of it to be
found in the Scriptures. I challenge any man to point
out a passage in which it is declared, that Christ
merited that we might merit ; that since we cannot be
justified by perfect, we shall be justified by imperfect
obedience ; or that God has given an easier law,
adapted to the present condition of human nature.
These are dogmas of very great importance, as they
relate to our everlasting concerns, and they would
need to be supported by evidence perfectly satisfactory ;
but when we call for it, we are put off with bold
assertions and sophistical arguments. We read of
our being constituted righteous, but it is by a righteous
ness which is not our own, nor of the law, but the
righteousness of another, namely, Christ. " By the
obedience of one shall many be made righteous."*
We read of a new covenant which God has made
with men, but it is truly a covenant of grace, for it is
a covenant of promise. " I will put my laws into
tbeir mind, and write them in their hearts ; and I will
be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and
their sins and their iniquities will I remember no
more."! Where do we read of a new covenant of

•Rom. ,.19.

+ Heb. viii. 10— 12

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

377

works, in wbich sincere obedience is tbe condition,
and eternal life is the recompence ? It exists only in
the writings of some men, who cannot or will not
understand the gospel of Christ.
- Secondly, The idea of such a new law as has been
described, is fraught with absurd and impious con
sequences. It reflects the greatest dishonour upon the
law which was originally given toman. It sets aside
its demands, although they were not arbitrary, but
were founded on the nature of God and man, and the
relations subsisting between them ; it pronounces them
to be unreasonable in the present circumstances of
human nature, and makes the authority of the law
give way for the accommodation of the criminal. It
is in fact an abrogation of the law, than which a
greater dishonour cannot be conceived ; for the new
law of which we speak is totally different from the
original law, no two things being more different than
a law which requires perfect, and a law which is fully
satisfied with sincere obedience. The supposed change
implies a reflection not only upon tbe law, but upon
the Lawgiver. When first delivered to man, the law
was a representation of the holiness of his Maker, a
glass which brightly reflected the infinite purity ofhis
nature ; and his language by it was, " Be thou holy,
for I am holy." How can we conceive a change to
have taken place in its requisitions, and at the same
time believe that its Author continues the same ? Must
we not conclude, that if he demands less holiness from
his creatures he is himself less holy ? He can bear now
certain imperfections which he formerly condemned ;
he is pleased if we love him in some degree, although
we do not love him with all our strength and soui;
be is content if we have some portion of good-will to
our neighbour, although we do not love him exactly as
ourselves. If we really wish to do our duty, it is
enough ; we shall obtain his approbation should we
fail in the performance, and the intention will be
accepted for the deed. That strictness which called
for "good measure, pressed down, and shaken togeth
er, and running over," no longer exists ; that opposi
tion to sin which rejected an action upon which the
slightest stain was found, has given place to a more
accommodating temper. In short, we do not recognise
in the Author of this milder law, the Being who pub
lished the decalogue from Sinai. Besides, the doc
trine which we are considering, gives a false and un
favourable view of the mediation of Christ. " Think
not," he said, " that I am come to destroy tbe law or
the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to ful
fil."* That it was not the ceremonial law wbich he
meant, or the ceremonial law alone, is evident from
his subsequent vindication of the moral precepts from
the corruptions of tradition. "Whosoever, therefore,
shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the
kingdom of heaven."! But notwithstanding this
solemn admonition, we must conclude that he did
come to destroy the law, if we give credit to those
who affirm, that in consequence of his mediation, a
lower degree of obedience is accepted. The first law
would not be pleased with our obedience unless it
were absolutely perfect; the second is satisfied if it is
simply sincere. The first therefore has been set aside
to make room for the second, as the edict of an abso
lute prince claiming the whole property of his sub
jects, would be repealed by the publication of another,
in which he asserted his right only to the half. Jesus
Christ, according to this hypothesis, has made that
which was once duty to be no longer duty, and that
which was once sin to be no longer sin. What is this
in the opinion of every man, who believes that the
law of God, being founded in the nature of things, is

*Matt. v. 17.
2X

f lb. 19.

immutable, but to represent Jesus Christ as the minis
ter of unrighteousness ? We may conclude from
these reflections, that the doctrine of a new law which
accepts of sincere obedience as the ground of our
justification, is a vain and unhallowed attempt to build
again what the gospel had destroyed.
In the last place, The sincere obedience of believers
is expressly excluded from being the ground of their
justification. If all works are rejected, sincere but
imperfect works must share the common fate; for
we are not at liberty to make a distinction in their
favour. When the Apostle Paul rejects the works of
the law without limitation, he certainly rejects sincere
obedience, which consists in works of the law, or it
would not be obedience at all. This argument is
decisive till it be proved that there are two laws, the
one requiring perfect, and the other imperfect obedience,
and that only the works of the former are discarded.
But the truth is, that the works, concerning which tbe
Scripture affirms tbat a man cannot be justified by
them, are the very works for which some men so
strenuously contend. It is a palpable absurdity to
suppose that they are perfect works, for these are the
works which were originally required, and they would
now undoubtedly be as acceptable to God and bene
ficial to the performer as ever. Unless we conceive
them to be such works as man may be supposed able
to perform, all the elaborate reasoning on the subject
is a mere waste of time and labour. Now, no man
expects to be justified by perfect obedience to the law,
for no man in his senses imagines himself to be capa
ble of such obedience. It is what is called sincere
obedience, which Paul had in view in the declaration
so often repeated, that " by the works of the law shall
no flesh living be justified." Such was the obedience
in which the Galatians trusted. Imperfectly as they
understood the dispensation of grace, they were not
so ignorant as to dream that they could fulfil the high
demands of the law : and they must have rested their
hope upon such works as were understood to be with
in the compass of their ability, upon their honest and
persevering endeavours to do their duty. What were
the works which Paul renounced, when, in reference
to his present as well as his past attainments, he said,
" Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss foT the
excellency of tbe knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord ;
for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and
do count them but dung that I may win Christ, and
be found in him, not having mine own righteousness,
which is of the law, but that which is through the
faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by
faith ?"* And what were the works to which he
referred when he said, "for I know nothing by myself;
yet am I not hereby justified ?"! They were mani
festly all his works without exception, and consequent
ly works performed in faith and love, works performed
with the assistance of grace ; or in other words, that
sincere obedience which some men would obtrude upon
us as our justifying righteousness, but in which he
was so far from confiding, that he utterly disclaimed
it, and earnestly desired to be found in the righteous
ness of Christ.
We see, then, that tbe notion of a new law, wbich
requires only sincere obedience as the ground of our
acceptance with God, is utterly untenable. It would
have been long since exploded, if the Scriptures had
been understood, and admitted as the supreme judge
of religious controversies ; and its prevalence is owing
to the ignorance of those who teach, and those who
receive it, and to the strong disposition, which only
almighty grace can subdue, to arrogate to ourselves
the glory of our salvation.
I shall subjoin two or three general remarks in cor-

* Philip, iii. 8, 9.

f 1 Cor. iv. 4.

378

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

roboration of the preceding reasoning, before I leave
this part of the subject.
First, If men are justified by works, no adequate
reason can be assigned for the mission of Christ. It
is acknowledged that we are indebted to him for
paving the way for our acceptance with our Maker,
and facilitating the attainment of his favour; but
surely some less costly expedient might have been
devised to give efficacy to our repentance and our
duties, if this was all that was wanted. If man could
have fulfilled the demands of the law, Christ would
not have been sent to yield obedience to its precepts ;
and to suppose it to have been his design to lower its
terms, and to render a less degree of holiness sufficient,
as the condition of future happiness, is to represent
the effect of his mission to have been the virtual sub
version of the moral government of God. Was this
the purpose for which he descended to the earth? The
doctrine which lessens the necessity of the mediation
of Christ, or would lead us to consider it as only sup
plementary to human exertions, is manifestly contrary
to the Scriptures, in which his mediation is represented
as the foundation that supports the whole superstruc
ture of the religion of sinners. This argument is
employed by Paul — " If righteousness come by the
law, then Christ is dead in vain."*
In the second place, The doctrine of justification by
works, in any form, obscures the glory of the grace of
God. This argument also is used by the Apostle —
" If it be of works, then it is no more grace ; other
wise work is no more work."! ^ 's strange that
some men should labour, with so much ingenuity and
perseverance, to reconcile two things which are de
clared to be irreconcilable, and destructive of each
other. The glory of grace consists in giving freely,
or, as it is expressed in the prophet — " without money
and without price;" what is obtained by works, is
granted in consideration of previous service, and is
the payment of a debt. According to the doctrine of jus
tification by the old or the new law, the question which
Paul presumed would put all men to silence, may be
answered by thousands : " Who hath first given to
him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?"!
' I have given to God,' every justified person might
say, ' and I am entitled to the reward which I enjoy.'
Few, perhaps, would venture to express themselves
in a manner so ill befitting creatures and sinners ; but
this is the language of the system. How contrary
are the sentiments and feelings of which it is a faith
ful interpreter to the design of God in our redemption,
" that he might show the exceeding riches of his
grace, in his kindness towards us through Christ
Jesus !"|j
In the last place, Justification by works lays the
foundation of boasting. " If Abraham," says Paul,
" were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory ;"
and although he adds, "but not before^God,"§ yet
the human heart does not stop at this limit, but pro
ceeds to glory even in his presence. We have an
example in the self-righteous Pharisee, who, standing
by himself, had tbe presumption to say, " God, I
thank thee that I am not as other men ;" and followed
this boast with a catalogue of his good deeds. He
who had been justified by works, might say, ' My own
arm has achieved my salvation.' He might, indeed,
with the Pharisee, thank God, acknowledging in
words that he was indebted to his assistance for his
virtuous actions ; but we know that, when man at
tempts to divide the honour with his Maker, he always
takes the larger share to himself. To suppose that,
in delivering us from the misery in which pride had
involved us, God would adopt a method calculated to

*Gal. ii. 21.
} Rom. iv. 2.

f Rom. xi. 6. f lb. 35. || Eph. ii. 7.

foster that odious principle, is to represent him as
having acted with less caution than one would ascribe
to a man of ordinary prudence. The design of re
demption is to stain tbe pride of human glory, to
bring man to the throne of grace as a humble sup
plicant, to make him feel and acknowledge that he owes
every thing to unmerited goodness. " Where is boast
ing then ? It is excluded. By what law ? of works?
Nay; but by the law of faith."* As it is evident
from these words, that the law of works encourages
boasting, it follows, that we are not justified by that
law in any form, and that the ground of our justifica
tion is neither our perfect nor our imperfect obedience.
Having proved that our own works have no place in
our justification before God, we have prepared the way
for showing that we owe this important privilege to the
righteousness of Christ. This is the doctrine of our
church ; and that it is agreeable to Scripture, we can
demonstrate by a multiplicity of proofs. In the Old
Testament, the name under which the Messiah was
foretold is, " the Lord our Righteousness." It was
predicted by Daniel, that he was " to finish the trans
gression, and to make an end of sin, and to make re
conciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting
righteousness." And in another prophet, we find
these words, " Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have
I righteousness and strength." " In the Lord shall
all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory."
Once more, Isaiah says, " By his knowledge shall my
righteous Servant justify many; for he shall bear their
iniquities;"! plainly intimating that, in consequence
of his atonement for their sins, they should be pardoned
and restored to the Divine favour, through faith found
ed on the revelation of him in the Gospel. In the New
Testament, the doctrine is delivered with still greater
clearness. It is there declared, that "be was made
sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness
of God in him;" that "he is the end of the law for
righteousness to everyone that believeth;" that, in the
Gospel, "the righteousness of God is revealed from
faith to faith : as it is written, The just shall live by
faith;" that, "to him that worketh not, but believeth
on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted
for righteousness ;" that, " by the obedience of one
shall many be made righteous ;" that, "by the righte
ousness of one, the free gift comes upon all men unto
justification of life;" that "we are forgiven for his
sake;" and that "we are accepted in the Beloved."!
The same doctrine is taught by Paul, in the words for
merly quoted, when he expresses his earnest desire
" to be found in Christ, not having his own righteous
ness, which was of the law; but that which is by the
faith of Christ;" and in all the passages which affirm
that " we are not justified by works, but by faith;" for
the object of that faith is Christ, as having obeyed and
suffered in our room.
What the righteousness of Christ is, I explained in
my lectures on the Covenant of Grace,|| of which it
was shown to be the condition. Our own righteous
ness signifies our conformity to the law of God, and
the word has the same meaning when used in reference
to him. He was made under the law which we had
violated, and by which we were condemned, that as
our Surety he might fulfil its demands. From us it
required perfect obedience to its precepts, for this was
its enactment, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments ;"§ and such obedience he yielded from
the commencement to the close of his life. No man
could convict him of sin, and the all-seeing eye ofhis
Father beheld him with unqualified approbation : "This
is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Al-
* Rom. iii. 27.
+ Jer. xxiii. 6. Dan. ix. 24. Isa. xiv. 24, 25. Isa. Hii. li.
t 2 Cor. v. 21. Rom. x. 4. i. 17. iv. 5. v. 18. 19. Eph. iv.
32, i. 6. || Lecture 49. § Matt. xix. 17.

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

379

though be owed obedience to the moral law for him
self as a man, because his human nature, being a crea
ture, was necessarily subject to the authority of God,
yet he did not owe obedience to it in the form of a
covenant prescribing it as the condition of life, and in
the circumstances of humiliation and affliction in which
it was performed. Besides, we might say, that on the
same ground on which the obedience of Adam, although
he owed it for himself, would have been available to
procure eternal happiness to his posterity, the obedi
ence of Christ was available to obtain a right to the
prdmised reward to all whom he represented. We
must, indeed, ascribe a far greater value to it than to
the obedience of Adam, when we recollect that the
merit of an action increases in proportion to the dignity
of the person who performs it, and that he who obeyed
in our room was not only a holy man, but the Son of
the living God.
But the consideration which more satisfactorily shows
how the obedience of Christ could be imputed to men,
is this, that it was strictly gratuitous. Having become
a creature, he was necessarily subject to the law, which
binds all the inhabitants of heaven and earth ; but then
it should be remembered that his becoming a creature
was a matter of choice. We come into being and are
placed under the law without our consent; but Jesus
Christ existed before his incarnation, and assumed our
nature by his own spontaneous act. " Lo, I come ; I
delight to do thy will."* Such language no other per
son could have used, because it implies a liberty to act
or not to act, which no mere man possesses. He placed
himself under the law ; but although the law had hence
forth a right to demand his obedience, yet its claim
was founded solely on his own voluntary deed. If he
had not consented, it could not have reckoned him
among bis subjects. He was made under the law by
being made of a woman ; but we know, that while we
are passively partakers of flesh and blood, he actively
took part of the same. His obedience was, therefore,
a free-will offering. It was an offering which he might
have withheld, by declining to come into those circum
stances in wbich only obedience could be expected
from him. As he did not owe it to any prior obliga
tion, you perceive that it possessed positive merit, and
that, as it was not at all necessary for himself, it could
be imputed to others, or so reckoned to them, that they
should be rewarded for it. But the law required some
thing more than obedience from him. Those for whom
he acted were sinners, and it was necessary that he
should expiate their guilt by enduring the penalty, be
cause, till this were done, the demands of the law would
not be satisfied, and consequently its righteousness
would not be fulfilled. He therefore submitted to be
born in a humble condition, to lead a life of poverty
and sorrow, and to close his course by a painful, igno
minious, and accursed death. As death was the penalty
demanded by the law, our redemption is ascribed to his
sufferings on the cross. " He bore our sins in his own
body on the tree."! "Thou hast redeemed us to God
by thy blood."! Thus the law obtained from him all
that it demanded from us. Its precepts were obeyed,
and its penalty was executed. The obedience and suf
ferings of Christ constitute its righteousness. By both
he satisfied the claims of the law, and there remained
nothing to be exacted from him, or from those to whom
he stood in the relation of a Surety.
As our Lord fulfilled this righteousness not for him
self but for sinners, we perceive upon what ground it is
imputed or reckoned to them, so that they are justified
on account of it. The reckoning of it to them is the
application of it to its proper purpose, the accomplish
ment of the design which he had in view in obeying
and suffering. It is not in every case warrantable to

illustrate the Divine procedure by human transactions:
" God's ways are often not as our ways, neither are
his thoughts as our thoughts." Yet, when we are
thinking of his moral attributes, we must conceive of
them as analogous to the corresponding qualities in
ourselves, free, however, from the limitations and im
perfections with which all our virtues are attended.
Justice in him must resemble justice in us, although
its proceedings may sometimes be above our compre
hension, as it is exercised under the direction of an in
finite understanding. Now, it is acknowledged to be
consistent with justice, that one man should, in certain
circumstances, sustain the person of another, act in his
name, and procure benefits to him by his services. We
cannot, therefore, charge God with injustice for doing
what is frequently done by ourselves, is sanctioned by
our laws, and is admitted by all men to be perfectly
fair and right. Nothing is more common than surety
ship ; and the actions of the surety are rendered to the
person for whom he is bound, as if they had been per
formed by the person himself. If, then, one man may
pay a debt for another, and be punished for another,
as happens in the forfeiture of bail or security for
the appearance of a person in a civil or criminal pro
cess, and may perform a service of which another
is to reap the advantage, on what ground can an
objection be raised against the interposition of our
Saviour to satisfy the demands of the law, which we
were unable to answer? If the Supreme Lawgiver,
who alone knows what is fit to be done, what is suit
able to his character and the relation in which he stands
to his creatures, what will most effectually secure the
honour and authority ofhis government; if he shall be
pleased to accept the obedience and death of his own
Son, invested wilh the character of our surety, instead
of our obedience and death, who will presume to arraign
this dispensation ? And how does substitution, with
which no person finds fault in human affairs, become
unjust as soon as it is adopted in the Divine adminis
tration ? It is acknowledged that the sin of Adam is
imputed to us ; for, whatever wrangling there may be
with respect to the extent in which we are affected by
it, there are stubborn facts, besides the testimony of
Scripture, which will not permit us to deny that it has
had some influence upon us, as our moral and physical
weakness, our diseases and mortality. And who will
have the audacity to say that this imputation is unjust ?
It is surely, then, equally agreeable to justice, that the
righteousness of Christ should be imputed to us for our
deliverance from the guilt, and all the fatal consequences
of the sin, of the first man ; that, as death came by the
one, so life should come by the other.
The imputation of righteousness to a sinner, is the
act of God as a judge: "It is God that justifieth."
" Blessed is tbe man to whom the Lord imputeth
righteousness without works."* The sinner who ap
pears before his tribunal might be condemned, since
he is destitute of the righteousness which the law re
quires ; but by an act of grace, God gives him this
righteousness which answers its demands, and on this
ground pronounces him to be just. It was by his ap
pointment that the surety fulfilled this righteousness
for him ; and it is by his judicial act that it is so
reckoned to him, that he enjoys the full pardon of his
sins, and a right to eternal life.
The imputation of the righteousness of Christ is
founded in union to him. It is the consequence of the
legal relation which was established between him
and his people in the convenant of grace, by which he
was constituted their surety, and his acts in this char
acter were made referrible to them. His righteousness
thus became imputable to them ; and it is actually im
puted when a real union is formed between them by

* Ps. xl. 7, 8.

f 1 Pet. ii. 24.

X Rev. v. 9.

* Rom. viii. 33. iv. 6, 8.

380

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the Spirit, and by faith. They thus acquire an interest
in every thing which belongs to him as their surety,
as a woman acquires a right to the privileges and
property of her husband by marriage. It is with a
view to this union, which was formerly explained,
tbat we are said to be blessed in him with all spiritual
blessings.* The Hebrew word 2CT1 and the Greek word xoyit,oLtcu
sometimes signify the reckoning to a person of what
really is his own. Thus, Shimei prayed that David
would not " impute iniquity " to him ; that is,! would
not lay the sin which he had committed to his charge,
and punish him for it. In like manner, it is said con
cerning a summary act of justice, which Phinehas had
performed, that " it was counted unto him for right
eousness."! The meaning plainly is, that it was
esteemed a righteous act, for which he was commended
and rewarded with "the covenant of an everlasting
priesthood." But the word also signifies to reckon
something to a person which he has not done, as if he
had done it. Thus, Paul says to Philemon concerning
Onesimus, " If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee
ought," — to«to iLtot exxc^ti — "put that on mine ac
count ;"|| impute it to me; hold me responsible for it,
as if it were my own deed. It is in this sense that
the word is used in reference to the justification of a
sinner. Ii is certain, from the passages formerly quoted, that
the righteousness of Christ is placed to the account of
the believing sinner, so that he is pardoned and ac
cepted. Now, it is evident, that it is only hy imputa
tion that his righteousness can become ours. No such
thing is possible, as the transference of moral qualities
from one person to another, or the communication of
holiness from one who is pure to one who is impure.
We cannot be made honest by the honesty of another,
or benevolent by the benevolence of another, or patient
by the patience of another. These are personal quali
ties ; and unless they be formed in our own minds,
unless they have their root and growth there, we must
remain dishonest, sjelfish, and fretful. The virtues
which an individual possesses can have no influence
upon those around him except by the force of example.
But we may be freed from a debt by the payment of a
surety, and entitled to a reward for the meritorious
services which a friend has performed for us ; and
when a discharge is granted in the one case, and a re
compense is bestowed in the other, it may be said that
the deed of the surety, or of the friend, is imputed to
us. The acts are theirs ; but as they were performed
on our account, we enjoy the benefits of them.
From these remarks, you will perceive how Jesus
Christ is "made of God unto us righteousness. "§ It
is not by the transfusion ofhis holiness into our souls,
for we have already shown that justification does not
change our nature, but our state ; but by such an
assignation of his merit to us as avails to procure the
pardon of our sins, and our restoration to the favour
of God. In speaking upon this subject, it is common
to say that his righteousness is reckoned to us as if it
were our own ; that it is as truly accounted ours as if we
ourselves had performed it; that we are as righteous
as if we had fulfilled the whole law. These are popu
lar expressions, which require to be properly explained,
or there is a danger that we shall be led into error.
They are apt to suggest the idea of an actual trans
ference of the righteousness of Christ to believers, in
consequence of which it becomes literally theirs, as
the garment of one man becomes, by his gift, the
roperty of another. They may suggest the idea that
is righteousness passes from himself to the sinner ;
and hence the inference seems to be, that he has parted

I

* Eph. i. 3. f 2 Sam. xix. 19. { Ps. cvi. 31. , || Philem. 18.
j 1 Cor. i. 30,

with it, as a man does not retain what he lias given
away. But a little attention will convince us that this
is not an accurate notion of imputation ; and the re«
flection, that we are speaking of a spiritual transaction,
will be a preservative from gross and material con
ceptions. The righteousness of Christ must ever be
inherent in himself, and it can be imparted to others
only in a legal sense. Imputation is the act of God,
whose judgment is according to truth ; and who cannot,
therefore, account those to be personally righteous
whom he knows to be personally guilty. But he may
treat them as if they were righteous, in consideration
of the righteousness of another. He may pardon theil
sins, and receive them into favour, and give them a
title to eternal life ; and in these things justification
consists. This is all that can be distinctly understood
to be implied in imputation ; if you patiently and at
tentively meditate on the subject, you will find that
this is the only sense iu which the righteousness of
the Redeemer becomes ours. It is ours, because, on
account, of it, God deals with us as if we were right
eous in ourselves ; but be cannot look upon us as really
righteous, because the contrary is true, any more than
we can look on a person as really meritorious, who is
rewarded for the merit of another. When a surety
pays a debt, the debtor is discharged, but he is not
rendered personally solvent. The sole effect of the
deed of his surety is to place him in the same situa
tion, in respect of his creditor, in which he would have
stood if he had been able with his own property to
fulfil his obligations. Considered in himself, and in
the eyes of all around him, he is a bankrupt. To be
really righteous, and to be righteous by imputation,
or, in the language of our church, to be accepted as
righteous, are, I presume, two things exceedingly dif
ferent. Jesus Christ himself is truly, and in the
strictest sense, righteous ; but those who believe in
him are only accounted righteous.
I believe, indeed, that this distinction has not been
always attended to; and that, by many, something1
more is understood to be implied in imputation, al
though they are unable to give a satisfactory explana
tion of their meaning. An idea seems to be enter
tained, that the righteousness of Christ is so attached
to the persons of believers, that it is as truly their own
property as is a man's personal righteousness. Justi
fication is a legal act, and must be conceived as anal
ogous to other legal acts of a similar nature. But
there is no imputation in law of the deed of one man
to another, except in the sense already explained.
Having been performed for him, it is so accounted to
him, that be enjoys all the advantages which would
have accrued to him if it had been performed by him
self. The law never supposes that he actually per
formed it, but accepts the performance by another, as
equivalent to his own. Now, apply these things to
the subject before us, and you will perceive that the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ does not
consist in accounting us in any sense righteous in our
selves, but in treating us, for his sake, as if we were
righteous. What he did and suffered, he did and suf
fered for his people ; and when they claim an interest
by faith in his vicarious acts, they are dealt with,
from respect to those acts, as if they had themselves
obeyed the precepts and satisfied the penalty. In this
sense they are righteous, that their surety has fulfilled
all the demands of the law, and left nothing to be de
manded from them. It has received from him every
thing which it might have exacted from them.
I have endeavoured to prove, that the meritorious
cause of our justification before God is not our own
righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ. Works
are excluded in every form. No qualification is sought
for or regarded in the sinner; God looks upon him as
utterly unworthy in himself, and shows favour to him

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

381

Solely for the sake of Christ, in whom he believes.
Thus his design is accomplished, that " no flesh should
glory in his presence."* There is not left to the jus
tified person the shadow of a ground on which he
might claim any honour to himself, or pretence that
he had acted a subordinate part in his salvation, as
we shall see more fully in the next lecture, when we
consider faith as the appointed means of obtaining this
privilege. The Scripture declares, that we are "justified freely
by grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus
Christ."! I' would be granted, it might be said, that
we are justified by grace, if God pardoned our sins
upon our repentance without an atonement, and ac
cepted our imperfect instead of perfect obedience.
But how does grace appear according to the doctrine
which has now been delivered ? The blessing is
strictly due to us; the full price has been paid for it;
and, properly, justification should be considered as an
act of justice. But to this objection the answer is
easy. In one view, God is just when he justifies the
ungodly man who believes in Jesus ; for every demand
upon him has been satisfied, and, consequently, the
privilege could no more be withheld from him, than a
discharge can be withheld /rom a debtor after his
surety has made full payment of his dpbt. But, let it
be remembered, that those who are justified possess in
themselves up claim to the blessing. They have made
no atonement for their sins, and performed no obedience
to entitle them to the reward. They did not even pro
vide a surety to do for them what they could not do
for themselves; but God called him to tbe office. In
every view, they are utterly unworthy of his favour;
and hence, although their justification may be an act
of justiee in respect of the Saviour, it is an act of pure
grace in respect of them. They are merely recipients
of a privilege, which was obtained for them without
their concurrence, and for which they give nothing in
exchange. They are freely forgiven and accepted, and
are thus laid under eternal obligations. Of this tbey
are deeply sensible; and, accordingly, say with the
Psalmist, "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us; but
unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy
truth's sake."!
A question has been proposed, which is of no prac
tical use, and has been dictated by idle speculation
and vain curiosity, Whether the whole righteousness
of Christ is imputed to every believer, or only so
much of it as will answer all the demands of the law
upon him? If we must answer this question, we may
do so by asking another : Whether, when a surety pays
the debt of twenty persons at the same time, the whole
sum is reckoned to each individual, or only that part
of it wbich corresponds to the sum which he owed to
his creditor? It is possible that this question might
be perplexed with a variety of refinements and subtile
distinctions ; but it would not be worth while to be
stow a moment's attention upon them. It is of no
consequence what sentiments men adopt upon a point
of this nature. It is not in such niceties that true
wisdom consists. The inquiry will appear exceedingly
uninteresting to a sinner who is anxious to learn how
he may obtain peace with his offended Creator; and
he will be content to know in general, that, if he be
lieve in Jesus Christ, he shall enjoy the full benefit of
his mediation.
I conclude with two quotations from the fathers.
The first is taken from the writings of Justin Martyr ;
and in the following words, from his epistle to Diogne-
tus, the doctrine of justification through the righteous
ness of Christ is concisely and perspicuously deliv
ered : " God gave his own Son a- ransom for us, the
holy one for the transgressors, the innocent for the
* 1 Cor. i. 29. f Rom. iii. 24 } Ps. cxv. 1.

wicked, tbe righteous for the unrighteous, the incor
ruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mor
tal. For what else could cover our sins but his
righteousness? In whom could we traisgressors and
ungodly be justified, but only in the Son of God ? O
sweet exchange ! O unsearchable contrivance ! that
the transgressions of many should be hidden in one
righteous person, and the righteousness of one should
justify many transgressors!"
I shall add a quotation from Chrysostom on the
fifth chapter of the second epistle to the Corinthians.
" He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no
sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God
in him." "What mind can represent these things?
He made the righteous one a sinner, that he might
make the sinners righteous. Rather this is not what
he says, but something much greater. He does not
say he made him a sinner, but sin ; not only him who
had not sinned, but who did not know sin, that we
might be made, not righteous, but righteousness, and
the righteousness of God. For this is the righteous
ness of God, when we are justified not by works, for
in this case it is necessary that there should be no spot
in them, but by grace, in the blotting out of all sin.
This does not permit us to be lifted up, because God
freely gives us all, and teaches us the greatness of
the gift; for the former righteousness is that of the
lawand of works, but this is the righteousness of God."
From these passages it appears, that, although the
fathers do not always express themselves with the
same accuracy as modern theologians, whom contro
versial discussion has led to a more careful selection
of language, yet the scriptural doctrine of justifica
tion was understood and taught, long before the days
of Luther and Calvin.

LECTURE LXXI.

JUSTIFICATION.

Office, of Faith in Justification — "Whether it precedes or fol
lows Justification — Definition of it — Faith not the Ground or
Condition of Justification, but the Instrument of Partaking
of it — The Relation of Repentance and Good Works to Jus
tification. Although Jesus Christ fulfilled the righteousness
of the law during his abode upon earth, yet those for
whom he acted as a surety, are not immediately deliv
ered from the guilt of their sins, and restored to the fa
vour of God. They are born children of wrath as well
as others, and they sometimes continue for many yeara
in a state of condemnation. The righteousness of the
Redeemer is not of avail to them till it is applied. I
proceed to speak of its application, and remark that,
while it is revealed and brought near to us in the Gos
pel, faith is the means by which it is received, or by
which we obtain such an interest in it as to be accepted
in the sight of God. God "justifieth the ungodly that
believeth in Jesus."
But before I consider the office of faith in justifica
tion, it is necessary to attend to the question, whether
we are justified before faith or after it ; or, " whether
the act of God imputing the righteousness of Christ to
us, or our receiving it by faith, be first in the order of
nature." The question will probably astonish you;
but it has actually engaged the attention of some theo
logians, and given rise to much discussion and meta
physical argumentation. Those who aim at being ex
ceedingly accurate and consummately orthodox, main
tain, " that justification, as it is the act of God, is, in
the OTder of nature, antecedent to our faith ; and, that
our faith is antecedent to it, as it is passively received
| into, and terminated on, our conscience." The last

382

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

words I do not well understand ; but, if they have any
meaning it must be, that the assurance of our justifica
tion, and the peace of conscience which flows from it,
are posterior to faith. But surely, if men would allow
themselves to think, they would see that this assurance
is not justification, but a fruit or consequence of it. It
follows from this theory, that what has been always
understood by justification, is not that which is spoken
of in the Scriptures when we are said to be justified
by faith, but a certain state of mind closely connected
with it. It is not the sentence of God pronounced up
on the sinner, but his knowledge and experience of the
sentence. It would seem, then, that we have been all
along in an error; and that, while we supposed that
we became righteous by faith, and gave credit to the
Scriptures, which told us that righteousness would be
imputed to us if we believed, the matter is transacted
in a different manner. We become righteous without
faith; righteousness is imputed to us before we be
lieve. The principal argument by which this opinion is
supported, is, that faith is a fruit of the Spirit, and that
the Spirit cannot be given to men while they are under
the curse of the law, which is not repealed till they are
actually justified. The curse is an impenetrable bar
rier in the way of all gracious communications. But
although this seems to be logical reasoning, there are
two reasons why I deem it inconclusive. The first is,
that, notwithstanding their subjection to the curse, God
did love men, and bestow upon them the unspeakable
gift ofhis Son. I should wish to know what there is
peculiar in the gift of the Spirit, which should hinder
God from giving him till the curse is removed ; or how
it comes to pass that, while men were under the guilt
of sin, God might send his Son to die for them, but
cannot send his Spirit to infuse life into their souls.
The second reason is, that no reasoning, however
plausible, can support any theory in opposition to
Scripture. If the Scripture declares, that we are "jus
tified by faith;" that righteousness is imputed to those
who believe ; and calls the righteousness of Christ,
" the righteousness which is by faith," plainly signi
fying that faith is antecedent ; what right has any man
to come forward and tell me, that I should beware of
being misled by this language, for that this is not the
true order of things? God stands in no need of the
counsels of men to direct him how to proceed. He
knows what he may do consistently with his own
character, and the moral constitution of the universe.
If he has said, that he justifies a sinner by faith, what
signify all tbe minute reasonings of puny mortals,
which go to prove that this is impossible, because
there is a sentence against the sinner which must be
reversed before the Spirit is given ? Did not God know
of this difficulty ? or, knowing it, did he express him
self as if it did not exist? It were well if, in such
matters, the interpreters of Scripture would lay aside
their logic, and exercise a humble faith, assenting to
what is revealed without obtruding their corrections
and twisting every thing into an agreement with their
systems. And let us all learn to derive our sentiments
in religion, not from the subtilties of scholastic divines
and their imitators in modern times, but from the wri
tings of the prophets and apostles, whose language,
if it should appear to some men not properly guarded,
is, however, such as tbey were directed to use by the
Spirit of inspiration.
The opinion which I have endeavoured to expose,
is hyper-orthodoxy. As it is contrary to the uniform
language of the Scriptures, so it is at variance with the
doctrine of our church, which teaches us, that the
righteousness of Christ is received by faith; that
" faith is the instrument of justification;"* and that,
* Conf. Ch. xi. } 1,2.

although " God did, from all eternity, decree to justify
the elect; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die
for their sins, and rise again for their justification;
nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy
Spirit doth in due time actually apply Christ unto
them."* Of the faith by which we are justified, such a defi
nition has been sometimes given as entirely overthrows
the doctrine which we have iaboured to establish. It is
represented not only as a living faith which works by
love, but as formally comprehending good works. It
justifies us not as faith, or a reliance upon Christ, but
as operative in the performance of our duty, and is
another name for believing obedience. As this defini
tion is inconsistent with the known and established
use of the term, so it confounds faith and works, which
the Scriptures most carefully distinguish and oppose
to each other in justification, and it renders some of
their declarations on the subject unmeaning and ab
surd. If faith signifies believing obedienct, they are
convertible terms, and the one may therefore be sub
stituted for the other. Let us then make the exchange
in the following passage from the Epistle of James,
and observe what is the result: "Show me thy faith
without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by
my works."! Observe how the sentence runs. 'Show
me thy obedience without thy obedience, and I will
show thee my obedience by my obedience.' A most
wonderful species of demonstration, surely! and wor
thy to be proposed with great solemnity by an inspired
apostle ! In other passages, the substitution of obe
dience for faith, would produce an equally ridiculous
effect. Justifying faith has been defined to be a persuasion
that Christ died for us in particular, and that our sin?
are forgiven. I have already shown that this view of
it is a mistake. Nothing is the object of faith but
what is revealed. But there is no revelation in the
Scriptures that Christ died for any man in particular,
and that his sins are forgiven ; and, therefore, to believe
these propositions in the first instance, would be down
right presumption. Besides, if this were a just defini
tion of faith, if this persuasion entered into its essence,
every man would be an unbeliever who never possessed
this persuasion, and the moment he lost it would fall
from faith. How many of the people of God would be
thus excluded from his favour! how few would be in
a state of grace ! It is not a fair way to evade this
difficulty, to say, that faith, like all the other graces, is
imperfect, and that the exercise of it may be suspended.
However imperfect any thing may he, its essence al
ways remains ; and to talk of suspending what is essen
tial to it, is in fact to say that it is annihilated.
I have shown you, in a former lecture,! that justify
ing faith is not only an assent to the testimony of God
concerning his Son, but the reliance of the soul upon
his atonement and righteousness as the only ground of
acceptance with God. "With the heart man believeth
unto righleousness."|| I shall not resume the illustra
tion of this point, but shall proceed to state what is the
office of faith in the justification of a sinner. Now,
faith may be considered as itself our justifying righte
ousness ; or as the condition of our justification; or as
the means, and, as it has been often called, the instru
ment, by which we become partakers of this blessing.
To suppose that faith itself is our justifying righte
ousness, would be to contradict the language of Scrip
ture, in which we are said to be justified by, or through,
faith ; an expression which merely imports, that it is
somehow connected with the enjoyment of the privi
lege. None, indeed, will maintain that faith is our
justifying righteousness, but those who, contrary to

* Conf. Ch. xi. } 4
H Rom. x. 10.

j James ii. 18.

X Led. Iviii.

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

383

die obvious meaning of the word and its constant distinc
tion from works, have first assumed that it is compre
hensive of obedience. It may seem to favour this opi
nion, that it is said of Abraham, that he " believed God,
and it was counted unto him for righteousness."* The
expression is remarkable, and is not without difficulty.
The meaning of it, we are confidently told, is, that his
faith was accepted as his justifying righteousness; that,
"by mere favour, God valued it as equal to a complete
performance of his duties, and rewarded him as if he
had been a righteous person."! It would be well if
those who use this language, would tell us plainly
what they mean by faith ; whether it is a simple reli
ance upon the merit of Christ to the exclusion of works,
or such a belief in him as is accompanied with works
and derives its efficacy from them. If they speak of
faith in the latter sense, as their sentiments on other
occasions would lead us to think, their doctrine is re
futed by the arguments by which it' was formerly
proved, that we are not justified by sincere obedience
to a new law of grace which God is supposed to have
given to us. But if they refer to faith alone, and, at
the same time, deny that the righteousness of Christ is
imputed, they must maintain that this single act is ac
cepted instead of obedience in general, and on the
ground of it a sinner is pronounced to be righteous.
Is it possible that any man really believes that faith,
thus disjointed from all works, is equivalent, in the
Divine estimation, to the whole obedience which we
originally owed ? Whatever some may believe, it is
certain that this faith is the act of the sinner. It is his
obedience to a law requiring faith, and is therefore a
work as much as any other duty. How, then, are we
to understand the words of the Apostle, "To him that
worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth tbe
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."! He
evidently speaks of faith and works as directly opposed
to each other in our justification. According to this
opinion, however, they are not opposed, but while all
other works are excluded, one work, namely faith, is
retained ; so that Paul should have said, "To him who
omits all works but one, that work is counted for righte
ousness." But he has said no such thing, and we are
certain never intended to say it; for his design was to
prove, that all works are excluded, without a single
exception, and that we are justified by faith, not as
constituting our righteousness, but as receiving the
righteousness of Christ. No unprejudiced man who
had read his writings, ever doubled that this was his
design. When we reflect, that he expressly declares
that Christ is made righteousness to us, that we are
made righteous by his obedience, and that righteous
ness is imputed to us without works, we cannot sup
pose for a moment that the true meaning of the passage
before us is, that faith itself is our justifying righteous
ness. Fair criticism requires, that a singular expres
sion should be explained in consistency with the gen
eral sentiments of the book in which it occurs. By
this rule, we must understand the words, "faith is
imputed for righteousness," in consistency with Paul's
uniform doctrine, that a sinner is just before God only
in the righteousness of Christ, and must admit that
here he uses a metonymy by which the efficient is put
for the effect, or the instrument for the end accomplished
by it. Abraham's faith was imputed forrighteousness;
that is, he obtained by it a righteousness, on the ground
of which God justifies the ungodly. We are sure that
this was the fact ; and we are sure, therefore, that this
is what the apostle intended to express.
Again, Faith may be considered as the condition of
our justification, as it has been sometimes called ; but
whether with propriety, may be doubted. If, by con-

* Rom. iv. 3.
\ Rom. iv. 5.

f Dr, M'Knight, Note 2. in loco.

dition, is meant that which is required to the enjoy
ment of a blessing, that which must precede it in the
order of time or of nature, it may be truly said, that
faith is the condition of justification, because nothino-
more is intended than to express, in different words"
the uniform doctrine of Scripture, that we are justified
by faith. But the "condition" of anything usually
signifies that which, being done, gives us a right
or title to it, because it possesses either intrinsic or
conventional merit. To call faith, in this sense, the
condition of our justification, would be worse than in
accurate ; it would introduce human merit to the dis
honour of Divine grace, and overthrow the doctrine so
clearly taught in the New Testament. The term, con
dition, should therefore be avoided, because it is calcu
lated to mislead the ignorant by suggesting ideas con
trary to the truth of the gospel.
In the last place, Faith may be considered as the
means or instrument of justification. The latter term
especially has been frequently employed ; and as both
are of human origin, they have no other claim to be
preferred but what arises from their fitness to express
the office of faith. As a certain influence is ascribed to
it in the justification of a sinner, and, at the same time,
it is not the meritorious cause nor properly the condi
tion, either of the terms conveys the idea of the part
which it acts in this important affair. Those who be
lieve in Christ are said to receive him, and faith is the
instrument by which he is received. It is the hand
with which we take the gift, which God freely bestows.
Whatever term we use, the sole office of faith is to put
us in possession of the righteousness of our Redeemer,
not in the way of merit, but by a simple acceptance of
it as presented and offered to us in the gospel.
It was the will of God that we should not be im
mediately justified on the ground of the obedience and
death of his Son in our room, but that some act of our
minds should precede the application of his merits to
us. In a case of suretyship, the three following things
are necessary: first, that the surety be willing to en
gage; secondly, that the person to whom the debt or
service is owing be willing to accept of him instead
of the principal ; and thirdly, that the person for whom
he becomes bound, consent that he should act for him.
God was willing to accept of Christ as the substitute
of sinners; Christ was willing to come under our ob
ligations ; and all that was farther necessary, was,
that we should consent to his undertaking them. Our
consent, indeed, was not necessary to his entering
upon his office, nor was it possible that it could be
given, as he assumed it before we existed ; but it was
necessary to our participation of the benefits of his
suretyship. This consent is given by faith, which is
our cordial approbation of his substitution and vica
rious righteousness. And the reason of requirino-
faith will be evident, if we reflect, that, without this
act of our minds, we could not conceive the effect of
his suretyship to be communicated to us; for, how
could a righteousness be imputed to us, or accounted
ours, which we did not desire, and which we refused
to accept ?
We may observe how well adapted faith is to pro
mote the great design of God in the justification of
sinners, the glory of his grace. Between grace and
works, there is an irreconcilable opposition, and the
admission of the one- involves the exclusion of the
other. If we are justified by works, we are not justi
fied freely; and the honour of grace, which gives
without money and without price, is impaired. This
would have been the effect if any act of ours had been
made the condition of our justification, if we had been
pardoned on account of our repentance and reforma
tion, and restored to the favour of God on account, of
our love to him and sincere obedience to his law. But
by the appointment cf faith, the glory of grace is fully

334

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

displayed. It cannot be supposed, that a poor man
has any merit in taking the alms which are presented
to him without his solicitation. It is not his accep
tance which gives him a right to enjoy them, but the
offer made by his charitable neighbour. It cannot be
supposed that there is any merit in consenting that
Christ should perform for us what we could not
perform for ourselves; any merit in relying on his
obedience and sufferings, and acknowledging that there
is nothing in ourselves which could recommend us to
God. This consent to the suretyship of Christ, this
dependence on his righteousness, is the essence of
justifying faith. The wisdom of God is manifest in
this constitution, which takes away from man every
ground of boasting, abases his pride, and leads him to
give all the praise to the true Author of salvation.
Having saved us by his own arm, he makes it bare,
if I may speak so, stretches it out openly, to make
all men see that by it alone the mighty work was
achieved. To the sinner nothing is left but to receive,
with profound humility and gratitude, the precious
gift which God most freely bestows. There is an
express acknowledgment in the exercise of faith, that
there is no goodness in himself for which God should
be favourable to him; and he says, "Surely in the
Lord have I righteousness and strength."*
It may be added, that faith is not of ourselves, but
"is tbe gift of God."f As if it were not enough to
exclude works of every kind, and to appoint faith to
be the means of obtaining an interest in Christ, lest
we should boast of faith itself, through our strong
natural disposition to set an undue value upon every
thing which belongs to us, it is declared to be a gift,
to the acquisition of which we contribute nothing, in
the communication of which to us we are passive, and
in exercising which we do not exert our own strength,
but act in consequence of being acted upon by super
natural power. The glory of our salvation is thus
appropriated to God without any deduction. It is his
province to give all, and ours to receive all.
It remains to inquire whether any place should be
assigned to repentance in our justification ; and the
inquiry is the more necessary, because nothing is
more common than to speak of it as if it were the
condition upon which the enjoyment of this blessing
is suspended. It is supposed that Christ died " to
give our sorrows weight," or to render our repentance
efficacious; language which imports, that through his
mediation repentance is accepted as a sort of satisfac
tion for our sins, or as a reason why they should be
pardoned. All our former reasoning tends to show
that this opinion is erroneous. If all works are ex
cluded from being the ground of our justification,
repentance is not to be exempted. In refuting this
opinion some make use of this argument, that re
pentance cannot be the condition of pardon, because
the former does not go before but follows the latter ;
they think, that till a man believe in Christ and con
sequently be justified, he cannot truly repent. I shall
not enter at present into the controversy respecting the
order of these two graces, although it would be easy
to show that those, who place justifying faith first,
arc encountered by difficulties and objections, which
are not sufficiently removed by a hypothesis founded
on what they conceive to be the necessary arrangement
of the Divine operations in the application of redemp
tion. Some men, while they profess the highest vener
ation for the standards of our Church, do not always
conform to their language, but take the liberty in par
ticular instances, to make use of a corrected, and, in
tbeir judgment, a more accurate phraseology. Let
our standards be altered if they are wrong, but let not
those who are most zealous to maintain their integrity,

* Is. xiv. 24.

+ Eph. ii. 8.

and reject any proposal of change, practise, without
avowing it, what they openly denounce as a crime.
"Although repentance," says our Confession of Faith,
" be not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or
any cause of the ,pardon thereof, which is the act of
God's free grace in Christ, yet is it of such necessity
to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without
it."* Not only is it asserted in general, that an im
penitent sinner cannot be pardoned, but it is expressly
stated that before he is pardoned he must cease to be
impenitent. Whatever may be the order of faith and
repentance, both must exist in the mind of the sinner
who is justified ; and indeed it is impossible to con
ceive any man to believe in Christ, without being
duly affected with a sense of sin, of its vileness as
well as of its guilt. He who is pardoned is a pen
itent like the publican in the parable, who said, " God
be merciful to me a sinner;" he is not pardoned, how
ever, for'his repentance, but, as our Confession affirms,
by an "act of God's free grace in Christ." Gnd has
no respect to his penitence as the cause for which he
receives him into favour, but solely to the atonement
and obedience of his Surety.
It may be objected, that, although the Scriptures do
in many places speak as if we were justified by faith
alone, yet there are other passages which appear to
favour the doctrine of justification by works. It is
said for example, that men shall be finally judged
"according to their works;"! and our Lord represents
the general judgment as proceeding upon this ground,
when to the sentence pronounced upon the righteous
he subjoins an enumeration of their deeds of charity
as the reason of it : " For I was an hungered and ye
gave me meat ; I was thirsty and ye gave me drink,"!
&c. But, besides that one part of Scripture should
be explained consistently with another, and particu
lar occasional expressions should be understood ac
cording to the general tenor of its doctrine, the ap
parent difficulty will vanish if we reflect upon the
design of the judgment. Had nothing been intended
except the distribution of rewards and punishments,
this might have been accomplished without the pub
licity and solemnity of the grand assize ; but the pur
pose of an assembly of the human race, of their ar
rangement in two divisions, and of the other pro
ceedings of the great day, is to reveal the righteous
ness of God. It is to convince all, that the Judge of
all the earth does right, by an open display of his ju-s
tice. For this end, it is necessary that the works of
the righteous should be brought forward to view, as
well as those of the wicked; for something would be
wanting to complete the transaction, if the sentence
in the case of the latter were proved to be just by a
detail of their crimes, but in the case of the former
were founded only on their faith. The foundation,
indeed, would be valid ; but as faith is an act of tho
mind, although known to God it is unknown to all
other beings, unless it be made manifest by its fruits.
Now, as the object of the judgment is not merely to
exercise justice, but to convince all the spectators of
the awful scene that it is exercised, it is necessary
that some sensible proof should be produced, which
shall leave no doubt in their minds that those on the
right hand were entitled to the happiness to which
they are adjudged. Their good works will constitute
this proof, not as being the ground of their title, but
as the evidence that they are possessed of that faith to
which eternal life was promised, because it was the
appointed means of uniting them to the Saviour. This
is the true reason why their works will be referred to
in the judgment; and in this way we must account for
the fact, if we would not set one part of Scripture at
variance with another. Men will be judged according
* Conf. ch. xv. } 3. f Rev. xx. 12. { Matth. xxv. 35

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

385

to tbeir works,; or a sentence will be passed upon
them according to their state and character, of which
their works will be the evidence.
There is another passage in which good works may
seem to be represented as the foundation of our title
to heaven. " Blessed are they that do his command
ments, that — iv* — they may have right — j|ou«* — to the
tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the
city."* E£ci/<r;*, which is rendered- righffi is a word
which bears a variety cf senses, and maybe translated
power, authorily,_ liberty, privilege. It does not ne
cessarily convey the idea of right, in the common ac
ceptation of the term; it may be understood simply to
mean, that those who do the commandments shall have
access to the tree of life, or shall enjoy the privilege
of access to it. The meanings of the conjunction ivl,
translated that,are also numerous. It denotes the final
cause, or that for which any thing is done, or merely
the event and issue of a thing, or it is used for the
simple purpose of explanation : " Blessed are they
that do his commandments." How does this appear ?
" They shall have access to the tree of life." Blessed
are they who obey in the hope of eternal life, for
eternal life shall be their gracious reward. This shall
be the happy result. In the preceding context, our
Lord, declares, " that he will come quickly, and that
his reward is with him, to give every man according
as his work shall be."! Then follows the illustra
tion. The righteous shall be admitted into the ce
lestial city and partake of all its delights ; but the
wicked shall be excluded from it, " dogs, and sorcer
ers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters,
and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."! W'hen
the passage is thus explained, there is no difficulty
in it. It merely states the happiness of those who
obey in the hope of eternal life, the great motive pro
posed in the gospel to excite and encourage us, for
their labour shall not be in vain. It points out the
character of the persons for whom future felicity is re
served. The principal difficulty arises from the Epistle of
James, who seems to teach a different doctrine from
that of Paul, when he says, "Ye see how that by
works a man is justified, and not by faith only."||
But that the contradiction is real, we cannot admit,
without supposing that one of them was a false teacher;
and we must therefore use our endeavours to reconcile
them; as we are certain that the Spirit of God, by
whom both were inspired, could not deliver contra
dictory oracles. Some pretend tbat Paul is an obscure
writer, and that on this account we should give the
preference to James. We know the cause of the
complaints against the style and reasoning of the
former. His doctrine is peculiarly offensive to self-
righteous men ; and they are eager to invalidate the
authority of a teacher, who tells many plain and morti
fying truths concerning the depravity of human nature,
the insufficiency of our works, and the absolute neces
sity of an entire dependence upon the righteousness
of Christ.
In order to show that the difference between the two
Apostles is only apparent, and that their writings per
fectly harmonize, I request yourattention to the follow
ing remarks.
First, Paul and James had not the same design in
view. From the Epistles of Paul to the Romans and
Galatians, it appears to have been his design to show,
that a sinner is pardoned, and accepted, and entitled to
heaven, not on account of his works, but through faith
in the blood of Christ and the imputation of his right
eousness. And the reason why he insisted so much
upon this doctrine, was, that it is a fundamental article
of the Christian religion, and was strenuously opposed

by certain teachers, who affirmed that men are saved
by the righteousness of the law. James had a differ
ent object in view. He does not enter upon the con
sideration of the plan, by which a sinner is justified
before God, but sets himself to oppose the improper
use which has been made of the doctrine of salvation
by grace. It appears that some, misunderstanding
what was said concerning faith, had imagined that
we are justified by a bare assent to the gospel, or
that faith consisted in an orthodox belief. To the
carnally minded this was a very acceptable notion, as
it followed, that they might hope for eternal life al
though they continued in sin. Thus they turned the
grace of God into lasciviousness. In opposition to a
system which was subversive of all religion, the apostle
maintains that good works are required from every
disciple cf Christ; and that nothing was more vain
than for men to pretend that they were justified, while
their faith was manifestly of such a nature as to leave
them in a state of alienation from God. In a word,
his design is not to inform a man how he shall ob
tain the favour of God, but to convince him, that if his
faith is barren and dead he is in a state of condemna
tion, notwithstanding his profession and his hopes.
I remark, in the second place, That Paul and James
do not speak of the same faith. Hence, although they
ascribe different things to faith, although by the one it
is represented as alone the instrument of our justifica
tion, and by the other as ineffectual without works,
there is no contradiction in their writings, because they
do not refer to the same subject. The faith which,
according to Paul, is the instrument of our justification,
is a fruit of the Spirit, the faith which is elsewhere
termed " the faith of God's elect," " precious faith,''*
wrought in us by the power which raised Jesus Christ
from the grave ; a living and active principle which
purifies the heart and excites to universal obedience.
But to the faith of which James speaks, these characters
and exercises cannot be ascribed. The reason, indeed,
why he affirms that men cannot be saved by it, is, that
these properties do not belong to it. It is a dead faith,
a body without the soul, a faith which is exhausted in
an empty profession, and which he therefore compares
to the inefficient charity which entertains the hungry
and naked with compassionate words, but neither feeds
nor clothes them. Such being the marked and essen
tial difference between these two kinds of faith, there
is no inconsistency in ascribing justification to the one,
and denying it to the other. " If one," says an emi
nent divine, "affirms that fire will burn, and another
denies it, there is no contradiction between them, whilst
one intends real fire, and the ether only that which is
painted." The last remark which I shall make, is still more
conclusive, namely, that Paul and James do net speak
of the same justification. Paul, as we have seen,
discusses the important question, How we are justi
fied before God, how we obtain the pardon of our sins,
and acceptance ? and he assigns these privileges " to
grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life,
by Jesus Christ our Lord." ! The inquiry of Jame3
relates to the kind of faith by which we are justified,
and to the way in Which it is evinced to be genuine.
It does not treat of justification before God, but of
justification before men. He asks, How other men
shall know that we are justified? and answers, that
they will know it by our works. That this is not a
gratuitous assumption for the purpose of evading a
difficulty, but is the true meaning of justification in
the^epistle of James, is evident from the instances to
which he appeals. The first is Abraham ; concerning
whom he says, " Was not Abraham our father justi
fied by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon

» Rev. xxii. 14.
2 Y

t lb. 12. f »• 1S-

|| James ii. 24.
25

* Tit. i. 1. 2 Pet. i. 2.

t Rom. v. 21.

386

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with bis
works, and by works was faith made perfect? And
the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham be
lieved God, and it was imputed unto him for righteous
ness ; and he was called the friend of God."* It de
serves attention, that, while Abraham is said to have
been justified by works, the Scripture is represented as
fulfilled which affirms, that faith was imputed unto
him for righteousness. These things seem to be con
tradictory ; and they would be so if the apostle were
speaking of his justification before God, because it
would be attributed to two opposite causes, to works
and to faith. But, if we consider him as referring to
the justification of Abraham before men, the apparent
contradiction will be removed, and this will be the
meaning of the passage : " When Abraham believed
in God, righteousness was imputed to him, and he was
justified. This, however, was a secret transaction,
known only to God and to his own conscience. But
when he offered Isaac upon the altar, it was manifested
to others; for this high act of rbedience demonstrated
that he was possessed of the living faith, to which the
promise of salvation is made." To confirm this in
terpretation of the passage, let it be observed, that this
justification of Abraham is said to have taken place
at the time when he obeyed the command of God, to
offer up in sacrifice his only-begotten son. Yet the
Scripture declares that, thirty years before, as we learn
from the fifteenth chapter of Genesis, he was justified
by faith. _ But men are not twice justified by faith ;
and the inference is therefore unavoidable, that this
second justification must relate to a different transac
tion, — his justification before men, the manifestation
of the sincerity of his faith, and, consequently, of his
acceptance with God ; for faith can be shown only by
our works. And thus you perceive in what sense his
faith was made perfect by works. They did not sup
ply any defect in it, and concur with it to recommend
him to the favour of God; but they proved it to be
perfect, or to be not a speculative opinion or listless
assent, but a full and practical persuasion of the truth.
The second instance which he produces, is Rahab :
" Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by
works, when she had received the messengers, and
had sent them out another way ?"! In the Epistle to
the Hebrews, we are informed that she received them
by faith.! How she came to the knowledge of Jeho
vah, the sacred historian has not told us; but it is
certain that she did believe in him ; and, because she
believed in him, received the Israelitish spies into her
house. She was therefore justified before their arrival.
Hence, her justification by works must signify, as in
the case of Abraham, the manifestation of her faith.
By them she was justified before men, or proved to be
a believer ; but she was justified before God prior to
the performance of them.
When we consider that Paul and James had differ
ent designs, and that they speak of different kinds of
faith and justification, we perceive that, notwithstand
ing an apparent discrepancy, the doctrine of the one
perfectly harmonizes with that of the other. When
James affirms, that " by works a man is justified, and
not by faith only,"|| he does not contradict Paul, who
asserts, that "we are justified by faith without the
deeds of the law;"§ he simply lays down this impor
tant proposition, that it is not by a simple profession
of faith that we can know a man to be in a state of
favour with God, but by a profession accompanied by
such good works as evince its sincerity. " Yea, a
man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works :
show me thy faith without thy w-rks, and I will show
thee my faith by my works. "If No person of common

' James ii. 21, 22.
1 James ii. 24.

f James ii. 25.
{ Rom. iii. 28.

t Heb. xii. 31.
IF James ii. 18.

understanding, and common candour, would charge
two modern Divines with contradicting each other, if
to the question, How are we justified before God ?
the one should answer, By faith ; and to the question,
How are we justified before men, or proved to be
genuine believers ? the other should answer, By
works. It requires little sagacity to perceive, and
only a little honesty to acknowledge, that, if Paul
and James speak of the same subject, it is utterly
impossible to reconcile them. The one or the. other
must be in an error ; and, consequently, the one or the
other must be erased from the list of the apostles, un
less, with Unitarians, we will venture to deny their in
spiration, and boldly maintain that they were liable to
mistakes like other men. Had Paul and James been
understood by the primitive Christians to treat of the
same justification, their Epistles would not have been
both received as divine. The one or the other would
have been rejected. If two writings had appeared, in
one of which it was affirmed that there are three per
sons in the Godhead, and in the other that there is
only one person, both could not have been admitted
into the canon, but the latter would have been pro
nounced to be the work of a heretic. Doubts were en
tertained of the Epistle of James by some individuals,
probably because it seemed to be at variance with the
doctrines of Paul ; but it was received by the Jewish
believers to whom it was addressed, as we learn from
its insertion in the Syriac version, made, it is sup
posed, in the first or the beginning of the second cen
tury ; and it has long been acknowledged by the, whole
Church as the genuine production of the apostle whoso
name it bears.

LECTURE LXXII.
JUSTIFICATION.
Refutation of tbe Ohjection, that the Doctrine of Justification
by Faith is injurious to Morality.
Against the doctrine of justification by faith without
the works of the law, objections have been advanced,
some of which have been already considered. It might
have been previously expected, that it would not have
been quietly received ; and that, mortifying as it is to
the pride of man, it would call forth many attempts to
set it aside, and to secure to him, if not the whole
honour, at least some share in the glory of his salva
tion. Accordingly, no article of faith has given rise
to more violent controversies, and been exhibited in a
more odious light; endeavours having been used, not
only to disprove it by direct argument, but to load it
with consequences from which it may appear that it
cannot be true. The consequences, indeed, which are
adduced from a doctrine, ought not to be always ad
mitted as a test of its truth, for they may be unfairly
drawn, and may be false even when to us they seem to
be legitimate, because the subject may be obscure, and
we may take only a partial view of it; but if it could
be clearly shown that a doctrine leads to vice and im
piety, the proof would be complete that it did not ema
nate from the source of all purity, but that it was an
invention of men, or a suggestion of the father of lies.
There is an objection which has been frequently
urged against justification by grace, and which Paul,
anticipating from his knowledge of the light in which
the doctrine would be viewed by men of corrupt minds,
has stated and refuted. The doctrine seems to wear
an unfriendly aspect to holiness, for which some men
profess great zeal, and would persuade us that they are
deeply concerned for its interests. In many cases, the
sincerity of this profession may be called in question

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

387

without a breach of charity ; because we find that those
who are most eloquent in their declamations in favour
of good works, are not distinguished by the practice of
them ; and that frequently the only proof which they
give of attachment to them, consists in violent invec
tives against those who hold a different creed. At pre
sent, however, we shall confine our attention to their
reasoning. If we are freely pardoned, they say, and
if nothing is required of us that we should enjoy this
blessing but to believe, this easy method of obtaining
forgiveness will be an incitement to repeat our offences.
May we not also be tempted to sin from the notion that,
the more numerous our transgressions are, divine grace
will be the more glorified in passing them by? If
good works are not the condition of our restoration to
the favour of God, and he is accepted who does not
work, but believes, the most powerful inducement to
perform them is taken away. It is the hope of being
benefited by his labours, which rouses a person to ac
tive exertion. No consideration can be conceived more
effectual to excite us to obedience, than the prospect of
recommending ourselves to our Maker, and of being
rewarded with a blessed immortality; but, if the prize
is secured to us by the merit of another, nothing can
be expected to follow but total remissness. Men, per
suading themselves that they are justified by faith, will
naturally conclude that good works are unnecessary,
every purpose which they were intended to accomplish
being effected by a different expedient. They will
think that there is no hazard in neglecting them ; and
perhaps they will deem it their duty to neglect them,
lest they should interfere with the righteousness of
Christ, weaken their feelings of dependence upon him,
and create in their minds an idea of merit, by which his
honour would be impaired.
This is the objection against our doctrine ; and it is
stated, I apprehend, in all its force. Justification by
faith, without the works of the law, is injurious to the
interests of morality, by weakening or destroying the
motives to it. If the objection were well founded, if
there were such an opposition between free justification
and the necessity of holiness, as some men pretend, it
would follow that our views are erroneous, and that
what we call the Gospel of the grace of God is a licen
tious perversion of the truth. Paul, as we have already
remarked, anticipated this objection; and it is not im
probable that it was brought forward by some disputers
in bis days. Hence arises a strong presumption, that
his doctrine and ours, in reference to this important arti
cle of religion, agree. There would have been no room
for the objection, if he had taught that men are in any
sense justified by works. Whatever other faults might
have been found with his doctrine, it could not have
been alleged that it had a tendency to set aside the ob
ligations to duty ; and if any person had been so stupid
as to urge this objection, Paul would not have entered
into an elaborate train of reasoning with a view to show
that it was inapplicable, but would have thought it
sufficient to state anew, that, according to him, good
works were the condition of our restoration to the
favour of God. After having declared that, " as by the
offence of one judgment came upon all men to con
demnation ; even so by the righteousness of one the
free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
For as by one man's disobedience many were made
sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made
righteous ;"* after having given the same view of justi
fication which we have exhibited, he adds, " What
shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin, that
grace may abound ? God forbid. How shall we, that
are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? Know ye not,
that so many of us as were, baptized into Jesus Christ
were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried

* Rom. v. 18, 19.

with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,
even so we also should walk in newness of life. For
if we have been planted together in the likeness of his
death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrec
tion : knowing this, that our old man is crucified with
him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that
henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is
dead is freed from sin."*
Decisive, however, as this objection is accounted,
and triumphantly as it is displayed as a complete refuta
tion of our doctrine, it is easy to show that it discovers
rather the ignorance of those who advance it, than the
strength of their cause. Three things are taken for
granted, which are grossly and palpably false. It is
presumed, that, if good works are not necessary to the
justification of a sinner, they are not necessary for any
other purpose, and are altogether useless; that justifi
cation and sanctification may be separated, or that a
man may be received into tbe favour of God and yet
continue unholy; and that the doctrine of justification
by grace does not supply motives of sufficient efficacy
to insure our obedience. If the reverse of these as
sumptions can be proved, the objection falls to the
ground ; and although we he justified by faith, the inte
rests of holiness are effectually secured.
First, It is assumed that, unless good works are the
condition of justification, there is no other reason of
sufficient efficacy to induce us to perform them. It is
not a little strange that this idea should be adopted,
especially by persons who have much to tell us con
cerning eternal and immutable morality, by which they
mean, that morality is founded in the nature of things,
is independent of time, and place, and circumstances,
and is of perpetual obligation, whatever may be the
condition of intelligent beings. It does not well accord
with their fine declamations concerning the intrinsic
beauty of virtue, the satisfaction which it imparts to the
mind, and which more than compensates the difficulties
and sacrifices attending the practice of it, and the dis
interested character of a good man, who will cultivate
virtue for its own sake. These speculations have
vanished into air, and it is confessed by the authors of
them that virtue requires a more substantial recommen
dation than its own charms; that it is in fact a calcula
tion of interest; and that unless it hold out the pros
pect of solid advantage, it will have no authority upon
our consciences, no attractions for our hearts. Hence
we learn what are the real sentiments and feelings of
the objectors, for they virtually acknowledge, that not
withstanding their pretended zeal for good works, they
would not hold them in estimation were it not for their
consequences ; that they do not set a value upon them
for their intrinsic worth, but solely because they are the
means by which their own happiness will be promoted.
This is a fair inference from their objection ; for they
unquestionably judge from themselves, when they say,
that, if men are once persuaded that works are not the
condition of eternal life, they will consider themselves
as loosed from any obligation to perform them. They
conclude that other men would act in this manner, be
cause they are conscious that such would be their own
conduct. But although they can perceive no reason for the
performance of good works, if they are not the merit
orious cause of our justification, those who have stud
ied the Scriptures, and imbibed their spirit, entertain
a different opinion.
Obedience to the divine law is our indispensable
duty, without any reference to our own interest. Noth
ing is more contrary to reason and piety than to sup
pose, that moral obligation is founded on a contract
between us and our Maker, by which we engage to
* Rom. vi. 1—7.

388

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY*

fulfil certain services in consideration of certain advan
tages. The idea assumes what is false — that we are
independent beings, and voluntarily enter into an en
gagement to give what we might withhold. If God
is the author of our existence and faculties, he has
undoubted right to prescribe the purpose for which we
should use those faculties, and his will constitutes a
permanent obligation. The reason why we should
obey is not that we expect a recompense from him,
but that being our Creator he is our Sovereign Lord,
to whose commands we should implicitly bow. There
is no doubt that a creature would be bound to obey,
although he knew that next moment he should be an
nihilated. The truth is, that what we do is not obe
dience, unless it be done from respect to his will ; for
to obey is to execute the orders of a superior because
they are his orders, and not because they will be pro
ductive of some advantage to ourselves. And this is
in fact the consideration by which true Christians are
influenced. They think principally of their duty, re
garding their interest as a subordinate consideration,
and conform to the precepts of the law'because the au
thority which enjoins them is sacred in their eyes.
Hence it appears, that, although good works should
not be the condition of justification, the reason for per
forming them remains in all its force. By them we
discharge the debt of obedience which we owe to the
Author of our Being.
Again, obedience is the return which is due to God
for his innumerable favours. The objectors seem to
think that the expectation of new blessings is a pow
erful excitement to duty, but that the remembrance of
past blessings will have no such effect. It is acknowl
edged that men are very apt to forget the kindness of a
benefactor; but bad as human nature is, instances cf
gratitude are not uncommon, and many a willing ser
vice is performed under tbe influence of this feeling.
In particular, we might calculate upon its powerful
operation in those who have received from God the re
mission of their sins, and a right to eternal life, and
whose hearts have been softened and made susceptible
Cf every good impression by the Spirit of grace.
" What shall I render to the Lord for all his benefits?"
is a question which a justified man will naturally ask ;
and knowing that obedience is the most acceptable re
turn, " he wtill make haste, and not delay to keep his
commandments." The objection makes no allowance
for the operation of gratitude, and supposes men, even
when brought under the power of religion, to be entire
ly governed by selfishness. But true believers enter
into the spirit of the apostolic exhortation, " Ye are
not your own ; ye are bought with a price ; therefore
glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which
are God's."*
In the next place, by obedience we glorify God, and
recommend religion to our fellow-men : " Herein is
my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall
ye be my disciples."! While we thus pay to God
the homage which he claims, and recognise him as a
Being of essential purity, which is the glory of his na
ture, our conduct is calculated to make an impression
upon others, and to induce them seriously to consider
their obligations, and to endeavour, through Divine
assistance, to fulfil them : " Let your light so shine
before men, that they may see your good works, and
glorify your Father which is in heaven."! These are
reasons which will influence those who reflect, that the
end of all the works of God is his glory ; and that as
it is passively promoted by the inferior parts of the
creation, in which his perfections are displayed, so it
is the sacred duty of intelligent beings to contribute to
it actively, by the dedication of their faculties to his
service. In answering the objection, we are perpet-

* 1 Cor. vi. 20.

f John xv. 8.

X Matt. ,. 16.

ually reminded of the narrow contracted views from
which it has proceeded. What is not immediately re
lated, to themselves, does not fall under the contem
plation of the objectors. Why should they glorify
God, unless it can be shown that some benefit will ac
crue to them ? They who reason in this manner, fur
nish the clearest evidence that they do not understand
the enlightened and liberal principles of genuine piety,
and are actuated by the mercenary spirit of slaves. It
is certain that the spirit of a Christian would not have
dictated the objection which we are at present refuting.
I remark, in the last place, that the consideration
which appears to the objectors to be alone of any force to
excite men to obedience, a regard to their own interest,
is not wanting, according to the doctrine of justifica
tion by faith. Although good works are not the foun
dation of our title to eternal life, yet tbey are intimate
ly connected with our happiness, and contribute to
promote it. To a believer, holiness is an evidence of
the existence of Divine grace in his heart, of the sin
cerity of his faith, and consequently of his interest in
the favour of God. " Hereby perceive we that we are
of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him."*
It is his qualification for communion with God, be
tween whom and a creature polluted with sin there
can be no comfortable intercourse. " If we walk in
the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one
with another."! If the joys of fellowship with God
will not excite men to their duty, the promise of hea
ven itself, as their reward, would have as little effect ;
for heaven, rightly understood, is a continuation of the
pleasures of devotion, and cannot be an object of desire
unless those pleasures are prized above all earthly de
lights. And this leads me to state, that when we
have abandoned the idea of good works being the con
dition of future happiness, there remains this strong
reason for performing them, that they are indispensably
necessary to prepare us for it ; for this is the law,
from which there is no exemption, that " without ho
liness, no man shall see the Lord."! He who trusts
in the merit of the Saviour, feels himself impelled to
the cultivation of holiness as powerfully as if his title
to heaven had depended upon it. What would a right
to it avail if he were incapable of enjoying it? and
what joy would the presence of God give to a man
who was not assimilated to him by the renovation of
his soul ? Sin, which is the source of our disquietudes
and sorrows upon earth, would render us miserable
even in the region of blessedness.
If, then, there are so many purposes which holiness
serves, and which are, consequently, reasons for prac
tising it, we do not set aside good works by excluding
them from our justification. We are not so foolish as
to think that they are useful for nothing, because they
are net useful for every thing. This, however, is the
import and tbe strength of the objection which is ad
vanced against our doctrine with so much confidence.
If we are not justified by works, they maybe dismiss
ed as superfluous.
In the second place, it is taken for granted by those
who urge the objection, that justification and sanctifi
cation maybe separated, or that a man, who is receiv
ed into the favour of God, may continue unholy. If it
can be shown that this supposition is false, the objec
tion falls to the ground. In reasoning concerning the
Divine dispensations, we ought not to admit arbitrary
hypotheses, but should endeavour to ascertain what is
the established order of things. Men may conceive,
through ignorance, a sinner to be justified without be
ing sanctified, or his state to be changed while there
is no change in his character, and on this ground may
prove the dangerous consequences of maintaining the
doctrine of justification by grace. Here is a man who

* 1 John iii. 19.

t lb. i. 7.

X Heb. xii. 14.

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

389

is the object of tbe love of God, but is in an unregen-
erated state, and possesses a right to a blessed immor
tality, although he is living in sin. Were this the
true state of the case, it might be justly said of our
doctrine, that it leads to licentiousness, and must there
fore have originated in human ignorance or depravity.
But the separation exists only in theory, and affords
an instance of the false alarms which men frequently
experience from phantoms of their own imagination.
The Scriptures represent the two blessings as close
ly connected, and as enjoyed at the same time : " Ye
are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified, in the
name of the Lord Jesus, and by tbe Spirit of our
God."* When they draw the character of justified
persons, the description points, not only to their inter
est in the Divine favour, but also to the holy exercises
in which they are engaged : "There is no condemna
tion to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not af
ter the flesh, but after the Spirit;"! that is, they are
not carnal, but spiritual ; they are not governed by the
desires and volitions of corrupt nature, but by the prin
ciples of grace. It was not the intention of the apostle
to state the ground on which they are exempt from
condemnation, but to inform us of the moral qualities
of the persons to whom this privilege belongs. To be
under grace, and not under the law, or, in other words,
to be delivered from the curse of the law and restored
to the favour of God, is represented as a state which
secures us from the reigning power of sin : " Sin shall
not have the dominion over you ; for ye are not under
the law, but under grace."! The faith by which we
are justified is said to be a living faith, which mani
fests itself in holiness of life, while the faith which is
alone,' the faith which is not productive of good works
as its native fruit, is pronounced to be useless to its
possessor: "As the body without the spirit is dead, so
faith without works is dead also."||
The inseparable connection between justification and
sanctification, is farther manifest from the considera
tion, that a sinner cannot be justified till he believe;
and that as faith is a supernatural grace, it cannot exist
without the communication of the Spirit to the soul.
But the Spirit, if I may be allowed to use figurative
language, does not come alone; he brings all his gra
ces, or as the Scripture calls them, his fruits along
with him, infusing not only faith, but also hope and
love ; and thus he sows the seeds of holiness, which
immediately spring up and yield a rich harvest of good
works. Those who maintain that the doctrine of justi
fication by faith is unfriendly to holiness, have adopted
unscriptural ideas of faith. They suppose it to be a
mere assent of the understanding to a proposition sup
ported by evidence, and do not seem to know, that the
faith of which we speak, is an act Which proceeds
from a principle of spiritual life in the heart. The jus
tified person was dead, in trespasses and sins, but is
now alive ; his nature is changed as well as his state ;
he is delivered from the power as well as from the
guilt of sin; and his faith, which embraces the right
eousness of Christ, works by love to God and man, as
naturally as a tree puts forth buds, and leaves, and
blossoms, and fruit. The objection which we are con
sidering betrays deplorable ignorance of the operations
of grace; and those who have derived their ideas of
faith, its origin and efficacy, from the Scriptures, will
hardly consider it as worthy of a serious refutation.
What method can be conceived more effectual to secure
the performance of good works, than the communica
tion of the Spirit of holiness?
Hence, we perceive how false it is to charge the
doctrine of justification by faith, with giving encour
agement to the neglect of our duty. According to the

* I Cor. vi. 11.
|| James ii. 26.

+ Rom. viii. 1.

t lb. vi. 14

immutable law of heaven, he who is justified, is also
sanctified ; and he cannot be justified, because he can
not believe, till he receive the. Holy Ghost, by which
he is enabled " to put off the old man, which is corrupt,
according to the deceitful lusts, and to put. on the new
man, which after God is created in righteousness and
true holiness."*
In the third place, It is presumed that the doctrine
of justification by faith, does not supply any motive of
sufficient efficacy to restrain us from sin, and to excite
us to obedience. Nothing, however, is more easy
than to show that the idea is unfounded.
First, This doctrine furnishes a most powerful mo
tive to restrain us from sin, by exhibiting it in such »
light as is calculated to inspire the utmost abhorrence
of it. The pardon of sin is granted in justification;
but it is granted solely on the ground of the atonement
of Christ. We are thus reminded that sin is offensive
to God in the highest possible degree, since nothing
could induce him to forgive it but the dreadful sacrifice
ofhis only-begotten Son. His wrath could not be ap
peased but by the shedding of his precious blood.
Were God to pardon us upon repentance, it would ap
pear, indeed, that he had been displeased ; but we
should naturally conclude, that he was not much of
fended ; since, on so slight a ground as our sorrow, and
confession, and amendment, he was willing to cancel
what is past. It is not a very aggravated fault for
which repentance, will atone. But now, when death is
demanded, and that the death not of a mere man,
but of the Lord of Glory, what can we infer but that
the Divine detestation of sin is infinite ? And can we
believe this awful truth, and at the same time persist, in
the love and practice of sin ? It is impossible. Men
may sin when the scene of the crucifixion is forgotten ;
but they will not sin when it is fresh in their remem
brance. Upon a regenerated heart its power is irre
sistible. A believer will not transgress while the ter
rors of Divine wrath are displayed before his eyes, and
a most impressive demonstration is given of the con
trariety of sin to the will and nature of God. He is
delivered, indeed, from its penal effects ; but he is de
livered by such means as must inspire him with abhor
rence of its vileness and dread of its consequences.
Secondly, This doctrine supplies a strong motive to
obedience, by reminding us that the obligation to it is
immutable, and can, upon no account, be dispensed
with. Justification by faith proceeds upon the ground
of the previous fulfilment of the law by Jesus Christ in
the character of our Surety. Although to us the gift
of eternal life is free, and nothing is required but that
we should accept it with humble gratitude, yet, in re
spect of our Redeemer, it is the reward of the fulfil
ment of the condition upon which it was originally
promised. The plan of justifying a- sinner, according
to the Gospel, does not set aside the moral law or abate
its demands; but, on the contrary, it recognises its au
thority, and magnifies it by a righteousness commensu
rate to its requisitions. The dispensation of grace is
not intended to throw any reflection upon the dispensa
tion of the law ; but, while it provides a remedy for the
evil caused by the violation of the law, it gives a full
sanction to its claims, and exhibits the original consti
tution as worthy of its Author, a bright display of his
justice and holiness. From the terrns prescribed to our
Saviour we learn, that God could nut dispense with
obedience, even in favour of those whom he loved.
How then is it supposed that our doctrine is unfavour
able to holiness ? Does it teach us to disregard the
precepts of the law, by carrying its authority to the
greatest possible height? Does it present a temptation
to withhold obedience, by showing that God loves it as
much as he loves the exercise of mercy ; and that, full

* Eph. iv. 22, 24.

390

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

of compassion as he is, he would not relieve mankind
from their misery, unless the rights of his law were
respected and established? By reminding us that
obedience was required from our Surety as the condi
tion of our restoration to the favour of God, does it
authorize us to conclude that, when we are admitted
into a justified state, the obligation to it is dissolved,
and we may safely trample the precept under foot ?
These certainly are inferences which cannot be logic
ally deduced from the premises ; but in this manner
they must reason who affirm, that the doctrine of justi
fication by grace tends to licentiousness.
In the third place, The doctrine of free justification
is calculated to awaken gratitude and love to the Author
of our Salvation. The value of the blessing is in
estimable, and it is bestowed without money and with
out price. No condition, property so called, is pre
scribed ; but all that is required is, that we should
believe in him, " who suffered the just for the unjust,
that he might bring us to God."* Had some con
dition been enjoined, our sense of the Divine goodness
would have been weaker, as less grace would have
appeared in conferring the blessing; and the selfish
idea of merit would have shed its paralysing influence
upon the emotions of the heart. But now, when grace
shines with undiminished lustre, and the sinner knows
that he is indebted to it alone for the remission of his
manifold offences, and the hope of a blessed immor
tality, will not all that is within him be stirred up to
glorify his Divine Benefactor? God will appear to
him worthy of the most ardent love, and of the best
return which he can make for his wonderful and un
merited kindness. He will not dream of recompens
ing him ; for, in this respeet, our goodness extends
not to God ; but the principle of his conduct will be
a desire to express the gratitude wbich he feels, and
to do what he can for the honour of bim who has
done all for his salvation. When gratitude is excited,
and the feeling is strong, compliance with the will
of a benefactor is secured. On this ground we affirm,
that the doctrine of justification by grace directly tends
to advance the interests of holiness. " What shall I
Tender to the Lord for all his benefits ?" The par
doned sinner will say, ' I owe every thing to him ;
and I am willing to do any thing for him.' "If a
man love me, he will keep my words."! Those who
have no love to God, can be impelled to obey him
only by love to themselves. But a Christian acts
upon a more generous plan. He loves God, because
God has loved him ; and hence, like his Lord and
Master, he delights to do his will, and his law is in his
heart. That doctrine which is best fitted to beget and
cherish love to God, is best calculated to promote the
interests of holiness. There is no doctrine, therefore,
so favourable to good works, as that of justification by
grace. Lastly, The doctrine of justification by faith encour
ages us to obey, by giving us the sure hope of ac
ceptance. Men will not engage in vain labour, knowing
it to be vain. If success be doubtful, their spirits will
flao-, and their exertions will be languid ; but hope will
o-ive life, and vigour, and perseverance in their efforts.
According to the doctrine of justification by works, we
obey in great uncertainty; we know not what will be
the result; our endeavours may prove abortive, our
services may be found defective, and be rejected on
trial. But according to the doctrine of justification by
faith, we obey in the full confidence of gracious ac
ceptance. Believers already enjoy the favour of God
through the Saviour, in whom they trust. They do
not w*ork for a prize that may be lost, for their title to
it is secure; but from gratitude, because it is secure,
and they know that their hopes will be realized in the
» 1 Pet. iii. 18. f John xiv. 23.

eternal possession of it. They know that the curse of
the law is repealed, and consequently, that the great
obstacle to the acceptance of their persons and services
is removed. They know that, although their works,
being imperfect, would be rejected if performed as the
condition of the favour of God and future happiness,
they will be pleasing to bim as testimonies of filial
duty and of love without dissimulation. They know
that Jesus Christ intercedes for them in the heavenly
sanctuary, and recommends their services to his Father
by perfuming them with the incense of his merit. By
these considerations their hearts are enlarged, and they
go forward with ease and delight in the way of the
commandments. " They therefore so run, not as un
certainly ; they so fight not as one that beateth the
air."* They are " steadfast, unmoveable, always
abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as
they know that their labour is not in vain in the
Lord."+ It may be thought that an objection so manifestly
unfounded, as every person perceives who has care
fully and dispassionately studied the subject, is not
worthy of a serious refutation. But as it has a plau
sible sound, is often brought forward, and is calculated
to make an impression upon the ignorant and super
ficial, it is proper that we should be furnished with
arguments in reply to it, for the vindication of truth
and the removal of prejudice.
The question concerning the tendency of the two
opposite systems, might be submitted to the decision
of experience. The most imposing speculations turn
out to be the dreams of fancy, when they are contra
dicted by facts. I do not say that all those who main
tain justification by works are careless of them; but
it is certain, that where this doctrine is taught and
believed there is commonly a deplorable want of mo
rality ; there is little or no appearance of personal and
family religion; and the law of God, although magni
fied in woFds, is generally disregarded in practice. I
would not say, that all who hold justification by faith
abound in good works, for men may profess the doc
trine without cordially believing it and feeling its
power; but it cannot be denied, that where the doctrine
is sincerely embraced there is much serious concern for
the salvation of the soul, great diligence in observing
the ordinances of grace, and attention to personal and
relative duties. The result is exactly the reverse of
what some men had calculated, and on some occasions,
they have been unable to conceal their surprise and
mortification. It is a good remark, that worldly men
trust in good works without doing them, and believers
do good works without trusting in them. However
strange the fact may appear, those who understand the
Scriptures are at no loss to account for it. The one
system cannot purify the heart, because it is false;
the other being true, is the power of God unto sal
vation. "Talk they of morals ? O thou bleeding Love !
The grand morality is love of thee."{
So speaks the poet, and he expresses the feeling of
every Christian. That doctrine which eminently dis
plays the love of God to the unworthy, creates a deep
sense of our high obligations to the Saviour, and fixes
our attention upon him as our hope and our life as
well as our great exemplar, is the most powerful en
gine which ever was contrived for rousing the energies
of the soul. You may expect every thing from a wil
ling mind; and there is no reason to fear that they
wifl fail to perform their duty, punctually, cheerfully,
and steadily, who can say, "The love of Christ con-
straineth us."||

* 1 Cor. ix. 26.
X Young's Night Thoughts, N. iv.

f lb. xv. 58.
II 2 Cor. v. 14

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

391

In the days of the apostle James there were men,
as we have seen in a former lecture,* who imagined
that they should be saved by faith without works,
from a gross misapprehension of the doctrine of grace ;
and there have not been wanting successors to them,
who have not only imitated their example by tramp
ling upon the precepts of religion, but have adopted
the fallacious principle, that the obligations of holiness
are superseded by the plan of justifying sinners which
the gospel reveals. The strong inclination of the
human heart to sin, eagerly lays hold of every pre
text to indulge itself, and proceeds to such a degree
of impiety as to claim a sanction even from God him
self, and to shelter itself under the patronage of reli
gion, thus setting God at variance with himself, and
introducing war between the different parts of his
word, as if the good news by Jesus Christ were a
repeal of the law promulgated from the beginning as
the rule of righteousness to mankind. The abusers
of divine grace have been called Antinomians, or op
ponents of the law, which, according to them has lost
its power to bind believers to obedience. The name
has been ignorantly or malignantly given to those who
abhorred the tenet of which it is expressive ; and
nothing is more common than to call men Antino
mians, because they affirm that we are justified by
faith without works, although they openly maintain,
and prove by their conduct, that they are sincere in
maintaining, that believers are bound to yield obe
dience to the precepts, and are far more zealous of the
law in practice than their adversaries. But it is to be
lamented, that there have been, and at this moment
are, professed Christians who dare openly to teach,
that believers are exempted from the law in every
sense. On this point, we are as much opposed to
them as Arminians are, and have cause to complain
of injustice, when we are confounded under the same
denomination. We have satisfactorily shown, that
our doctrine leads to no such consequence ; and pub
licly declare, that while we expect to be saved only
by grace, this grace teaches " us to deny ungodliness
and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously,
and godly in this present world ; looking for that
blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself
for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and
purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good
works.'!

LECTURE LXXIII.

ON ADOPTION.

Adoption, a part of Justification — Meaning of the term "Sons
of God" — The Practice and Nature of Adoption among
Men — Definition and Explanation of the Spiritual Privi
lege of Adoption — The Benefits flowing from it.
Having illustrated at considerable length, the doc
trine of justification, I proceed to consider another
privilege of believers in Christ, namely, Adoption.
There are two reasons why I shall direct your atten
tion to it : first, because it is expressly mentioned in the
Scriptures as one of the blessings of redemption ; and
secondly, because a place is commonly assigned to it
in systems of Theology. At the same time, it ap
pears to me to be virtually the same with justification,
and to differ from it merely in the new view which it
o-ives of the relation of believers to God, and in the
peculiar form in which it exhibits the blessings to
which they are entitled. As it implies a change of

* Led. lxxi

j- Titus ii. 12—14.

state, it must be the same; for this cbr.nge can take
place but once ; and whether we say that a sinner
passes from a state of guilt and condemnation into a
state of favour with God, or that he is translated from
the family of Satan into the family of heaven, we. ex
press the same fact, and only diversify the terms. He
who is justified is adopted, and he who is adopted is
justified. But as the Scriptures make use of the term
adoption, to denote the change of relation which takes
place when we are effectually called, and believers are
often exhibited in the character of the children of God,
the subject is well worthy of our attention, and has a
claim to a separate illustration.
There are different grounds on which men receive
the designation of the sons of God. First, they are
so called on account of their relation to him as their
Maker. " Have we not all one Father ? and hath not
one God created us ?"* It is for this reason that, in
the third chapter of Luke, where tbe genealogy of our
Saviour is recorded, the Evangelist having traced it
up to the progenitor of the human race, by stating in
the usual form that such a man was the son of such
another man, concludes by saying of Adam, " which
was the son of God."! -^n<^ f°r tne same reason, an
gels are called his sons. " Where wast thou when I
laid the foundations of the earth ; when the morning
stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted
for joy?"! Again, the designation of sons of God is
given to men in consequence of the external relation
in which they stand to him as his people, and the
favour with which he regards them. This is obviously
the import of the message which God commanded
Moses to deliver to Pharaoh. " Thou shalt say unto
Pharaoh, thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even
my first-born. "|| It is intimated in these words, that
he had chosen the Israelites to be his peculiar people;
that he regarded them with peculiar affection, and
purposed to bestow upon them distinguished marks of
his favour; and that this was the reason why he com
manded the king of Egypt to give them liberty to
depart, and why he would himself interpose by mira
cles to effect their deliverance. In the New Testa
ment they are described as the children of the king
dom ; and on the same ground the character of the
sons of God may now be given to the members of the
visible church, who are externally in covenant with
him, and have been symbolically admitted into his
family by baptism. There remains another mode in
which men are constituted the sons of God, namely,
by adoption. The term is applied indeed to the son-
ship of the Israelites, " to whom," as Paul says,
" pertained the adoption,"§ because God took them into
a relation to himself, in which they did not naturally
stand ; but it is used in its proper sense and full im
port, in reference only to believers in Christ. " When
the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his
Son made of a woman, made under the law, to re
deem them that were under the law, that we might
receive tbe adoption of sons."lT And the same apostle
says in another place, " He hath chosen us in bim
before the foundation of the world, that we should be
holy and without blame before him in love, having
predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus
Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of
his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein
he hath made us accepted in the Beloved."**
"To adopt a person," as Kenrtet says in his Roman
Antiquities, " was to take him in the room of a son,
and to give him a right to all the privileges which ac
companied that title. Now the wisdom of the Roman
constitution made this matter a public concern. When

*Mal.ii. 10. f Luke iii. 38.
|| Exod. iv. 22. } Rom. ix. 4.
**F.ph. i. 4—6.

X Job xxxviii. 4, 7.
H Gal. iv. 4, 5.

392

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

a man had a mind to adopt another into bis family, he
was obliged to draw up his reasons, and to offer them
to tbe college of the Pontifices for their approbation.
If this was obtained, on the motion of the Pontifices,
the consul, or some other prime magistrate, brought in
a bill at the Comitia Curiata, to make the adoption
valid. The private ceremony consisted in buying the
person to be adopted, of his parents, for such a sum
of money formally given and taken; and Suetonius
tells us, that Augustus purchased his grandsons Caius
and Lucius of their father Agrippa." It may be added
to this account, that the parties appeared before the
prsetor, when the intended father said, " Art thou will
ing to become my son ?" and the son answered, " I am
willing." The relation was thus formed according to
law, and the adopted son entered into the family ofhis
new father, assumed his name, became subject to his
authority, and was entitled to the whole of the inherit
ance, or to a share of it if there were any other sons.
I have referred to this practice as existing among the
Romans, and sanctioned by the laws of Ihe state; but
it was not peculiar to them. It appears to have, pre
vailed among the Greeks, the Egyptians, and, I be
lieve, some other nations. We have an example of
adoption among the Egyptians in the case of the
daughter of Pharaoh the king, concerning whom it is
related that, having accidentally found the infant Moses
exposed on the banks of the Nile, she gave him to his
mother to be nursed ; and that when the child grew, his
mother brought him to her, " and he became her son."*
He was thus admitted a member of the royal family,
and it is mentioned as a proof of the power of his faith,
that he renounced this high honour, and chose to take
part with his own nation in their afflictions, because
they were the people of God : " By faith Moses, when
he was come to years, refused to be called the son of
Pharaoh's daughter;! sacrificed the glory and the ad
vantages which he already possessed, and had the pros
pect of enjoying, in consequence ofhis adoption. It is
the opinion of some, that the term adoption in the New
Testament, is not borrowed from the Greeks and Ro
mans, but is founded on the style of the Old Testa
ment, in which, as we have seen, the Israelites are
called the sons of God. But it is more probable that,
as the New Testament was intended for the use of the
Gentiles as well as the Jews, it was the design of the
writers, when they employed a word familiar to the
latter, to refer to the thing denoted by it as it was prac
tised among them, and thus to convey to them an intel
ligible idea of the spiritual relation between God and
the objects of his favour.
Adoption, according to the scriptural sense of the
term, is an act of God, by which he pronounces sinful
men to be his sons, admits them into his family, and
gives them a right to the privileges of his children.
With a view to illustrate this general definition, I re
quest your attention to the following particulars.
First, As an adopted son originally belonged to a
different family from that into which he was admitted,
we must inquire from what family tbe children of God
are taken, We might say, then, that they are of the
family of Adam, understanding by this expression, not
merely that they are his natural offspring, his sons and
daughters by lineal descent, but that they were born in
his image, and after his likeness, and derive from him
the guilt, the pollution, and the curse, which he hath
bequeathed to them as a fatal inheritance. We might
accommodate to our present purpose the words of God
to his ancient people, " Look unto the rock whence ye
were hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye were
digged."! 'Look unto Adam your father, and unto
Eve that conceived you in sin, and brought you forth
in iniquity.' The Scriptures give another view of the

subject; and pronounce all men in their fallen state to
be the children not only of Adam, but of him by whose
artifice they were reduced to their present condition;
" Ye are of your father the devil,"* said our Lord to
the Jews. 'Ye boast of your connexion with Abra
ham, and found upon it the hope of acceptance with
God; but your conduct proves you to be the genuine
offspring of the enemy of all righteousness ;' for he
adds, " the works of your father ye do." Lest, how
ever, we should suppose that this character is applica
ble to them alone on account of their peculiar depravity
manifested in the rejection of the Messiah, the Scrip
ture is careful to comprehend all unrege.nerated^ men
under the same denomination : " He that committeth
sin is of the devil ; for the devil sinneih from the begin
ning." "In this the children of God are manifest, and
the children of the devil ; whosoever doeth not righte
ousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his bro
ther."! To the justness of this description in reference
to notorious transgressors, few will be disposed to ob
ject. In their blasphemy, their profaneness, their
malice, their envy, their violence and cruelty, we dis
tinctly perceive the horrid features of the spirit of dark
ness. But pride, self-confidence, a dislike of the divine
character and laws, repugnance to the will of our
Maker, and a constant inclination to sin, which are
found in every man who has not been born again, are
indications not less certain, that we are guided by the
counsels and actuated by the temper of the first rebel
against the righteous government of God. " He is the
spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience."!
All tbe children of disobedience, therefore, are his sons.
Although they may disown tbeir relation, they daily
recognise it by their unholy thoughts and actions, and
unless divine mercy interpose, will receive the inherit
ance of wrath, which is their allotted portion.
Secondly, as an adopted son became a member of a
new family, so he upon whom this spiritual privilege
is conferred, is enrolled among the children of God.
Like the prodigal, who had gone into a far country,
and, having there wasted his suhstance in-riotous liv
ing, was reduced to extreme distress, he returns, or
rather by Divine Grace is brought back, to the house
of his heavenly Father; and his father, to adopt the
language of the parable, falling on his neck and em
bracing him in the arms ofhis love, does not place bim
in the condition of a servant, but restores him to the
name and the right of a son. And, how glorious is
this family to which we are re-united ! First in dig
nity and honour is Jesus Christ himself, who, in his
Divine Person, is the eternal Son of God, and, in bis
mediatorial character, stands in a particular relation to
believers. The Scripture calls him "the first born
among many brethren," intimating, that he belongs to
the heavenly family, in which he claims precedence,
and holds the most distinguished place. He is the
Elder Brother; for he and the other children, or those
of them who are taken from among men, are partakers
of a common nature ; and for this cause " be is not
ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare
thy name unto my brethren ; in the midst of the church
will I sing praise unto thee."|| Next in order are those
glorious beings, who, having retained their purity and
fidelity, have continued, witheut interruption, to enjoy
the honour and felicity of their primeval state. Angels
are the sons of God, as we formerly remarked, and
constitute an illustrious portion of the family, distin
guished by the excellence of their nature, the superi
ority of their endowments, the ardour of their love, and
their unwearied activity. To them we are united by
adoption ; for the inhabitants of heaven, and the saints
upon earth, compose one holy society, under the pro-

* Exod. ii. 10.

! Heb. xi. 24 J Is. li. 1.

* John viii. 44.
U Heb. ii. 11,12.

f 1 John iii. 8, 10. X EPh- "• *•

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

393

lection and government of him in whom all things are
gathered together. Lastly, There are the saints trium
phant and militant, who, although separated from one
another in place, a part being in a state of manhood
while the other part can be considered as only in in
fancy, are all invested with the same high character,
and stand in the same relation to God. Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, the prophets and apostles, the mar
tyrs and confessors, and believers of every age and
nation, are associated in one great brotherhood. Taken
by sovereign grace from the degraded and ruined
family to which we naturally belonged, we are intro
duced into the fellowship of the most glorious creatures
in the universe, the bright spirits who minister before
the throne of the Eternal in heaven, and the happy men
upon whom his own hand has impressed the image of
his perfection. "Ye are come unto mount Zion, and
unto the city. of the living God, the heavenly Jerusa
lem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the
general assembly and church of the first-born, which
are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and
to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus
the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood
of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that
of Abel."* How wonderful the change wbich takes
place in adoption, whether we consider it in itself, or
in its consequences! "Behold what manner of love
the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be
called the sons of God."!
We have seen that spiritual, like civil adoption,
consists in translating a person from the family in
which he was born, into that of a stranger.
In the case of civil adoption, the translation was
made at the desire, .and by the authority, of the per
son who, having no children of his own, had recourse
to this expedient to supply the want. In like manner,
the admission of sinners into the family of heaven, is
the act of God, by whom we are blessed with all
spiritual blessings. It is an act of his grace and
authority ; of his grace, in choosing persons so un
worthy to enjoy this high honour; ofhis authority,
in dissolving their original connexion, and constituting
a new relation between them and himself. Birth, ex
ternal privileges, corporeal and mental accomplish
ments, and the suffrages of others, cannot elevate us
to this dignity. " We are bom, not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God."! The same sentence which acquits us from
guilt and restores us to favour, invests us with the
privilege of sonship and all the blessings attached to
it. " It shall come to pass, that in the place where it
was said unto them, Ye .are riot my people, there it
shall be said unto tbem, Ye are the sons of the living
God."|| The meritorious cause of adoption, is the mediation
of Christ, as we learn from the words formerly quoted :
" God sent forth his Son to redeem them that were
under the law, that we might receive the adoption of
sons."§ By taking our nature, Jesus has raised it
from its fallen state, in which it was divested of its
glory, and so depraved that its Maker could not hold
communion with-it. Its dignity is restored in the per
son of our Saviour; and, through him, it is now wor
thy to stand in the presence of God, and to be distin
guished by the tokens of his love. But this' is not
all. He has redeemed us from the curse of the law,
and procured that the forfeiture of our sonship should
be reversed. He has made satisfaction for our sins,
and not only appeased the anger of God, but, by his
infinitely valuable obedience, obtained for us all the
blessings of salvation. " But now, in Christ Jesus,
-ye who sometime were afar off, are made nigh by the

* Heb. xii. 22—24.
|| Hos. i. 10
2 Z

f- 1 John iii. 1.
j Gal. iv. 5.

t John i. 13.

blood of Christ." " Now therefore ye are no more
strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the
saints, and of the household of God."* His righteous
ness, imputed to believers, gives them a title to the
precious fruits of his death ; and the union with him,
which is formed by the Spirit, places them in the
same relation to God with himself. " Go to my
brethren, and say Unto them, I ascend unto my Father,
and your Father; and to my God and your God."!
The last remark which I shall make, relates to the
means by which we obtain the actual possession of
the privilege of adoption. We have seen that, in
civil adoption, the consent of the person to be adopted
was demanded, and publicly expressed. Something
similar takes place in spiritual adoption. The privi
lege is offered to us in the Gospel ; but it does not
become ours till we accept of it. Although we do
not, and cannot merit it, yet our consent is required,
and is indispensably necessary. Now, this consent
consists in faith, which implies our cordial acceptance
of the blessings which Christ purchased for us, and
of which God makes a free gift to us in the Gospel.
Hence, to believe in Christ, and to receive him, are
used in the Scriptures as equivalent terms. ' Art thou
willing,' God says, ' that I shall be thy Father ?'
The believing sinner answers, ' I am willing.' " As
many as received him, to them gave he power to be
come the sons of God, even to them that believe on
his name."! Now, they are no longer aliens and
outcasts, but the members of his family, the objects
of his affection and care, and heirs of the glory which
shall be revealed. " They are called by a new name,
which the mouth of the Lord hath named. "||
We have traced some points of resemblance be
tween human adoption and our admission into the
family, of God ; but there are some respects in which
they differ, and to these I shall now direct your atten
tion. First, It is scarcely necessary to remark, that the
primary cause of adoption among men does not exist
in the present case. It was the want of children
which gave rise to the practice, and the object in view
was to provide, by this expedient, what nature had
denied. But this reason cannot for a moment be sup
posed to have had an influence in procuring our adop
tion by our heavenly Father ; for, besides that he is
self-sufficient, and had always a Son, who is his per
fect image, and with whom he maintains an inter
course of love, which is the source of ineffable and
infinite blessedness ; all the creatures in the universe
could niake no addition to his felicity, and have nothing
to present but what they have first received from his
bounty. The Divine nature, although single, is not
solitary, and possesses in its own fulness the materials
of perfect and perpetual bliss.
Secondly, Human adoption was founded on good
qualities, real or supposed, in the object; for we can
not conceive any man to have chosen another to be his
son, who did not appear to him worthy of this honour.
The Scriptures are careful to impress upon our minds
the difference with respect to spiritual adoption, by
drawing, with the darkest colours, the original charac
ter of those upon whom the blessings of salvation are
bestowed. It was necessary, as we learn from a pas
sage already quoted, that men should be redeemed
from the curse, in order to receive the adoption of
sons. They were under sentence of condemnation
for their sins; and appearing to the eye of God guilty
and polluted, what could tbey present to attract his
regard ? Like the prodigal, they were covered with
rags and bloated with crimes, when he was pleased, in
his infinite goodness, to receive them into his family.

* Eph. ii. 13, 19.
|| Isa. Ixii. 2.

f John xx. 17.

X lb. i. 12.

394

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

It is on this account tbat the Apostle John breaks out
into the language of admiration when meditating upon
the subject : " Behold what manner of love the Father
hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the
sons of God."*
In the third place, adoption among men commonly
extended only to a single person, or, at most, to a
very limited number, for obvious reasons. But spir
itual adoption is a privilege enjoyed by thousands and
millions. It was the design of God, in appointing
Jesus Christ to be the author of our salvation, to bring
many sons to glory. To the question, " Are there
few that be saved ?"! our Lord declined to return a
direct answer, because it was dictated by a spirit of
curiosity, which he would not encourage; but when
we consult the Scriptures, we find they are not few,
but a great multitude which no man can number; how
contrary soever this view of the subject may be to the
ideas of bigots, who shut the gates of heaven against
all hut their own little party. If there was a blank
made in the celestial society by the fall of the apostate
angels, it will be filled up from the human race ; the
many mansions in our Father's house will be peopled,
and the extent of his family will be proportioned to the
invaluable price which was paid for its redemption.
Other points of difference might be mentioned ; but
passing them, I proceed to inquire what blessings be
lievers enjoy in consequence of their adoption.
First, God sustains the relation of a Father to them :
" I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons
and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."! It will
be thought, perhaps, that this is so obvious, that there
was no necessity to mention it, as a father and son
are correlative terms, and the one suggests the other.
But what I mean to fix your attention upon, is not the
title, but its import, and to remind you that, in con
sequence of this relation, God is to believers all that
is implied in the character of a Fatlfer. He bears the
most tender love to them; he watches over them with
unwearied care ; he attends to their interests, and they
may repose entire confidence upon his wisdom and
goodness. He is a Father who knows their wants,
who is never mistaken in his judgment of what will
be for their good, who is able to do every thing for
them, who is always near to succour and protect them,
and who will not abandon them even when provoked
by their misconduct. The name of Father dispels
every fear, and invites respectful familiarity. We feel
ourselves emboldened to tell him our sorrows and de
sires ; to apply to him for counsel, to flee to him as
our refuge. If his greatness seems to forbid our ap
proach, if his justice and purity are calculated to re
press the fervour of our affection and the eagerness of
our hopes, the recollection of the condescension and
tenderness of a Father re-animates our hearts, and
gives us a confidence to draw near to his throne. Who
can tell us how great a privilege it is, to have the God
of heaven and earth for a Father?
Secondly, The children of God receive the Spirit
of adoption. " Because ye are sons, God hath sent
forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts. "|| The
purposes for which he is given, are various. The
primary design is to inspire them with the temper, as
they are now invested with the character, of sons.
Human adoption had no effect of this kind. It chang
ed the estate of the person adopted, by translating him
from one family to another, and making a person, who
was formerly a stranger, his father ; but it produced
no change in his dispositions. Hence it might happen,
and we presume that it did sometimes happen, that he
who, misled by specious appearances, had adopted
him, was disappointed in his expectations, and had

* 1 John in. 1.
|| Gal. iv. 6.

t Luke xiii. 23.

i 2 Cor. vi. 18.

reason to repent that he had admitted an unworthy
member into his family. But all the members of the
spiritual -family are distinguished by the resemblance
which they bear to their Father. They receive a new
nature, as well as a new name. To express this
change, they are represented in the Scriptures as be
gotten again, and born again, to signify that they re
ceive a new spiritual being, and have new views, and
feelings, and desires. They are transformed into the
image of Christ, and therefore are made like their
Father; for Christ is the express image of his per
son. This change is the work of the Spirit. If the
water of baptism is the sign, the efficient cause is
tbe Spirit, whose province it is to beautify the new,
as well as the old, creation. But this is not the only
office which he is appointed to perform. There is
another of the utmost importance, which is indispen
sably necessary to their comfort, namely, to enable
them to ascertain their relation to God, which is not
self-evident, and the reality of which they could not
establish without his assistance. Hence he is repre
sented in, the Scriptures as giving testimony to the
fact. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our
spirit, that we are the children of God."* In what
manner this testimony is given, has been the subject
of dispute. It is not, we may venture to say, by a voice,
or something equivalent to a voice, announcing to
the man this proposition, 'Thou art a son of God;'
or by unaccountable impressions on his mind ; but in
a way consonant to the Scriptures, and to the regular
exercise of our faculties. The expression "the Spirit
beareth witness with our spirits," imports that there
is a double testimony, by our own hearts and by him
The one is not given without the other. Now, we
may understand how the two witnesses concur, if we
conceive the Holy Ghost to give testimony by enabling
the saints to embrace the promises with a particular
application to themselves, and to exercise distinctly
the various Christian graces, so that their existence
and genuineness shall be unquestionable. By this
process they are assured of their sonship ; for the
fact is placed beyond doubt, when they perceive in
themselves the certain marks of regeneration. " Wo
know that we have passed from death unto life, be
cause we love the brethren." " Hereby we know that
we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before
him."! The Spirit bears testimony to the sonship of
believers, when he brings to light, by his operations
upon their souls, the evidences of their adoption ; and
thus makes their relation to God as manifest as if he
assured them of it with an audible voice. Hence they
are enabled to call God their Father ; not with the
presumption of hypocrites, and the indifference of
formalists, but with the confidence of faith, and the
ardour of filial affection. They call him Father, not
only when his providence smiles upon them and even
the sinner persuades himself of his love, but in the
dark hour of trouble and sorrow ; like our Saviour,
who still claimed him in the endearing relation, even
when he complained that he had forsaken him. In
a word, the hope which sustains the heart of the
Christian, the joy which arises within him, the se
cret refreshment which he experiences in devotional
exercises, and the enlargement of his soul in prayer ;
these are the blessed fruits of the presence and agency
of the Spirit of adoption.
Thirdly, Their heavenly Father provides for all their
wants. To care for his children, to supply them, ac
cording to his ability, with such things as they need,
to feed, and clothe, and educate them ; these are duties
which religion and natural affection prescribe to every
parent. He who adopted a son, came under an en
gagement to act in every respect the part of a father.

* Rom. viii. 16.

t 1 John iii. 14. 19.

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

395

Certainly, then, they who have been admitted into the
family of JGfod, may expect all blessings from his
goodness, whether pertaining to this world or to the
next. A controversy has been agitated, (and what
point, great or little, trifling or important, has not been
the subject of dispute ?) Whether Christ purchased
temporal benefits for believers ? Those who adopt the
negative side of the question, will allow that the
blessing which accompanies them is owing to his me
diation, and only contend, that the things themselves
are not the fruits of his death. It is not easy to con
ceive what valuable purpose can be served by this dis
cussion, except that it affords an opportunity of dis
playing nice discrimination in separating two things
which common apprehension had blended together. It
was not necessary to put us on our guard against
ascribing too much to our Saviour, and to count and
reckon with him, that we might ascertain the precise
extent of our obligations ; our grateful feelings towards
him have not so strong a tendency to excess, as to
stand in need of a check. When we consider that
the faithfulness of God is expressly pledged for the
temporal provision of his children ; that godliness has
the promise of the life that now is, as well as of that
which is to come ; that our heavenly Father is repre
sented as knowing that we have need of food and rai
ment, and therefore as bestowing them ; and that our
Saviour has taught his disciples to pray for their daily
bread, and, consequently, to ask it in his name and for
his sake, we seem to be authorized to rank common
benefits among the blessings of the new covenant, and,
consequently, to say, that we are indebted for them
to the same price which was paid for the salvation
of our souls.
As nothing on this obscure controversy has ever
come under my notice, I know not exactly the grounds
on which the purchase of temporal blessings is denied,
but presume that it is because they are bestowed upon
unbelievers as well as upon believers. This, however,
is an argument of no force. The point at issue is, not
whether there is any difference between those two classes
in the receipt of these blessings, for it is acknowledged
that there is none ; but whether there is any difference
in respect of right. It is certain that wicked men have
no more a right to temporal good things, than a con
demned criminal has to the food by which he is sus
tained till the day of execution. Undoubtedly, he has
no claim to it, as he is dead in law, and it is accorded
to him solely for the purpose of prolonging his life,
till the proper time arrive for subjecting him to the
appointed punishment. But believers have a right
to the benefits which they enjoy ; " for all things,"
says an apostle, " are. yours, whether things present,
or things to come." They have a right to them, from
the promise that their bread shall be given them, and
their water shall be sure. And how did they obtain
this promise ? For whose sake was it made to them ?
"In Christ are all the promises yea and amen, to the
glory of God." It is through him that a distinction
is made between them and other men, that they can
look up to God for their daily bread, while others have
no ground for any such expectation. In a word, their
right to this world, or to an adequate portion of it,
which is enumerated among the things which belong
to them — " for the world is yours," says Paul — -their
right to this world is placed upon its proper basis by
the apostle, when he says, " All things are yours ;
for ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's;"* thus re
ferring temporal, as well as spiritual benefits to his
mediation, as the cause for which they are communi
cated to the saints.
If any person should still think that Christ has pro
cured for us, not the benefits themselves, but the bless-

* 1 Cor. iii. 21, 23.

ing wbich attends them, be is at full liberty to indulge
his opinion ; but it may be questioned, whether it will
contribute in any degree to his piety. " They that
fear tbe Lord shall not lack any good thing." Riches
may be denied to them, or may be taken from them,
but food convenient may be confidently expected. The
blessing of heaven is in their portion, however scanty
it may be ; and " a little which a righteous man
hath, is better than the riches of many wicked."
"Trust in the Lord, and do good ; so shalt thou dwell
in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed."* With
respect to the provision which he makes for the souls
ofhis children, we are all agreed. As he gave manna
to the Israelites in the wilderness, so he gives them
his Word, to be the mean of communicating spiritual
good things; and it is sometimes compared to milk,
and sometimes to strong meat, to intimate that it is
adapted to the diversified circumstances and states of
the members of his family, to tbe babe in Christ, and to
the full-grown man. His care of them is represented
in a solemn and impressive manner in the Sacred
Supper, when they are assembled at his table to eat
bread and drink wine, as the symbols of heavenly
blessings, and all are reminded that he nourishes their
souls by his invisible grace. The design of all his
institutions is, that they may come, " in the unity of the
faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a
perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ."!
In the fourth place, The children of God are sub
jected to paternal discipline. When we judge accord
ing to our feelings, this may seem to be a punishment
rather than a privilege, for " no chastening for the
present is joyous, but grievous." But as in a human
family, he that spares the rod hates his son, because,
through mistaken tenderness, he suffers him to escape
with impunity when he has committed a fault, and thus
permits his wayward inclinations to gather strength,
and vicious habits to be formed which will entail mis
ery upon him here and hereafter; so, in the family of
God, the want of discipline would be an evidence, not
of love, but of neglect and indifference to the inter
ests of the members. The Scripture therefore says,
" Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth, and scourgeth
every son whom be receiveth."! He chastises him
because he loves him ; and, however paradoxical this
may appear upon a superficial view, its truth will be
manifest to those who consider the end proposed and
the effect produced. God chastises his children, that
they may be partakers of his holiness; and holiness is
not only the dress and ornament of the members of his
family, but it is indispensably necessary to their peace
and happiness, both in this world and in the next.
Man may think, and even the saints themselves may
suspect, when their trials are manifold and severe,
that their heavenly Father has disowned and forsaken
them. But this is not the only instance in which
human reason egregiously errs. What seems to our
hasty and limited observation to betoken ill, is the
surest proof of his favour ; and a state of uninterrupted
ease and enjoyment, which we would prefer, would
furnish a more solid ground of apprehension. " If ye
endure chastening, God dealeth with you as sons ; for
what son is he whom the father chasteneth not ? But
if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are par
takers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."||
Lastly, God will bestow upon his children an eter
nal inheritance. " If children, then heirs ; heirs of God,
and joint heirs with Christ."§ Children, by the law
of nature and nations, inherit the property of their
father; and an adopted son possessed all the rights
and privileges of a son by descent. At the death of

* Ps. xxxvii. 16. 3.
U Heb. xii. 7, 8.

t Eph. iv. 13.
{ Rom. viii. 17.

X Heb. xii. 6.

396

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

tbe person who adopted him, he was legally entitled
to his property. There is an inheritance which belongs
to the family of God, and every man who is received
into it is an heir. The expression, "joint heirs with
Christ," imports that the inheritance originally per
tains to our Redeemer, who obtained it for himself and
those whom he calls his brethren by his meritorious
obedience, and that their right to it is founded on their
connexion with him. It is an inheritance of glory and
felicity, " incorruptible, undefiled, and which fadeth
not away, reserved in heaven" for them. Whatever
God now is to angels and glorified saints, and whatever
he will be to them through an endless duration, in
which their faculties will be continually expanding,
and they will be filled with bliss to the utmost extent
of their capacity; — for all this, "which eye hath not
seen, ear hath not heard, nor hath it entered into the
mind of man to conceive," the adopted sons of God are
authorized to hope. Even in this world, how happy
does the earnest of the inheritance make them ! How
divine the peace which sheds its influence upon their
souls ! How pure and elevating the joy which, in some
select hours, springs up in their bosoms ! How are they
raised above the pains and the pleasures of life, while,
in the contemplations of faith, they anticipate their fu
ture abode in the higher regions of the universe ! But
these are only an earnest. Their hearts beat high with
the expectation of something too sublime to be uttered
or adequately conceived ; and, while their breasts heave
with the vehemence of desire, they breathe out, in
broken and impassioned accents, their longings for the
time when they shall be delivered from the infirmities
of the flesh and the imperfections of the present state,
which prevent the full enjoyment of infinite good.
" We know that the whole creation groaneth and tra-
vaileth in pain together until now : and not only they,
but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the
Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, wait
ing for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
For we are saved by hope : but hope that is seen is not
hope ; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for ?
But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with
patience wait for it."*

LECTURE LXXIV.
ON SANCTIFICATION.
Scriptural meaning of the term, Sanctification — Difference be
tween Justification and Sanctification — Sanctification viewed
as a Privilege, and as a Duty— Implies the Mortification of
Sin, and the Increase of Positive Holiness — Extent of Holi
ness attainable in this Life.
The blessing which in the next place claims our at
tention, is Sanctification. But before I proceed to ex
plain iis nature, it is necessary to ascertain the Scrip
tural meaning of the term.
The word, to sanctify, bears a variety of senses
which are considerably different. It sometimes signi
fies to separate a person or thing from its common use
to some particular purpose, even when there is no re
ference to religion. Thus, in the seventh verse of the
twenty-second chapter of Jeremiah, God says, in our
translation, "I will prepare," but according to the ori
ginal, " I will sanctify destroyers against thee, every
one with his weapons ; and they shall cut down the
choice cedars, and cast them into the fire." Again, to-
sanctify, often signifies to separate from a common to
a sacred use, or to dedicate to the service of God. In
this sense, the tabernacle and all the vessels of the
ministry were holy ; the priests and Levites were holy ;
* Kom. viii. 22, 25.

the temple erected on Mount Zion was holy ; and Jeru
salem was called the holy city. Considered in them
selves, these persons and things had no more sanctity
than other persons and things ; their holiness was mere
ly relative, and arose from their consecration to religi
ous uses. God sanctified our Saviour when he set him
apart to the mediatorial office, and sent him into the
world to execute it; and Christ sanctified himself when
he assumed that office, and devoted himself to the per
formance of its duties. It is worthy of observation,
with respect to the words xxBa^eiy and ayia^ay, which
signify to cleanse and to purify, that, when used to ex
press the effect of the sacrifice of Christ upon his peo
ple, they do not denote internal purification, but dedi
cation to God : " Jesus, that he might sanctify — iy«
i.yicLcr-A — the people with his own blood, suffered with
out the gate."* Now, the effect of blood shed as an
atonement for sin is, not to cleanse us from pollution,
but to free us from guilt, and to restore us to the favour
of God: "If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the
ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, — a\yin<\a —
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much
more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eter
nal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge
your conscience from dead works, to serve the living
God ?"! The effect of the legal sacrifices is compared
to that of the death of Christ. The effect of the legal
sacrifices was to absolve the offerer from the guilt of
his sins, so far that he escaped the temporal penalty
which he had incurred, and was admitted into the
sanctuary. This is called "sanctifying to the purify
ing of the flesh." The effect of the death of Christ is
to purify the conscience, to obtain for us full pardon,
and thus to give us boldness to enter into the holiest
of all. There are several other senses of the word, to
sanctify. We sanctify the Sabbath when we regard it
as more sacred than other days, and perform its appro
priate duties. We sanctify the Lord our God, when
we treat him with that reverence which is due to him
on account of the transcendent excellence of his nature,
by which he is distinguished or separated from all
other beings. And God sanctifies himself when he
manifests his glory. This discussion will not appear
unnecessary to any of you who wish to acquire an ac
curate knowledge of the language of Scripture; and I
conclude with remarking, that the idea of separation is
implied in all these uses of the term.
1 proceed to the last sense of the word, in which it
is to be at present understood. When we say, that
those who are justified by faith, are also sanctified, our
meaning is, tbat they are made holy, not merely by
consecration to the service of God, but by the infusion
of his grace, which purifies them from the pollution of
sin, and renews them in the whole man after his image.
It is plain, from the following passage itself, as well
as from the connection in which it is introduced, that,
in this sense, the word to sanctify is used. It is a
prayer of the apostle, subjoined to an exhortation to
abstain from all appearance of evil: "And the very
God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God,
your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved
blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."!
When the same apostle says, "This is the will of God,
even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from
fornication, "|| he evidently refers to purity r.f heart and
conduct. It is unnecessary to multiply quotations, as
it is acknowledged by all, that there is an internal holi
ness by which true Christians are characterized, and
that the regularity of the life does not alone answer the
demands of religion : "As he which hath called you is
holy, so be ye holy, in all manner of conversation ; be
cause it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy.'*§

* Heb. xiii. 12.
|| 1 Thess. iv. 3.

+ Heb. ix. 13, 14.
} 1 Pet. i. IS, 16.

X 1 Thess. v.

23

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

397

As justification and sanctification are blessings inse
parably connected, it will assist us in forming correct
ideas of both, to mark carefully the points in which
they differ. They differ in their order; justification
precedes, and sanctification follows ; a sinner is par
doned and restored to the favour of God, before the
Spirit is given to renew him more and more after his
image. They differ in their object: justification takes
away the guilt of sin, or the obligation to punishment;
sanctification cleanses, us from its stain or pollution.
They differ in their form: justification is a judicial act,
by which the sinner is pronounced righteous ; sanctifi
cation is a physical or moral act, or rather a series of
such acts, by which a change is effected in the quali
ties of the soul. The one, therefore, is called an act,
to signify that it is perfected at once; the other is
called a work, to signify that it is progressive. Justi
fication being an act passed in a moment, is equal in
all believers ; sanctification exists in different degrees
of advancement in different individuals. In a word,
the one changes our state, translating us from a state
of condemnation into a state of acceptance ; the other
changes our nature, or makes those holy who were un
holy. I shall add only one difference more, which re
lates to their matter. In justification, the righteousness
of Christ is imputed to us ; in sanctification, an inherent
righteousness is communicated ; and upon the whole
it appears, that in justification we receive a title to hea
ven, and by sanctification we are prepared for -it, or
" made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the
saints in light."*
It is worthy of notice, that, in the well known enu
meration of the privileges of Christians, when Paul
represents the series as a chain stretching from eternity,
sanctification is not specified as one of the links.
" Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also
called; and whom he called, them he also justified;
and whom he justified, them he also glorified."! We
account for the omission by supposing, either that the
apostle intended only to state the process according to
which a right to eternal life, and the consequent enjoy
ment of it, are obtained, (and the right depends solely
upon justification, which ensues upon the faith wrought
in the heart when the sinner is effectually called ;) or
that Sanctification is virtually included in the privileges
which are explicitly stated. It is implied in effectual
calling, in which the soul undergoes a spiritual change,
or is regenerated, and the foundation is laid of its future
progress in holiness; or it is implied in glorification,
which will consist in the perfect state of the soul as
well as of the body, and may be said to be begun in
the present life, because so far as the soul is conformed
to the image of God it is already glorified, and hence
believers are said to be " changed," even in this world,
" into the same image, from glory to glory, as by the
Spirit of the Lord."!
The difference between sanctification and regenera
tion is not a difference in natnre and kind, like the dif
ference between it and justification. They are, if I may
speak so, parts of one whole. In regeneration there is
an infusion of spiritual life into the soul, in which life
all the graces or all the holy tempers of the Christian
are virtually included. In sanctification those graces
are unfolded and matured, and exert their native influ
ence upon the conduct. In regeneration the living seed
is sown, and begins to germinate and show itself
above ground: in sanctification it grows up, and yields
fruit, according to the parable in some thirty, in some
sixty, and in some a hundred fold. In regeneration the
new creature is formed, but although no member or
feature is wanting, they are diminutive and feeble, and
it is yet but a babe : in sanctification the body grows in
all its parts, acquires vigour and activity, and advances

* Col. i. 12.

t Rom. viii. 30.

t 2 Cor. iii. 18.

towards the full stature of a perfect man in Christ. In
short, it is the same work which is carried on in regen
eration and sanctification, according to the words of an
apostle, " He which hath begun a good work in you,
will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."*
Sanctification may be considered as a privilege, and
as a duty. In the one view it is the work of God, and
in the other it is the work of man, assisted by super
natural grace. As a privilege it is the subject of pro
mise and of prayer. It is promised in the following
words, " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you,
and ye shall be clean ; from all your filthiness and from
all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also
will 1 give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ;
and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh,
and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put
my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my
statutes; and ye shall keep my judgments, and do
them."! Il was tne subject of our Lord's intercessory
prayer for his disciples, " Sanctify them through thy
truth ; thy word is truth ;"! and it should be the sub
ject of the prayers of Christians /or themselves. " Give
me understanding, and I shall keep thy law."|| We
may afterwards have an opportunity to speak of sancti
fication as a privilege, when we come to consider, its
advantages ; and I shall only observe, that as it is in
dispensably necessary to our admission into the imme
diate presence of God, so it is the source of great hap
piness upon earth. The foundation of a Christian's
peace is the atonement and intercession of the Saviour,
in whom God is reconciled ; but there is a peace which
flows from holiness, and is the natural effect of the ces
sation of the tumultuary motions of sin, and of the in
fluence of the mild virtues which religion inspires.
" Great peace have they that love thy law, and nothing
shall offend them."§ I may add, that it is the high
privilege of a creature to be conformed to the image of
his Maker. As He is the first and most excellent of all
beings, they stand highest in the scale who bear the
nearest resemblance to him. If holiness is the glory
of God, it is also the glory of man.
Sanctification, considered as a duty, is our work. In
this light it is represented in the Scriptures, when we
are called to "be holy," to "make" to ourselves "a
new heart," and to " cleanse ourselves from all filthi
ness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the
fear of God."1T But as I remarked before, in this work
man is assisted by grace ; for we can do nothing of our
selves, and it is God " who works in us both to will
and to do of his good pleasure." It is called the work
of man, not as if he could change his heart, or when
the change is effected could carry it forward to perfec
tion, but as. he diligently uses the means, trusting in
the divine blessing which renders them effectual.
Although in regeneration holy principles are infused
into the soul, yet the change produced is only partial.
No Christian grace is wanting in the regenerated man,
and no sin or sinful inclination retains sovereign power;
but the graces are imperfect, and remaining depravity
continues to operate, and sometimes prevails. The
truth of this statement is manifest from tbe seventh
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, in which we find
that in Paul, who is a specimen of other believers,
there were two principles, the one of sin and the other
of holiness, between which there was a perpetual con
flict ; and the victory was sometimes on the one side,
and sometimes on the other. Two things, therefore,
are implied in sanctification, the mortification of sin,
and the increase of positive holiness. These are not
so distinct that they can go on at different times, for the
one necessarily accompanies the other; but in explain-
* Phil. i. 6. t Ezek. xxxvi. 25—27. X J°h" xvii- lv-
|| Ps. cxix. 34, &c. } lb. cxix. 165.
If 1 Pet. i. 15. Ezek. xviii. 31 . 2 Cor. vii. 1.

398

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

ing the nature of sanctification, tbey require to be sep
arately illustrated.
The mortification of sin does not consist solely in
abstinence from outward transgressions in which we
had previously indulged, but have abandoned by an
effort upon ourselves. Of such an effort, any man is
capable by his natural powers, and without the influ
ence of any moral consideration, when he is excited
solely by a regard to reputation, to health, and to his
secular interests. External purity, as our Lord has
shown by the example of the Pharisees, may exist,
while the heart is foul with the deepest stains of pollu
tion. Nor should it be supposed, tbat the mortification
of sin has taken place, because some sinful inclination
which formerly predominated is weakened, or perhaps
has disappeared, if other inclinations survive, or if in
the room of that which has ceased a new disposition
has sprung up, different in form but in its general na
ture equally criminal. A man who was once a profli
gate is become sober ; but then he is now slavishly de
voted to the world, and his heart, which was debased
by sensuality, is narrowed and hardened by avarice ;
or it may be that, although no new vice should show
itself in his character, he is puffed up with pride, and
glories in his virtues. In these and similar cases, sin
retains its original strength, but works in a more con
cealed manner, or accomplishes its purpose in a differ
ent way. The mortification of the body has been often
mistaken for the mortification of sin. Men who have
withdrawn from society and retired into deserts, and.
there submitted to the most painful privations, and
performed with determined perseverance a tedious
round of religious duties, have imagined that they had
attained a degree of sanctity, to which no man could
pretend, who was living amidst the commerce of the
world. They did not consider, that in their solitudes,
where they were not exposed to external temptations,
sinful propensities, which were supposed to be eradi
cated, might have only lain dormant for want of ex
citement, and might have revived if they had been
brought back to society, like the weeds which disap
pear in winter but show themselves again at the return
of spring. I would by no means affirm, that such men
were all hypocrites, or that they were all deceived, for
from the little that I know of their history and their
writings, I believe that some of them were truly pious;
but I have no doubt that many of them, if they had
told the truth, would have confessed that they often
cast a longing look towards the world which they had
forsaken, like Jerome, who honestly acknowledged,
that during his seclusion in Palestine, his thoughts
frequently wandered after the pleasures of Rome.
The mortification of sin is founded in hatred of it,
and not simply in fear of its consequences. It is con
nected with the love of God, who holds sin in ab
horrence, and whose will it is that we should purify
ourselves from it. It aims at subduing and extirpat
ing not only those sins which are particularly odious,
on account of their grossness and their contrariety to
the general sentiments and feelings of mankind, but
every known sin, however venial the world may es
teem it; and if there is any sin about a believer of
which, he is not aware, it also is included, in this
sense, that he will be content with nothing less than
universal purification, and is earnestly desirous that
not a single stain should be left. It is carried on
not in his own strength, but by the means which God
has appointed, and the assistance which he graciously
affords ; by faith, and prayer, and watchfulness, and
determined resistance. It is not the work of a day,
but of life. Sin is like a man who has received a
wound which has enfeebled him, but has not entirely
deprived him of strength. He is not dead but dying;
he is still capable of action, and even of vigorous
efforts ; and his antagnnist must therefore be upon his

guard, and watch for an opportunity to infl- .t new
wounds which will terminate the struggle. " Mortify
your members which are upon the earth."* In con
sequence of the interest which the believer has ob-'
tained in the death of Christ, the power of sin is
broken, and it will be reduced more and more, by the
grace which God is ready to communicate, if he hum
bly ask and diligently improve it. In this way only
can he hope for success ; and, accordingly, Paul con
cludes the account ofhis internal conflict with thanks
giving to God, who had enabled him to resist and in
some degree to overcome. "I thank God," he says,
" through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the
mind I myself serve the law of God, and with the
flesh the law of sin ;"+ intimating that, although de
pravity still lurked in him and made efforts to regain
the mastery, yet it existed only in the lower part of
his nature, and the superior principles, the understand
ing, the conscience, and the will, were elevated to the
service of God.
The mortification of sin does not imply its utter ex
tirpation, but the reduction of its influence within nar
rower limits ; for however earnestly a Christian may
wish that it should cease to exist in his soul, complete
exemption from it, as we shall afterwards see, is un
attainable in the present state. It is mortified when
his views of its vileness are clearer and more affecting,
and, consequently, his hatred of it is more intense;
when he becomes more quick in detecting it under its
most specious forms, as well as more active in search
ing it out; when he is excited to more frequent and
fervent pra}'er for deliverance from it ; when, from in
creased aversion, he is more vigilant in observing its
motions, and using precautions against its attacks;
when its efforts become less frequent and more faint,
like those of a man who is languishing under bis
wounds ; when he is more deeply humbled for the
remains of it which he still perceives ; and when for
having consented to it on any occasion, he feelr more
profound grief, and is more speedily recovered by re
pentance. When David was guilty of a great trans
gression in the affair of Bathsheba, he gave a melan
choly proof that the power of depravity was strong
within him ; but we cannot doubt that this event ul
timately contributed to weaken its interests, when we
reflect upon his bitter repentance, his humiliating con
fessions, and his earnest supplications.
Thus, by the grace of God, the Christian dies to sin,
and sin dies in him ; or, in other words, he hates it
more, and its influence over him is diminished. ' He
lays aside every weight, and the sin which doth most
easily beset him.' The natural consequence is, that
his conduct is purer, is more free from acts of sin, as
the fruit falls off from a tree when the root is destroy
ed or injured.
Let us proceed to the second division of the subject,
namely, the increase of positive holiness. This our
Church expresses " by living unto righteousness," and
the Scripture, by " having our fruit unto holiness." In
proportion as the power of sin is circumscribed, there
is more ample space for the Christian graces to grow
and flourish. The vigour of the new man will advance,
as that of the old man declines. Let us consider the
progress of sanctification, in relation to the different
powers of the soul.
First, The understanding is more and more illu
minated by the word and Spirit of truth. The first
illumination takes place in regeneration, when the
blind eyes of the sinner are opened, and be who, while
he was a natural man, could not receive the things of
the Spirit of God, having become a spiritual man, is
enabled to discern them. But there is much room for
improvement ; and hence, we find an apostle praying

* Col. iii. 5.

+ Rom. vii. 25.

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

399

in behalf even of those who were savingly acquainted
with the Gospel, that "the God of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Father of glory, would give to them the
Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of
him, that the eyes of their understanding might be
enlightened."* Their apprehensions of divine things
become more distinct, and steady, and comprehensive,
and affecting. Their views are enlarged of God, of
Christ, of themselves, of their duty, of sin, of the
world, of future and invisible things. As knowledge
was communicated to the mind of man in his creation,
the restoration of it is necessary that he may be renewed
after the image of his Maker. I do not mean specu
lative knowledge, of which depraved men and infernal
spirits are possessed ; but knowledge accompanied
with suitable affections towards the things unknown.
As natural light not only renders objects visible, but
beautifies the face of nature with a variety of colours,
so the knowledge communicated to the people of God
does not merely expand and improve the intellect, But
gives a new moral aspect to the whole soul. And the
necessity of supernatural illumination will be manifest,
if we reflect that the understanding is the leading fac
ulty, which not only, if I may speak so, points out the
path to be pursued by the other powers of the soul,
but excites them by the attractive and interesting views
which it presents. Complete ignorance would be fol
lowed by a death-like torpor of the soul, and man
would remain in a state of inaction, except so far as
he was stimulated by his bodily appetites. Know
ledge awakens his dormant faculties. It exhibits
objects of love and fear, of hope and aversion, and
gives rise to active exertions, with a view to obtain
what is good, and to avoid what is evil. As God be
gins, so he carries on to perfection, the work of the
new creation, by the communication of light. "The
new man is renewed in knowledge, after the image of
him who created him."!
Secondly, In sanctification the will of the believer
is rendered more and more conformable to the will of
God. In this the essence of holiness consists. As
Cicero says, that to have the same desires and aver
sions, is the consummation of friendship ; so we may
say, that to be like minded with God, to be entirely
resigned to him, to choose what he chooses, and to
refuse what he refuses, is the highest moral perfection
of a creature. Absolute conformity to the will of God
is not attainable in this world, and exists only in
heaven, where his will is so done by its blessed in
habitants, that they are proposed as a pattern to us.
But it is the effect of regenerating grace to subdue our
rebellious hearts, and to bring them under subjection
to the authority of our Maker. This is their predom
inant state ; but it is often disturbed by the wayward
movements of the will ; and it is the design of the
Holy Spirit, in his operations upon it, to correct and
restrain its aberrations, and to reduce it to a state of
habitual submission. The object proposed is, to es
tablish a complete moral dependence upon God ; and,
with this view, to make the subjects of his influence
cease more and more from their own views, and desires,
and pursuits. Without pretending to explain what
power the Holy Ghost secretly exerts upon the soul, we
may say that the effect is produced by means of the light
that he gives to the mind ; in which, the will of God
appears not only supreme and sacred, but so just, and
wise, and good, that nothing is more consonant to the
dictates of reason, as well as to the commands of reli
gion, than that we should acquiesce in it without reserve
and without a murmur. Thus are the people of God led
to submission, not only when his will is enforced and
recommended by the nature of the duty which it en
joins ; but when, naked and unsupported, it demands

* Eph. i. 17, 18.

t Col. iii. 10.,

our obedience, solely because it is bis will. In this
abstract form it was exhibited to Adam, when the in
junction was given to him, to abstain from the fruit of
a particular tree in the garden, there being no reason
for abstinence but the simple prohibition. It appears
equally absolute still in many of the dispensations of
Providence, of which no other account can be given,
than that such is the decree of heaven ; and it is a
proof of no inconsiderable progress in holiness, when
the person who is tried in this manner, bows to bis
sovereign Lord, and says, ' God is his will.' Job is
an example, whose submission amidst the greatest af
flictions, was expressed in these remarkable words :
" The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away ;
blessed be the name of the Lord."* When a Chris
tian finds that he is less disposed to consult with flesh
and blood, and more to consult the Scriptures ; that
he is sincerely desirous to know what is his duty, and
more diligent than before to ascertain it; that every
intimation of the Divine pleasure commands his atten
tion, and inspires him with holy reverence ; that he is
more ready, and cheerful, and determined in obedience ;
and that his supreme desire is to glorify God and to
be accepted of him : when this is the prevailing state
ofhis mind, it is evident that God has made him will
ing in a day of power, and that the work of sanctifica
tion is advancing in his soul towards perfection.
Thirdly, In sanctification, all the holy principles or
habits, as they are sometimes called, of believers are
strengthened. If the affections are considered as mod
ifications of the will, they are purified in proportion
to its conformity to the standard of rectitude. The
love and hatred, the fear and hope of the believer, will
be excited by proper objects, and be regulated with
respect to their degree. W'hile the soul is thus affect
ed by proper objects, the lower appetites will be re
strained and subjugated, and, although not eradicated,
as they are essential principles of our nature, will be
directed and retained within due bounds by the light of
the understanding and the authority of conscience. The
change effected by sanctifying grace may be ascer
tained by the different feelings with which external
things are now regarded. Once, they alone were
deemed to be important, but now they are considered
as insignificant, or, at least, as subordinate ; once, they
stirred up strong and impetuous desire, but now they
awaken comparatively faint emotions ; once, under their
influence, the soul was degraded and brutified, as if it
had lost its nature and were merely the principle of
animal life and feeling; but now they are counteract
ed by the spirituality of the mind, which, surrounded
with earthly things, soars aloft and holds high inter
course with heaven : " By the cross of Christ," says
Paul, "the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the
world."! I" proportion to the increasing vigour of
holy habits, the moral connexion of the soul with this
world will be dissolved, and the impression diminish
ed which the latter was accustomed to make. The
illumination of the mind has a powerful effect upon
our active powers. Faith is strengthened by clear
apprehensions of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus.
Love grows warmer, as the love of God is more steadily
contemplated and more sensibly felt. Hope brightens
at the glorious prospect of life and immortality which
the gospel displays. Repentance melts into more
copious tears, while it looks at the cross, where the
vileness of sin is exhibited with an evidence which
the heart feels, hut words cannot express. All the
graces grow under the influence of the truth, which
first gave them birth, and now rears them up to man
hood. When the Christian "is adding to his faith
virtue, and to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge
temperance, and to temperance patience, and to pa-

* Job i. 21.

f Gal. vi. 14.

400

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

tience godliness, and to godliness brotherly-kindness,
and to brotherly-kindness charity," he is "neither
barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord
Jesus Christ."* The work of sanctification is not
only begun, but is going on to perfection. If we in
quire how far the work of sanctification extends, we
answer, in the language of our church, that it extends
to " the whole man."! The apostle Paul says that
God sanctifies his people " wholly in soul, body, and
spirit."! Man 's a compound being, and, according to
the opinion of the moderns, learned and unlearned,
consists of two parts, a body and a soul. But a dif
ferent system was held by the ancients, who called
man — TpifLipa; iiroo-Tcio-ic. — a three-fold person or substance;
affirming that, besides the body, there were two in
ternal principles, the soul and the spirit, or, as it was
sometimes called, the mind. The soul — * tyx* — tnpy
defined to be the principle of life, or that which distin
guishes animate from inanimate things, and they con
sidered it as in itself irrational, as the seat of the
appetites and passions, as affected by the body, and
as the medium by which the body affects the spirit.
The spirit, to mapa, or o vov;, the mind, was rational,
and acted with reason ; and it was its office to contend
with the body, and to regulate the movements of the
inferior principle. It would be foreign to our purpose
to inquire whether this, or the modern theory of human
nature, is true. The question is not decided by the
words of the apostle ; for, as it was not his business
to teach philosophy but theology, he might adopt,
without intending to give his sanction to a particular
system, language familiar to those whom he addressed,.
and, at the same time, well fitted to convey the in
formation which he meant to communicate. He ex
plains his meaning by the word oxorextic, which is trans
lated " wholly," and subjoins the words soul, body,
and spirit, to signify, in the style of the age, that tbe
work of sanctification is universal, or that every part
of human nature is the subject of it; the soul in all its
faculties, understanding, will, and affections or pas
sions, and also the body. Strictly, indeed, the body is
not the subject of sanctification, because, being a mate
rial substance, it is susceptible neither of virtue nor of
vice ; but it is sanctified in this sense, that it is dedi
cated to the service of God ; and its organs and mem
bers, which were formerly employed in sinful actions,
and were excitements to them, are converted into the
instruments of righteousness. It is called in Scripture,
" the temple of the Holy Ghost."||
But while sanctification extends to our whole nature,
and leaves no part of it unrenewed, we must not ima
gine the work to be so complete, as to restore us to a
state of perfect purity. There have been men, and
there still are, who maintain that sinless perfection is
attainable in the present life. This was the doctrine
of the founder of the Methodists, and I presume it is
still held by his followers. It is acknowledged that
the Scriptures call upon us to aim at perfection, and
speak of some individuals in such a manner as may
lead superficial readers to conclude that they had fully
succeeded. They call upon us to " behold the perfect
man," and give this as the character of certain indi
viduals. But, one part of Scripture should be explained
in consistency with another ; and it is contrary to the
laws of legitimate interpretation, to wrest a particular
expression to a sense at variance with the known and
avowed sentiments of the author. If we take this rule
along with us, we shall immediately perceive that, in
the cases before us, perfection can mean nothing more
than integrity or sincerity. He is perfect who unfeign-
edly loves God, and has a respect to all his commands.
That the most eminent saints mentioned in Scripture,

* 2 Pet. i. 5—8.
H 1 Cor. vi. 19.

f Conf. xiii. 2. f 1 Thess. v. 23

even some of those to whom the epithet, perfect, is ap
plied, were not free from sin, is evident from the de
fects and blemishes which are discovered in their con
duct. The praise of high attainments will undoubtedly
be conceded to the apostle of the Gentiles, and it is not
easy to conceive upon what principle any man could
persuade himself that he or others have excelled him;
but, as he expressly disclaims any pretension to per
fection, so the relation which he has given ofhis expe
rience, demonstrates that he uses, on this occasion, the
language not only of humility but of truth. "I see,"
he says, " a law in my members, warring against the
law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the
law of sin which is in my members."* Not to confine
our attention to a particular case, let us recollect.the
words of the wise man, " There is not a just man upon
the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."! AnQ
observe in what strong terms an apostle rejects the doc
trine of sinless perfection. " If we say that we have
no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in
us."! I' *s a doctrine, you see, which will be main
tained only by ignorant presumption. Were any per
son truly perfect, be would not stand In need of those
institutions or means of grace, which God has provided
for the perfecting of the saints. In particular, daily
prayer for the forgiveness of sin would not be his duty.;
he would enjoy uninterrupted communion with God;
would not be subject to discipline, which presupposes
errors and failings; and, having spent a life undisturb
ed by pain and sorrow, would be translated, we may
presume, into a better world without suffering death.
The possibility of perfection in the present state,
could be conceived only by men who were ignorant of
Scripture and of themsrlves. They must have first
lowered the standard of holiness. They must havo
narrowed and abated the demands of the divine law, to
meet "their fancied attainments. It is impossible that
any person in his senses, could suppose himself capa
ble of performing that high obedience which the law,
uncorrupted by human interpretation, evidently re
quires. We might justly call in question the veracity,
or the understanding, of the man who should seriously
assure us that he toyed God with all his strength, and
soul, and mind, and heart, and loved his neighbour as
himself. At any rate, we may call in question his
Christianity ; for his sentiments are as contrary to
those of a genuine believer, as darkness is to light.
The latter is distinguished by a humble estimate of
himself. He acknowledges that he fails more or less
in every duty, that he is daily guilty of sin, that he
could not stand if God should enter into judgment with
him, and that he has no hope of acceptance but through
the mediation of Christ. As these acknowledgments
are dictated by his feelings, so they are in exact ac
cordance with the Scriptures. The perfectionist be
longs to a different class; and his arrogance and self-
confidence manifest that, while he boasts of occupying
the first form, he is a mere tyro in the school of Christ,
and has need that some one should teach him wbat are
the first principles of the oracles of God.

LECTURE LXXV.
ON SANCTIFICATION.
Sanctification the Work of the Three Persons of the Godheaa
— Their Several Offices — Nature and Effect of the Spirit's
Operations on the Souls of Believers in Sanctification —
Christ, the Pattern of Sanctification— Rule of Sanctification,
the Word — External Means of Sanctification— Faith as a
Means of Sanctification.
Having in the preceding lecture explained the na
ture of Sanctification, I proceed to take notice of sev-

* Rom. vii. 23.

f Eccl. vii. 20.

} 1 John i. 8

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

401

eral particulars, the consideration of which is necessary
to give us a complete view of the subject.
I shall speak, in the first place, of the Author of
Sanctification ; and here we shall see that, like other
divine works, it is ascribed lo all the Persons of the
Trinity. I would remark, in general, that there is no
inaccuracy or confusion in attributing the same work
sometimes to one Person and sometimes to another;
because, although the Persons are distinct, the Essence
is one and indivisible; and because the same work is
said to be performed by one, in one view, and by an
other, in another. In relation to the present case, all
the persons in the Godhead are concerned in the sanc
tification of the soul ; but a different office is assigned
to each.
First, This work is ascribed to the Father in those
passages in which prayer is offered up to him, that he
would sanctify us, and make us perfect in every good
work, and in which he promises to circumcise our
hearts to love and fear him, and to give us a new
heart and a right spirit.* In the economy of redemp
tion, he is exhibited as the fountain of grace. All
spiritual blessings are his gifts; they originate in his
goodness, and are hestowed according to bis will. To
this blessing he predestinated his people before the
foundation of the world ; and he appointed and pre
pared the means by which it was attained and is ac
tually communicated. As "this is the will of God,
even our sanctification," so it is by his power, (exerted
in the manner which will be afterwards pointed out,
when we come to speak of the agency of the Spirit,)
that the renovation of the soul after his image is begun,
and advanced, and perfected.
Secondly, The work is ascribed to Jesus Christ,
" who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us
from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar
people, zealous of good works."! He is the Author
of this work, as he has obtained for us the privilege of
sanctification, by his obedience unto death. This may
be explained in two ways. First, He has done that,
in consideration of which God bestows so great a bless
ing upon us. In ourselves, we were unquestionably
unworthy of it; and in creatures guilty and polluted,
there was nothing to induce God to restore his image,
which they had impiously defaced. As the whole
obedience of our Saviour was performed not for himself
but for us, and as it was meritorious in the highest de
gree, not simply because it was perfect, but because he
was a person of infinite dignity, his righteousness is
to be considered as the procuring cause of those super
natural influences by wbich we regain that holiness in
which man was created, and which was the chief glory
ofhis nature. " For their sakes I sanctify myself, that
they also might be sanctified through the truth." He
"loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water
by the word ; that he might present it to himself a glo
rious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such
thing; but that it should he holy, and without blem
ish."! Secondly, Jesus Christ has removed the curse,
which retained men under the dominion of sin by keep
ing them at a distance from God ; and has brought them
into a stale in which they may receive those influences
by which the purification of their nature will be effect
ed. That you may understand this point, let me re
mind you that the guilt of sin, or the curse of the law,
which is founded upon it, is a mighty and insurmount
able obstacle in the way of any gracious communica
tion from God to the sinner. Hence the law is said to
be " the strength of sin."|| It is its strength, as it pro
tects it, if I may speak so, against any power which
could overthrow or weaken its dominion, and leaves it

at full liberty to exert itself in enslaving more and more
its unhappy subjects. While men remain in this state,
all the arguments which are employed to convince their
understandings, to awaken their consciences, and to
interest their affections, and all the dispensations of
Providence, whether calculated to alarm or to allure,
have no permanent effect. The divine blessing, with
out which Paul plants and Apollos waters in vain, does
not accompany them. By the removal of guilt, a chan
nel is opened in which the grace of God flows into the
soul ; and thus you perceive the connexion between the
death of Christ and our sanctification. "Jesus, that
he might sanctify the people with his own blood,
suffered without the gate."* The sanctification which
was the immediate design of his death, is not moral
but legal sanctification; and it signifies, I apprehend,
in this place, our dedication to the service of God by
the removal of the guilt of sin, which was the great
impediment to our acceptance; but moral sanctification
is the certain consequence. " Our old man," says the
same apostle, in another Epistle, "is crucified with
Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that
henceforth we should not serve sin."! The language
is highly figurative, but is not difficult to be understood.
Our old man is our corrupt nature; and it is said to be
crucified with Christ, to signify that, in virtue of his
death upon the cross, the power of sin is broken. The
proper effect of an atonement is not purification from
the pollution of sin, but deliverance from guilt; but the
former is ascribed to the sacrifice of Christ as well as
the latter, because it brings us under the operation of
grace, because it consecrates us to God, who gives the
Holy Spirit to qualify us for his service. This remark
is necessary to enable you to understand several pas
sages of Scripture which speak of this subject, and to
prevent you from misapprehending the language of
Theologians, who sometimes express themselves in
such a manner as might lead you' to think, that the
death of Christ is not only the meritorious, but the effi
cient cause of sanctification. This impression is made,
when we are told that we are sanctified "by receiving
the atonement into our hearts," and by "having the
blood of Christ conveyed into our hearts;" and even
when such Scriptural expressions as have been quoted
are used without explanation. The language of Scrip
ture, with respect to the effect of the death of Christ,
was better understood in the apostolic age than it is
now, because sacrifices were then offered by both Jews
and Gentiles, and every person knew their design, and
the efficacy which they were supposed to exert. The
language of Scripture is always proper and emphatic;
but when metaphors occur, if we wish to convey dis
tinct ideas into the minds of others, we must give the
literal sense; and, if there is any danger of mistake, we
should guard against it by the use of plain and appro
priate terms. He who contents himself with tell
ing us that we are sanctified by the death jof Christ,
or by the. sprinkling of his blood, explains nothing;
and, by dealing much in such phraseology, is apt to
mislead. In the third place, This work is ascribed to tbe Holy
Ghost. Hence we read of ihe renovation and sanctifi
cation of the Spirit,! ana our walking in God's statutes
is said to be the effect of the inhabitation of the Spirit
in our hearts. The grace by which we are sanctified,
proceeds from the Father by the Son, and is applied
by tbe Spirit. Thus all the Persons of the Trinity are
concerned in our restoration. The part which each
acts is important and necessary, and the office of the
third Person is not less glorious than that of the see
ond. Our attention is peculiarly directed to our Lord
Jesus Christ; and it is right that it should be so, for

* 1 Thess. v. 23. Heb. xiii. 21. Deut. xxx. 6. Ezek.
xxxvi. 2G, &c. t Tit. ii. 14.
1 John xvii. 19. Eph. ,. 25—27 || 1 Cor. xr. 56.
3 A 26

* Heb. xiii. 12.
J 2 Thess. ii. 13. 1 Peter i. 2.

f Rom. vi. 6.
Tit. iii. 5, &c.

402

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

lie appears with great prominence in the scheme of our
-salvation, and offered the atonement by which all the
divine perfections were glorified in the highest, and the
everlasting covenant was confirmed. But without the
co-operation of the Spirit, his labours and sufferings
would have been in vain. In a state of moral insensi
bility, with blinded minds and unfeeling consciences,
men would have made no use of the atonement for their
reconciliation to God, and continuing in the pollution
of sin, which renders them loathsome in his sight, they
must have been excluded from his presence, and the
blessedness of communion with him. Christ pur
chased redemption, but the Spirit applies it. The
work of Christ was accomplished by his humiliation,
and sorrows, and death; it, as it were, strikes our
senses, and on this account makes a more powerful
impression. But if we attentively consider the work
of the Spirit, we shall perceive that it also displays
grace, and love, and power, worthy of the highest ad
miration. To enter into a human soul foul with the
deepest stains, in which every thing revolting to the
holiness ofhis nature is exhibited, and to exert his in
fluence there to purify it, and render it capable of the
refined and exalted joys of religion, is a proof of
condescension and benevolence surpassing conception.
He meets with resistance, but he does not retire ; the
resistance is strong, all the power of corrupt nature
being called forth to oppose his design ; but he subdues
it by the same Almighty energy which reduced the
elemental chaos into order. In his plastic hands, man,
an outcast from his Maker, so vile as to be the object
of abhorrence, and so helpless as to be given over as
irrecoverably lost, is transformed into a being adorned
with the similitude of his Creator, devoted to his ser
vice, and destined to live in the happy seats of the
spirits of light. Let us remember that we are under
infinite obligations to our Sanctifier, as well as our Re
deemer; and let his love be the subject of our devout
meditations, and awaken our grateful praises.
That the sanctification of the soul is the work of the
Spirit we certainly know ; but the manner in which it
is effected, we are not able to explain. We know also
that all things were created by God, but cannot tell
how he created them; that in him we live and move
and have our being, but are ignorant of the mode in
which his power is exerted to sustain us. Our Lord
signifies that there is something mysterious in this
matter. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou
hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it
cometh and whither it goeth ; so is every one that is
r born of the Spirit."* Means are employed, but their
.efficacy depends solely upon him. It is his power
¦which begins and carries on the change that takes
;place in the sentiments and affections of the soul. We
¦ cannot call it merely a moral power, consisting in the
presentation of arguments and motives to the mind,
because upon this supposition, it would differ in no re
spect from the means themselves, or from the part
which one man may act in persuading and exciting
another to the love and practice of virtue. If we call
lit a physical power, we must mean that the soul is
endowed with new faculties of perception and feelino-,
or that its natural faculties are rendered capable of cer
tain acts, for which they were previously unfit. The
truth is, although this term has been sometimes applied
to the power exerted in regeneration and sanctification,
we cannot affix any distinct idea to it; and it is ques
tionable whether those who use it, can explain what
they mean to their own satisfaction or that of others.
It would seem therefore to be the wisest and most
modest plan, instead of attempting to describe the
nature of this power, and the mode of exercising it, to
content ourselves with the general knowledge of the

* John iii. 8.

fact, that it is owing to the operation of the Divine
Spirit upon the soul — that it is sanctified.
A question has been agitated among divines, whether
there is a formation of holy habits in the soul, or sanc
tification consists solely in the influence of the word
upon its several faculties, upon the conscience, will,
and affections, through the medium of the understand
ing. The controversy is somewhat obscure, and per
haps the parties have, occasionally at least, contended
in the dark, and they were not always distinguished
by metaphysical acumen. The point at issue seems
to be, whether there is a real change effected in the
soul itself, or it is only morally acted upon by the word
of God, coming in demonstration of the Spirit and with
power. Habit commonly signifies a disposition to act,
or a power of acting acquired by previous acts. In the
present case it signifies merely the disposition or power
without a reference to previous acts, as it is acknow
ledged that the power or disposition is not the effect of
our prior efforts, but of a divine operation. But if this
is a just definition of habit, it must also be acknow
ledged that gracious habits are infused into the soul ;
for in saying so, we mean nothing more than that the
subject of sanctification possesses certain dispositions,
or inclinations, to act according to the rule laid down
in the Scriptures. We may not be able to understand
what constitutes a disposition or habit of the mind, but
the fact is certain that there are habits, intellectual and
moral; and there is no more difficulty in conceiving
them to be formed by supernatural than by natural
means. The great objection to the denial of habits,
and the attribution of the holiness of Christians exclu
sively to the influence of the word, is that it represents
them as not permanently hut transiently holy, as having
no indelible character impressed upon them, as holy
only when they feel the influence of the word. This
view of the matter supposes a change not in their state,
but in their exercise; for if the word were not acting
upon them, they would be in all respects like other
men who have never experienced its power. But it is
implied in the idea of a saint, that he is possessed of
holy dispositions when they are lying dormant, and all
his faculties are in a state of inactivity; and that there
remains something which distinguishes him from the
unregenerate, even when he has fallen into sin. It
must be acknowledged that this objection to the denial
of holy habits is strong; and that, if what is called the
grace of God in the heart is reduced to the direct or
immediate operation of the word in exciting our facul
ties, it is not easy to see how a man can be a saint
when he is asleep, or has his thoughts wholly engrossed
by something different from religion; or is for a time
under the prevailing power of temptation, like David
or Peter. At the same time, there is a mode of speak
ing about habits which is unguarded, and has perhaps
led to the opposite extreme of denying their existence,
such language being used as imports that they are
something distinct from the soul in which they reside;
that the grace of God is a substance within a substance,
and not merely an effect produced upon the soul or its
faculties. We cannot speak of spiritual things with
out making use of terms which primarily relate to ex
ternal objects; but some writers, from want of judg
ment and taste, indulging in an unnecessary grossness
of language, materialize subjects, in conceiving which
the senses and the imagination can give no assistance.
Discarding such phraseology, we maintain that a change
is produced in the soul by the mysterious operation of
the Spirit, through which it acquires an inclination to
act, or a power of acting in a particular manner; that
this inclination or power is not occasional but habitual ;
that it remains when it is not in exercise, as any natu
ral disposition is in the soul although it should pot be
excited by the presence of its proper object ; and that
there is at all times a specific difference between the

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

403

* newed and tbe unrenewed man. " Whosoever is
born of God doth not commit sin ; for his seed remain-
eth in him."*
The pattern according to which believers are sancti
fied, is the holiness of the divine nature. " Be ye holy,
for I also am holy." " Be ye perfect, as your Father
which is in heaven is perfect."! Man was created in
the image of God, and the design of sanctification is to
restore him to his original state. We are like our
Maker in the spiritual essence of our souls, we are
like him in power; that is, our rational and active na
ture exhibits some traces of those attributes ; but our
perfection and glory consists in our resemblance to his
holiness. It is to the holiness of God as manifested
in Christ, that believers are conformed by the agency
of the Spirit ; and hence Christ may also be considered
as the pattern after which believers are sanctified. I
speak of him, not. as the second Person of the Trinity,
although in this character he is the brightness of the
Father's glory, and the express image of his person,
but as incarnate or clothed with our nature, and in it
exhibiting all the graces and virtues which constitute
our assimilation to God. We see in him what human
nature was, when it was formed by the hand of the
Creator and he looked upon it with approbation ; and
what it must become that it may be pleasing in his
eyes, and may be admitted into his glorious presence.
Christ should be contemplated in two lights, as an
atonement and as an example. In the one character
he has made peace between us and our offended Maker ;
in the other he has shown us what our Maker is, in re
spect of his moral attributes, and what he requires us
to be ; how we should think, and feel, and act, so as to
be imitators of God. That he is the pattern according
to which those who are the subjects of divine grace are
formed, is evident, from his own command to follow
him; from the description of true Christians, as "hav
ing Christ dwelling in them;" from the purpose of God
that all the members ofhis family should be conformed
to the image of his Son ; and from the effect of the
Gospel upon believers, who are changed by it into " the
same image from glory to glory." " He is the first
born among many brethren," superior in dignity, and
the model after which they are fashioned. We are
exhorted to be " followers of the saints ;" and from the
contemplation of their character and conduct, we may
derive much valuable instruction with respect to our
duty, and powerful excitement to the performance of
it. But we must not follow them implicitly, because
we know that they were liable to error and infirmity,
and tbat some of the most distinguished among them
have given melancholy proofs of weakness and depra
vity. The apostle Paul has pointed out the limits
within which they should be imitated. " Be ye follow
ers of me, even as I also am of Christ."! Thus far
we tread upon sure ground ; but when we can trace no
correspondence between them and him, it is our duty
to forsake them. In him alone we can safely confide,
in whose conduct the eye of omniscience did not per
ceive a single flaw, and whom the voice of the Father
proclaimed to be " his beloved Son, in whom he was
well pleased." Let us look to him when we are " run
ning the race set before us."
The rule of sanctification is the word of God. I
mean, that this is the rule according to which the
Spirit works, forming in us those dispositions which it
promises or requires, and the rule according to which
we should work in the whole course of our Christian
profession. Those who have been emancipated from
the service of sin, obey, according to an apostle, that
form of doctrine which has been delivered to them ;
they walk in the light of the Lord and keep his testi
monies and statutes. Without multiplying Scriptural

* 1 John iii. 9. f ] Pet- '• 16- Matt- v- 48- 1 1 Cor- *'• 1-

references, it is evident to every attentive reader of
the sacred writings, that tbe soul is sanctified by being
brought under the illuminating and commanding in
fluence of the word of God. Holiness is our con
formity to what it enjoins ; and when our thoughts,
volitions, and aims, our words and actions, correspond
with its letter and its spirit, we are saints in its es
timation. No human rule has any right to interfere
with our obedience, or should be permitted to dictate
to us. Men have devised a variety of observances
and practices, in which they have supposed holiness
to consist; and, by punctual attention to them, have
appeared to themselves and to others to have attained
a high degree of sanctity. The Pharisees received
with sacred respect the traditions of the elders, fasted
often, gave more tithes than the law enjoined, fre
quently washed their hands and the vessels which they
used, that they might avoid every kind of defilement.
In imitation of them, many Christians have distin
guished themselves by superstitious usages. They
have withdrawn from human society, and spent their
lives in deserts and monasteries. They have abstain
ed from the flesh of animals, and confined themselves
to a vegetable diet ; they have macerated their bodies
by frequent fasts and severe penances ; they have gone
on toilsome pilgrimages to visit holy places ; they
have bound themselves to devote a certain portion -of
their time to the repetition of prayers ; they have
entered into vows of poverty, celibacy, and blind
obedience to their religious superiors. The professed
design of these observances, was to promote the in
terests of piety and holiness; but they have uniform
ly failed, because they were not of Divine institution.
As we cannot serve God by doing what he has not
commanded, and still less by doing what he has for
bidden, so it is presumptuous to expect his blessing
upon means which, being introduced as supplementary
to his ordinances, very plainly import that, in this
respect, man is wiser than he. Even when used only
as auxiliaries to holiness, they must be equally inef
fectual, because the communication of grace depend
ing absolutely upon his will, there is no reason to
believe that human interference, whatever may be the
motive, with a matter, which it is his province to reg
ulate, will induce him to deviate from his plan, and
to give countenance to the idea, that we know better
than our Maker what are the most proper expedients
for our moral improvement. He who would please
God and obtain his blessing, must adhere closely to
his word, "which is the only rule to direct us how
we may glorify him, and enjoy him for ever."
As there is a pattern and a rule of our sanctifica
tion, so there are means appointed for carrying it on,
to the consideration of which I am naturally led by
the preceding observation. Those suggested by hu
man wisdom, we have rejected ; let us attend to those
which God himself has ordained.
First, It is evident that, as the word of God is the
rule of holiness, so it is a mean admirably adapted
to promote its own design ; because it not only points
out and inculcates our duty, but presents many con
siderations calculated to work powerfully upon the
will and the affections. It not only delivers naked
precepts, which recommend themselves to us by out
perception of their conformity to reason and truth ;
but it exhibits them in all the loveliness of example,
in the history of the saints, and particularly in that of
our Redeemer. Holiness, if I may speak so, appears
in an animated form, and, displaying all its graces^ be
fore us, fixes our attention, and engages our love. The
idea of the ancient philosopher is realized by the in
carnation of virtue; and although his prediction is not
fulfilled, that all men would fall down and adore it,
yet this is the effect upon those whose hearts are made,
by Divine grace, to feel its attractions. The word of

404

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

God holds out the greatest encouragements to the study
of holiness, in the promises of Divine assistance with
wbich it is replenished. How well calculated these
are to promote the design, will be manifest to every
person who has seriously reflected upon his own moral
weakness, and has felt the paralyzing effect of such
meditation. ' How is it possible for me,' the sinner
is apt to exclaim, when he is called to purify his heart,
' how is it possible for me to cleanse myself from the
pollution of sin ? Can the Ethiopian change his skin,
and the leopard his spots ? Then may I, who am ac
customed to do evil, learn to do well.' In this state
of despondency, the word of God affords us relief
by assurances of supernatural grace. When it says,
"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling," it
adds, " For it is God which worketh in you, both to
will and to do of his good pleasure."* It places be
fore us the most interesting motives — the love of God,
and the love of Christ ; the invaluable benefits which
have already been bestowed upon us, and the new
blessings which we may expect to obtain ; the peace,
the consolation, the joy, the hope with which our
heavenly Father refreshes the souls, and recompenses,
in this world, the services of his obedient children. In
short, it displays before the eyes of the runner in the
Christian race, the glorious prize which awaits him at
the end of his course, the immortal crown which the
righteous Judge will bestow upon him. We know,
from experience, the efficacy of hope in stimulating and
sustaining our exertion. The Scriptures enlist this
principle of human nature in the service of religion
and exhort us to be " steadfast, unmoveable, always
abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as we
know that our labour shall not be in vain in the Lord."!
In the second place, All the other ordinances are
means of sanctification. I shall take notice of these
two, Prayer, and the Lord's Supper. Prayer, besides
its direct tendency to impress the mind with a sense
of divine things, to heighten our reverence and esteem
for the object of worship, to increase our desire for the
blessings which we ask, and our abhorrence of the
evils from which we implore deliverance ; prayer, be
sides these effects, which it is morally fitted to produce,
has, for its direct object, the obtaining of the communi
cations of grace. It consists, not only of adoration
and thanksgiving, but also of petition. It is the
application of a sinful creature, conscious of guilt,
wants, and wretchedness, to the infinite mercy and
beneficence of the Creator; and, as it is authorized by
his command, it never fails, when it is presented in
the name of the Mediator, to bring down the blessing.
Its effect is similar to that produced upon the face of
Moses by his intercourse with God. The soul, re
turning from the sanctuary, shines with spiritual
glory. By strength not his own, the Christian over
comes difficulties, repels temptations, and advances
with a steady progress in ihe path of obedience: "Let
us come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may
obtain mercy, and find grace to help us in time of
need."! Ihe connexion of the Lord's Supper with
the sanctification of the soul is equally manifest. The
very emhlems which are used, point it out as an insti
tution adapted to the purpose of invigorating the
graces of the Christian. As bread and wine furnish
nutriment to the body, so tbe body and blood of
Christ, or, in other words, his atonement and its bene
fits, contribute to the nourishment of the soul. While
the ordinance powerfully impresses upon the mind the
unspeakable love of Christ and the great evil of sin,
and thus excites two principles of mighty efficacy in
the purification of the soul, — gratitude to bim and ab
horrence of it, — it is the medium of communication
between the Slviour and his faithful disciples in

» Phil. ii. 12, 13. ] 1 Cor. xv. 58.

X Heb. iv. 16.

whom he works anew by his Spirit, to carry on to per
fection the good work which he has begun. Sitting
at his table, and partaking of his bounty, they renew
their baptismal vows in humble dependence upon his
grace, by which only they shall be enabled to perform
them. They devote themselves to his service, not
from necessity, but from choice ; not merely because
they are bound to do so, but because they prefer him
to every other master. A deep sense of what they
have enjoyed, and what they have done, remains.
Their faith is more confident ; their love is more ar
dent ; their resolution is more firm ; their state of mind
is more spiritual and heavenly. Like a way-faring
man, who has rested and been refreshed at a place of
entertainment, and then resumes his journey with reno
vated vigour, they go from strength to strength, till
they appear before God in Zion." " As the living Fa
ther hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that
eatelh me, even he shall live by me."*
In the third place, The dispensations of Providence
are means of sanctification ; " We know that all things
work together for good to them that love God, to them
who are called according to his purpose. " ] The
apostle makes use of the universal term " all, " to sig
nify that nothing is excluded, and that there is a co
operation of events to promote the spiritual interests
of believers. And here we must admire the infinite
wisdom and Almighty power of God, who renders
subservient to his merciful designs, things which are
not only considered as evil, but are evil in themselves,
have a tendency to evil, and were they not controlled
and regulated by his superintending care, would be
productive of the most injurious effects upon the bod
ies and the souls, the present and the future well-being
ofhis people. But, as in medical treatment, substances
which are. nauseous to our senses, substances which,
when received into the system, cause in the first in
stance pain, and substances which are deleterious, are
administered in such quantities and with such mix
tures, that the ultimate effect is the removal of tbe
disease and the confirmation of health ; so it is in the
economy of heaven. The object aimed at, is the spir
itual health of the patient; and this is the result of the
bitter draughts which he is compelled to swallow, and
of the pain of amputation to which he is sometimes
subjected. The Scriptures frequently speak of afflic
tion as contributing to the progress of holiness :
"Tribulation worketh patience, and patience experi
ence, and experience hope: and hope maketh not
ashamed, because the love of God is shed abroad in
our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto
us."! You observe tbe process. Affliction calls into
exercise, and strengthens the graces of the Christian,
and terminates in the more powerful diffusion of Divine
love in the soul, in a more powerful impression of the
love of God to us, or a stronger emotion of love on
our part to God ; by either of which our promptitude
and sincerity in serving him will be increased. The
sanctifying effect of affliction is pointed out in many
passages of Scripture, and it was experienced by the
Psalmist, who says, " Before I was afflicted 1 went
astray, but now I have learned thy law."|| It is the
discipline which our heavenly Father administers to
the members of his family, and it is so necessary and
so salutary that none of them is exempted. It is a
proof of his love, because his design in correcting them
is, that they may be partakers of his holiness. How
blessed are the fruits of sanctified affliction ! They
are the fruits of righteousness, and are of far greater
value than the most esteemed temporal blessings.
They humble the pride of the people of God, awaken
their vigilance, make them feel their own weakness,

* John vi. 57.
|| Ps. cxix. 67.

f Rom. viii. 28.

{ lb. v. 3-S,

THE PRIVILEGES OF BELIEVERS.

405

create a stronger abhorrence of sin, and an increasing
indifference to earthly things ; inspire a meek submis
sion to tbe will of God, and, leading the thoughts to
heaven, stir up longing desires for the peace which
awaits them there, and for the pure joys of religion,
wbich are earnests of its felicity. I have confined the
illustration to the effects of adversity, but all the dis
pensations of Providence, under the direction of Di
vine wisdom and goodness, have the same tendency,
and are included in that comprehensive plan of benevo
lence, which God is carrying on for the final happiness
of the objects of his love.
These are the means Which God employs in sancti
fying his people ; but as many who are exposed to
their influence manifestly derive no benefit from them,
it is evident that their efficacy does not arise from their
fitness to the end, but from the operation of the Spirit.
Besides the external means, there are certain exercises
of the soul itself, which are subservient to the great
design, and which, as they are the effects of the Spirit,
may be considered as internal means by which the
work is carried on. The following things are neces
sary to the sanctification of a sinner; that he he in a
state in which he can partake of divine influences, that
those influences be actually communicated to him, and
that his views and feelings be such as shall make holi
ness the object of his choice, and carry him forward in
the practice of it with delight. I shall show you that
these pre-requisites are obtained by faith, to which as a
secondary cause our sanctification is ascribed.
First, By faith we are united to Christ, and thus are
delivered from the curse of the law, which prevented
the communications of divine grace to the soul, as we
formerly showed. To those who believe, his right
eousness is imputed, in consequence of which they are
reconciled to God, and are the subjects of his favour.
Thus the way is prepared for the restoration of his
image. " Wherefore," says Paul to the Romans, " ye
also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ,
that ye should be married to another, even to him who
is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth
fruit unto God."* Stript of figures these words signify,
that, through the atonement of Christ received by faith,
our connexion with the law or covenant of works is
dissolved, and being united to him as our living Head,
we are enabled to perform those holy duties by which
God is glorified. ' The body of Christ,' is the sacrifice
of his body on the cross; our 'death to the law,' is
our redemption from thecurse; our 'marriage to Christ,'
is our union to him, and 'the fruit which we bring
forth to God,' is the acceptable obedienee of the heart
and the life.
Secondly, By faith we receive sanctifying grace
from the fulness of Christ. God has constituted him
the source of spiritual influences, and faith the mean
by which they are derived from him. Human reason
may inquire what peculiar virtue in faith has procured
its appointment to this office, and may conceive that
other means were better adapted to the end. To us it
is sufficient to know the will of God, that his Spirit
shall be given to those alone who look to his Son, and
trust in him for assistance in the great work of their
salvation. When the believer lives, it is Christ who
lives in him. He is exhorted to "be strong in the
grace which is in Christ Jesus,"! who has said, "My
grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made
perfect in weakness."! Christians are kept in a state
of absolute dependence upon him, so that the good
qualities which they possess, and the good actions
which they perform, are more properly his than theirs.
" Abide in me, and I in you ; as the branch cannot bear
fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can
ye, except ye abide in me."||

* Rom. vii. 4. f 2 Tim- "• *• f 2 Cor. xii. 9. ||Johnxv. 4.

Thirdly, Faith produces a state of mind which is it
self holy, and tends to the increase of holiness. The
reasons and motives which the Scripture employs to
promote, the study of holiness, have no effect till by
means of faith they make an impression upon the con
science and heart. In vain do we contemplate the
perfect and attractive example of our Saviour, unless
by the medium of this grace a living virtue flow from
him into our souls, to transform them into his image.
In particular, it is by faith that we obtain a com
fortable sense of the love of God ; and it is this which
enlarges our hearts to run in the way of his command
ments. It is the opinion of many, that nothing will so
powerfully stimulate us to diligence as a state of un
certainty with respect to the issue, and that our activi
ty would be relaxed by the confident belief that we
already enjoy the favour of God. But those who think
so, betray ignorance of the gospel plan of sanctifica
tion. In the economy of grace, privileges are the
foundation of duty. Doubts and fears damp the ardour
of the soul, and enervate its exertions. When the
mind takes such views of the character of God as
create a spirit of bondage, it is disqualified for per
forming acceptable service to him. The temper in
which we do serve him is offensive, because it is
founded in disbelief of his word, and the works done
under its influence must be rejected as a corrupt thing.
He who obeys in the spirit of a slave, will do his duty
reluctantly and tremblingly, and is incapable of the
zeal, the promptitude, the strenuous efforts, which
characterize the man who is born from above. Our
obedience to God will not be cheerful and uniform,
and continued from year to year amidst discourage
ments and difficulties, unless we love him; and we
cannot love him, unless we have some hope at least,
that we are the objects of his love. Hence we per
ceive how necessary faith is, by which this hope or
persuasion is attained. Never will the exercises of
the Christian harmonize more fully with the will of
God, never will his desire of holiness be stronger, and
his efforts to make progress in it be more vigorous and
successful, than when he is looking up to him as his
gracious Father in Christ, contemplating the wonders
of his love in redemption, and rejoicing in the present
sense of his favour, and in the hope of infinite and ever-
enduring blessedness in the world to come. " Lord,
I have hoped for thy salvation, and done thy command
ments."* There are several other particulars connected with
the subject of sanctification, which I would have in
troduced if time had permitted. I might have shown
you that the work is progressive, like the shining light
which shineth more and more to the perfect day; that
it is sometimes suspended, but never totally destroyed ;
and that it is completed at death, when the souls of
believers are made perfect in holiness. I might have
also pointed out its advantages, and its tendency to
glorify God, and adorn our profession ; but I shall leave
these topics to your own meditations.

LECTURE LXXV1
ON GOOD WORKS.
Good Works, the Fruits of Regeneration — Meaning of this
Phrase — Nature of Good Works : Necessary that they should
be Conformable to the Law of God; be Performed from Re
spect for his Authority, from Love to Him. and with a View
to his Glory— Possible only to Believers— General Remarks
respecting them.
Having explained tbe privilege of sanctification, I
proceed to speak of good works, which are the fruits
* Ps. ex'x. 166.

406

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

of the change effected by divine grace in the soul.
We have already seen, that they are not the condition
of justification, which is obtained solely by faith, but
that they are not therefore unnecessary, because there
are many reasons why a believer should perform them,
and many important purposes which they serve. I do
not intend to resume these topics, but in this lecture
shall confine myself to an illustration of their nature,
and some remarks of a general kind.
The phrase, Good Works, is often understood in a
sense too limited, and which gives an imperfect view
of the effect of supernatural grace, and of the duty
of a Christian. If you attend to the manner in which
the expression is frequently used, you will find, that
it comprehends only a part of the works to which
"believers are created again in Christ Jesus," and
that the most important part is omitted. Many seem
to have no idea of any good works, but those which
are enjoined by the second table of the law; and their
morality is summed up in sobriety, justice, and benev
olence, of which the principal or sole object is the
temporal welfare of our brethren. The great design
of Christianity, as they represent it, is to render us
temperate, kind, and charitable. It is thus that the
natural aversion of the heart to God discovers itself,
even when it is professedly inculcating obedience to
his law. The duties of which he is the immediate
object are overlooked, or treated as of inferior im
portance. We are not surprised to find this mutila
ted morality taught by infidels, who are Atheists or
not much different, and consider all religion towards
God as superfluous and absurd ; it being their opinion
that it is not by prayers, and praises, and other exer
cises of piety, that we are to please him, if there is
such a Being and he takes any notice of our conduct,
but by acting properly in the various relations sub
sisting between us and our brethren. But it is la
mentable, that the language of Christian teachers should
so often show, that they have studied in the same school.
When some of them talk of good works, we hear much
of meekness, and candour, and beneficence, and the for
giveness of injuries, but little or nothing of faith, and
love to God, and the dedication of the heart to him, and
zeal for his glory. It is not a false charge which has
been brought against such men, that they preach hea
then morality ; for it is separated in a great measure
ftom piety, and chiefly consists in the social virtues.
When we speak of good works, we understand the
words in the most extensive sense, as comprehending
the whole duty of man, prescribed in both tables of the
law; and we remember the declaration of Him, whom
alone we call our Master, that " to love the Lord our God
with all our heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, is
the first and great commandment."
I would observe farther, that there is often a very in
cautious way of speaking concerning the relative value
of good works. They are not only contrasted with
faith to tbe depreciation of the latter, from ignorance,
it may be presumed, of what faith is, of which I know
not a more notable specimen than may be found in a
well-known paper of the Spectator concerning faith and
morality ;* but they are represented as the ultimate end
of religion, as the terminating point of its wonderful
apparatus of contrivances and means. Thus, other im
portant matters are thrown into the shade. Faith is
undervalued; the atonement is overlooked, or regarded
only as an expedient for advancing the interests of vir
tue; nothing is heard of but eternal and immutable
morality; and so large a space does it fill in the under
standings or imaginations of some men, that all other
points of religion dwindle into insignificance, and they
adopt the celebrated but senseless maxim, that it matters
not what is our creed, if our life is orthodox. The
* No. 459.

ultimate end of religion is the glory of God in the sal
vation of sinners; and his glory is manifested not only
by their obedience to his law, but by every part of the
scheme of redemption ; by the process, so far above the
ideas and calculations of reason, which has reconciled
his justice and mercy, and restored his lost image in
the soul of man. Bui, although it were granted that
the object to which the several steps in the plan of re
demption are subservient, is the sanctification of our
nature, which puts it again into a capacity to serve and
enjoy its Creator, we should still object to the extra
vagant importance which is assigned to good works ;
for this reason, that by good works, those who speak
of them in this manner, principally or exclusively mean
the common duties of life; and were they honestly to
state their sentiments, it would appear that the design
of religion is accomplished, in making us good mem
bers of families, good neighbours, and good subjects
of the state; not too strict and scrupulous, however,
but attentive to decorum, and free from any gross and
habitual vice. But all this might have been effected;
without the circuitous method which has been adopted;
without the death of a divine Redeemer, and the de
scent of the heavenly Spirit; by a plain rule of duty,
and the operation of natural sentiments and affections.
The design of Christianity is nobler and more exten
sive, namely, to make man holy in heart, as well as in
life ; to inspire him with the love of God ; to give God
the supreme place in his affections, that he may love
his fellow creatures only in subordination to him, and
for his sake; to establish the empire of the Divine will
in his conscience, and to secure the prompt and cheer
ful performance of all the duties, of those which respect
God, in the first place, and of those which respect man,
in the second. Good works, as commonly understood,
are only a branch, and, to speak still more correctly,
are only fruits, of the holiness which religion infuses
into those who are subject to its influence. The design
is to make all things new; to fill the mind with light,
and the heart with love; to form beings on whom their
Maker can look with unmixed complacency ; and, when
this great moral change is completed, religion may be
said to have attained its end.
I now proceed to inquire into tbe nature of good
works. Here it is proper to observe, that something is
necessary to make a work good in itself; and that other
things are necessary to make it good as performed by us.
That a work may be good in itself, it must be en
joined by the law of God, the sole rule of obedience.
The command of man cannot make a work good, un
less it be, at the same lime, virtually or explicitly com
manded by God : the suggestions of reason do not pos
sess sufficient authority, because it is not our supreme
guide, and is liable to error. He who created us, has
alone a right to prescribe the mode in which we should
exert our faculties, and fulfil the purposes of our being.
We find the sinful practices of the Jews sometimes
condemned, simply on the ground that they were not
commanded, and without a reference to their obvious
pravity. "The children of Judah have done evil in
my sight, saith the Lord ; they have set theij abomina
tions in the house which is called by my name, to pol
lute it. And they have built the high places of Tophet,
which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn
their sons and their daughters in the fire ; which I com
manded them not, neither came it into my heart." And
God says, "In vain do they worship me, teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men."* On this
ground, all those works are rejected, which are enjoin
ed by superstition, and are supposed to possess so
much merit, as to recommend the performer in a partic
ular manner lo the favour of God. The Papist under
takes pilgrimages to places fancied to be holy, sub-

* Jer. vii. 30, 31. Matt xv. 9.

GOOD WORKS.

407

mits to penances and frequent fasts, repeats appointed
prayers in a given number and at stated times, and pre
sents offerings to the church, in the full persuasion that
his acts of piety are pleasing to God, and will procure.
a reward ; but, as he proceeds solely upon the ground
of human authority, he loses his labour, and his ser
vices are set aside by the simple question, " Who hath
required this at your hands ?" It is plain that duty is
a relative term, and implies obligation ; but the source
of all moral obligation is the will of God. This is the
reason why some things should be done, and other
things should not be done. Our own opinion will not
give goodness to our works ; for, on this supposition,
we should be a law to ourselves, and independent of
the Sovereign of the universe : their goodness can arise
solely from their conformity to the standard which the
Divine authority has established.
Some moralists have maintained that the character
of an action depends upon the intention of the agent,
insomuch that, if a man have a good design, it will jus
tify the means which he employs to accomplish it.
This is the meaning of tbe celebrated maxim of certain
casuists in the church of Rome, that ihe end sanctifies
the means ; and practically it is adopted by others who
excuse themselves, and even claim praise, when they
have erred, on account of the alleged purity of their
motives. It is acknowledged that an action good in
itself may become bad through intention; or in other
words, it may be divested of all moral worth by being
performed with an unlawful design, and the agent may
be guilty of sin in the divine estimation. The giving
of alms is not a virtue when it flows from ostentation;
nor zeal for truth when it originates in pride and pas
sion ; nor prayer when the object is to be seen of men.
But although intention may convert good into evil, it
does not possess the opposite power of turning evil
into good. To ascribe to it such power is to deny that
there is any essential difference of actions, to render
morality entirely an arbitrary thing, to represent it as
continually changing its character, so that what is vici
ous to-day may be virtuous to-morrow, and what is vice
in one man may be virtue in another, according to the
views by which they are respectively influenced. It
sets aside the law of God, and substitutes, in the room
of a permanent standard, the every-varying decisions
of the human mind, blinded by prejudice, warped by
passion, and forming its judgments upon deceitful ap
pearances and short-sighted calculations. The only
province which ought to be assigned to intention in
morality, is to give value to such actions as are con
formable to the law of God, to the goodness of which
it is indispensably necessary that the state of the mind
be right. Men may think that they are doing God
good service, but this idea will not exculpate them, if
they are like the Jews, who sought to promote his
f lory by opposing the truth and persecuting its friends.
t is sufficient to explode the doctrine of intention to
consider the extent to which it would carry us ; for
upon this principle many of the greatest crimes might
be justified, because those who committed them ima
gined that they were doing their duty.
No work, therefore, is good in itself unless it be
commanded. The Church of Rome teaches, that there
are works of supererogation, meaning by these, works
which men are not bound to perform by any positive
command, and which therefore exceed the measure of
their duty, and create a Superfluous degree of merit
that may be transferred to others for tbeir benefit.
They are not required from any man ; but they are
recommended by what they call counsels of perfection,
counsels to aim at higher attainments in holiness
than are necessary to our salvation. They found this
doctrine upon the advice or counsel of Paul* to the
* 1 Cor. vH.

Corinthians, not to marry ; and particularly upon the
words of our Lord to the young man, " If thou wilt be
perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the
poor."* With respect to the first, it is plain that
abstinence from marriage was not recommended as a
higher degree of holiness, but as good "for the pres
ent distress ;" that is, as a matter of prudence, because
it was a time of persecution, when those who were
encumbered with families would be exposed to partic
ular inconvenience and danger ; and hence it appears
that it is not a counsel addressed to Christians in
general. With respect to the second, it was not a
counsel, but a command to an individual, of whose
sincerity our Lord was pleased to make trial, by de
manding the sacrifice of all his earthly possessions.
The perfection of which he speaks is not a higher de
gree of holiness than others had attained, but the per
fection of sincerity ; ' If thou wilt prove thyself sincere
in seeking eternal life, go and sell all that thou hast.'
It is a proof of deplorable blindness, of unaccountable
stupidity, for any man to imagine that it is possible
to exceed the measure of our duty ; for what more can
be conceived than is implied in these two command
ments, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,
and with all thy strength ; and thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself?" This is a summary of the
whole duty of man. The highest possible love to
God, and the highest possible love to our neighbour,
are already required ; and our love to both is to be
manifested in every way which Scripture and Prov
idence may point out. Works of supererogation have
no existence but in the vain imaginations of ignorant
and self-righteous men. The Church of England says
well in her fourteenth article, " Voluntary works, be
sides, over, and above God's commandments, which
they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught
without arrogancy and pride. For by them men do
declare, that they not only render unto God as much
as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his
sake than of bounden duty is required. Whereas,
Christ saith plainly, 'When ye have done all that
ye are commanded to do, say, We are unprofitable
servants.' "
Having seen what is necessary to render an action
materially, let us next inquire how it becomes formally,
good. An action may be good in its own nature, and
yet may be so vitiated by the state of mind in which
it is performed, as to be of no value in the Divine es
timation. I observe, then, that it is requisite to the moral
goodness of an action, that it be performed from re
spect for the authority of God. Its abstract nature
is the same, when we are influenced by any other
principle ; but, then, it is not an act of obedience, and
cannot therefore be acceptable to God, as our Lawgiver
and Judge. Philosophers have inquired into the found
ation of morality, and, as we might have expected.
have come to different conclusions. They have told
us, that it is agreeable to the fitness of things ; that it
is conformable to nature ; that it is conformable to
reason ; that it is conformable to truth ; that it is pro
ductive of good. But whatever theory we adopt, none
of them proves any thing more than that there is a
propriety, a decency, an order, an utility, in doing
some things and not doing others. No proper obliga
tion results from any of these systems ; they do not
take hold of conscience, and create the idea of duty.
The Scriptures, disregarding all metaphysical specula
tions, go directly to the point, and lay down the only
intelligible and practical foundation of morality, name
ly, the will of God. In reading them, you do not find
that particular actions are enjoined upon the principle*
» Matt. xix. 21.

403

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

of philosophy, but on tbe stronger grounds of religion.
It is the will of God, that we should do this or that;
it is his law, by which we should regulate our con
duct. To do our duty, is not to satisfy the dictates
of our own minds, but to express our reverence for
him. Virtue is obedience, that is, conformity to the
will of a superior; and tbe great example proposed to
us, is that of our Saviour, who came " not to do his
own will, but the will of him who sent him."
From these observations it follows, that to constitute
a work formally good, it must be done, not because it
will please ourselves or others, but because it is com
manded by God. Hence you perceive the reason that
some wotIis, which have a specious appearance, and
excite the admiration of men, are rejected by the
Searcher of hearts. The true principle of obedience
is wanting. While the persons are acting in literal
conformity to the law, the Lawgiver is not in all their
thoughts. Hence also you may see whence that per
suasion is necessary, of which the apostle speaks when
he says, "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin."* This
is not justifying faith, or faith in Christ, as has some
times been imagined ; and hence the words have been
improperly quoted, to prove that none but believers
can perform works acceptable to God : but it is an
assurance in our minds, that what we are doing is
right, founded upon the careful study of the law. If
we should do what is lawful in itself, thinking it to
be unlawful, to us it would be a sin; if we should do
it without knowing any thing respecting its nature,
the best that could be said of it is, that it is neither
good nor evil. Then only are our works right, when
we know them to be commanded, and do them because
they are commanded.
I observe once more, That to the goodness of our
works, it is necessary that they flow from love to God.
Love to him is stated to be the sum of the first table
of the law ; and, although love to our neighbour is re
presented to be tbe sum of the second, yet, unless it
be founded on love to God, it will not be a religious
affection. It is conceivable that a man may perform
a variety of duties because God has commanded them,
and at the same time perform them unwillingly. Con
science may force him to act contrary to his inclina
tions. The principle which predominates may be fear ;
under the influence of which a person will earnestly
and diligently do what is necessary to ward off the
danger which he dreads ; but he is only submitting to
a less, in order to escape a greater evil. The works
which he performs, are not his choice ; he is impelled
to them by a very different principle from that of obe
dience. Now, although his outward actions may be
strictly conformable to the standard of duty, and much
benefit may result from them to others and to the cause
of religion, yet their moral worth is completely de
stroyed by the state of his feelings. No such service
from a son would be pleasing to his father ; nor would
a master approve of a servant, however punctually he
might execute his orders, whom he knew to be under
the influence of a secret dislike to his duty. We see,
then, that love to holiness is indispensably requisite.
To the all-seeing eye of God the heart is manifest ;
and he looks more to its movements, than to the pro
fessions of the mouth and the sanctity of the conduct.
So peremptorily does he demand the heart, and so ne
cessarily does it enter into the essence of acceptable
obedience, that nothing can atone for the want of its
concurrence. It is in vain to think that we shall please
God, while we entertain no friendly sentimems and
dispositions towards him; and these, you know, are
the native fruits of love. Love is the soul of duties,
and the external action is the body. It is but the half,
and the inferior half, which he gives who obeys with-
* Rom. xiv. 23.

out love. This point is so plain as to stand in need
of no farther illustration; and I shall only add, that a
single duty emanating from love to God, is of greater
account in his estimation than the multiplied services
of the hypocrite, who courts the applause of men, or is
stimulated by the servile principle of fear.
Lastly, It is necessary that our works be done for
the glory of God ; for, as all things were made for him
as well as by him, w:e do not fulfil the end of our ex
istence, unless we constantly refer to his honour as our
ultimate end. When men make themselves their end,
when they aim at the gratification of their vanity, and
the advancement of their temporal interests, or even at
their eternal happiness independently of the glory of
God, they serve themselves and not him. The charac
ter of actions is fixed by their motives; and there must
be an essential moral difference between actions which
proceed from a regard to ourselves, and those which
are influenced by a regard to our Maker. " Whether
ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to ihe glory
of God."* The doing of all things to the glory of
God, is an expression of frequent occurrence, but often,
perhaps, it is not distinctly understood. It suggests
the idea of acting with a design to acknowledge him
before our fellow-men, as a glorious Being, and to
excite them to reverence, admire, and praise him ; and
this unquestionably is tbe tendency of those good ac
tions which are of a public nature. But, as this should
be the end of all our actions, even of those which our
brethren have no opportunity to observe, to do all things
to the glory of God, properly signifies, to do them from
love to him and respect for his authority, and is there
fore virtually included in the qualifications of good
works which have been already mentioned. A Chris
tian can have no intention to display the glory of God
before others in his secret devotion ; but he does give
him due honour, even in his closet, by the pious emo
tions of his soul, by adoration, confession, and thanks
giving, by reverence and gratitude, and the exercises
of faith and hope. Now, if we understand nothing
more to be meant, than that we should do all things in
obedience to his commands and from a profound regard
to his character and perfections, we shall see that there
is no occasion to agitate the question, Whether there
should be, in each action, a distinct reference, to his
glory, or a general purpose to glorify him be sufficient?
because it will be evident, that all our actions should
be performed in the spirit of religion, and that every
action so performed is good. If we are not impressed
at that moment with his authority, and have no desire
to please him, the action is no part of acceptable obe
dience. It is so evident from what has been said, that good
works can be performed only by such as have been
translated into a state of grace, that it is unnecessary
to mention it distinctly; and besides, this important
point was fully considered when we were explaining
the subjects of regeneration and sanctification. In man,
prior to his conversion, there dwells no good thing;
and the fruit will be corrupt, till the nature of the tree
is changed : " We are created" in Christ Jesus unto
good works ;! that is, good works are the effect of the
renovation of the soul by the Spirit of God. "I am
the vine, ye are the branches. As the branch cannot
bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more
can ye, except ye abide in me."!
It is an obvious inference from the preceding discus
sion, that works truly good can be performed only by
those who believe and live under the influence of the
Gospel. There is no difficulty, therefore, in determin
ing what estimate we should form of the boasted vir
tues of the heathens. They have been pronounced to
be splendida pcccata ;\\ but, by many, this has been

*lCor. x.31. fEph.ii. 10. Uohnxv.4,5. || Splendid sins.

GOOD WORKS.

409

deemed a harsh and uncharitable judgment. It would
be a satisfactory mode of settling the dispute, or, at
least, it might make a stronger impression upon some,
if, instead of dwelling on vague generalities, we would
come to particulars ; and, having demanded a specifica
tion of the virtues in question, should then proceed to
subject them to the test of Scripture and sound reason.
I believe that the imposing display which is made to
pass before us, by the. power of declamation and loose
panegyric, would thus lose much of its splendour, and
would be reduced within a narrow compass; and that
certain actions, when brought near and strictly ex
amined, would not appear in the same light as when-
viewed at a distance, and surrounded with the false
glory which ignorant admiration and prostituted elo
quence have bestowed upon them. Instead of assum
ing it as a fact capable of demonstration, that some of
the heathens were eminently virtuous, their advocates
should show us what their virtues were; and then, I
am confident, we should find that they were few in
number and of a dubious character,, if not altogether
unworthy of the name. It is intolerable to hear Chris
tians giving the name of virtue to the mere exercise of
the natural affections without any religious motive; to
acts of natural courage; to patriotism, as it is common
ly understood and was exemplified among the Greeks
and Romans ; to a proud morality, which elated the
possessors with self-conceit, and led them to claim an
equality, or a superiority to the gods. If it be true that
a work is not good unless it be performed from respect
for the authority of God, the works of heathens were
not good ; because they could not have an intention to
obey him whom they did not know, and their virtues
were founded solely upon self-respect, or a sense of
propriety, or views of utility. If it be true, that no
work is good unless it is done with a view to please
God, and from love to him, the works of the heathens
were not good ; for, as a celebrated author has observ
ed, "before the Christian religion had, as it were, hu
manized the idea of the Divinity, and brought it some
what nearer to us, there was very little said of the love
of God. The followers of Plato have something of it,
and only something; the other writers of pagan anti
quity, whether poets or philosophers, nothing at all."
The popular deities could not be the objects of love ;
and the true God, whom some are supposed to have
known, removed from common apprehension and wrapt
up in the obscurity of his nature, was regarded with
distant reverence, and furnished only a subject of spec
ulation. If it be true that no work is good which is
not performed for the glory of God, the works of hea
thens were not good ; because we are assured by an
apostle, concerning the wisest and best of them, that
they did "not glorify him;" and we know that the
great design of their virtues was to gratify their own
feelings, and to gain the admiration of their country
men. Why should it be deemed harsh to pronounce
this sentence upon the virtues of the heathens, even
although they had been more numerous and more per
fect than they are? What makes some men so feel
ingly alive to their reputation, while, without scruple,
they accuse of hypocrisy persons around them, who are
far more virtuous even than Socrates; and, in support
of this charge, are ready enough to tell us that the ex
ternal appearance is of no avail, if the motives are cor
rupt? It is easy to assert that the motives of heathens
were pure ; but it is as easy to prove that they were
not and could not be pure, ignorant, as they were, of
the true religion and destitute of the grace of God.
Tbe words of Peter to Cornelius have been often quoted,
to prove that the works of heathens are pleasing to God,
as well as those of Christians ; but they are grossly
perverted. " Of a truth, I perceive that God is no
respecter of persons; but, in every nation, he that
feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted of
3B

him."* Any person who considers the context, will sec
that they do not teach that men of every nation may
work righteousness ; but that, to whatever nation those
who work righteousness belong, they are accepted. No
two things can be more different; and that the latter is
the true meaning is evident, because the apostle is
speaking in reference to the prejudices of the Jews,
who believed that they were the objects of the Divine
favour, to the exclusion of every other people. This
he now discovered to be an error ; for, in the case of
Cornelius, God had shown, that if there were any
righteous Gentiles, they also were acceptable to him.
But Cornelius, let it be remembered, was not such a
Gentile as Socrates, or Cato, or Aristides, but one who
knew the true God, and worshipped him.
There is one qualification remaining, which may be
thought necessary to the goodness of our works, name
ly, that they should be perfect; for it may be said, that
since the law of God requires them to be perfect, any
defect will change their character, and render them sins
rather than duties. Now, it is acknowledged that all
the works of the saints are imperfect. There is not
one of them who can truly say, that he loves God with
all his heart; or that, in the full sense of the expres
sion, he loves his neighbour as himself. The flesh
lusts against the spirit, and impedes its operations.
The regenerated have been compared to a man lately
recovered from sickness, whose motions are feeble and
languid , and hence, there is something in their best
works for which they might be rejected. But let it be
observed, that although the works of the saints do not
exactly correspond with the demands of the law, they
do not labour under any essential defect. The princi--
pie is right, and the motive is right. The defect lies
only in degree. They are not perfectly good, but still
they are good. They are so far conformable to the
requisitions of the law, but not to the full extent : they
are acts of obedience to the will of the Lawgiver. The
metal is not free from alloy, but it is gold. Imperfect
works would be certainly rejected, if offered as the
ground of justification, because, in this case, a righte
ousness without a single flaw is the indispensable con
dition ; but, when viewed in another light they are
approved, because there is much in them which is
pleasing to God. To this should be added, that they
are presented to him through the mediation ofhis Son.
For his sake, what is evil is forgiven ; and what is
good, being recommended by his merit and interces
sion, comes up before the throne of heaven as incense,
and as the evening sacrifice.
Good works are incumbent upon the followers of
Christ without distinction. From some civil duties
persons of certain orders and professions are exempted,
in compliment to them or from the necessity of the case;
but the authority of the law of God has no limits, and
none are too high or too low to be subject to its opera
tion : " This is a faithful saying, and these things I
will that thou affirm constantly, that they who have
believed in God be careful to maintain good works;
these things are good and profitable unto men."! It
may be observed, however, that all good works are not
formally incumbent upon all; but that, while some are
universally obligatory, others are binding only in par
ticular circumstances. Works of justice, temperance,
and piety, are required from all without exception, be
cause no situation can occur in which it could be justi
fiable to refrain from worshipping our Maker, to indulge
irregular appetite, or to defraud and injure our neigh
bour. But every man is not bound to give alms, be
cause some are so poor as to be themselves the objects
of charity; and there are many duties which arise out
of the relations of men to one another, and which there
fore cannot be demanded from those who do not stand

» Acts x. 34, 35.

f Tit. iii. 8

410

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

in such relations. He fulfils his duty, who endeavours
tvfrtf 7 ?! 3nd t0 d° S°°d t° men, by the faithful
exertion of the powers conferred upon him and the dili
gent improvement of the opportunities which he enjoys,
by moving ,n his own sphere and performino- the partic
ular service winch the Master of the household has
assigned to him.
Every person has it in his power to perform good
Wvrf ' u . I T mean that he has by "ature moral
ability but that he has means and opportunities. Of
possible things there are some which one man can do,
and another cannot ; and of duties, as we have seen,
some are not incumbent upon all, but are required only
in particular circumstances ; but there is no person,
however obscure his station and limited his powers,
who is under the necessity of remaining inactive.
Every man may practise self-command, and every man
ought to cultivate piety towards God, and charity to
wards his brethren. There is not an individual who
is not somehow connected with others, and is not called
to some relative duties. If he has nothing to bestow
in the form of alms, and no influence to exert in behalf
of the temporal interests of his brethren, he can give
them his good offices and good counsels ; and these are
comprehended under the denomination of good works
as well as more substantial deeds ; for what we speak,
as well as what we do, falls under the prescription of
the law, and God is glorified both by our words and by
our actions. Where is the man who may not speak a
word in commendation of religion, or for the instruc
tion and consolation ofhis acquaintance and strangers?
It is surely a good work to communicate knowledge to
the ignorant, to silence the gainsayer, to reclaim the
backslider, to warn the tempted, to cheer the melan
choly, and to encourage the dying. If a man were
living in a solitude, he might still perform acceptable
works ; for he could there mortify his appetites and
passions, improve his graces, carry on his necessary
labours in the spirit of religion, meditate plans for the
good of his fellow-men if he should ever again mix
with society, and make the desert resound with the
voice of prayer and praise.
This leads me to remark, that there are many good
works existing in their first principles which are never
brought to perfection, but which the eye of God beholds
with approbation. Such are the benevolent purposes
and pious wishes of the saints, springing from love to
God and to man, which are not matured from the want
of circumstances favourable to their development and
growth. As there is much evil which never assumes
a sensible form, so there is much good which never at
tracts human observation. But He sees it who searches
the heart; and as in some cases he has taken public
notice of it in his word, so we may beliqve that it will
be made known in the day when all secrets shall be
revealed, as no small part of the goodness by which
his people will then be distinguished. "The Lord
said to David my father, Forasmuch as it was in thine
heart to build an house for my name, thou didst well
in that it was in thine heart."* Good intentions, al
though they should fail to accomplish their object, are
not lost. They are treasured up in heaven, and will
receive their reward. " If there be first a willing mind,
•t is accepted, according to that a man hath, and not
according to that he hath not."!
There are two extremes with respect to good works,
into which men have been betrayed through the per-
verseness of their hearts, and ignorance of the truth.
Some have ascribed merit to them, and represented
them as the procuring cause of justification and eternal
life ; and others, totally mistaking the design of those
passages which declare them to be useless for a par
ticular purpose, have rejected them as altogether un-

* 2 Chron. vi. 8

+ 2 Cor. viii. 12.

necessary, and pronounced it to be dangerous to incul
cate them. In the days of the apostle James there
were persons of this description, who trusted in an
unproductive faith; and even our own age has given
birth to Antinomian teachers, who, in their injudicious
zeal against those who oppose the law to grace, exalt
grace upon the ruins of the law. These men give
great countenance to the objection against justifica
tion by faith, that it weakens the obligations to holi
ness, and supersedes the necessity of it. They are
appealed to as living proofs that the objection is true.
But we have formerly seen that there is no foundation
for it in the doctrine when scripturally stated.
Antinomianism is indignantly exploded by all the
enlightened friends of the gospel, and their due place
is assigned to good works in the system of religion.
But it seems to have tainted the minds of not a few
who in words disavow it, as we may infer from the
suspicion or dislike with which they view expositions
of moral duties, and the desire which they discover to
be always entertained with discourses on the peculiar
doctrines o'f Christianity. The time was, when the
minister who explained and enforced relative duties
in detail was heard with a jealous ear, and was in
danger of being assailed with the accusation of le
galism. This unfounded prejudice, I believe, is pass
ing away; but it still retains its influence upon the
weak and ignorant. Good works should always be
inculcated upon Christian principles ; and wh"n they
are placed upon a proper foundation, and enjoined for
the ends which the Scriptures point out, they are an
important and necessary part of public instruction.
Ministers should "affirm constantly, that they which
have believed in God should be careful to maintain
good works."* This is the command of Paul, and
he does not act in his spirit, who, intimidated by
popular clamour, always insists on doctrinal topics.
In this case he pleases not God but man. The ig
norance which finds fault with him is entitled to no
respect, and if the censure is dictated, as in some
cases we have reason to suspect, by a woTse principle
— the disinclination of the human heart to holiness,
and the presumptuous hope of salvation without it — it
should be treated with the contempt which it deserves.
When men would separate what Christ has joined to
gether, and set one part of his religion in opposition
to another, the audacious attempt should rouse the
holy zeal of all the friends and defenders of the truth.
By the same authority which explodes or throws into
the shade one part of the system, the other may be
subjected to tbe same dishonourable usage. If one
class of men demand faith to the exclusion of works,
another may as reasonably demand works to the ex
clusion of faith. He is a wise steward, who arranges
every thing in its proper place, and brings it forth in
its order and season. He is a faithful minister, who
inquires not what are the fancies and tastes of his
audience, but what is the truth ; and regardless of hu
man censure or applause, fearlessly teaches men "to
observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded
them." It has been sometimes said, that it is unnecessary
to be particular in inculcating good works, because if
men are brought to believe in Christ, obedience will
certainly follow. This sage remark supposes that
divine grace operates upon believers, not agreeably to
their rational nature, by instruction, exhortation and
admonition, but instinctively, and contrary to the plan
which is actually adopted in the dispensation of reli
gion, where there is an ample provision of means for
promoting the sanctification of the soul ; and what is
more, it represents those parts of Scripture as useless
in which duties are detailed and enforced, our Lord

* Tit. iii. 8.

CONSCIENCE

411

as having spent his strength in vain while he was
preaching his sermon on the mount, and the apostles
as having filled up with moral lessons a considerable
space in their Epistles, which would have been more
usefully occupied with doctrinal discussions. The
opinion which leads to such conclusions is worse than
absurd.

LECTURE LXXVII.
ON CONSCIENCE.
Connexion of this Subject with the PrecedingLectures — Nature
of Conscience — Its Office — Its Fallibility — The rule of Con
science, the Will of God — The Scriptures the only Rule to
Believers — Their Adequacy and Supremacy as such — Author
ity of an Erring Conscience — God alone the Lord of Con
science. Having finished what I intended to say on the three
great privileges of believers in Christ, justification,
adoption, and sanctification, I deem this the proper
place to introduce some observations on Conscience,
which is intimately connected with those privileges.
Two things are necessary with regard to it : that it
should be freed from a sense of guilt, which is the
cause of great disquietude and alarm ; and that it
should be purified from the errors and corruptions by
which its right exercise is impeded. The first effect
is produced in justification, when the sinner is pardon
ed, and, through faith, is filled with peace and joy ;
the second is the work of sanctification, in which the
illumination of the mind, and the mortification of un
holy appetites and passions, give it new ability and
new liberty to execute its functions with fidelity.
Let us begin with inquiring into the import of the
term. Conscience is the Latin word in an English
form, and conscientia is a literal translation of the
Greek word nwtunt. Both terms evidently import
something more than simple knowledge, which would
have been expressed by scientia and aJW«. Com
pounded as they are with prepositions which signify
with, they suggest the idea of conjunct knowledge ;
and this has been explained in various ways. This
power, say some, is called conscience, because it
conjoins knowledge with knowledge — universal know
ledge, namely, of the law, with particular knowledge,
namely, of the fact, by applying the one to the other.
Thus, after a man has done a certain action, he reasons
in the following manner : 'I know that such an action
is forbidden by the law of God ; I know that I have
done this action, and therefore I have committed a sin.'
This process is an operation of conscience ; and it con
sists in bringing together our knowledge of the law
and our knowledge of our own conduct. Others ex
plain the matter, or at least express it, somewhat dif
ferently, calling conscience the knowledge which a
man has with himself as with another; by which they
mean, I presume — for their language is awkward and
obscure — that conscience consists in the knowledge
of our .actions, and a comparison of them with the
standard of duty in our own minds. Another mode
of explaining the term, is to consider the conjunct
knowledge of which it is expressive, as referring to
the knowledge of men and the knowledge of God, and
intimating that both are employed about our actions.
While we know, God knows them; and of this im
portant fact it is the office of conscience to remind us.
There are two witnesses of every thing we do, our
own consciousness, and the Great Being in whose
presence we always are.
Conscience ought not to be confounded with con
sciousness. The latter term denotes our knowledge
of what is passing in our minds, and does not relate
to external things. I am conscious of my own ex

istence, but am not conscious of the existence of any
other person, however firmly I may believe it. Con
science is conversant not only with what is passing in
our minds, but also with our external actions ; with
our thoughts and actions which are past, as well as with
those which are present ; and with the actions of other
men, so far as they are the subject of moral judgment.
It is different also from the understanding, the pro
vince of which is to acquire the knowledge of the na
ture, and qualities, and relations of objects, and to pro
nounce what is proposed to it to be true or false, by
means of its intuitive perceptions, or by a process of
reasoning; while the objects of conscience are more
limited in number, and present themselves under a dif
ferent aspect. They are considered, not as true or false,
but as good or evil, morally good and morally evil.
Among Scholastic Divines, and some more modern
authors who have transplanted their barbarous terms
and distinctions into their writings, it has been a
subject of discussion, whether conscience is an act, a
habit, or a faculty. If I apprehend the meaning right
ly, those who call it only an act, deny that con
science is a distinct power of the mind, and con
ceive it to be merely an occasional application of our
knowledge of right and wrong to our actions. Those
who call it a habit, seem to hold that it is not natural
to men, but is the effect of instruction and discipline.
Conscience, they say, is knowledge, and knowledge
is a habit, or something acquired ; thus confounding
the improvement of a faculty with the faculty itself.
If, because our knowledge of right and wrong is ac
quired by education and reflection, it follows that con
science is not an original principle of our nature, it
would be easy to prove, by the same kind of reason
ing, that there is no such original principle as intellect.
Some attempt to evade this difficulty, by distinguish
ing habits into innate and acquired, and telling you
that conscience is something between these, and par
takes of the nature of both ; and then ending with such
an explanation as, if it have any meaning, amounts to
this, that after all, conscience is a faculty, although
they choose to call it a habit. Such is the useless
trash, under the name of Logic or Metaphysics, with
which many theological volumes are filled.
It has been disputed, among men of more correct
and luminous modes of thinking, whether conscience
should be considered as a distinct faculty of the mind,
or merely as the exercise of its other faculties upon a
particular subject, and in a particular form. Conscience
has been pronounced to be an operation of the judg
ment, comparing one thing with another — our actions
with the standard of duty — and pronouncing their agree
ment or disagreement. But there is no reason for ex
cessive simplification. We have only to go a step
farther, and deny that the soul has any distinct facul
ties, and that what we call such, are only different
modes in which it exerts itself; but, although this
were true, it would serve no purpose but to introduce
a change in human language, and to set aside as use
less many of the speculations of philosophy. If we
say that the soul has understanding, because it is
capable of knowledge; tbat it has judgment, because
it compares; that it has will, because it chooses and
refuses ; there seems to be no reason why we should
not say also, that it has conscience, because it distin
guishes right and wrong, and approves or disapproves
of our actions. There seems to be a particular reason
why we should account it something more than an
operation of the understanding, namely, that there is
not a simple perception of agreement and disagree
ment between the standard of duty and our actions,
but an approbation or disapprobation of them, with an
anticipation, pleasant or painful, of the consequences.
By philosophers, it has been sometimes called the
moral sense. They have given it the designation of

412

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

a sense, to signify that it perceives right and wrong,
as the taste perceives sweet and bitter; and of moral
sense, to specify the objects about which it is conver
sant. But, although the term, sense, is sometimes
applied to our internal feelings, yet I look upon the
phrase, moral sense, as an incongruous combination of
terms, and prefer conscience, not only because it oc
curs in the scriptures, and is adopted by theologians,
but because it is free from ambiguity, and, from asso
ciation at least, reminds us of an authoritative rule of
action, and of a supreme Judge; while the moral sense
implies a reference to neither. Besides, to call con
science a sense, implies, that we have instinctive moTal
perceptions ; a supposition which does not accord with
experience, and proceeds upon the gratuitous assump
tion, that this faculty is different from all our other
mental faculties, which remain in a dormant state till
they are excited, and require culture to fit them for the
performance of their functions.
It has been cbjected against considering conscience
as an original power of the mind, not only that it
seems to be wanting ia some individuals, but that its
operations are not uniform. What is esteemed vir
tuous at one time, becomes vicious at another, and
conscience is found to pronounce opposite sentences
upon tbe same action. What the ancient Greeks, for
example, practised without shame, is now held in
universal abhorrence; and, even in modern times, if
you only pass a river, a mountain, or an imaginary
line, you shall find different ideas of morality prevail
ing upon the one side and the other. Hence, con
science appears to be a factitious thing; the result, not
of the constitution of our nature, but of education and
custom. Having been taught to look upon one action
as criminal, we refrain from it, and upon another as
good, we practise it; but a different training would
have inverted our ideas, and made us regard the former
as laudable or harmless, and the latter as infamous or
unbecoming. But this reasoning against the existence
of a moral principle, is more specious than solid, and
might be employed with equal success to disprove
any other of our mental faculties. Might it not be
shown in the same way, that we have not the power
of perceiving truth, because some individuals are
born idiots, and men in all ages have been subject to
the strangest illusions, and' have embraced innumera
ble errors; and what has been admitted as unquestion
ably true at one time, has been rejected as manifestly
false at another. Did we mean by conscience, an in
stinctive perception of the moral qualities of actions,
it would be a conclusive argument against it, that
men's perceptions have been so various and contradic
tory ; but as we mean only a power in the human
mind of perceiving them, the modifications to which
it is subject from external circumstances, will not ap
pear to any sound reasoner to be a proof of its non
existence. I have not given a formal definition of conscience ;
but from the preceding observations you will perceive
what I understand by it. It is that faculty which per
ceives right and wrong in actions, approves or disap
proves of them, anticipates their consequences under
the moral administration of God, and is thus the cause
of peace or disquietude of mind.
A question has been proposed, whether it is possi
ble for conscience to err; and although it seems to be
a plain one, yet it has not received a uniform answer.
Some have adopted the negative, affirming that con
science cannot err. They distinguish between a judg
ment of the mind, and a judgment of conscience, and
say that the former may be false, but that the latter
is always true; not reflecting that, if conscience has
anv connexion with the understanding, as it must have
if it is founded on knowledge, it must be subject to
tbe same errors with the understanding. To support

their opinion, they define conscience to be a clear and
certain knowledge of the objects with which it is con
versant. Now, there is no doubt that, if this defini
tion is admitted, the inference which they draw from
it is undeniable ; for it is manifest, that, if our con
ceptions of any subject are distinct and adequate, our
judgments concerning it must be conformable to truth.
The amount, therefore, of what they say, is, that we
cannot be mistaken when we are certainly right; but,
for this profound discovery, no man, I presume, will
think himself obliged to its authors. We may affirm
any thing of any thing, if we are allowed to give an
arbitrary definition of it. And this definition of con
science is undoubtedly arbitrary ; for conscience, so
far as it implies knowledge, is not perfect and infalli
ble knowledge, but that degree of it which we have
obtained by the exercise of our intellectual faculties,
and with which many errors may be blended.
But some maintain the infallibility of conscience
upon a different ground. If conscience may err, they
say, it follows that God has deceived us ; for he gave
us this faculty, and it is his candle shining within us.
If God had given conscience as the only rule of our
conduct, if he had commanded us to rely with implicit
confidence upon its dictates, and if it were still as
perfect as it ever was, we might say that the errors
into which we are led by it are imputable to its Author.
But not one of these pre-requisites is true. Conscience
is not our only rule, as we shall afterwards see; its
dictates are not therefore to be implicitly obeyed, and
it has not continued uninjured amidst the ruin of our
moral nature. Conscience, which derives all its light
from the understanding, must receive it, if I may speak
so, obscured and discoloured as it flows from its source.
Does any man say, that, when our understandings err,
God has deceived us ? No ; and let no man say that
he has deceived us when conscience errs ; for, what is
conscience but the application of the knowledge of the
understanding to our practice, as a test to examine it ?
By what law was God bound to preserve conscience
from being tainted by sin, any more than our other
faculties ? It was, indeed, impossible to have pre
served it in purity, when the understanding, upon
which it depends, was perverted and blinded. It is
inconceivable bow this notion of the infallibility of
conscience could have been adopted by any man who
had read his Bible, had reflected upon his own ex
perience, had observed the conduct of others, and, in
a word, was possessed of an ordinary portion of com
mon sense. Such is a specimen of the absurd opinions
which Theologians of great name have sometimes ad
vanced. As they come in our way, we must take notice
of them ; but in doing so, there is a waste of precious
time. Let us now proceed to the rules of conscience. It
is evident that conscience is not a rule to itself. Man
comes into the world entirely destitute of knowledge,
and gradually acquires it as his faculties expand; but
in his state of greatest improvement, he is too ignorant
of God and himself to be his own guide. It is not
enough that his intention is good. If he had been
created without power to distinguish between right
and wrong, or had been left without the means of as-
certaining'his duty, there might have appeared to be a
reason for saying, that to mean well would be sufficient
to recommend him to his Maker. But, since there are
moral distinctions, and the knowledge of them is con
fessedly not beyond the reach of the human faculties,
it is not to be imagined that our conduct can be ac
ceptable to God, unless it be conformable to them.
Those distinctions are founded in the nature of things,
or in the will of the Creator, and must therefore be a
law to all reasonable creatures. To suppose the in
tention to sanctify our actions, is to suppose that virtue
and vice are not essentially different; that actions

CONSCIENCE.

413

themselves are nothing in a moral estimate, and that
the only thing to be considered is the motive or the
end. Thus man would, indeed, be a law to himself,
and would be accountable only for his designs ; every
other thing would be exempt from the Divine juris
diction. Conscience, then, must have a rule. It is
plain that the rule is not the example of others, al
though wise and good, because the best of men are
imperfect, and are liable to errors and infirmities ; be
cause, even their virtuous actions are not to be imi
tated, unless we be in similar circumstances, and in
the application great mistakes may be committed ; and
because, without another rule, we could not know
whether they were right or wrong. It is implied in
the proposal to imitate them, that their actions are
good ; and this supposition further implies, that there
is a standard to which they are conformable. Thus
we are led, at the second step beyond them, to that
standard as the rule ; and exhortations to imitate them,
whether delivered in the Scriptures, or by our fellow-
men, can only be understood as a call to do what they
have done, when we know it to be right from some
other source.
I may add, that the opinion of men is not the mle
of conscience, any more than their example, because
they may mislead us, either from design or from their
own previous error. Hence we are commanded to call
no man master, and lo give this honour to Christ alone ;
and it is said in reference to the dogmas and commands
of men, " To the law and to the testimony ; if they
speak not according to this word, it is because there is
no light in them."* In the church of Rome, the doc
trine of probability is maintained, or the doctrine that
a man may safely do any thing for which there is a
probable reason. And how is this probability to be
obtained ? Not by searching the Scriptures, but by
consulting the Doctors ; and if a few of them concur
in sentiment, nay, if even one of them pronounce that
a thing may be safely done, the person whom he ad
vises may do it, whatever it is, without incurring guilt.
Thus the whole law of God has been disannulled, and
a sanction has been given to every abomination ; for
doctors have been found in that Church, who have
patronized by their authority every conceivable vice.
This is an extreme case ; but it shows us the danger
of submitting to be guided by the opinions of men.
As they and we are subject to the same standard of
duty, their opinions can be considered only as their
interpretations of the law, which are not authoritative,
and ought to be compared with the law itself before
they are received.
Casuistical writers distinguish the rules of conscience
into two classes. The first is the original, supreme,
and independent rule, namely the will of God, by
whatever means it is made known to us. The second
class comprehends the laws of men, and our own vol
untary engagements, as vows, oaths, promises, and
covenants. Now, there is no doubt that a man is
bound in conscience to fulfil the engagements into
which he has entered to God, and to his fellow-men;
that they lay him under an obligation which he cannot
violate without guilt, it being always presupposed that
they are lawful, and that they constitute rules by which
his conduct should be regulated. It is equally certain
that we are subject to the authority of others, as par
ents, masters, and magistrates, whose commands we
ought to obey; and their commands may be called
rules of conscience, as by them different classes of
relative duties are pointed out and enjoined ; yet they
are only subordinate rules, and in fact are no rules at
all, if we understand by a rule, a regulation possess
ing intrinsic authority. Whatever power our superiors
may have to enforce obedience, conscience duly en-

» Isa. viii. 20.

lightened does not recognise their authority, unless
it perceive an agreement between their commands and
the law of God. In truth, the commands of our su
periors stand in the same relation to conscience, in
which the sentences of inferior magistrates stand to
the subjects of a state. The latter have no authority
in themselves, and all their authority is derived from
the law of the land ; insomuch that, if they are not
conformable to it, they may be treated with contempt,
and the magistrate would be punished if he should
proceed to enforce them. The power of our supe
riors over us is founded in the law of God, made
known by the light of nature or by revelation ; their
commands are binding only when that law gives them
its sanction ; and even our own engagements are not
obligatory unless they accord with it, for a promise,
a covenant, an oath, a vow to do what is sinful, is
in itself null and void, and guilt will be incurred,
not by violating but performing it. It follows that
the moral obligation of our own engagements, and
the moral obligation of the commands of our supe
riors, are resolvable into the will of God. Here, as
in the former cases, our reasoning ends ; and there
fore, in strict language, his will is' the only rule.
There is danger in assigning this office to the com
mands of men, however much we may qualify it.
The ignorant and the careless may be led to ascribe
more to human authority than its due ; and if they
should not go so far as to maintain, with the infidel
philosopher,* that virtue and vice are created by the
will of the civil magistrate, may however imagine
that rulers in church and state have the power of
dictating to conscience, of subjecting our civil and
religious liberty to restraints to which it would be
sinful to refuse to submit, and of making things in
different, to be duties as sacred as the most express
injunctions of the divine law. The apostle Paul,
when giving direction to Christians with respect to
their civil duties, calls upon them to be subject to
their rulers, " not only for wiath, but also for con
science sake." But does he mean to insinuate that
any new obligation upon conscience arises from their
commands? No; his own reasoning shows that the
obligation results entirely from ihe authority of God.
" Wherefore ye must needs be subject," that is, as
stated in the preceding verse, because " he is tbe
minister of God;" and he thus expresses himself
in the beginning of the chapter. " Let every soul
be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no
power but of God ; the powers that be are ordained
of God."! Magistrates, being armed with the power
of the state, may compel their subjects either to do
what they please, or to suffer ; but their moral power
is derived from, and limited by the law of God ; and
it is only when they are considered as acting by his
authority, that conscience calls upon us to obey them.
It appears, then, that the rule of conscience is the
will of God, or his command which prescribes our duty.
This will is the rule of obedience to all intelligent crea
tures ; it is the rule to angels, as we learn from these
words of the Psalmist, " Bless the Lord, ye his angels,
tbat excel in strength, that do his commandments,
hearkening unto the voice of his word."! B was 'he
rule to our Saviour when he sojourned among men.
" My meat," he said, " is to do the will of him that
sent me, and to finish his work."|| To the rule which
directs angels, and directed our Redeemer, it is right
that we should conform. This will of God is wise and
just, and there would be impiety in supposing that
there could be any obliquity or irregularity in the con
duct which it prescribes. As it is wise and righteous,
so it is good and beneficent, always aiming at our wel-

* Hobbes.
|| John iv. 34,

t Rom. xiii. 1. 4. 5. } Ps. ciii. 20.

414

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

fare, as well as the glory of our Maker; for the ten
dency of all the commands which it issues is to pro
mote the order and happiness of the universe. It is
the will of the Creator, to which creatures should bow
with profound reverence. It is the will of a Master,
whom his servants ought to obey. It is the will of a
Father, which his children should regard not only with
respect, but with gratitude.
The will of God is known by the light of nature.
Some notions of morality are found among those who
do not enjoy the advantages of revelation; and these
are accompanied with a sense of obligation ; that is,
there is a conviction in the minds of men that they
ought to do some things, and ought not to do other
things. There remain treatises on morals drawn up
by the Greeks and Romans, in perusing which, while
we observe many defects, we cannot but admire the
progress which they had made in the investigation of
the various classes of relative duties. It is evident
too, that conscience performed its office among them,
not only from particular instances of its power in dis
quieting and alarming certain distinguished transgres
sors, but from express references to it, and their record
ed declarations, that some actions were pleasing, and
others were offensive to the gods. Mens sibi conscia
recti,* was a good conscience, and convictus conscien-
tia,] was a man condemned by his own mind. This
is expressed by the apostle Paul in the following words :
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do
by nature the things contained in the law, these,
having not the law, are a law unto themselves ; which
show the work of the law written in their hearts, their
conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts
the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one an
other."! To Christians the rule of conscience is the word of
God, in which his will is fully and clearly expressed.
It is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness," and is able to make
us " perfect, and thoroughly to furnish us for every
good work."|| To those who enjoy it, reason is only
necessary to enable them to understand the propositions
contained in it, to collect together the precepts which
are scatterd here and there, and to apply them to the
various cases which occur in the progress of life.
Sometimes the Scriptures enter into detail ; but had
they attempted to point out all the minutia? of duty, they
would have swelled to such a size as would have de
feated their design, because few could have found lei
sure to peruse them, and still fewer would have been
accurately acquainted with their multifarious contents.
In studying them, therefore, with a view to the direc
tion of conscience, it is necessary to attend to such par
ticulars as the following. They sometimes content
themselves with laying down principles, and leave it
to us to deduce the consequences. They forbid the
species, in forbidding the genus under which it is
included. Thus, when they condemn injustice in gen
eral, they condemn its endless modifications. At other
times, by condemning one species, they condemn all
the other species which are comprehended under the
same o-enus. The prohibition of adultery in the seventh
commandment, extends to every kind of uncleanness.
When an external action is commanded or forbidden,
the law is applicable to the disposition or principle
from which it proceeds. When alms are enjoined,
charity or love to our neighbour is required ; and hatred
is prohibited when it is said, "Thou shalt not kill."
When a duty is prescribed, the means of performing it
are also prescribed ; and when a sin is forbidden, every
thing leading to that sin is also forbidden. In a word,
when the Scriptures condemn a particular vice, they

* A mind conscious of right intention.
tA person convicted by his conscience
J Rom. ii. 14. 15. || 2 Tim. m. 16,17.

recommend tbe opposite virtue ; and vice versa, when
they recommend a particular virtue, they condemn the
opposite vice. Thus, there is no sin which the word of
God does not condemn, and no duty which it does not
enjoin, in one or other of these ways. There are, indeed,
few sins or duties which it does not specify with mora
or less particularity, by express precepts, by threaten
ings, by promises, by exhortations, by commendations,
or by examples. It is therefore a perfect rule. There
are no deficiencies which the doctrines and command
ments of men might supply. " The law of the Lord is
perfect, converting the soul : the testimony of the Lord
is sure, making wise the simple : the statutes of the
Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment
of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes : the fear of
the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of
the Lord are true, and righteous altogether. More to
be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold ;
sweeter also than honey, and the honey-comb. More
over, by them is thy servant warned : and in keeping
of them there is great reward."*
After this account of the Scriptures, the general
truth of which has not been disputed among Protes
tants, you will be surprised to be told that they are
not an adequate rule of conscience. So Bishop San
derson asserts, in his celebrated treatise De Obliga-
lione Conscieniias ;] and I know not how many others.
The word, adequate, signifies in English, and in Latin
from which it is derived, equal, proportioned, and con
veys the idea of something fully adapted to its end.
It therefore sounds strangely in our ears to affirm, that
the Scriptures are not an adequate rule, and we are
curious to learn the reasons. The first is, that an ad
equate rule supersedes the necessity of any other ; but
there is another rule, namely, the light of nature,
which is a law to the heathens. According to this
wonderful reasoning, no system of rules, however per
fect, can be adequate to direct us in practising an art,
if there should happen to be another system, although
greatly inferior to it. Perhaps this writer affixed a
new and unusual meaning to tbe term, or rather, he
seems to have confounded two words which are totally
distinct — only and adequate. It is not true that the
Scriptures are the only Tule of conscience, because
those " who have not the written law, are a law to
themselves ;" but it is true that they are an adequate
rule, because they contain a perfect revelation of the
will of God respecting our duty. Another reason is
taken from the design of the Scriptures, which is to
make us wise unto salvation; to direct us to spiritual
ends ; to excite us to perform those things which na
ture dictates, from the higher principles of love to
God, and faith in Christ; whereas the office of con
science, it is said, is to consider actions, not as spirit
ual, but as moral; and to inquire, not whether they
are performed from charity, and to a spiritual end, but
whether they are good or evil, lawful or unlawful.
From the latter part of this argument, it would ap
pear that conscience has to do with our actions, but not
with our motives, than which nothing is more manifest
ly false; and the former part of it, although brought
forward with an opposite design, actually proves that
the Scriptures are an adequate rule, because they car
ry morality to the greatest possible perfection. It is
unnecessary to attend to his other reasons, as you are,
I presume, satisfied with the specimen which you
have heard. It will naturally occur to you, that there
must have been some cause which led a man esteemed
wise and learned, to argue so inconclusively ; and he
has not been at pains to conceal it. If the Scriptures
are the adequate rule of conscience, it will follow that
nothing is binding upon conscience which is not ex
pressly or virtually enjoined in them. But this liml-

* Ps. xix. 7—11. f Concerning the Obligation of Conscience.

CONSCIENCE.

415

tation would not have answered the purposes of his
Church, which claims authority to decree rites and
ceremonies in religion. If the Scriptures are an ade
quate, and consequently the only rule of conscience to
those who enjoy them, these decrees will not be bind
ing ; but, if you can contrive to show that the Scrip
tures are sufficient only for certain ends, and that there
are other things for which a different rule is wanted,
you may succeed in subjecting Christians to the doc
trines and commandments of men. Thus even great
men, under the influence of prejudice and self-interest,
do not regulate their opinions by the Scriptures, but
pervert and misrepresent them to favour their opinions.
And thus, even among Protestants, there remains not
a little of the spirit of Popery ; for the steps which
make way for the admission of the authority of the
Church to enjoin any thing as necessary in religion,
which God has not commanded, led by degrees to
the establishment of the antichristian system, under
which the traditions of the fathers, the decrees of
councils, and the bulls of the Popes, were exalted
to a level with the commands of Christ and his
apostles. The word of God is a rule, and, to speak properly,
tbe only rule of conscience to Christians; other rules,
which are obligatory, deriving all their authority from
it. To this rule we are bound to yield unhesitating
obedience ; and when we comply with its duties, we
do what is acceptable to God. But here a question
arises, Whether the commands of conscience are
binding, not only when it is enlightened by the Scrip
tures, but when it errs, and calls good evil, and evil
good ? This point requires to be treated with great
caution ; but, however strange it may at first appear,
we do not see how we can come to any other conclu
sion but this, that men ought to act according to its
dictates at all times, when there is no doubt or sus
pense in their minds ; if the case is not clear, it is
evident that they should wait till, by the-due use of
means, they have ascertained what is their duty. If
conscience should pronounce any thing to be a sin
which is not a sin, they ought to abstain, because
they do not know the judgment to be erroneous, and
would not be guiltless if tbey should act in opposition
to it. The reason is, that supposing, as they do, the
voice of conscience to be the voice of God, they could
not transgress its orders, without expressly rebelling
against what appeared to them to be the authority of
God. " I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus
Christ, that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to
him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it
is unclean."* The apostle is speaking of an action
which was not sinful in itself, and yet he declares that
it was sinful to the man whose conscience pronounced
it to be such. The judgment of conscience does not
change the nature of actions, but it changes them to
us ; because the authority of God seems to us to be
interposed either to command or to forbid. In the case
to which Paul referred, the sin did not consist proper
ly in the action itself, but in doing it in the persuasion
that it was sinful. The judgment of conscience may
be false, but we think it true ; and in disregarding it,
we disregard the Lord of conscience.
The observation, that the judgment of conscience
does not change the nature of actions, paves the way
for the resolution of the question, whether the general
obligation to obey the dictates of conscience will ex
culpate us, when the action which conscience enjoins
is in itself unlawful. Conscience, let it be remembered,
is or.ly a subordinate rule, to which we are properly
under a moral obligation to yield obedience, only when
it is conformable to the supreme rule ; and the obliga
tion of which we speak, results solely from the sup-

* Rom. xiv. 14.

position of its conformity. It is not, as has been said.
regula regulans,* but regula regulata.] An appeal
may be always made from its decisions to the word of
God ; and as soon as a difference is discovered be
tween its dictates and those of Scripture, the sentence
which it has pronounced is made void. Hence it is
plain, that the plea of conscience will not avail to ex
empt us from guilt and punishment. And this, we
may observe, is the unhappy situation of those whose
consciences are not duly enlightened, that they sin
whatever they do, in disregarding the voice of con
science and in obeying it; a consideration which
should excite every man to use the greatest diligence
to ascertain what is his duty, and to pray for the Di
vine Spirit, who is promised to lead us into all truth.
If I have made use of the word, obligation, in the
present case, from the remarks connected with it there
is no danger of mistaking its import. It does not, and
cannot mean, that an erring conscience will justify us
in doing what is morally wrong. The law of God is
immutable. Our views of it may be incorrect ; but
no man would suppose, in any similar case, that mis
apprehension of the law could exempt a transgressor
from the penalty. Paul, before his conversion, " ve
rily thought that he ought to do many things contrary
to the name of Jesus,"! being persuaded that Jesus wa3
an impostor, and his disciples were apostates from the
true religion. What he did, he did from conscience;
yet he declares that he was a " blasphemer, a perse
cutor, and an injurious person," who needed forgive
ness, and was pardoned only through the mercy of
God. ||
There are persons to whom what has now been said
would appear highly objectionable. What, they would
ask, should a man act according to the dictates of an
erring conscience ? No ; he ought to disobey it, and
to regulate his conduct by the law of God. There
are, however, some sayings which have an impo
sing sound, but when they come to be examined,
are found to have little or no meaning, and this, I
apprehend, is one of them. Those who have it most
frequently in their mouths, it is to be presumed have
never considered it. If they have any meaning, which
is questionable, it must be this, that, if a man knows
that his conscience is in an error, he ought not to obey
it. But here they have no antagonists, and the case
supposed is impossible, because, as soon as the error
is discovered, it is corrected. To suppose a man's
conscience to prescribe to him any action, after he
knows it to be wrong, is absurd. What else do they
mean ? Is it that a man ought not to obey his con
science, although he believes its dictates to be right?
What is this, but entirely to subvert its authority?
No ; they will reply, we only assert that it should not
be obeyed when it is contrary to the law of God. But,
in the mean time, we are persuaded that it is agreeable
to the law, and yet we are told that we should pay no
respect to its commands. We entertain no doubt, and
yet should Tefrain from acting. We believe that God
is speaking to us, but should sit still and fold our
hands, because, in reality, he is not speaking, and we
have mistaken another voice for his. But, if this rea
soning, which is in reality devoid of meaning, be ad
mitted, I am at a loss to conceive in what case we
should obey conscience ; for we ne ver can be more
sure of our duty than we at present are, although we
maybe sure on better grounds. The conviction, how
ever, is the same, and must therefore either bind, or
leave us at liberty in both cases.
Upon the whole, it appears that " God alone is Lord

* A rule that governs.

• .. I I 111.'. IIIU1 EUU.I f.O. . . .
\A rule that is governed; i.e. Conscience is not the
supreme law, but (in an upright nature) is subordinate to
the law, and regulated by it. X Acts *xv1' 9' " ' llm' '¦ 1J>

416

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines
and commandments of men which are in every thino-
contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith
and worship."* Such is the doctrine of our Confes
sion of Faith, and of sound reason; for nothing can
be sin or duty, with which alone conscience is con
cerned, but what is such in virtue of the law of the
moral Governor of the universe. It may be question
ed, whether the Confession is consistent with itself,
when it ascribes to the civil magistrate a power " to
call to account, and proceed against those who publish
opinions contrary to the known principles of Christian
ity,"! and "to take order that all blasphemies and
heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in
worship and discipline prevented cr reformed, and all
the ordinances of God be duly settled, administered,
and observed."! These passages would require an
ample commentary ; but, in the close of this lecture,
I have only time to remark, that a power is given to the
magistrate to restrain and punish not only crimes against
the peace of society, but opinions contrary to the truth,
that is, to what he conceives to be the truth. What then
can be plainer, than that he is constituted Lord of the
consciences of his subjects ? It belongs to him to tell
them what they should believe and profess. If it be
said that he is to exercise this power according to the
word of God, I answer, that it is according to the word
interpreted by himself and his advisers ; and conse
quently, their dogmas are the rule of our faith. If it
be said again, that he does not interfere with conscience
itself, but with our profession and practice, I answer,
in the first place, that he cannot interfere directly with
conscience itself, which, being an internal principle, is
beyond his reach, and we owe him no thanks for not
doing what is impossible; and, in the second place,
that, to interfere with our profession is to interfere
with conscience, because conscience calls us to avow
what we believe to be true, and to act conformably to
it; and this he will not allow. Such is a specimen
of the shuffling methods by which it has been attempt
ed to defend the Confession of Faith against the charge
of contradicting itself, and taking away with the one
hand what it has given with the other. I must add,
however, that while the Church of Scotland holds the
Confession, without explanation, the Church to which
we belong has cleared herself from this inconsistency,
by expunging from her creed every expression which
imports the power of using compulsory measures in
religion. We can honestly maintain, that God alone
is Lord of the conscience, while we hold thatourfaith,
and worship, and obedience, are to be regulated, not
by the decrees of councils, and the edicts of magis
trates, but by the supreme and infallible standard of
Scripture.

LECTURE LXXVIII.

ON CONSCIENCE ; PEACE OF CONSCIENCE :
SPIRITUAL JOY.

AND

Different States in which Conscience may Exist — Peace of
Conscience, distinguished from mere Security, founded on
Justification, and proportioned to the growth of SanctihY.a-
t;on  Spiritual Joy: its sources; means of securing it
My remarks upon conscience have extended farther
than I expected, and I am therefore under the necessi
ty of resuming the subject in this lecture, as there are
geveral thino-s not yet noticed, which are worthy of at
tention. Conscience is essentially the same in all
men • but, like our other faculties, it exists in different
states, and under a variety of modifications. I shall

¦Conf. chap. xx. {2. ! lb- § 4- { lb- chap, xxiii.

,3.

proceed to point out the distinctions which are com.
monly mentioned.
First, Conscience is distinguished into antp"ede.nt
and consequent. Antecedent conscience is this faculty
exercising its office in reference to actions to be per
formed, and pronouncing them to be lawful or unlaw
ful. . In this view, jt is called a light within us, a law
engraven on the heart, an impression made by the hand
of God. Consequent conscience is the faculty exer
cising its office in reference to actions when they are
past. It then pronounces them to be good or bad, worthy
of praise or of blame, of reward or of punishment.
In this view it is called an accuser, a witness, a judge.
The design of the two epithets is to specify the two
provinces assigned to conscience in the soul of man ;
namely, to warn him against sin, and excite him to his
duty ; and to approve of him or condemn him, accord
ing as he has regarded or disregarded its voice.
Secondly, Conscience is distinguished into enlight
ened or right, and erring, A right or enlightened con
science is properly instructed in the nature and extent
of our duty, and its judgments are_conformable to truth.
I need hardly remark, that the source of the light which
shines in it, is the Word of God. An erring conscience
is mistaken in its judgments, and calls good evil and
evil good. We have an example of an erring con
science in Paul before his conversion, who, " verily
thought," or whose conscience dictated to him, that
he should oppose the religion and persecute the dis
ciples of Jesus of Nazareth ; and an example also in
all the unbelieving Jews, who had "a zeal for God,
but not according to knowledge."* The errors of con
science arise frcm ignorance of Scripture, from misap
prehension of its meaning, from the adoption of human
opinions as the standard of conduct, and from the in
fluence of the appetites and passions, by which the
understanding is blinded and perverted. To this sub
ject the following words of our Saviour refer: "If tbe
light which is in thee be darkness, how great is that
darkness !"! The light which is in us, is conscience;
and if it be darkened by error, our condition is truly
pitiable, as we shall then wander into devious paths, and
at the same time proceed with the greatest confidence,
being fully persuaded that it is directing us aright.
In the third place, Conscience is distinguished into
firm or assured, and doubting. By the former, we un
derstand a conscience which has a clear perception of
duty, and is embarrassed with no difficulties respecting
tbe decision to which it ought to come. We have seen,
indeed, that an erring conscience may be fully assured,
and it often happens that men are never more confident
than when they are egregiously wrong; but we are
speaking at present of a conscience which proceeds
upon the footing of clear, unquestionable evidence.
There is no room for doubt, whether we should sanc
tify tbe Sabbath, obey our parents, pay our just debts,
and relieve the necessities of the poor. But occasions
occur when the mind has nothing to guide its decisions
but conjectures and probabilities; occasions, when the
equality of the reasons on both sides of a question
leaves it in a state of suspense; occasions, when the
arguments on one side preponderate, but some little
difficulty, to which greater importance is attached than
it deserves, hinders the mind from coming to a satis
factory conclusion. In all these cases, conscience is
subject to doubt, more or less strong, according to the
degree of the evidence for and against. And here I
may take notice of what is called a scrupulous con
science, or a conscience which is in constant perplexity,
making objections to every thing, startling at shadows,
suspecting evil in what is perfectly innocent, and never
able to decide whether what it does is lawful or un
lawful. It arises from weakness of intellect, from

* Acts xxvi. 9.

Rom. .

f Matth. vi 23.

CONSCIENCE.

417

melancholy of temperament, from gloomy ideas of re
ligion, from the spirit of superstition, from the preju
dices of education which have established an arbitrary
standard of morality, and from associating with the
timid and narrow-minded. It is a cause of torment to
the person himself, and a plague to those around him,
who are perpetually in danger of offending him, and
upon whose liberty he is incessantly endeavouring to
encroach. In the fourth place, Conscience may be distinguished
into timid and delicate. These terms are sometimes
confounded, but they convey different ideas. A timid
conscience is easily alarmed, acts with hesitation, and
is full of suspicions that there is something wrong in
our actions. It must therefore disquiet the bosom in
which it resides. A delicate, or tender conscience, is
not a troublesome inmate, but a vigilant guide amidst
the snares and dangers of life. It is feelingly alive to
the calls of duty, and recoils even from the appearance
of evil. It shrinks with instinctive sensibility from
the touch of pollution. It is like a polished surface,
on which the slightest breath is seen ; it is like the eye,
which is hurt by a mote, and makes an instantaneous
effort to eject it. Tenderness of conscience does not
resemble the soreness of a diseased part, but the nice
discrimination of those organs which are most amply
furnished with nerves. It is easily distinguishable
from a scrupulous conscience ; for they are real sins
by which the former is offended, whereas those which
the latter dreads are imaginary. This often strains at
a gnat, and swallows a camel ; but a tender conscience
holds sin in abhorrence, when it presents itself in its
most specious forms. Such was the conscience of the
Psalmist, when he hated every false and wicked way,
and esteemed God's precepts concerning all things to
be right.*
In the fifth place, Conscience may be distinguished
into awakened and hardened. When we speak of an
awakened conscience, the epithet supposes it to have
been previously asleep, and such is its state in a great
part of mankind. I do not mean that its powers are
absolutely dormant, for there are few who are not
occasionally at least admonished and reproved by it.;
but that in general it does not perform its office with
firmness and fidelity, but leaves the sinner in a great
measure ignorant of his own character. It is said to
be awakened, when it is roused, by the word of God
or tbe dispensations of Providence, to the faithful per
formance of its duty ; when it not only remonstrates
against our present sins, but recals the past to remem
brance ; when it accuses and condemns the guilty
man, and anticipates the ratification of its sentences
at the tribunal of God. A hardened conscience is
without feeling. It has lost its power through a long
course of transgression, so that it opposes no obstacle
to the sinner, gives no warning, denounces no threat
ening, but permits him to do as he pleases. The mind
is so blinded, that it does not perceive the difference
between good and evil, or the heart is so callous, that
the perception makes no impression upon it. In this
state conscience is sometimes said to be cauterized,
from tfie Greek word xtvT«pt*£,tt, which signifies, to
brand or burn with a hot iron. It is used in the first
Epistle to Timothy, and is translated " seared with a
hot iron,"! the metaphor being founded upon the effect
of hot iron, in rendering the part of the body insensi
ble to which it has been applied. Some, however,
understand it to mean that the consciences of the per
sons spoken of are spotted or marked with sin, as
if they had been branded. Be this as it may, the idea
commonly suggested by a seared conscience is, that it
has lost all feeling.
In the last place, not to multiply particulars, Con-

*Ps. cxix. 128
3C

fl Tim. iv. 2.

27

science may be distinguished into good and bad. The
first has been defined to be a conscience, the judgments
of which are conformable to the standard of duty, and
which approves of our conduct. The epithet, how
ever, is sometimes used, not to express the con
formity of its judgments to the standard, but simply
its approbation. In this sense, although a man should
be in an error, he has a good conscience when he has
acted according to his ideas of duty. It is probable
that Paul affixed this meaning to the term, when he
said to the Jewish Council, " Men and brethren, I
have lived in all good conscience before God until this
day,"* for his words seem to refer to his whole past
life ; and in that part of it which preceded bis con
version, he could be said to have had a good con
science, only because he was then sincere, and faith
fully obeyed its dictates, however erroneous. By a
bad conscience is sometimes meant a conscience which
judges falsely, pronouncing sin to be duty and duty to
be sin, and which consequently absolves when it
should condemn, and condemns when it should ab
solve. But at present a bad conscience signifies an
accusing conscience, and it is called bad, not because
its judgments are erroneous, but because it torments
the sinner, and inflicts upon him the agonies of re
morse. Such a conscience disquiets a man in the
midst of profound external peace ; it makes him trem
ble when there is no visible danger ; it covers him
with shame by his own reflections, although to all
around him his- guilt is unknown. A look, which
perhaps means nothing, but which he interprets as
significant, quells his confidence ; he is discomposed
by an accidental word, which seems to glance at his
secret crimes. Conscience has made many cowards.
I now proceed to speak of peace of conscience. I be-.
gin with observing, that there is a state of mind which
resembles it, but ought not to be confounded with
it, because it is totally different in its nature and its
consequences. I mean a state of security, which ex
cludes fear and disquietude, and may therefore be
called peace, but differs from the peace which I am
about to consider, as it rests upon no solid foundation,
and is the effect, not of religion, but of confirmed
habits of sin, and misconceptions of the character of
God. In some cases it is the effect of atheistical principles,
or of principles which are equivalent to atheism. If a
man has persuaded himself that there is no God, or that
the Being whom we call God pays no regard to the ac
tions of his creatures ; that the soul is mortal as well
as the body ; and that there is no state of retribution
beyond the grave ; it is easy to see that this man will
be exempt from the apprehensions which agitate other
men, and will enjoy a kind of peace very different
from the peace of religion.
Another cause of security is the power of sin, by
which the voice of conscience has been silenced, and
the mind fixed solely upon the business and the plea
sures of the world, so that other subjects engage no
share of its attention. The law of God and the future
state, death and judgment, are entirely forgotten; or,
if they should accidentally occur to the mind, they pro
duce no effect, or an effect so slight, that it is instantly
obliterated. Sometimes security is the consequence of false ideas
of the mercy of God ; of a persuasion that he is so
merciful, that he will not animadvert upon the failings
of his creatures, and that, if they only pray to him
now and then to forgive them, they shall undoubtedly
be pardoned.
At other times, security arises from a false estimate
of their own character; and this may take place in
two different ways. Men may imagine that they have
* Acts xxiii. 1.

413

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

fulfilled the demands of the law perfectly, or at least i
» such an extent as is necessary to their acceptance
with Uod. Many a self-righteous man has lived and
am without fear, in the flattering thought that he
AM made peace with his Maker by his obedience. Of
«iw description was the Pharisee in the parable, who
Thanked God that he was not like other men."
Again, men who profess to believe that we cannot be
justified by works, may be secure, through the ground
less persuasion that they are possessed of the faith by
which an interest is obtained in the righteousness and
salvation of Christ, They have faith, but it is dead
while they suppose it to be living. Hence they con
clude that they are in favour with God, and have
nothing to fear from tbe dreadful threatenings de
nounced against sinners.
From these causes, a great part of mankind pass
their time in complete apathy, or experience only oc
casional misgivings of mind.
Is there no such thing as true peace of conscience?
Yes ; it a precious blessing which God bestows upon
his people, and which flows from the privileges for
merly considered. There is a peace which Jesus
Christ has bequeathed as an invaluable legacy to his
disciples ; there is a peace with which the God of
peace " fills them in believing ;"* there is a peace
which " passes all understanding, and keeps their
minds and hearts through Jesus Christ ;"] there is a
peace which the world can neither give ncr take away.
It consists in an assurance that God is no longer angry
with them ; that he will not reckon with them for their
sins ; that he has freely pardoned them ; tbat be has
received them into favour ; that he will protect and
bless them, and give them eternal rest in the world to
come. None can estimate the value of this blessing
but those who enjoy it. It is a continual feast ; it is
the joy and sunshine of the soul. Although we could
claim the whole world as our heritage ; although its
crowns of glory were ours, and its delights crowded
around to minister to our wishes, without this peace
we should be miserable; but it is tbe solace of the
soul, amidst the external evils which are so much
dreaded, poverty, affliction, persecution, and contempt.
To bim who enjoys this privilege, we may justly ap
ply the vain boast of the poet concerning his just man,
that the rage of the multitude, the threatenings of
tyrants, the commotions of the elements, the fall of
the world itself, could not dismay him. Impamdum
ferient ruinae.t With an approving conscience, and
God as his friend, what has he to fear?
Peace of conscience is founded upon peace with
God. Now, peace with God is inseparably connected
with the blessings of justification and adoption, which,
in "me point of view, may be considered as the same
privilege under different aspects. As we are naturally
enemies to God, so he is an enemy to us, for "he is
angry with the wicked every day." A reconciliation,
therefore, is necessary, and it has been effected by the
atonement of Christ. When the pardon of sin, and
restoration to the Divine favour, which are offered in
the Gospel, are humbly and thankfully received by
tbe sinner; when he draws near to God through Jesus
Christ, confessing his guilt and unworthiness. and im
ploring his mercy; the reconciliation of which tbe
foundation was laid by the blood of the cross, is com
pleted. God enters into covenant with the sinner, and
assures him that " he will be no more wroth with bim,
nor rebuke him." „ . , , . ,.
When this important fact is known to the believer,
peace of mind ensues. Who shall lay any thing to
his charo-e ? Justice is appeased ; the demands of tbe
law are^satisfied ; God has forgiven him, and con-
. Rom xv. 13. , tPML ^ 7- . .
fHorU. Carro. iii. 3. Fearless, in universal rum.

science has therefore no accusation to bring. The
memory of his past sins is not obliterated, and when
he thinks of them, he is overwhelmed with shame and
sorrow ; but the reflection does not alarm him. He
has nothing to fear. Conscience summoned him to
the tribunal of the Sovereign Judge; but there he was
acquitted, and it is henceforth silent. The Deliever
obtains this peace by the contemplation of the mercy
of God, of the all-sufficient merit and prevalent inter
cession of Christ, and of the promises confirmed with
an oath ; in all which, he sees an inviolable security
that he shall not " come into condemnation." He ob
tains it by the assistance of the Spirit, " bearing wit
ness with his spirit that he is a son of God," forming
in him the characters by which the members of the
heavenly family are distinguished.
This leads me to remark, that peace of conscience is
also connected with the privilege of sanctification.
Although God has fully pardoned believers, and will
never cast them off, yet he sometimes suspends the
sense of his favour, for the chastisement of their sins.
In such cases they are disquieted and distressed, as
we learn from the history of the saints, David and
Asaph, and Heman, who says, "While I suffer thy
terrors, I am distracted."* Their guilt, which was
cancelled, presents itself again ; and, having lost for
a time an assurance of the love of God, they expe
rience tbeir former fears. Hence, it appears that their
peace will bear a proportion to their diligence and suc
cess in the cultivation of holiness. I do not mean that
any of their good works are so perfeet that con
science will find nothing to accuse ; but that the more
believers abound in them, the evidence will be clearer
of the sincerity of their faith, and God will testify his
approbation of them by manifestations of his love.
This is obviously imported in the following exhorta
tion : " Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one
mind, live in peace ; and the God of love and peace
shall be with you."! The apostle John teaches the
same doctrine in several passages of his first Epistle,
and particularly in the following words: " My little
children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue,
but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that
we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before
him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater
than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if
our heart condemn us not," — that is, if it bear testi
mony to the sincerity of our love and obedience, —
" then have we confidence toward God."! Pau^
points out the connexion between holiness and peace
of mind, when he says, " Our rejoicing is this, the
testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and
godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the
orace of God, we have had our conversation in the
world."|| Peace of conscience flows from peace with God. It
is maintained by faith in Christ, whose blood will
cleanse us from our daily sins, and by a careful study
to please God in doing his will. " Great peace have
they that love thy law, and nothing shall offend them."§
This is the reward which God bestows at present upon
the righteous. They find that there is profit in serving
him. The heavenly calm within is a more precious
recompense than outward prosperity, which smiles de
ceitfully, and is often followed by a storm. " The
work of righteousness shall be peace ; and the effect
of righteousness, quietness and assurance forever."1[
From what has been now said, it appears that reli
gion is not that gloomy anxious service which it is
frequently conceived to be. If it imposes restraints
and demands sacrifices, it compensates these by the
happy state of mind which it excites. In order more

* Ps. Ixxxviii. IS. f2Cor.xiii.il. J: 1 John iii. 18— 21-
|| 2 Cor i. 12. {"s. cxix. 165. T Is- xxxu. 17.

SPIRITUAL JOY.

419

fully to illustrate this point, I proceed to speak of
spiritual joy, which is another native consequence of
the privileges which have been considered. The Scrip
tures make frequent mention of it; and it is represent
ed as distinct from peace, although closely connected
with it. Being justified by faith, we have peaee with
God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. And not only
so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom we have received the atonement,"
or reconciliation.*
Joy is that delighted, elevated state of mind, which
arises from the possession of present, and the antici
pation of future good. Both these causes contribute
to the joy of Christians.
First, They have an interest in Christ, to whom
tbey are united by faith, as the branches are united to
the vine, and the members of the body to the head.
He is the source of their privileges and hopes, and
hence they are sometimes represented as rejoicing in
him alone. "Whom having not seen, ye love, and in
whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye
rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory."!
The state into which they have been admitted by di
vine grace, is safe and honourable, for they are justified
by the sentence of the Supreme Judge, and sanctified
by the Spirit of holiqess ; but they are men compassed
with infirmities, carrying about with them tbe remains
of depravity, often falling into sin, and chargeable
with defects in all their duties. It seems impossible,
therefore, that their minds should be tranquil and
cheerful, because conscience, which in them is faith
ful and tender, must cause disquiet by its accusa
tions and remonstrances. And certainly their peace
would be liable to perpetual disturbance, and their joy
would soon give place to sorrow, if its continuance
depended upon themselves. It is their connexion with
Jesus Christ, which realizes what might otherwise be
pronounced to be impracticable, and accounts for what
at first view appears utterly incredible, — that they who
are daily offending may yet daily rejoice. The view
of his atonement, as we formerly remarked, brings re
lief to their minds, and for the sake of their Redeemer,
God continues to behold them with a pleasant counte
nance. No interruption takes place of the friendly in
tercourse between him and them; and it is maintained
with ineffable kindness on his part, and with the high
est delight upon theirs. When they sin, their Advo
cate appears for them before the throne of heaven, and
pleading his own merits in their behalf, preserves the
reconciliation unbroken. Looking to themselves, they
find innumerable causes of fear and despondency; but
looking to him, they perceive solid grounds of confi
dence and joy. " If we walk in the light, as he is in
the light, we have fellowship one with another, and
the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from
all sin."!
Secondly, Another source of the joy of believers is
the relation in which God stands to them. Upon bis
favour the happiness of intelligent creatures obviously
depends. God is the most glorious Being in the uni
verse, in whom every possible perfection resides, all
that is great and fair is assembled. The contempla
tion of his character, therefore, as exhibited in the
Gospel, in which condescension is associated with
majesty, grace to the unworthy with unspotted purity
Bnd inflexible justice ; — the contemplation of a charac
ter so amiable and so august, which displays the har
mony of qualities which seemed to be forever opposed,
looking with a benignant, aspect upon man, is calcu-
.ated to awaken high emotions of admiration and de
light. Accordingly, we find the saints earnestly re
questing a manifestation of it, in preference to all the
splendid shows and bewitching pleasures of the world.

*Rom. ,. 11. tlPet-'-8-

t.1 John i 7.

" One thing have I desired of tbe Lord, that will I
seek after, That. I may dwell in the house of the Lord
all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the
Lord, and to inquire in his temple."* How transport
ing the thought to believers, that this glorious Being
is their own by a peculiar and intimate relation ; is not
only the object of their worship and love, but tbe in
exhaustible and everlasting source of their felicity !
" The Lord is my portion, saith my soul, therefore
will I hope in him."! There they possess all that
their hearts can desire, and more than tongue can ex
press. " They are satisfied as with marrow and fat
ness, and their mouths praise bim with joyful lips."!
There is no good thing which they may despair of ob
taining ; for the riches of his goodness are pledged t
supply their wants, and the fulness of heaven itself
is but a part of what he is able to bestow. Are they
in solitude, forsaken by the world and by their friends ?
God is always near, to cheer their lonely hours with
sweeter enjoyments than those of friendship and love.
Do the afflictions of the present life come upon them ?
While they are assured that these shall not separate
them from his love, they can trace the footsteps of
their Father in the darkness and the tempest, and dis
cern wisdom and goodness in apparent disorder and
severity ; they kiss the rod which is wielded by bis
gracious hand, and welcome the stripes which pro
mote the health of their souls. As soon as a man can
look upon the God of salvation as his own, and this is
the privilege of those who have been admitted into a
state of grace — the scenery around assumes a new as
pect, and displays charms which never before met the
eye. He beholds everywhere objects of pleasing ad
miration, and causes of heart-melting gratitude. Na
ture shines with the glory of its Maker. Mercies ac
quire a sweeter relish; afflictions lose half their bit
terness; life rises in value, as the gift of love for pur
poses of infinite importance ; death is divested of its
terrors ; the present is the seed-time of grace, and the
future is the harvest of glory. In short, he enjoys
God in every thing, and every thing in God.
A third source of joy to believers, who have been
reconciled to God by the death of his Son, is the in
habitation of the Spirit of grace. I must not stop to
prove that the Holy Ghost dwells in their souls, but
shall assume a truth acknowledged by all who are
worthy to be called Christians, and illustrated in the
preceding part of this Course, when we were treating
of regeneration, and sanctification. It is of impor
tance to consider the character in which he is present
with believers, or the office which he is appointed
to perform. As a Divine Person, he inhabits the tem
ple of the universe, and heaven and earth are sustained,
and beautified, and enlivened by his influence; but he
selects the souls of believers as the scene of his gra
cious operations. There he is present as the Spirit Of
truth and consolation ; and it is his office to diffuse the
cheering and tranquilizing light of heaven ; to shed a
divine serenity over the thoughts and feelings ; to in
spire and strengthen good principles ; to elevate the
affections above secular objects; to give a taste of the
sweetness of spiritual things; to awaken hope, with
all its blissful anticipations. To what can he be so
fitly compared, as " to a well of living water, spring
ing up to everlasting life?"|| It is our Saviour's own
similitude, and is alike worthy of notice for its ex
pressiveness and its beauty. Like a fountain which
is in perpetual motion, and pours out its stream in
summer and in winter, he exerts his gracious power
in youth, in manhood, and in old age, to promote the
growth of grace, and to give them a foretaste of celes
tial bliss. The joy of the Christian is therefore not
only pure, but permanent. No man can take it from
* Ps. xxvii. 4. f Lam. iii. 24. t p»- lxnl- 5- II John iv- 14-

420

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

him. He is satisfied from himself; not from his own
virtue and the resources of his own mind, as the old
Philosophers were wont vainly and presumptuously to
poast ; but from the communications of this Divine
inmate in his bosom, whose presence is life, and whose
tavour is the sunshine of the soul. Omnia mea mecum
porta,* said one of the self-sufficient wise men of an
tiquity; but it was a poor stock, and he must have
starved upon it without the assistance of pride. The
Christian who has the Holy Ghost dwelling in his
heart, can say with truth that he "carries all his
treasures with him ;" for whithersoever he goes, and
in whatever situation he is placed, his joy remains,
and is fulL " The kingdom of God is not meat and
drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the
Holy Ghost."!
In connexion with this particular, I may mention,
in the fourth place, the doctrines and promises of the
word of God, as a source of spiritual joy ; for although
the operations of the Spirit are distinct from these,
they are always carried on in concurrence with them.
It is by his application of them to their hearts tha't
Christians are filled with joy and peace in believing.
It is from the word of God that they learn the nature
and extent of the privileges which the mediation of
Christ has procured for them, and the securities that
they shall hold them in perpetual succession. Hence
we can account for the high value which they set upon
it, the interest with which they peruse its contents,
and the inexpressible satisfaction which, according to
their own testimony, it imparts to their minds. " More
to-be desired are thy testimonies than gold, yea than
much fine gold ; sweeter also than honey, and the
honey-comb."! Let us attend to its influence in com
municating joy to them in the season of affliction.
Pain is as uneasy to them as to other men ; they feel
disappointments as severely and are equally apt to
despond and to sink under the burden of calamity.
On such occasions the efficacy of the word of God is
experienced. It enables believers to adopt that con
soling train of reasoning which Paul pursues, in the
eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and to
infer from the death, resurrection, and intercession of
Christ, not only their present justification before God,
but their uninterrupted interest in his love. "Who
shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribu
lation, or distress, or famine, or persecution, or naked
ness, or peril, or sword ? Nay, in all these things, we
are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor
angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things pre
sent, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor
any other creature, shall be able to separate us from
the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."||
Thus the word of God illuminates the darkest events ;
and faith, relying upon its assurances, keeps alive hope
in circumstances which seem to justify despair, and
turns the complaints and waitings of nature into songs
of salvation. The people of God can rejoice in tribu
lation, because they know that it is sent with a benev
olent design, and that it will terminate in their present
and eternal good. With the staff of the promises in
their hands, they fear no evil when they are pursuing
tbeir lonely journey in the valley and shadow of death.
Providence sometimes speaks the language of wrath ;
but the word always speaks the language of love.
Providence is sometimes like the stormy sky, in which
neither sun nor star appears for many days ; but the
word is like the serene atmosphere of summer, illumi
nated by the solar rays, and showing on all sides
Lreeabfe objects. Hence it has been "the song of the
Mints in the house of their pilgrimage;" and we have

their testimony, that " unless it had quickened them,
they should have perished in their affliction."
The last source of spiritual joy which I shall men
tion, is hope, the influence of which we have all ex
perienced. It exerts a sort of magic power, by which
distant objects are brought neaT, and the future is made
present, and we enjoy beforehand the good of which
we cannot immediately obtain the actual possession.
He whose bosom is animated by hope, is transported
from the scene around him, to another fairer and more
blissful; and, tasting its delights by anticipation, he
is sometimes raised above the painful sense of his
actual circumstances. If such is its effect when it is
only an illusion of fancy, and at best its objects are
confined to this diurnal sphere, what must be its power
when it brings to bear upon the heart the surpassing
glories of the world to come ! The hope of the Chris
tian conducts him by its light beyond the boundaries
of time, and fixes his views and desires upon the real
ities of eternity. When his eye is steadily directed
to heaven, and catches a.glimpse of its scenes, of the
magnificence of which no terrestrial splendour can fur
nish even a faint image, how light must the evils of
life appear, and how diminutive its pleasures ! We
do not wonder to hear that believers rejoice, when it
is added, " that they rejoice in hope of the glory of
God ;" a hope sufficient to warm the coldest heart, and
to elevate the most depressed. This hope is founded
on the righteousness of Christ, which was imputed to
them when they believed. It is cherished by the Spirit
of adoption, sent forth into their hearts as the earnest
of the future inheritance; and it is strengthened by
their progress in holiness, from which it appears that
they are destined to possess that inheritance, and are
now in a train of preparation for it. And hence we
see to what cause it is owing that they are reconciled
to a very hard lot in this world, and are content and
happy in circumstances which would overwhelm others
with dejection. Their minds are busy in making com
parisons, not between their own condition and that of
others who are more prosperous, — for such compari
sons are the food and the fuel of discontent, — but be
tween their present and their future state, between
what they now suffer and what they shall hereafter
enjoy. Thus the Christian is elevated in a great
measure above the influence of temporal things. They
affect him but little when his faith and hope are strong.
If they are disagreeable, they are of short duration;
and his prospects are so consoling and interesting,
that he has neither leisure nor inclination to give him
self much concern about his temporary accommoda
tion. He who is hastening to take possession of a
kingdom, will not be made unhappy by being uncom
fortably lodged for a single night on the road. "I
reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not
worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be
revealed in us."*
Such are the sources of the joy of believers in
Christ. We see on what grounds the Scripture pro
nounces them to be blessed, and can enter into the
spirit of the song of praise and thanksgiving which is
sung by the church : " In that day thou shalt say, 0
Lord, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry
with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou com-
fortedst me. Behold, God is my salvation : I will
trust and not be afraid ; for the Lord Jehovah is my
strength and my song ; he also is become my salva
tion. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out ot
the wells of salvation."! .
Let not the doctrine concerning the joy which flows
from faith be misunderstood. It is not meant to as
sert, that those who have been justified, and adopted
into the family of God, always feel transports and

* I carry
4 Ps. xix.

all my treasures with me.
10. || Rom. vin. 35—39.

f Rom. xiv. 17.

* Rom. viii. 18.

! Isa. xii. 1—3.

PERSEVERANCE.

421

testacies. No such thing is implied, even in the ex
hortation to " rejoice ever more ;"* nor would a state
of perpetual rapture be consistent with their present
condition, and their business in this world. If, in
some happy moments, they are elevated to the mount
of God, and, holding fellowship with him, lose the
remembrance of sublunary things, they must again
descend into the plain, and walk with men in the
ordinary duties of life. For these, I think, they would
be disqualified, were their minds powerfully affected
at all times by bright visions of the glory of God and
of heaven, and by such an overpowering sense of his
love as the saints have sometimes experienced. The
lively foretaste of future felicity is only occasional ;
and, in tbe usual train of life, they can expect nothing
more than that tranquillity of mind, that placid frame,
that calm cheerfulness and sober joy, which flow from
the faith and hope of the Gospel. These may be com
pared to their daily food ; but tbe former are delica
cies and cordials, by which their exhausted strength
is restored, and the injuries which sorrow has inflicted
are repaired.
Still less should it be supposed, that Christians ex
perience joy without interruption, because the sources
of it are unfailing. Their state is always safe, but
their feelings are not always comfortable. It is cer
tain, however, that, if their joy suffers interruptions,
and they live in fear, perplexity, and dejection, the
fault is their own. They must co-operate with God,
both by avoiding whatever would counteract his gra
cious designs, and by a diligent use of the means ap
pointed to give them effect.
They must live by faith, for their peace and joy will
be in proportion to it. A man would not be delighted
by the most beautiful objects in nature which he did
not see, nor relieved from the apprehension of want by
great riches which he did not know himself to pos
sess : "Faith is the substance of things hoped for,
the evidence of things not seen." When Paul tri
umphed in affliction, it was through faith : "lam per
suaded that nothing shall separate us from the love of
God."! When Asaph was dejected, unbelief was the
cause : " I said, this is mine infirmity."!
They must beware of " forsaking the fountain of
living waters, and hewing out to themselves broken
cisterns which can hold no water." In other words,
tbey must beware of setting their affections upon any
other than God, and of seeking happiness from any
inferior source. It is their folly in doing so which is
the cause of all their disquietudes. If we hold up a
dark body between us and the sun, must we not be in
the shade ? How can they rejoice who, with their
own hands, shut out joy from their souls? If we wish
God to remain in his temple, and to fill it with his
glory, we must not permit any rival to usurp his place,
nor ereet an altar for unhallowed sacrifices. When
sin in any form is indulged, the most fatal conse
quences ensue ; as we learn from the earnest prayer
of David, after God had been provoked to withdraw
a sense of his love, and was testifying his displeasure
against him: " Make me to hear joy and gladness,
that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy
Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of
thy salvation, and uphold me with thy free Spirit."||
Once more, They must be diligent, zealous, and con
stant in obedience, for thus the soul is maintained in
a healthy vigorous state, and is capable of receiving
and relishing spiritual joy ; whereas by remissness, it
becomes relaxed and languid. It is not to be expected
that God will smile upon his disobedient children ;
but, to the dutiful, he will give unequivocal proofs of
*1 Thes. v, 16. j-Rom. viii. 38. fPs. Ixxvii. 10.
|1 Ps. li. 8, 11, 12

his approbation: "Thou meetest bim that rejoiceth
and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee
in thy ways."* Christians have always found, that
when they walked with God in the exercise of faith,
and the practical study of holiness, they were visited
with the light of his countenance ; but that darkness
and distress were the never-failing consequences of
the omission and careless performance of their duty.
Such are the methods by which Christians will se
cure to themselves the happiness which God has pro
vided for them : " If they do these things, they shall
never fall. "I Life will flow on in the pure tranquil
pleasures of religion ; and their death will come to
fill up the measure of their bliss in the heavenly world,
where there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor
crying, nor any more pain, because the former things
shall have passed away.

LECTURE LXXIX.
ON THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
Different opinions respecting the Perseverance of the Saints.—
Their total or final fall impossible. — Their perseverance in
ferred from the Immutable Decree and the Covenant of God,
trie Mediation^ of Christ, and the Indwelling and Offices of
the S pi rit. — Examination of the Passages of Scripture alleged
against this Doctrine.
We have seen, that sinners are brought into a state
of favour with God through faith in Jesus Christ ;
and that the Holy Spirit is given to them, by whom
they are sanctified, that they may serve God in this
world, and may be qualified for being admitted into
his immediate presence- in the next. The happiness
which they enjoy in consequence of these privileges
is great. At peace with their Maker, they have peace
in their own minds, and look forward to the future
state with the anticipations of hope. There is only
one thing wanting to complete their happiness, so far
as it can be perfect in the present life ; and that is,
the certain knowledge that their present state is stable
and immutible. And that those anticipations will be
realized. If their interest in the salvation of Christ
is secured beyond the possibility of change, they may,
with the Apostle, triumphantly bid defiance to all the
powers of earth and hell ; if, however, they may fall
from a state of grace, there is not only a call for vigi
lance, but ground of anxiety, and their prospect will
often be darkened by fearful forebodings. The question,
therefore, respecting the perseverance of the saints,
is not a mere speculation, but is intimately connected
with their peace and consolation ; and, according as it
is decided, will have a powerful influence in rendering
their religion cheerful or gloomy.
Upon this subject, professed Christians are divided in
sentiment, as indeed they are upon almost every article
of faith. The doctrine of our Church, in which, I be
lieve, all the Reformed Churches concurred, is express
ed in the following words : " They whom God hath ac
cepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified
by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away
from the state of grace ; but shall certainly persevere
therein to the end, and be eternally saved."! The
Church of England, which has a Calvinistic creed, al
though, as the great Lord Chatham said, her liturgy is
Popish, and her clergy, many of them at least, are Ar-
minian, teaches us the same doctrine in the seventeenth
article: "They which be endued with so excellent a
benefit of God," namely election, " be called according
to God's purpose, by his spirit working in due season ;
they through grace obey the calling; they be justified
freely ; they be made sons of God by adoption ; they

* Is. lxiv. 5. f2 Pet. i. 10. { Conf- chaP- xvii. {i.

422

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

be made like the image ofhis only-begotten Son Jesus
Christ; they walk religiously in good works, and at
length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting
felicity." 6
It is well known to you all, I presume, that the fol
lowers of Arminius maintained a very different doc
trine, and that this is one of the articles by which
their creed is distinguished from that of the followers
of Calvin. Their sentiments are thus expressed by
themselves: "True believers may apostatize from the
true faith, and fall into such sins as are inconsistent
with true and justifying faith ; nay, it is not only pos
sible for them to do so, but it frequently comes to pass.
True believers may by their own fault become guilty
of great and abominable crimes, and may continue
and die in the same, and consequently may finally fall
into perdition."* After -this authoritative statement,
it may be deemed superfluous to subjoin the senti
ments of an individual, but I shall quote the words of
Limborch, their celebrated Professor of Theology :
" We maintain that, notwithstanding divine grace, by
which a believer may persevere in faith, there remains
in man a power of falling away, -and, therefore, that
a believer may totally lose his faith and regeneration,
and may continue in apostasy to the end of his life,
and so eternally perish."! The Remonstrants are
supported in this article of their creed by Papists, for
the Council of Trent has decreed that " if any person
shall say that a man who has been justified, cannot
lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins
was never truly justified, he shall be accursed."!
It is granted that believers, under the influence of
temptation, may commit great sins, which are highly
offensive to men and provoking to God. We have
two remarkable examples in Scripture. The first is
David, who seduced the wife of his neighbour, and
then devised the murder of her husband. The atrocity
of both actions is manifest; but the latter implied
deeper guilt on several accounts, and particularly be
cause it was the result of deliberation and contrivance ;
and being posterior to the other, it showed that he
continued for a considerable time in a state of mora)
insensibility. The second is Peter, who denied his
Lord, and whose crime was aggravated, because it was
committed although he had been forewarned ; because
it was repeated a second and a third time; and be
cause it was accompanied with oaths and impreca
tions, in themselves profane, and which changed his
false affirmation into perjury. There is no doubt, that
other saints have been guilty of the same sins, or of
others equally heinous. It is not to be supposed, in
deed, that such cases are of frequent occurrence, be
cause then there would be no visible difference be
tween those who have, and those who want the grace
of God. There would then be no answer to the prayer
of our Saviour for the former, that his Father would
keep them from the evil of the world ; and to their
own prayer, that he would keep them back from pre
sumptuous sins, and not suffer them to have dominion
over them. Believers, living by faith in the Son of
God from whom their strength is derived, and dili
gently using the appointed means, are enabled to
walk in holiness and righteousness, and to be blame
less, and harmless, and without rebuke. But as such
cases do sometimes occur, the adversaries of the doc
trine of perseverance eagerly lay hold of them as an
argument against it. How could those persons, con
tinuing saints, have acted such a part ? Where was
their faith, when they denied the Lord that bought
them? Where was their love to God, when in the
most daring manner they trampled on his law ? Con-

' * Confession of Remonstrants, as quoteJ in Brandt's History
of the Reformation in the Low Countries, vol. m. p. 89.
+ Limborch, Tbeol. Lib. v. cap. Ixxx.
' | Decret. De Justificatione. calion xxm.

cerning these two examples, I would remark, before I
proceed to the general argument, that, strong as they
seem, they are by no means conclusive against the
doctrine which I mean to establish. Great as appears
to have been the insensibility of David till he was
awakened by the reproof of Nathan, we cannot con
sider him as having totally lost all religious principle.
The seed was in the ground although ii gave no signs
of vegetation. This may be inferred from his prayer:
" Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not
thy Holy Spirit from me ;'"* in which it is implied,
that the Spirit had not utterly withdrawn from bim,
although it was a punishment which he deserved and
earnestly deprecated. The same remark may be made
upon Peter; in whom we are assured by the prayer ot
our Saviour for him, that faith remained even at the
time when he had renounced it in words. " Simon,
Simon, Satan hath desired to have you, that he micht
sift you as wheat ; but I have prayed for thee, that thy
faith fail not."! Observe the particularity of this
prayer. All the disciples were to be exposed to tempta
tion, and no doubt our Lord interceded for them all;
but he speaks of Peter alone, because he was to fall
more foully than his brethren ; and if the prayer was
answered, his faith did not utterly, fail.
We assert, then, that true believers cannot fall to
tally or finally from grace. It may seem that the
use of both these words is unnecessary, because if
they cannot fall totally, it follows that they cannot fall
finally ; but they are intended to oppose the doctrine of
Arminians, who affirm, that although a saint may fall
totally from grace, he may be restored by repentance ;
but tbat since this is uncertain, and does not always
take place, he may also fall finally, and die in his sins.
Now, we affirm, that the total apostasy of believers,
is impossible, not in the nature of things, but by the
divine constitution ; and consequently, that no man
who has been once received into the divine favour
can be ultimately deprived of salvation.
The doctrine of our church respecting the perseve
rance of the saints, is supported by a variety of argu
ments. First, it is proved from the decree of God concerning
them, which was formerly shewn to be immutable. They
were predestinated to life, and shall infallibly obtain it,
if the purposes of God are not changeable like those of
men, and liable to be frustrated by opposition which he
did not foresee and could not prevent. But the counsel
of the Lord shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure.
" He worketh all things according to the counsel of
his will ;" and the design of the economy of provi
dence and grace is to carry his purposes into effect.
Accordingly, the Scriptures exhibit a chain of events
stretching from eternity to eternity, not one of the
links of which can he broken. " Moreover, whom he
did predestinate, them he also called ; and whom he
called, them he also justified ; and whom he justified,
them he also glorified."! Predestination and eternal
glory are connected by the intermediate links of voca
tion and justification ; each follows the other in regu
lar succession ; the second is as certain as the first,
the third as the second, and the fourth as the third ;
they are all expressed in the past time, probably to
signify that, although the last is future, it is as certain
as if it had already taken place. Those who deny the
perseverance of the saints break this chain, and affiim
that the decree of predestination may prove abortive,
that our calling may be made void, and that the sen
tence of pardon pronounced upon a believer may be
revoked. But how contrary is this doctrine to the
general tenor of Scripture, which proclaims the semi'
rity of believers, and calls upon them to rejoice in
hope of the glory of God ! How contrary to these

*Ps. li. 11.

f Luke xxii. 31.

} Rom. viii. 30.

PERSEVERANCE.

423

words of our Lord ! " There shall arise false Christs,
and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and
wonders ; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall
deceive the very elect."* To say that the words, " if
it were possible," imply only the great difficulty of the
thing, because the same phrase is used in some cases
when an absolute impossibility cannot be understood,
is to wrest them from their natural meaning to serve a
particular purpose. Our Saviour foretells a time of
trial in which none should escape except the elect ; but
this interpretation makes him say that many should be
seduced, and perhaps the elecf too, but with greater
difficulty. And for what purpose did he say so? It
was not surely to encourage his disciples, for this view
of the matter would give them no consolation, as the
difficulty might be overcome, and they also might apos
tatize. And how does this comment agree with his
own words in a preceding verse ? " Except those days
should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved ;
but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened ;"
or with his words in the parallel passage in Luke,
' " But there shall not a hair of your head perish."!
Why all this care of the elect, expressed by shorten
ing the days, if still they might be deceived ? And
why so solemnly assure them of their preservation
from bodily harm, if still they were in danger of losing
their souls ? Taking all the passages -together, we
confidently conclude, that the words under considera
tion import not merely a difficulty, but an absolute im
possibility. And whence this impossibility arose, we
are informed by another sacred writer, who tells us
that the saints " are kept by the power of God through
faith unto salvation."!
The next argument is taken from the nature of the
covenant which God has made with his people. It is
not transitory, like the first covenant, but is everlast
ing; and hence its blessings are promised, not for a
time, but forever.- — " And I will make an everlasting
covenant with them, that I will not turn away from
them, to do them good ; but I will put my fear in their
hearts, that they shall not depart from me."|| There
are two engagements in this single promise, both
which God has pledged himself to fulfil. He prom
ises not to turn away from his people to do them good ;
and he promises to put his fear in their hearts, that
they may not depart from him. The second engage
ment is necessary to the fulfilment of the first. Were
they to depart from God, to break off all connexion
with him, and to return to the service of Satan, he
could not continue to do them good, consistently with
the holiness of his character ; but he will preserve
them in such a state that he may bold fellowship with
them, without any impeachment of his honour. Let
it not, in defiance of the promise itself, which makes
no mention of any condition, be said that the promise
is conditional ; and that it is only understood that God
will continue to be gracious to them, if they continue
to fear him, which, however, they may cease to do.
It is true, indeed, that they are fallible and changeable ;
but the danger to be apprehended from this quarter is
effectually guarded against; for, in the new covenant,
the perseverance of the saints is secured by the pro
vision of the means. God has pledged himself to put
his fear in their hearts, or to grant to them such com
munications of his grace as shall preserve them from
falling away. To the same purport are the following
words of our Saviour : " My Father, which gave them
me, is greater than all, and none is able to pluck
them out of my Father's hand."§ We shall more
fully understand the import of these words, if we com
pare them with the preceding verse : " I give unto
them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither

» Matth. xxiv. 24.
} 1 Pet. i. 5.

t Matth. xxiv. 25
|| Jer. xxxii. 40.

Luke xxi. 18.
{ John x. 29.

shall any pluck them out of my band." Both taken
together, contain a solemn assurance that the sheep of
Christ, or those who hear his voice, an<i know and
follow him, shall be eternally saved. Yes, say our
adversaries; none can pluck tbein out of the hand of
God, and tbey shall not perish through any want of
power on his part; but they may withdraw themselves
from his hand by their own voluntary act. Let us
see, then, what is tbe sense of the words upon this
supposition. Our Lord solemnly assures his followers,
that no created power shall wrest them out of his
hand, or that of his Father. It is quite evident that
physical force is here out of the question, and that it
could never enter into the mind of any man in his
senses, that this could have any success in a strugo-le
with Omnipotence. It is a moral power of which he
must be understood to speak ; by which, I mean the
power of arguments, and promises, and threatenings,
to induce them to apostatize from the faith. What
then does he tell his disciples? He tells them, that
neither man nor devil should succeed in tempting them
to apostasy, unless they gave their consent ; a piece
of information not new nor necessary, as all his disci
ples, and every person of common sense, knew it be
fore ; for it is as clear as sunshine, that temptation
will do us no harm, if we do not comply with it. This
silly truism, it seems, is the amount of our Lord's
solemn declaration, twice delivered, concerning the
safety of believers. No person can draw them into
apostasy unless they yield to seduction. With such
downright nonsense, as we might call it did it not de
serve to be branded as an impious perversion of Scrip
ture, is the hypothesis of Arminians supported; and
an attempt is made to wrest from the people of God
one of the best sources of their consolation. By the
same miserable expedient, they endeavour to evade the
evidence of other declarations and promises which
teach the perseverance of the saints. There is implied
in them this condition, — that, they shall obtain eternal
salvation, if they are not wanting to themselves ; or,
in other words, the Scriptures tell us that the saints
arrive at the end of their journey, if they continue to
walk in the way, and do not turn aside into a by-path.
The Apostle Paul plainly teaches the perseverance
of the saints, when he asks, " Who shall separate us
from the love of Christ ?" and goes on to shew, that no
change or trouble which may befal them can effect a
separation : " Shall tribulation, or distress, or perse
cution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword ?
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors,
through him that loved us."* To this subject we
may also apply the following passage : " For this is
as the waters of Noah unto me : for as I have sworn
that the waters of Noah should no more go over the
earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth
with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall
depart, and the hills be removed ; but my kindness
shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant
of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath
mercy on thee."!
I shall now lay before you some other arguments
for the perseverance of the saints, which are founded
on the mediation of Christ.
The first argument is, that those for whom he laid
down his life shall certainly be saved, because he has
paid the full price of their redemption. — Some, indeed,
tell us that the design of his death was merely to ren
der God placable, that thus there might be no obstacle
to the restoration of sinners to his favour if they should
comply with the terms, and to their final salvation if
they should continue faithful and obedient to the end
of their lives. It is evident that the perseverance of
the saints has no necessary connexion with the hy-

* Rom. viii. 35. 37.

f Is. liv. 9, 10.

424

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

potbesis When God was rendered placable, the de
sign of our Saviour's death was fully accomplished,
although not one individual of the human race had
been actually reconciled to him. But the hypothesis
is false. God was placable without any respect to the
death of his Son : and of this he has assured us, by
declaring that he freely loved the world, and that the
mission of his Son was the consequence of this love.
It amounts to the same thing to say, as others do, that
Christ died for all men, or, that his death so pleased
God that he has established a dispensation of grace,
by which all men have an opportunity of obtaining
salvation. According to this scheme, nothing is fixed
with respect to individuals, and the final perdition of
those who once believed does not interfere with its
arrangements. The view which the Scriptures give
of the design of the death of Christ is totally differ
ent. They inform us that it was a sacrifice of atone
ment offered for us ; that our " iniquities were laid
upon him," and " he bore them in his own body on
the tree ;" and they plainly teach the doctrine of sub
stitution. Now, as a surety stands in the room of the
person whom he represents, the latter reaps all the
benefit of what the surety has done in his name ; so
that, if his debt has been paid by the surety, the cred
itor cannot demand the payment of it from him. Let
us apply this illustration to the Subject before us. If
Christ made satisfaction on the Cross for the sins of
his people, not for some of them only, but for them
all, as we are expressly assured, it would be contrary
to justice to subject them also, to the punishment.
But, if the saints may fall from a state of grace, and
perish in their sins, satisfaction will be twice exacted,
first, from the surety, and secondly, from them. Either
Christ did, or did not, make an atonement for the
sins of his people. If he did not make an atonement
for them, they must satisfy for themselves ; if he did
answer the demands of justice in their room, it is im
possible that, under the righteous administration of
Heaven, they should, by any cause, or for any reason,
come into condemnation. Accordingly, the new cov
enant promises to believers complete and irrevocable
pardon. I will " be merciful to their unrighteousness,
and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no
more."* But if the doctrine of the defectibiliiy of the
saints is true, the promise is false, for their sins may
be remembered again. Nay, if this doctrine is true,
Christ might have died in vain ; for as one saint may
fall from a state of grace as well as another, it might
happen that not a single sinner should be actually re
deemed by his blood from everlasting destruction.
The next argument is founded on the intercession of
Christ. Those in whose behalf he prays that they may
be preserved from evil, and may finally be brought to
the place where he is, shall certainly be saved, " for him
the Father hears always." Such is his prayer for his
followers : " Holy Father, keep through thine own
name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be
one, as we are." "I pray not that thou shouldest take
them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them
from the evil." It is obviously false to say, that this
Is a prayer for his immediate disciples alone, for he him
self has extended it to all believers : " Neither pray I
for these alone, but for them also which shall believe
on me through their word."! It is a manifest evasion
to say, that it is a prayer solely for their preservation
from afflictions and temptations ; because, in the first
place, if this was his prayer, it has not been answered,
as his disciples, in the beginning and in all subsequent
ages, have been exposed to both; and because, in the
second place, we know it to be his will that they should
be exposed to them for their trial and improvement.
And how absurd is it to suppose, that our Lord would

* Heb. viii. 12.

f John xvii. 11, IS, 20.

pray that they might be kept from such things as might
give them uneasiness, and might eventually lead them
into sin, but neglected to pray that they might be kept
from sin itself! It is still more daring to say, that the
perseverance of the saints does not follow from this
prayer, because his prayers have not always been an
swered. Thus, he prayed for his murderers, many of
whom persisted in unbelief. But we should distin
guish between the prayers of Christ as a man, and as a
Mediator. As a man, he prayed, in obedienee to the
law of love, for his enemies, leaving it to God to deal
with them according to his sovereign pleasure. We
have no reason to think that he prayed on the cross as
Mediator; or, if we should take this view of it, we may
be certain that his prayer was answered in the case of
all to whom it extended, by the conversion of thousands
of the men who with wicked hands crucified and slew
him. The prayer in the seventeenth chapter of John,
was evidently offered up by him in the character of the
High Priest and Intercessor of the church, who, for the
sake of his people, had sanctified or dedicated himself
to this office. Shall our Saviour intercede in vain ?
Shall any of those for whom he shed his blood fall
away and perish, although he has requested that theii
faith should not fail ? No ; it is impossible. " Because
I live," he said, " ye shall live also." " Who is he
that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather,
that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God,
who also maketh intercession for us."* He does not
pray in the unmeaning strain of our adversaries : ' Keep
them from evil, if they will keep themselves; bring
them to glory, if they do not stop in the way.' He
prays that Divine grace may be sufficient for them, and
enable them to go from strength to strength, till they
appear before God in the heavenly Zion.
Other arguments in support of the doctrine of perse
verance are derived from the inhabitation of the Spirit.
That the Holy Ghost is given to believers, is a truth so
plainly taught, and so generally acknowledged, that it
may at present be taken for granted. It is certain that
men are in a state of grace only while they enjoy his
presence, and that, if he should be taken away, they
would return to a state of nature. To decide the ques
tion, therefore, respecting the perseverance of the saints,
it is only necessary to ascertain whether he is a tran
sient visitant, or a constant inmate in their souls. Let
us hear, then, the words of our Lord to his disciples !
" I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever."! This
is a virtual promise of the Spirit in perpetuum, and, con
sequently, an assurance to the disciples that they should
be guided, and assisted, and protected by him, to the
end of their lives. Here, then, is one instance, in which
the perseverance of some saints was secured by super
natural grace. But perhaps our adversaries will say,
that this promise respected the disciples only in their
official character, and implied nothing more than that
they should always enjoy the assistance of the Spirit in
their apostolical labours. The whole context shows
that such an interpretation is totally unfounded; but
that every o-round of doubt with respect to the constant
inhabitation of the Spirit in believers may be removed,
let me quote another passage against which the plea of
particular or exclusive application cannot be alleged :
" Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give
him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give
him, shall he in him a well of water springing up into
everlasting life."! ^ e know from other places that this
water signifies the Spirit. Now, observe that he who
drinks of this water shall never thirst. It is a poor,
pitiful commentary on the words to say, that he shall
not thirst while he is drinking, but that if he gives over
using this water he shall thirst again ; for this was true
* John xiv. 19. Rom. viii. 34. f John xiv. 16. flb.iv.14.

PERSEVERANCE.

425

of the water of Jacob's well, as well as of this living
water which is contrasted with it, and preferred to it.
It is plainly meant that he shall never thirst, because
^he shall have an unfailing supply ; and accordingly it is
added, that " this water shall be in him a well of water
springing up into everlasting life." The water shall
never cease, or the Spirit shall never be withdrawn, but
shall continue with those to whom he has been given
till the work of their salvation is completed. I do not
conceive it to be possible to express more explicitly the
perseverance of the saints. If the Holy Spirit shall
never be taken from them, then they shall never fall
from a state of grace.
There are two offices assigned to the Spirit, from
which we may draw the same conclusion. He is sent
to seal believers, and to be the earnest of the future in
heritance. They are both mentioned in the following
passage : " Now he which stablisheth us with you in
Christ, and hath anointed us, is God ; who hath also
sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our
hearts."* A seal was used for different purposes ; —
to mark a person's property, to secure his treasures, or
to authenticate a deed. In the first sense, the Spirit
distinguishes believers as the peculiar people of God ;
in the second, he guards them as his precious jewels ;
in the third, he confirms or ratifies their title to salva
tion. And can we suppose that this work of the
Spirit may be counteracted, and rendered of no effect ;
that those whom he has separated to God may be again
confounded with the mass of sinners ; that the treasures
over which he watches may be scattered and lost ; and
that the title of the saints, although authenticated by
his signature, may be reversed? With the gift of the
Spirit for the purpose of sealing, the Apostle connects
the idea of establishment ; but according to the hypo
thesis of our adversaries, they are not connected, and
he who has been sealed may-stumble and fall. We
know, however, whom it will be our wisdom to be
lieve. — Again, the Spirit is represented as " an ear
nest." An earnest is a part given as a security for the
future possession of the whole. The Holy Ghost is
the earnest of the heavenly inheritance, because he
begins that holiness in the soul which will be perfected
in heaven, and imparts thgse joys which are foretastes
of its blessedness. A work may be begun, but not
finished, because the workman has desisted from a
change of views, or has met with obstacles which
made it impossible to proceed. Those with whom we
contend are of opinion that, from the latter cause, the
work of grace in tbe heart of man may be stopped,
namely, from his waywardness and obstinacy. But if
tbe workman has pledged himself to execute his plan,
and is possessed of sufficient resources to fulfil his
engagement, the work will go on, and in due time will
be completed. Now, the design of representing the
Spirit as an earnest, is manifestly to assure us that the
work which he has begun in the soul of believers, he
will " perform to the day of Jesus Christ." The de
signation given to him is an assurance that he will not
desist. He could not be an earnest, if it might happen
that those who had received him should not obtain the
inheritance. To call him so in this case, would create
false expectations. But, let God be true, and every
man who contradicts him a liar. If he has granted his
people the earnest of the Spirit in their hearts, he will
not fail to bestow all the blessedness for which he has
given them reason to hope. " If children, they are
heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with his Son Jesus
Christ?'! Some of the arguments by which our opponents sup-
fort their doctrine, have been occasionally mentioned.
shall now take notice of their reasoning from certain
passages of Scripture.

* 2Cor.i. 21,22.
3D

f Rom. viii. 17.

The first argument is founded upon the following
words in tbe eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel : " When
the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and
committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the
abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live?
All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be
mentioned ; in his trespass that he hath trespassed,
and in his sin that be hath sinned, in them shall he
die."* Here it is supposed, they say, that a righteous
man may fall from holiness, and perish in guilt. There
is an answer to this argument, which they treat with
contempt as a mere evasion, namely, that the person
here mentioned is not a saint, but a man of a good
moral character, and that the life and death spoken of
in the passage are of a temporal nature. It is justified,
however, by the context ; and whoever examines it
with attention will find, that nothing is said of him
which may not be affirmed of .many who have a form
of godliness, but have not experienced its power; and
that the prophet is describing the treatment of different
characters in the course of God's providential govern
ment. We grant that such a man may fall from his
righteousness ; while at the same time, with perfect
consistency, we affirm the. perseverance of the saints.
But there is another answer, — that this is a hypothet
ical statement, the design of which is to point out the
connexion, under tbe Divine administration, between
righteousness and happiness, and between unrighteous
ness and misery. We have a similar statement in
another place, where an Apostle says to believers, " If
ye live after the flesh, ye shall die;"! although we
know, frbm the principles of Paul, that he did not con
ceive it possible that a true saint should perish. The
import of such statements is simply this, that if one
thing happen another will follow. But they do not
affirm the actual existence of either the one or the
other. When a philosopher says, If a comet should
impinge upon the earth, or come too near it, the earth
would be shattered into pieces, or burnt up, or driven
from its orbit, — he does not suppose or fear that his
hypothetical case will be realized. What, then, it
may be asked, is the use of such statements ? I an
swer, that while they point out the necessity of con
tinuance in holiness to the attainment of final salvation,
they are a mean of exciting believers to watchfulness,
and diligence, and prayer, and thus contribute to their
perseverance in grace ; for God deals with them as
rational creatures, and works upon them by motives
addressed to their hopes and their fears.
Another argument is founded on the parable of the
sower : " He that received the seed into stony places,
the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with
joy receiveth it: Yet hath he not root in himself, but
dureth for a while; for when tribulation or persecu
tion ariseth because of the word, by and by he is of
fended."! Jtis not a little surprising, that this passage
should be quoted by our opponents in support of their
doctrine. It speaks evidently of a man who receives
the word 'of God and continues for a time, and then
falls away; and thus far it is quite to their purpose.
But unhappily for them, our Saviour gives us the
reason of failure, that he has no root in himself;
plainly implying that, if he had had root in himself,
he would have withstood every temptation. The pas
sage, instead of militating against our doctrine, plainly
teaches the perseverance of the saints, by signifying
that the cause why some do not persevere is, that they
are not saints, or have not the grace of God in their
hearts; for this is the only root which can preserve
the plant from withering away. Our Lord distin
guishes such hearers of the word from believers, when .
he describes the former as stony ground, and the lat
ter as good ground. He thus points out an essential
* Ezek. xviii. 24. f Rom. viii. 13. X Matth. xiii. 20, 21.

426

DICK S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

difference between them. They are not of the same
species ; and it is altogether illogical to conclude, that
what may be affirmed of the one may also be affirmed
of the other.
The next argument is deduced from these words in
the Epistle to the Hebrews: "For it is impossible
for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted
of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the
Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God,
and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall
away," or, " having fallen away, to renew them again
unto repentance ; seeing they crucify to themselves the
Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."*
This passage is eagerly laid hold of by those who
deny the perseverance of the saints, as decisive in
their favour; for are not the persons described mani
festly possessed of the characteristic qualifications of
the saints, and yet it is supposed that they may irre
coverably apostatize? Let us examine the qualifica
tions, and see whether they imply any thing which
may not be found in the unregenerated. " They were
once enlightened ;" but so may all be said to be to
whom the Gospel is preached, and who are acquainted
with its doctrines. They have " received the know
ledge of the truth," as the Apostle expresses himself
in another part of this epistle ; or, as Peter says, they
have " known the way of righteousness."!. In this
manner, the unbelieving Jews were enlightened, and
for this reason tbeir sin was highly aggravated: "If I
had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had
sin ; but now they have no cloak for their sin."! —
" They were made partakers of the Holy Ghost ;" but
so are all those who experience his common influences,
by which they are impressed under the dispensation of
the Gospel ; and so were those in the primitive times
who were endowed with miraculous powers, which
were given to them by the Spirit. But that such per
sons were not all true believers, is evident from the
words of our Lord to some of them : "Then will I
profess unto them, I never knew you."|| He never
acknowledged them as genuine disciples  " They
have tasted the good word of God ;" so had the hearers
in the parable of the sower, whose case we considered
above, and concerning whom, it is plain that they
never were possessed of saving faith, for they had no
root in themselves. Concerning the other two partic
ulars, " their partaking of the heavenly gift," and
" tasting the powers of the world to come," I shall say
nothing, because it is doubtful what they mean, and
consequently no use can legitimately be made of them
in this argument. A conjectural interpretation proves
nothing. We may presume, however, from the con
nexion in which they appear, that they imply no
higher qualifications than those which have been
already considered. The passage supposes the apos
tasy of persons who had advanced as far, it may be,
as unconverted men could advance, but were destitute
of true grace, which never fails.
Another passage is in the second Epistle of Peter;
but after wbat-has been said, the solution must be so
obvious, that it is unnecessary to point it out. It
speaks of those who, through " the knowledge of
Christ, have escaped the pollutions of the world,"
and " whose latter end is worse than their begin-
nino-."§ But, what were those but the temporary
hearers of the Gospel of whom we have already
spoken? It would require a long time, and much
repetition, to follow our adversaries in their comments
upon Scripture; and I shall therefore desist, as the
specimen which has been given is sufficient.
They produce examples also in support of their sys
tem, as of David, Solomon, Hymeneus, Philetus, and

* Heb vi 4—6. 1 Heb. x. 26. 2 Pet. ii. 21.
I John xv. 22. || Matth. vii. 23. } Pet. u. 20.

Demas. Our answer is, tbat, with respect to such of
them as were saints, we affirm that they might fall
into great sins without losing the principle of grace;
as Peter did, who retained faith, although he denied
his Master ; and with respect to the rest, their case
has been already disposed of. The fall of mere pro
fessors of religion is nothing to the purpose.
A general argument is founded on the exhortations
of Scripture, in which the saints are called to watch
and labour, and work out their salvation with fear and
trembling ; in which exhortations it is implied, that
the event is uncertain. It may be remarked that, be
ing addressed to societies of Christians in which there
was a mixture of believers and hypocrites, they were
properly expressed in such a manner as to imply that
the result was problematical. But, not to insist upon
this answer, it ought to be considered, that the pur
pose of God does not supercede the use of means, nor
is grace given to render our own exertions superfluous.
God will certainly save those whom he has chosen,
but he will save them by his word and ordinances, and
by a diligent improvement of opportunities and privi
leges. If this is the instituted plan of effecting his
purpose, exhortations and admonitions do not necessa
rily imply the uncertainty of the issue, but merely
point out the manner and order in which the design
will be accomplished. A man will not die before the
appointed time, and yet there is no inconsistency- in
telling him, that unless he avoid dangers, and take
food and medicine, be cannot live. His knowledge
that upon such conditions life depends, leads him to
use those precautions by which the number of his days
is completed, and the Divine purpose respecting him
is executed. Believers are not merely passive sub
jects of Divine grace, but God works in them and by
them, and requires that they should do their part while
he is doing his.
It is objected, that the doctrine of the perseverance
of the saints is unfavourable to the interests of holi
ness. But how it can have this effect, it is not easy
to perceive. It is perseverance in holiness which we
maintain ; or, in other words, we maintain that be
lievers will persevere in holiness to the end ; and it
will require, I presume, more discernment than any of
you possesses, to discover the tendency of this, opinion
to make men fall into sin. Our doctrine holds out no
hope of final salvation to those who are living in sin.
No man can have this hope unless he is walking in
the way of God. It is another doctrine which is un
favourable to holiness, namely, that men shall be
saved if they have once believed, although they live
as they please. The objection has no relation to the
genuipe doctrine of the perseverance of the saints,
and is altogether unworthy of notice.

LECTURE LXXX.
ON THE DEATH OF THE SAINTS, AND ITS
CONSEQUENCES.
Reason why Death befalls Believers.— Its effect upon them.—
The Survivance of the Soul.— Its Immortality deduced from
its Immateriality, the Nature of its Powers, the anticipa
tions of Conscience, the present irregular distribution of
Good and Evil, and from Universal Belief.
" He that endureth to the end shall be saved."*
That every gennine believer shall thus endure, we
have endeavoured to prove by a variety of arguments
from Scripture; and are persuaded that although
temporary professors of religion may apostatize, and
the most flattering hopes may be disappointed, yet,
wherever the work of grace has been begun, it will be
* Matth. x. 22.

DEATH OF THE SAINTS, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

tarried on and completed. The salvation which is
reserved for believers at the end of their course,
comprehends the perfection and felicity of the whole
man, of soul and body. I proceed to consider the
subject in its several parts, and shall speak, in the
first place, of the death of the saints and its conse
quences. " It is appointed unto men once to die."* The sen
tence of death was pronounced upon Adam after the
fall, and his posterity were included in it, because he
was their federal head. Accordingly, "death has
passed upon all men, because all have sinned ;" and
that it is not their personal sin which is the cause of
their mortality, is evident from the fact of which the
Scriptures take notice, that " death reigned from Adam
to Moses," and we may add, reigns to this hour,
" over them who have not sinned after the similitude
of Adam's transgression ;"+ that is, over infants who
are not capable of actual disobedience. Some affirm
that death was natural to man, or that he was mortal
by the constitution of his nature, and that it is there
fore no proof of original guilt. But, besides that this
objection has been already considered, and that there
is no necessity to discuss it again, it is almost super
fluous labour at any time to enter into an elaborate
lefutation of an opinion, which does not even possess
the slightest degree of plausibility, as it directly con
tradicts the most explicit and solemn declarations of
Scripture. It cannot therefore excite surprise, that all men are
subject to the law of mortality, the rich and the poor,
the high and the low, the young and the old. We are
ignorant of the reasons for which some are cut off as
soon as they see the light, while others arrive at ex
treme old age, and men fall at every period of life ; but
we are in no uncertainty with respect to the cause of
the general doom. Death is the execution of the right
eous sentence, appointing the sinful inhabitants of this
earth to return to the dust from which they were taken.
The guilty are brought forward according to the will of
the Supreme Judge, to suffer in their order the penalty
of the law. Melancholy as is the spectacle of a race
of rational beings, wasted by disease, and swallowed
up by the grave, we can account for it consistently with
the goodness of the Creator, because their fate is not an
arbitrary exercise of his power, but is demanded by his
justice. He has no pleasure in the mere destruction
of his creatures, and would neither effect it by his own
agency, nor permit it to be effected by second causes, if
it were not required by the law of his moral adminis
tration. Thus far all is plain ; but when we proceed to ob
serve, that from the law of mortality even the righteous
are not exempted, the question arises, how we shall ac
count for the indiscriminate execution of the sentence?
For the righteous an atonement has been made, by which
their guilt was expiated ; and consequently it might be
presumed that they would be delivered from all the ef-
fects.of the curse. How, then, comes it to pass that
they are subject to death, which is acknowledged to be
the penalty of sin ?
Great as this difficulty may seem, it is not the only
one which occurs in the history of the saints. It is not,
indeed, a solution of one difficulty, to point out others
connected with the subject of inquiry ; but they suggest
to us, that if notwithstanding these, we could quietly
retain our belief, we should not allow it to be disturbed
by an additional objection, which in itself is not more
formidable. If we ask, why believers undergo tempo
ral death, although Christ has atoned for their sins ?
may we not with equal reason ask, why they are not
completely delivered from the pollution of sin as well
as from its guilt, as soon as they believe ? Why does

* Heb.ix.27.

t Rom. v. 12, 14

427
it remain in them to taint tbeir duties, and to impede
their consolation ? Why are they still exposed to the
malignity of Satan ? Why are they compelled to carry
a heavy burden of affliction? These things are as in
consistent with our notions of the effect of a perfect ex
piation of sin, as their subjection to temporal death ; for
it would seem to us, that, as soon as the benefit of the
atonement is applied to them, they should not only be
restored to the favour of God, but completely relieved
from every evil, physical and moral.
But this is not the only instance, in which our notions
of what is just and fit are found not to accord with the
Divine dispensations. It is certain that, if justice re
quired, when an atonement had been made for sin, that
the guilty should be fully pardoned, thus far its demands
are satisfied. "There is no condemnation to them
which are in Christ Jesus ;"* and consequently, we are
sure that whatever may be the proceedings of Provi
dence towards them, they are not to be considered as
effects or indications of wrath. God, in stipulating
with his Son the remission of those for whom he was
to shed his blood, might make a reservation of some of
the temporal consequences of sin, for reasons worthy
of his wisdom. To these he might judge it expedient
to subject them, but with a merciful design ; and, with
this exception, might promise to exempt them from the
operation of the penalty, as a man may stipulate with
the representative of another, with respect to the time
and the degree in which the expected benefit shall be
conferred. The procedure of God towards the saint has been
compared to the manner of proceeding under the cere
monial law, in reference to a house infected with lep
rosy. "The priest shall break down the house, the
stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the mortar
of the house ; and he shall carry them forth out of the
city into an unclean place."! ^n I'^e nianner God des
troys the earthly house of our tabernacle, which is pol
luted with sin, and commands it to be carried to the
grave. It has been remarked too, that under the an
cient economy earthen vessels which had been defiled
were broken, but those which' were formed of a more
solid or a more precious substance, were only washed
with water, or purified by fire. Our souls are vessels
of gold, and for this reason, although polluted, he does
not destroy them, but he reduces our sinful bodies to
dust. These, however, are merely illustrations, and I
believe fanciful illustrations, of the fact, and they give
us no assistance in discovering the reasons of it.
The death of the body is sometimes represented as
necessary to the complete sanctification of the soul. To
do so, however, is to commit the mistake of confound
ing the conjunction of two events with the relation of
cause and effect. We acknowledge that the saints are
not made perfect in holiness till they die; but although
God has established a connexion between these two
things, there is no reason to think that it is a necessary
connexion. It does not follow, because he usually pro
duces a certain effect in a particular way, that he could
not produce it in a different way. What should hin
der him from sanctifying believers wholly in the pres
ent life ? You say, perhaps, that the present constitu
tion of the body is an obstacle. It would not be easy,
however, to explain this point satisfactorily or intelli
gibly ; to show that, great as is the influence of the
body upon the mind, almighty grace could not fully
counteract it, so far as it is unfriendly to holiness. But,
supposing that there is something in the present state
of the body which renders perfect holiness unattainable,
we may ask again, what should hinder God from now
effecting such a change as would fit the body for co-op
erating with the soul in its purest exercises ? That tbe
separation of the soul from the body, and ihe dissolu-

* Rom. viii. 1.

f Lev. xiv. 45.

428

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

tion of the latter in the grave, are not necessary to the
complete purification of the soul, is evident from the
cases ot those who were translated to heaven without
undergoing temporal death. There have been only
two who enjoyed this privilege, Enoch and Elijah ; but
two examples establish the conclusion as fully as a
thousand would do. They show, that it is not from
any necessary connexion between the death of the body
and the perfection of the soul, that believers are not ex
empted from the former. This position is farther cor
roborated by what we know will take place at the sec
ond coming of Christ. " Behold, I show you a mys
tery, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be chang
ed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall
be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."* It
is commonly said, that although some of the saints shall
not die, they will undergo a change equivalent to death.
I suspect that these are words without any distinct
meaning ; but if they do mean any thing, it is this, that
upon those saints the same effect will be produced by
the immediate power of God, which is produced upon
the saints at present by temporal death. But this is to
give up the point; it is to acknowledge that men may
be fully sanctified without undergoing dissolution, for
such will be the fact with respect to the last generation
of the saints.
These remarks are intended to show you, that we
are not able properly to assign the reason why the sen
tence of temporal death is not revoked in favour of the
righteous. It has been said, that the design is to in
spire them with abhorrence of sin, which is followed
by such fatal effects ; to keep them humble, and to give
them an opportunity to display their faith, and patience,
and hope. Without inquiring whether these purposes
are sufficient to account for the fact, we remark that
there is one thing which, if it should not solve the diffi
culty, will at least show that an end is accomplished
which is in unison with the general tenor of the moral
administration of God. In the present state, we must
walk by faith and not by sight, or, in other words, we
are to be regulated in the choice and practice of reli
gion, not by the evidence of sense, but by the evidence
of testimony. It is not given to us to see the realities
of the world to come; to have ocular demonstration of
the glorious reward of piety, and the terrible punish
ment of ungodliness. Although these are subjects of
infinite importance, and our whole conduct should be
influenced by them, all our knowledge comes through
the medium of revelation. This, as some would say,
places us in a state of trial. We.are put to the test,
whether we will repose such confidence in the word of
God, as to enter upon that course of conduct, with all
its privations and difficulties, which he has assured us
will lead to a happy result. What is said on this sub
ject would require to be guarded and qualified; and
therefore, laying it aside for the present, 1 observe, that
it appears to be the will of God, that faith should be
our guide in the pilgrimage of life. But it would be
subversive of this design to give an open and regular
declaration in favour of the good, and against the bad,
in the dispensations of Providence. Were it known,
exactly, who are the objects of the love, and who of the
hatred of God, that is, were it known in any other way
than by the testimony of Scripture, the province of faith
would be greatly circumscribed, and we should then
see, what we are now called to believe. Had the right
eous been exempted from temporal death, it would have
been known to all who they were, and that their piety
was recompensed, when they were openly translated to
heaven. No person could have doubted of a future
state, when he saw his acquaintances and neighbours
removed to it; or have called in question the truth and

* 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.

advantages of religion, when he was himself a witness
of the performance of its promises. Hence we perceive
the reason, why God has admitted into his plan the
temporal death of those who are interested in the atone
ment of his Son. It is to preserve the consistency of
his administration, to exclude any thing which would
have broken in upon its uniformity, and defeated its
design. He leaves them apparently in the same situa
tion with other men. Like them they are afflicted, and
like them they die.
But, although one event happens to all, there is a
great difference between the death of a righteous, and
that of a wicked man ; a difference not in the nature
of the event considered as a physical fact, but in its
design and consequences. In the case of the saint, it
terminates, as we shall afterwards more fully see, his
long and painful struggle with sin, and completes his
restoration to the image of God, which has been carry
ing on, since the hour of his conversion, by the ordi
nances of religion and the dispensations of Providence.
It closes also the scene of his sorrows; it releases the
weary sufferer, and dismisses him to rest; it removes
the veil which conceals the glories of the eternal world ;
it breaks down the partition-wall which separated hint
from his God. This moment he feels the agonies of
expiring nature, or is lying in a state of insensibility
the next, he is full of life, and joy, and activity. W(
behold an heir of glory entering upon the possessior
of his inheritance ; and death, which appears so dread
ful to the by-stander, is to him the gate of life. " Marl
the perfect man, and behold the upright; for the eni
of that man is peace."* Often his latter end is peace
in respect of his own feelings. His body may suffei
pain, but his mind is tranquil, for he knows in whom
he has believed, and is assured that he is able to keep
the trust which he has committed to him. He is part
ing with those who have long been dear to him in the
bonds of nature and friendship; but he is going home
to his Father, and to the family of the first-born; and
he leaves the objects ofhis affection to the care of Him
who has led him all his life, and will take them under
his protection. Natural affection remains in the bosom
of a good man to the last, for it is the work of God,
and his grace has refined and strengthened it; but he
is actuated by a higher principle of heavenly love, and
his soul longs for the enjoyment of his God : " Whom
have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon
earth whom I desire beside thee."! But 'l mav hap
pen that the Christian shall not leave the world in the
full assurance of hope. Death and fears may haunt
his mind, and a cloud may rest upon his closing scene ;
yet still his latter end is peace, because it is safe. To
him death has lost its sting; for its sting was sin, but
through the blood of Christ his guilt is cancelled, and
will not appear against him in judgment. Through
the weakness of his faith, the king of terrors may wear
an alarming aspect. But he is the messenger of his
Father, and comes upon an errand of mercy. Angels
are waiting to receive him, and as soon as his spirit
has escaped from its frail and falling tabernacle, his
fears will be exchanged for everlasting triumph.
The death of the righteous is sometimes described
as a sleep. This is an example of euphonism, or that
figure of rhetoric by which a thing unpleasant in itself
is expressed by an agreeable name. It is not peculiai
to the Scriptures, but was used by heathen writers,
who not only call sleep, mortis simillima imago,] but
speak of death under the notion of sleep itself: —
— iepov Imev
Koillcltcli Bvittrxetv llh xeye tovo cLya.Bovc.\\
It is proper, however, to remark, that the metaphor is

* Ps. xxxvii. 37. t Ps- lxxil'i. 35-
X The most striking image of death.
|| Kallimachi Epigramm. cura Blomfield, p. 56. He sleeps
a hallowed sleep, let it not be said that good men die.

DEATH OF THE SAINTS, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

¦ometimes employed to denote the state of the dead,
without any reference to their character, as in the fol
lowing passage: "And many of them that sleep in the
dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life,
and some to shame and everlasting contempt."* Yet
the more frequent use of the term in relation to the
righteous, and the connection in which it is introduced,
justify us in considering it as significant of the peace
ful nature of their end. Speaking of the five hundred
disciples to whom our Saviour appeared after his resur
rection, Paul says, "of whom the greater part remain
unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."! Luke
thus describes the death of the first Christian martyr:
" And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice,
Lord, lay not this sin to their charge; and when he
said this, he fell asleep."! And those in general who
have died in the faith, are represented as sleeping in
Jesus: "Them that sleep in Jesus, will God bring
with him."|| Thus the weary labourer, when evening
comes, lies down upon his bed, and enjoys profound
repose till the return of day.
Before I proceed to consider the state of the righte
ous in the grave, or the state of their bodies, I shall
inquire what change takes place in their souls, and
how they are disposed of. What makes death so ter
rible, is not simply the termination of the present life,
although, even from this event, nature instinctively re
coils ; but tbe consequences in another state of being,
the apprehension of a future reckoning, and of the
punishment which conscience anticipates as the just
recompense of our guilty deeds. When this fear is
removed, death appears in a totally different light; and
a man may calmly and even joyfully submit to it, if he
has the hope of exchanging this frail and troubled life
for a state of endless blessedness. But it is presup
posed in this hope, that the soul survives the death of
the body, and carries along with it, into the new region
which it is appointed to inhabit, its consciousness and
its capacity for happiness. It is necessary, therefore,
to begin this part of the subject with the consideration
of its immortality.
You all know the doubts entertained by the ancient
heathens upon this subject, and especially by the learn
ed and speculative among them. It is from them, in
deed, that we know the opinion of the vulgar; but I
think it probable that, as the latter felt greater rever
ence for the established mythology, so they were more
steady in the belief of the future existence of the soul.
We find that almost in every nation this belief prevails ;
and it is less likely to be called in question by those
who do not indulge in vain reasonings, and who rest
satisfied with the authority of tradition. I do not mean,
that the more the subject is discussed the weaker the
evidence will appear; but tbat, in consequence of the
disadvantage under which unassisted reason labours in
investigations of this kind, the result of its exertions
has been rather an increase of doubt, than a settled per
suasion. It is owing to this cause that the most cele
brated philosophers of antiquity express themselves
with hesitation, or vary their tone, using at one time
the language of confidence, and at another that of un
certainty. The arguments brought forward by modern
philosophers, in favour of the immortality of the soul,
are better than those of their predecessors ; but we shall
greatly err, if we suppose that their superiority is the
consequence of the gradual improvement of reason. It
is true, indeed, that reason is improved ; the advances,
however, which it has made are not the fruits of its
own unaided efforts, but of the assistance which it has
derived from revelation. There can be no greater im
position attempted upon mankind, than when Christian
divines, or Christian laymen, pretend to give a system

• Dan. xii. 2.
|| 1 Thess. iv. 14.

f 1 Cor. xv. 6.

X Acts vii. 60.

429
of natural religion deduced from the principles of rea
son. What they call reason, is a compound of the
natural suggestions of the mind and the truths of reve
lation ; but they are not at pains to separate them, nor
is it properly in their power, as men in general are not
able to determine how much they owe to nature, and how
much to education. It is sufficient to remind you, that
such a system of natural religion as is now commonly
exhibited, was never drawn up by a heathen. Christian
countries give birth to the authors, and Christian instruc
tion furnished them with the most valuable materials.
The first argument for tbe immortality of the soul is
founded on its immateriality. It is not a material sub
stance ; and, as it does not consist of parts, it is not
subject to dissolution. We learn by experience what
are the qualities of matter, which is extended, divisible,
inert; and we are led to believe that thought is not one
of its properties, because we observe every where
around us, that it exists without intelligence and with
out feeling. If thought essentially belonged to matter
every part of it would think. There are only two ways
in which it can be imagined to acquire the property of
thinking; by a new modification of its parts, or by
having the quality superadded to it. With regard to
the latter hypothesis, although it has been adopted by
some persons of great name, it is questionable whether
they did or could affix any distinct idea to it. To en
dow matter with the faculty of thought, is to give it a
new power, different from and contrary lo all its ori
ginal properties. We do not know the nature of sub
stances, and can observe only their qualities; but, hav
ing ascertained these, we naturally conclude, that the
substance to which they belong does not admit proper
ties genetically different from them. It seems to be
as contrary to reason to suppose matter to be made
capable of thought, as to suppose spirit to be made
capable of figure and division. It avails nothing to
appeal to the almighty power of God ; because his
power cannot work contradictions, or make a substance
susceptible of qualities which do not essentially belong
to it. He could change the nature of things ; but while
their nature continues, their properties are fixed and
immutable. From all that we know of matter, it ap
pears to be a substance on which the power of thinking
could not be superinduced. The supposition that it is
superadded to matter is absurd. If, then, matter could
not be the substratum of a property essentially different
from all its known qualities, we are necessarily led to
the conclusion that where the power of thinking exists,
there is a substance, different from matter, in which it
inheres, or, in other words, a soul.
This reasoning is equally conclusive against the
hypothesis that thought is the result of some modifica
tion of matter "Matter," says Dr. Johnson, "can
differ from matter only in form, density, bulk, motion,
and direction of motion. To which of these, however
varied or combined, can consciousness be annexed ?
To be round or square, to be solid or fluid, to be great
or little, to be moved slowly or swiftly, one way or an
other, are modes of material existence, all equally alien
from the nature of cogitation. If matter be once with
out thought, it can only be made to think by some new
modification ; but all the modifications which it can ad
mit are equally unconnected with cogitative powers."*
The argument for the immortality of the soul from
its immaterial nature, is thus stated by the same cele
brated writer. "Immateriality seems to imply a natu
ral power of perpetual duration as a consequence of ex
emption from all causes of decay ; whatever perishes is
destroyed by the solution of its contexture, and separa
tion of its parts ; nor can we conceive how that which
has no parts, and therefore admits no solution, can
be naturally corrupted or impaired.— He who made the

* Rasselas, chap, xlviii.

430

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

soul can destroy it, since, however imperishable, it re
ceives from a superior nature its power of duration.
1 hat it will not perish by any inherent cause of decay,
°r principle of corruption, maybe shewn by philoso
phy ; but philosophy can tell no more. That it will
not be annihilated by Him that made it, we must learn
from higher authority."*
Such is the amount of the first argument. The soul
may live, and will live for ever, if such be the wiil of
the Creator.
The second argument for the immortality of the soul,
is founded on its powers, which are not only different
from those that we observe in matter, but are superior
to the powers of all the other inhabitants of this world.
Man not only perceives what is present by means of
his senses, as the lower animals do, and recollects the
past, but stretches his views into the future, antici
pates events to come, with greater or less certainty ac
cording to the grounds of expectation, and regulates
his conduct with a reference to objects which he has
not seen. His mind takes a wider Tange than this
earth, to which his bodily presence is assigned, con
templates the phenomena of nature in the remote re
gions of the universe, and discovers the laws by which
other worlds are governed. By a process of reason
ing he rises from the effect to the cause, and ascends
in thought to that mysterious Being, who, himself in
visible, is seen by the reflection of his glory in his
works. He traces the relations in which he stands to
that Being and to his fellow creatures, ascertains the
duties arising from these relations, and feels that he
was made for a nobler purpose than the lower animals,
which are ignorant of all those truths, and have no
guide but their appetites and instincts. Is it conceiv
able that these high powers were conferred upon him
solely for a temporary use ; that these lights were
kindled only to enable him to look around him during
the short journey of life ; that after having blazed for
a few years, they are to be extinguished for ever; and
that the being on whose path they shed so much bright
ness, and to whose eye they disclosed such sublime
and interesting prospects, is to lie down in everlasting
darkness, and mingle with the clods of the valley ? In
surveying the system of created things, we do not ob
serve in any instance such a disproportion of means to
the end. The inferior animals fulfil the purpose of
their existence by their senses and instincts. Why
was man made capable of attaining so much knowl
edge, which, on the supposition that death terminates
his career, is manifestly useless to bim? For useless
certainly is the knowledge of religious and mora!
truths, of his Maker, and of his duty, if there is no
state beyond the grave, in which the consequences of
that knowledge will be experienced, and He who is
now dimly perceived in his works, shall be clearly
seen and fully enjoyed. We observe too, that the
fiowers of man are progressive, while those of the
ower animals are stationary. It is not found that,
among them, the species is more improved in one age
than in another, or that the individual ever advances
beyond a certain point. But the faculties of man are
gradually unfolded from infancy to manhood, and in
some cases continue vigorous and active to extreme old
age. Yet we can never say that they have reached
perfection, or that man has made the highest possible
intellectual effort, and attained all the knowledge of
which he is capable. Were the soul to die with the
body, tbe fate of man would be an instance of an abor
tive work of God, a work made for no intelligible pur
pose ; and it is therefore more consonant to our ideas
of Divine wisdom to believe, that, as it is capable from
its nature of perpetual duration, and its powers admit
of no limit which we know, it will pass into another

* Rasselas, chap, xlviii.

state of conscious existence, and advance in an inter
minable career of improvement. Whether the argu
ment be considered as conclusive or not, it undoubtedly
affords a strong presumption in favour of the immor
tality of the soul ; and as such we find it brought for
ward by the heathen philosophers. " I am persuaded,"
says Cicero, in his treatise de Senectulc,* "since such
is the activity of the soul, such is the memory of the
past and the foresight of the future, such are its arts
and sciences, and inventions, that the nature which
comprehends these things cannot be mortal."
The third argument for the immortality of the soul, is
founded upon the operations of conscience, the office of
which is to judge of right and wrong, as the under
standing judges of truth and error; to enjoin the one
and forbid the other ; to acquit or condemn us according
to our conduct; to summon us to the higher tribunal of
our Maker; and to anticipate the consequences of hia
sentence in another state of existence. To evade this
argument, conscience has been represented as a facti
tious faculty, as the effect of education ; and hence, it
has been said, it is not uniform in its dictates, but com
mands and prohibits according to the notions of moral
ity which prevail in a particular country. But the only
inference which should be deduced from this fact is,
that conscience is liable to be perverted as well as the
understanding. If it would be absurd to deny that our
minds possess the power of distinguishing between
truth and falsehood, because we are subject to innu
merable errors, and the wildest opinions have been be
lieved, not only by the vulgar, but by philosophers; it
would be equally absurd to conclude, that there is no
such principle as conscience, because virtue has been
sometimes called vice, and vice virtue. The opera
tions of conscience, amidst the manifold errors into
which it has been betrayed, are a proof that it is natu
ral to the mind. It may be misled, but it still exists.
It is found in all ages, in all nations, and under all re
ligions ; and we must therefore conclude, that it is an
essential principle of our nature. It was planted in our
bosom by the hand of the Creator, and its clear unbi
assed dictates must be regarded as his commands. If
it point to a future state, it is He who is reminding us
that this is only the first and probationary stage of our
being ; that the consequences of our moral actions will
not be limited to our present circumstances ; and that,
when our course is finished, a retribution will take
place. In short, the anticipations of conscience, which
are common to heathens and to Christians, are an evi
dence that the soul will pass into another state, where
those anticipations will be realized.
In corroboration of this argument, I proceed to men
tion a fourth, which is drawn from the unequal distri
bution of good and evil in the present life. That God
is the moral Governor of the world, we may assume as
a truth, because it has been already proved, and is de
nied by none but atheists. We have a witness to it
within us, in the operations of conscience, which not
only reminds us that he has given us a law for the reg
ulation of our conduct, but acquits and condemns us in
his name, and refers us to his future judgment for the
ratification and execution of the sentence. But the
present state of things, as we all acknowledge, does not
accord with our ideas of a perfect moral administration.
It is an ancient complaint, that " all things come alike
to all : there is one event to the righteous and to the
wicked ; to the good and to the clean, and to the un
clean ; to him that sacrificetb, and to him that sacrifi-
ceth not : as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that
sweareth, as he that feareth an oath."! The promis
cuous manner in which men of different characters are
treated, seems to confound all moral distinctions. But
great as this disorder may be accounted, there still is

* On old age.

f Eccles. ix. 2.

DEATH OF THE SAINTS, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

431

a greater. " There is a vanity which is done upon the
earth; that there be just men, unto whom it happeneth
according to the work of the wicked : again, there be
wicked men to whom it happeneth according to the
work of the righteous."* The lot of the righteous is
such as that of the wicked should be, and the lot of
the wicked as that of the righteous. Exceptions there
are in the course of the Divine government; and right
eousness is sometimes rewarded, and unrighteousness
punished in the present life. But a few examples of
this nature can only be set in opposition to innumera
ble examples of a different character, in order to show
that notwithstanding the latter, there is such a princi
ple in the Divine nature as justice, and consequently,
that there is ground to expect its full developement
under another dispensation. It may be objected, that,
although virtue and vice are not visibly recompensed,
yet there is a secret retribution in the satisfaction which
flows from virtue, and the uneasiness which is the con
sequence of vice. But, besides that the want of visi
bility in this retribution does not answer the ends of
God's moral government, by vindicating his character
and upholding the authority of his law ; it may be re
marked that, if a future state were left out of the ques
tion, both the pleasure and the pain would be greatly
diminished, if not annihilated. Many a wicked man
would feel no uneasiness, if he were freed from the
forebodings of conscience; and in many cases at least,
the pleasure arising from virtuous dispositions and ac
tions would not counterbalance the evils with which
th(>y are accompanied. The state of the case then, is
this, that God has given a law to the human race, and
announced his intention to reward obedience, and pun
ish disobedience; yet we find that there is no regular
distribution of rewards and punishments; that there is
no regular plan according to which affairs are conduct
ed ; that sometimes the righteous and the wicked are
placed in the same circumstances, both enduring the
evils of life, or both enjoying its good things; and that
at other times, their condition exhibits an unexpected
contrast, while those who should have been happy are
involved in affliction, and those who should have been
miserable are surrounded with earthly blessings. If
we believe that there is a God, and that he is just and
good, we must conclude that this life is not the whole
of man ; we must believe that it is only a state of dis
cipline and trial, and that his treatment according to
his desert, is with manifest propriety deferred till he
have finished his course. We must believe that after
death is the judgment, when he shall receive according
to the deads done in the body, whether they have been
good or evil. Reason assents to the doctrine of reve
lation, and has led men in every age and nation to ex
pect a future state of happiness or misery. But this
belief implies the immortality of the soul. It implies
tbat it will survive the death of the body ; and, in the
language of an inspired writer, that when " the dust
returns to the earth as it was, the spirit will return to
God who gave it."!
The last argument is derived from the universal be
lief of the immortality of the soul. Another argument
has, indeed, been founded upon the desire of immor
tality which prevails among mankind ; but it is ques
tionable whether it possesses much solidity. The
desire has been considered as instinctive, and conse
quently, as an indication by our Creator himself of our
continued existence ; but it does not appear to be dif
ferent from the love of life, which is common to us
and the inferior animals. It is simply a desire that
we may not be deprived of the precious blessing of
life ; and we may say the same desire is virtually felt
by every living creature. But because God has im
planted in us a strong love of life, it does not follow,

* Eccles. viii. 14.

f lb. xii. 7.

in our case more than in theirs, that our life will not
come to an end. — The belief of the immortality of the
soul, can be traced in the history of all civilized nations,
and even among savage tribes. It prevailed among
the Greeks and Romans, the Egyptians, the Chal
deans, the Persians, the Indians, and the Gauls ; and
wherever modern travellers have gone, and have had
an opportunity to inquire into the opinions of the
nations, it has been found that an idea was entertained,
more or less distinct, of a state beyond the grave.
" The immortality of the soul," as Cicero said long
ago, " is established by the consent of all nations."
The argument founded upon it is this: — Either this
consent results from the uniform suggestions of reason,
in every country and in every age, and ought therefore
to be considered as the voice of God himself giving
notice of our destiny; or, it is the consequence of a
tradition descending from the first parents of mankind,
who were taught by their Creator that their souls
should never die. I acknowledge that the universality
of an opinion is not, of itself, a proof of its truth, be
cause there are some notions of religion in which men
have agreed, and when without supernatural instruc
tion, still agree, but which we know to be erroneous.
But when an opinion is neither contradicted by reason
nor revelation, its prevalence among nations separated
by time and place, and between whom there was no
communication, necessarily leads us to the hypothesis
of a common origin, and demonstrates, that as it is
congenial to the wishes, so it is consonant to the
natural dictates of the mind. And although the max
im, Vox populi, est vox Dei,* is so far from being uni
formly true that it is very frequently false, yet in the
present case it may be admitted ; and there seems
reason to think that it was the Creator himself who
taught man to believe that he is made for immortality.

LECTURE LXXXI.
ON THE DEATH OF THE SAINTS, AND ITS CON
SEQUENCES.
The Doctrine of tbe Immortality of the soul founded on the
testimony of Christ. — Completion of Sanctification at Death.
— Doctrine of an Intermediate State: of the sleep of the
Soul: of Purgatory. — Arguments against Purgatory, — The
best argument for it.
The arguments for the immortality of the soul which
were stated in the preceding lecture, have been con
sidered as conclusive ; and, although they do not all
possess the same strength, yet their united evidence
has been deemed sufficient to be the ground of a
rational conviction. But I must remind you again,
that although they were known in substance to the
wise men of the Heathen world, they failed to give
satisfaction. Let us not be surprised at this fact, and
wonder that they did not clearly perceive, and con
fidently embrace, a truth of which the proof seems to
us to be complete. Not to say that it is more fully
and luminously exhibited by Christian Divines than
by Heathen philosophers, I would remark, that the
connection between the premises and the conclusion
appears more certain to us, because we know the con
clusion beforehand, and are persuaded of it on other
grounds. The demonstrations of reason are brought
forward in favour of a point of which we entertain no
doubt, and the arguments come home to us with full
force, because we are prepared to acquiesce in them.
They accord with our previous sentiments, carry us
forward in a train in which we have been accustomed
to move, and< terminate in a point which has long been

The voice of the people is the voice of God.

432

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the resting-place of our thoughts. But it would be
tolly to suppose, that the reasoning would impart the
same conviction to a man who had long sought in vain
tor satisfaction, and, having viewed the subject on all
sides, and been tossed up and down between hope and
fear, had finally abandoned the expectation of arriving
at certainty.
The truth is, that to Christians these arguments are
not necessary, except when they are contending with
such as deny revelation ; and then they are of use, not
to satisfy their own minds, but to prove to their op
ponents that, in maintaining the immortality of the
soul, they are supported by reason, and that none
offend against reason but those by whom the doctrine
is impugned. Our faith in this fundamental article of
religion does not rest upon arguments, but upon
authority. The ground on which we are assured of
the future existence of the soul, is the testimony of
our Saviour, — one sentence from whose lips is of
greater weight than all the reasonings of philosophers,
whether heathen or Christian. Why should we follow
a circuitous and uncertain path, when the highway is
before us ? or why should we. light a torch, when the
sun is pouring around us the full splendour of his
beams ?
" Jesus Christ hath abolished death, and brought
life and immortality to light through the Gospel."* To
bring any thing to light, is to draw it from its place of
concealment into open day. The words now quoted
may be therefore understood to import, that our Saviour
was the first who discovered, or made known to the
World, the doctrine of immortality ; and hence the ac
curacy of the Apostle's statement may be questioned,
because even the heathens were in some degree ac
quainted with it, and the Jews unquestionably enter
tained the hope of a life beyond the grave. But the
word, cpamgai, signifies not only to give light, and to
make manifest, but to render luminous, by shedding
greater lustre upon an object already seen ; and in this
sense, I apprehend, it is used on this occasion by the
Apostle. Jesus Christ has illuminated, or rendered
plain and perspicuous, the doctrine of immortality.
He has given the most explicit assurances of the
future existence of the soul. He has spoken of it as
a subject that is not only probable, but absolutely cer
tain. He has assumed it as a fact about which there
could not be any question, and which those whom he
addressed were understood to believe. The object
which he had in view was not to prove it, but to give
such information respecting it as should have a prac
tical influence upon the minds of his followers. His
aim was not properly to convince them that there is a
future state, but to exhibit it as an object of hope, as
the state in which his promises of perfect and eternal
felicity would be performed. There is only one oc
casion on which we find him reasoning in support of
this doctrine, namely, when he was contending with
the infidel sect of the Sadducees, who denied the im
mortality of the soul; and even then he did not appeal
to the dictates of reason, but to higher authority, the
writings of Moses, which they acknowledged to be
divine. It would not have become him to have spoken
of it in a different manner; to have treated it as a
matter of speculation ; to have seemed for a moment
to admit that the evidence was not complete ; to have
entered into a train of argumentation, as the heathen
philosophers had done, and Christian Divines still do,
in their treatises on Natural Theology. He was the
Son of God, who had descended to the earth for the
instruction of mankind ; and his words were oracles.
All his sayings were to be received on his own au
thority • and to those who believed that he came from
God, his authority was sufficient. The Lord of the

invisible world was acquainted with its secrets, and a
hint from him was more satisfactory than the pre
tended discoveries of all tbe wise and learned.
Now, Jesus Christ has assured us that man has a
soul distinct from the body ; that it is not annihilated
by the stroke which lays the body in the grave; that
after its separation it enters upon a new state of being;
and that, as those who die in impenitence shall be
plunged into darkness and misery, so his faithful fol
lowers shall be admitted into the realms of light, and
enjoy there everlasting felicity. " I give unto them
eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall
any pluck them out of my hand." " I go to prepare a
place for you. And if I go away, I will come again, and
receive you to myself, that where I am, there ye may
be also." " Then shall the righteous shine forth as
the sun, in the kingdom of their Father."*
I have laid before you the evidence which reason
can produce for the existence of the soul after death,
and have shown you that, whatever force may be as
signed to it, it is upon the doctrines and promises of
the Gospel that the hope of Christians rests.
When we speak of the immortality of the soul in
reference to believers, we mean not only the continu
ance of its consciousness and activity, but its exist
ence in a state of perfection and felicity. As it is sub
ject to imperfection and infirmity to the last hour of
life, as the believer, even when he is standing on the
verge of the eternal world, is still sinful as well as
mortal, a change must take place immediately after
its separation from the body, to qualify it for the new
state into which it is introduced. This change our
Church expresses by its being " made perfect in holi
ness ;" and it proceeds upon the authority of Scrip
ture, for the souls in heaven are called " the spirits of
just men made perfect."!
There are different reasons which render the change
necessary. First, Although God is pleased in the
present state to hold communion with men, who are
not perfect, through the mediation of his Son, yet it
is his will that every stain of impurity should be re
moved from those who are admitted into his immediate
presence. The inhabitants of the heavenly paradise
must be holy, as Adam was in the garden of Eden.
The image of their Maker, which was defaced by sin,
must be fully restored, and shine with its original
lustre, that he may again look with complacency upon
the work of his hands. Were there any remains of
sin in heaven, it might seem that his own purity was
not absolutely perfect, and that evil might dwell with
him ; but the complete redemption of the objects of
his love from the slightest moral taint, will demon
strate his holiness as well as his goodness. In
the place where he is manifested in the full splen
dour of his infinite excellencies, there is riot a corner
which is not illuminated. " There shall in no" wise
enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatso
ever worketh abomination or maketh a lie ; but they
which are written in the Lamb's book of life."! Sec'
ondly, Unless the souls of the saints were perfectly
pure, they would be unfit for the society into which
they are admitted in the other world. Heaven is the
original abode of the angels ; but, in consequence of
redemption, it is destined to be the habitation also of
men, united in one family with angels. At present
there is a connection between them, for the angels
minister to the saints ; but what passes is silent and
unseen. It is not properly a correspondence, but a
series of good offices performed by the one party to
the other ; and to this general intercourse the imper
fection of the Saints presents no obstacles. But, were
the disembodied spirits of the latter to mingle with the

* 2 Tim. i. 10.

* John x. 28. John xiv. 2. Matth. xiii. 34, 43.
f Heb. xii. 23. X Rev- xxl- 27-

DEATH OF THE SAINTS, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

433

holy spirits around tbe throne, while they retained the
darkness, and infirmity, and irregular affections to
which they were subject upon earth, we cannot con
ceive that the intercourse could be cordial and agreea
ble upon either side. The celestial spirits would be
often offended, and the human spirits would be abashed
and dismayed. There would be an overwhelming
superiority on the one hand, and a humiliating sense
of inferiority on the other. There would be wanting
an entire congeniality of sentiment and feeling. It is
necessary, therefore, that men should be as angels, by
possessing faculties, if not equal in strength, yet
equally free from the pollution of sin, and equally
prompt to engage in the sublime and fervent devotions
of the heavenly sanctuary. This leads me to remark,
in the third place, That, unless the souls of the saints
were rendered perfectly holy at death, they could not
fully enjoy the felicity of the future state. They could
not enter with the whole heart into the service, and
might occasionally feel a reluctance to it, when the
unrenewed part of their nature shed its malignant in
fluence upon them. Their love might at one time
burn with an ardent flame, and at other times might be
faint and languid. F,or the diversity of their state of
feeling during the present life, we may, in some
measure, account by the influence of the body, and
we are totally incapable of conceiving the operations
of the soul, when freed from this incumbrance. But,
although it might be exempt from some affections
which it at present experiences by means of the body,
yet its temper would still be subject to fluctuation
while it was actuated by two different and opposite
principles, and it could not feel that fervent, sustained,
undivided love to God, which is at once the duty and
the felicity of every rational creature. Wherever sin
exists, there cannot be pure enjoyment. Even when
its influence is circumscribed, it is still a cloud which
intercepts some portion of the rays of the sun, a
foreign ingredient which infuses bitterness into the
cup of pleasure. The saint, whose most delightful
hours on earth are spent in fellowship with God, would
indeed feel himself at home in heaven ; but the faint
est trace of sin would cause an abatement of his
bliss. The work of sanctification is completed, at the sep
aration of tbe soul from the body. We have reason
to think that the soul does not remain a moment longer
tainted with sin. Angels carry it into the presence of
God, and it appears before him in a state of unsullied
purity. If to the question, how this sudden change
is effected ? we are not able to return an answer, there
is no cause for surprise; because we are equally igno
rant of the mode of its initial and progressive change
in the present life. We may think that we know more
about it, because we are acquainted with the means
Which are employed ; but the truth is, that tbe means
are the limit of our knowledge; and this will be man
ifest when we reflect, that here is a general applica
tion of them, an application where, in many instances,
no effect is produced, and no man can perceive the
reason of their success in one case, and of their failure
in another. We are compelled to have recourse to a
supernatural cause, the agency of the Holy Ghost,
which is exerted or suspended from motives which we
cannot assign. It is not from want of power that he
does not perfect his work in an instant, but because he
acts conformably to a plan settled by divine wisdom ;
and when the time comes to change the plan, he can
let forth at once such a measure of his influences as
shall insure its immediate completion. In this world
believers are " sanctified through the truth," that is,
the power which sanctifies them is exerted by means
of the truth, agreeably to the constitution of our ra
tional nature. The soul, on its entrance into another
World, will see God as he is, and by the contempla-
3 E 28

tion of his glory, will be perfectly transformed into \|
his image.
Perfect holiness implies, that there are no errors in
the understanding, no waywardness in the will, no ir
regularity in the affections ; that the mind is filled with
light, and the heart with love ; that the whole soul is
such as God requires it to be, and presents a spectacle
on which he can look with unqualified approbation.
At present the saints cannot form a distinct idea of this
state, because they have not experienced it; but they
may judge of it by analogy, because they are already
the subjects of the sanctifying operations of the Spirit,
as we judge of any object by seeing an outline of it.
The nearest approach to it is made in those moments
of elevated devotion, when the Christian, abstracted
from external things and absorbed in the contemplation
of the Divine glory, can say with the Psalmist,
" Whom have I in heaven but thee ? and there is none
in earth whom I desire besides thee;" when the mo
tions of sin are suspended, and he is conscious only of
love, and joy, and holy desires.
I have only one remark more to make, that the per
fect holiness which the soul attains at its separation
from the body, is not mutable like the holiness of
Adam, but fixed and permanent. The saints are
made " pillars in the temple of their God, and shall
go no more out." All creatures are mutable in them
selves, but the power of the Creator can establish
men. as it has established angels. The saints will re
tain freedom of will in the heavenly world, but liberty
is not inconsistent with an immutable state. God is
a free agent, but he cannot change ; angels are free
agents but they cannot fall into sin ; and the saints
will be free, although their inclinations are directed
to one object, and their choice is forever fixed. Such
will be their love of holiness and their hatred of sin,
that a transition from the one to the other will be
morally impossible. Besides, in the heavenly state,
they will be exposed to no temptation. There will be
nothing in external objects to allure the senses, for
there only righteousness dwells ; and into the new
paradise no seducing spirit can enter to make trial of
its inhabitants. The season of trial will be past, and
the state which succeeds it is a state of repose and
enjoyment. The present administration of the divine
government, so far as they are concerned, will then
be at an end ; and rewards and punishments will be
finally distributed. There will be no call, therefore,
for the anxious vigilance which is now indispensably
necessary, for precautions are not requisite when
there is no danger. They will rejoice in their perfect
security, and serve God without fear.
To the doctrine which has now been laid down re
specting the state of the soul after death, different
theories are opposed, less or more remote from the
truth, but all concurring in this general position, that
the disembodied spirit does not immediately pass into
its ultimate abode.
The first theory is founded upon the terms used in t
Scripture to express the state of the soul subsequent
to temporal death, and not a little critical ingenuity
has been displayed in supporting it. On the subject
of the future state, a variety of terms are employed in
the New Testament, as, b.Sw, o xoxvoc Afipzaf*, irzpiSuo-ot,
TcLprxpos, ytvivo., and ovptvo;.* 'AJW, which corresponds
with the Hebrew word ^siffj signifies according to its
etymology, (from a privative, and t;<fe», to see), the in
visible state, and is understood to be the general name
of the region into which human spitits pass on leaving
the body. It consists of two provinces, separated
from each other by a great gulf or wide interval — o
xoxrreo A^pnait. or irxpcLifeicro;, and TitpTcLpo; — the one the

* The unseen state; Abraham's bosom; paradise; Tartarus,
(hell;) Gehenna, (hell;) heaven.

434

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY

receptacle of the righteous, and the other the recep
tacle of the wicked. While in these receptacles, they
are in an intermediate state ; for when the final judg
ment takes place, the righteous will enter into mpxm,
or heaven, properly so called, and the wicked into
yeetyj., or hell. It is supposed, according to this theory,
that the souls of men possess consciousness and ac
tivity in this intermediate state, and experience happi
ness or misery ; and thus far it is not at variance with
the doctrine which we hold. If it farther implies,
that they are not as happy or as miserable as they
will be in heaven and in hell, it accords even here
with the common belief, that the reward of the righ
teous, and the punishment of guilty souls, will not be
consummated till they have been reunited to their
respective bodies, and sentence have been pronounced
upon them at the final judgment. All the difference
seems to consist in the places assigned to them during
the interval between death and the resurrection. But,
in speaking of places in the invisible world, we can
affix no distinct ideas to our words, as they are all
equally unknown to us. The hypothesis, therefore,
of an intermediate state, although it were satisfactorily
established, would be no real accession to our know
ledge ; it would merely make us acquainted with a
fact which we could not understand or apply to any
practical use, and which would be to us a matter of
pure speculation. This, indeed, would not be a reason
for rejecting it, if it were clearly taught in the Scrip
tures; but however plausible is the reasoning in favour
of it, I think it is not reconcilable to the passages
which represent believers, when they die, as entering
into heaven, and into the place where Christ is ; and
it rests in a great measure upon criticism, the value
of which scholars alone can appreciate, and upon de
scriptions of the future state, which are confessedly
figurative. I shall therefore dismiss it without farther
notice. I proceed to consider another theory, which is
directly opposed to our doctrine concerning the state
of the soul after death. Some modern Divines have
contended that it is asleep or unconscious, and will
remain so till the resurrection. It may be objected,
that it is impossible to conceive a spirit to be in this
state, as the idea which is always entertained of it is,
tbat it is a living, thinking, active substance; and
-tbat its separation from the body, instead of being an
argument for its insensibility, as if it could not act
without bodily organs, is rather an argument against it ;
¦ because, being no longer fettered and impeded by a sub
stance dull and inert, it is at full liberty to exert its na
tive energies, as smothered fire breaks out into a flame,
when it obtains a free communication with the atmos
phere. To such reasoning they reply, by appealing
to passages of Scripture which appear to favour their
hypothesis, and quote those which speak of the dead
as asleep, as knowing nothing, as incapable of prais
ing God, and lying in darkness and silence.
The first answer is, that such language is to be
.considered as figurative, and may be explained by
metaphor and synecdoche. When the dead are said to
be asleep, a metaphor is used, founded upon the
striking resemblance' betweeen death and sleep, which
js called by the poet, mortis simillima imago ; and at
.the same time, in this as in other instances, by an
other trope, a part is spoken of as the whole. The
dead- are said to sleep, and to be unconscious and in
active, because these things are true of their bodies.
It is worthy of attention, that similar language has
been adopted by other nations besides the Jews, and
is in common use among us, althoughwe believe, as
well as they did, that souls are active in the invisible
state. We should think that the man reasoned very
inconclusively, who, when he heard us saying of the
dead, that they are ignorant of all that is passing on

the earth, that they are motionless and without feeling,
and are no longer capable of good or evil, inferred,
that we supposed, either that their souls had died
with their bodies, or that their faculties were dormant
and their consciousness was gone. Every man would
perceive, in this case, the folly of making common
language, founded as it evidently is upon appearances,
the standard of our philosophical ot metaphysical
opinions. It is equally improper to interpret thus the
language of Scripture, which adopts on this occasion
the style of common conversation, as it is acknow
ledged to do in speaking of the apparent motion of
the sun around the earth.
The second answer to the conclusion drawn from
the passages cited above, is, that to undersland them
as importing the insensibility of the soul in its sep
arate state, is contrary to other passages in which its
conscious existence is most explicitly affirmed. When
Stephen said with his dying breath, " Lord Jesus, re
ceive my spirit,"* he manifestly supposed that his
soul should immediately pass into the presence of his
Saviour. Our Lord's promise to the penitent thief,
"To-day thou shalt be with me in paradise,"! implies,
if words have any meaning, that ere that day was
finished, his soul should be in the same place with the
soul of Christ, and should enjoy the blessedness which
the word "paradise" suggests. In the fifth chapter
of the second Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul proceeds
upon the supposition, that believers, as soon as they
leave this world, enter upon a happier state : " For we
know, that, if our earthly house of this tabernacle were
dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not
made with hands, eternal in the heavens."! The one
event immediately follows the other, — the entrance into
the heavenly house, the removal from the earthly. The
same thing is implied when he says, that he was "in
a strait betwixt two," whether to remain upon earth,
or " to depart and to be with Christ, which was far
better."]) Certainly he believed, that as soon as he
departed he should be with Christ, as is clear both
from the words themselves, and from his strait ; for,
if he had known that he was to remain in a state
of insensibility for thousands of years, he could not
have hesitated, for a moment, whether it would be
better to sink into that state, or to continue in life,
engaged in the most important services, and enjoying
the delights of communion with God. To evade this
argument, a distinction is made between absolute and
relative time ; the former moaning time considered in
itself, independently of human perceptions ; the latter-
time as perceived by us. In respect of absolute time,
it is granted that the saints are not with Christ as soon
as they depart from this world ; but they are so in re
spect of relative time, for however long the interval
may be, they are not conscious of it, and it will seem
to them but a moment. " But does the Apostle," to
adopt the words of Dr. Campbell, "any where. give a
hint that this is his meaning? or is it what any man
would naturally discover from his words ? That it is
exceedingly remote from the common use of language,
I believe hardly any of those who favour this scheme
will be partial enough to deny. Did the sacred pen
men then mean to put a cheat upon the woild, and by
the help of an equivocal expression, to flatter men
with the hope of entering, the moment they expire, on -
a state of felicity, when in fact they knew that it would
be many ages before it would take place? But, were
the hypothesis about the extinction of the mind be
tween death and the resurrection well founded, the
apparent coincidence they speak of is not so clear as
they seem to think it. For my part, I cannot regard
it as an axiom, and I never heard of any who attempt-

* Acts vii. 59.
j| Phil. i. 23.

-j- Luke xxiii. 43.

X Verse 1

DEATH OF THE SAINTS, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

435

ed to demonstrate it. To me it appears merely a
corollary from Mr. Locke's doctrine, which derives
our conceptions of time from the succession of our
ideas; which, whether true or false, is a doctrine to
be found only among certain philosophers, and which,
we may reasonably believe, never came into the heads
of those to whom the Gospel in the apostolic age was
announced."* The distinction between absolute and relative time
is totally inapplicable to the following words : " We
are confident, and willing rather to be absent from the
body, and to be present with the Lord."! He had
said before, " Therefore we are always confident, know
ing that whilst we are at home in the body, we are
absent from the Lord."! ^ ao no^ conceive it possible
to express, in a clearer manner, the immediate transi
tion of the soul from its present habitation into the
presence of Christ. What detains us from his presence,
is our continuance in the body; what introduces us
into it, is our departure from the body. Our absence
from the body, and our presence with him, are closely
connected ; the latter succeeds the former without any
interval. Would it have ever entered into the mind
of any person of common sense, if there had been no
theory to support, that after all, hundreds and thousands
of years might intervene ? and would the Apostle have
said, with any regard to truth, that, when " absent
from the body, we should be present with the Lord,"
if he had believed that the soul, in a state of separa
tion, is insensible, and does not recover its conscious
ness till it is reunited to the body, and consequently
can then only be with Christ ? It is evident to every
leader, -that the doctrine which he lays down in this
passage, is exactly the reverse of the theory which we
are comhating.
On the whole, the Scriptures proceed on the sup
position, that, as soul and body are distinct, the former
is capable of happiness or misery in a separate state.
The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a proof of it.
So are those passages which speak of the spirits of
just men as made perfect; of the souls of the martyrs
as alive ; and of the departed saints as assembled in
heaven, and engaged in the worship of God. Parables
and prophetic visions are not to be literally interpret
ed; but the substance of them must be true, that is to
say, the general instructions which they convey must
be conformable to fact, or they would be no better than
fables. It is unnecessary to trouble you with any
more quotations, as, I presume, you are all satisfied
that the hypothesis of the sleep of the soul is a wild
fancy, founded on a misapprehension of some passages
of Scripture, and directly contrary to its most explicit
declarations. I have only to add, that some of the
passages to which we have appealed, are equally
conclusive against an intermediate state, as they teach
the immediate entrance of the soul into the place where
Christ now is, which all will acknowledge, is the
heaven of heavens ; for he ascended far above " all
heavens, that he might fill all things."
We come now to the last hypothesis respecting the
^ state of departed souls. It is the doctrine of the
J Church of Rome, that the saints do not immediately
pass into glory, but first go into a place called purga
tory, where they are purified by fire from the stains
of sin, which had not been washed out during the
present life. This doctrine, Protestants affirm, was
unknown to the church till the days of Gregory the
Great, as he is called, about the end of the sixth, or
the beginning of the seventh century ; but the way
seems to have been prepared for it by certain opinions,
which prevailed prior to that period, as we learn from
the writings of the Fathers. A strange notion was

* Campbell on the Gospels, Diss. vi. part ii. § 23.
f 2 Cor. v. 8, & 6.

entertained by some respecting the fire which will
burn up the earth and its works ; that all should pass
through it, that it would completely purify the bodies
of those who were to be glorified, and that the more
holy any person had been, he should feel the less pain
from this process. With regard to the souls of the
righteous, they believed, that they were in a place of
rest and enjoyment, but that they should not be ad
mitted to the beatific vision till the resurrection was
past. Hence arose the practice of praying for the
dead. Conceiving that they had not yet attained full
felicity, the ancients thought that tbey might be bene- '
fited by their prayers, which would procure to them a
greater degree of enjoyment. You will observe that,
although these opinions were fit materials for fancy
and superstition to work up into a still more extrava
gant form, they were widely different Jrom the doctrine
afterwards established by the Church of Rome as an
article of faith.
The prototype of the doctrine of Papists on this
subject is to be found in heathenism, from which they
have borrowed their cumbersome apparatus of cere
monies, and many of their religious opinions. The
existence of a purgatory is plainly taught in the writ
ings of both poets and philosophers. In the sixth
book of the jEneid, Anchises explains to his son,
who had visited him in the Shades, the process which
souls were doomed to undergo, before they could be
admitted into the Elysian fields, that they might be
freed from the stains of sin which adhered to them
at death ;
" Ergo exercentur pcenis, veterunique malorum
Supplicia expendunt."*
Some, he says, are stretched out to the winds ; others
are purified by being plunged into an immense whirl
pool or lake ; and others are subjected to the operation
of fire — " Infectum scelus exuritur igni."f
In his dialogue entitled Phajdo, Plato informs us that
when men enter into the invisible state, they are judg
ed. Those who are neither truly virtuous, nor con- '
summately wicked, are carried away to the Acherusian
lake, whore, having suffered the punishment of their
unjust deeds, they are dismissed, and then receive the
reward of their good actions. Those who, on account of
the greatness of their sins, are incurable, are cast into
Tartarus, from which they shall never escape. Those
who have committed curable sins — iclo-illcl aLAcLpTH/tcLTct
— and have repented, must also fall into Tartarus, but
after a certain period they will be delivered from it.
In bcth these passages, we have a very exact de
scription of the Popish purgatory ; and, as there is no
trace of it in the Bible, we conclude that this is the
source from which it has been derived. The resem
blance will appear more striking, if you reflect that, in
both cases, it rests precisely upon the same founda
tion, the curable and incurable sins of Plato answering
exactly to the venial and mortal sins of Papists. By
mortal sins, they understand those which alienate men
entirely from God, and are worthy of eternal death;
and they may be compared to those bodily wounds
which, by their own nature, cause the destruction of
life. Venial sins do not turn away the sinner alto
gether from God, although they impede his approach
to him; and they may be expiated, because their na
ture is so light that they do not exclude a person from
grace, or render' him an enemy to God. Mortal sins
are few, if I rightly remember, only seven, and even
these are so explained away by their casuists, the most
unblushingly profligate that the world ever saw-, that
the number is still farther reduced, and scarcely one

* JEneid. vi. 739, 740. Therefore they are afflicted wilb
pains, and pay the penalties of former evil deeds.
f lb. 743. Unatoned crime is burned away with fire.

436

DICK'S LKCTURES ON THEOLOGY.

is left upon the list. All ofheT sins are venial, or par
donable ; or, in the language of Plato, a/La^LtcLTcL iclctijucl.
1 hey are expiated partly by penances in this life, and
partly by the pains of purgatory, the place appointed
for completing the atonement.
Another distinction has been contrived by the Church
of Rome, with a view to support its doctrine concern
ing satisfaction for sin in the future state. The par
don of sin we understand to consist in the full remis
sion of guilt or of the obligation to punishment, so that
to the pardoned man there is no condemnation; but
they take a different view. They affirm that there are
two kinds of guilt, reatus culpm, the guilt of the fault,
artel reatus pcense, the guilt of the punishment. The for
mer is remitted, and the latter is retained ; or in other
words, the penitent sinner is absolved from the sen
tence of eternal death, but is still subject to temporal
punishment. Thus speaks the Council of Trent : " If
any man shall say, that after justification the fault is
so remitted to a penitent sinner, or the guilt of eternal
punishment is so blotted out, that there remains no
guilt of temporal punishment to be endured, in this
life or in the future life in purgatory, before he can be
admitted into the kingdom of heaven : let him be ac
cursed."* Now, Purgatory has been fitted up as a
great penitentiary, into which the half-pardoned cul
prits are sent, that they may undergo the painful but
wholesome discipline, by which they will be qualified
for full restoration to the favour of God.
The notion of purgatory is so gross and palpably
false, that the common sense of every man would reject
it, where it is not perverted and overpowered by au
thority and prejudice. Can a person have any idea in
his mind, when he talks of souls being purified by fire?
Might he not, with equal propriety, speak of a spirit
being nourished with bread and wine ? The soul is sup
posed to be a material substance, (upon which alone
fire can act,) contrary to the belief even of the abettors
of purgatory, who admit, as well as we, the spirituality
of its essence. This single remark is sufficient. The
whole fabric tumbles to the ground. Purgatory, as ex
plained by the followers of Antichrist, is physically
impossible. it is unnecessary to enter into a minute refutation of
an opinion which refutes itself, and is at variance with
the dictates of reason as well as of revelation. It were
easy to show that it is subversive of the atonement of
Christ, of the doctrine of justification by faith, of the
peace, and consolation, and hope of the people of God.
The testimonies from Scripture, which have been al
ready produced to prove that the souls of believers im
mediately pass into the presence, of Christ, are all argu
ments against the purgatory of Papists. Yet, as those
. who profess to be Christians find it necessary, or at
least expedient, to have some appearance of support
from Scripture, they allege certain quotations from it,
the sound of which seems to favour their sentiments.
They appeal, for example, to the words of our Lord
concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost, that " it
shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither
in the world to come ;"! from which it is inferred, that
some sins are forgiven in the world to come. It is,
however, a little hazardous to build a theory upon the
slender foundation of a solitary expression, especially
when it admits of a different interpretation. Our Lord
may be conceived to have adopted the current language
of the Jews, who called their own state, the present
world, and that under the Messiah, the world to come ;
and in this view he asserts, that the sin against the
Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven under any dispensa
tion of religion. It is plain that his design is to assert
the unpardonable nature of the sin ; and for this pur
pose he uses a phraseology which excluded all hope,

* De Justificatione, Canon, xxx.

t Matth. xii. 32.

as we say, that a thing will not be done either now or
hereafter. It shall never be done.
Another passage, which is brought forward to sup
port the notion of purgatory, is in the first Epistle to
the Corinthians, where the Apostle, speaking of the
different superstructures which men might erect upon
the true foundation, says, " Every man's work shall
be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because
it shall be revealed by fire ; and the fire shall try every
man's work of what sort it is." " If any man's work
shall be burnt he shall suffer loss : but he himself shall
be saved ; yet so as by fire."* But nothing more can
be gained from this passage in favour of the doctrine
than an empty sound. This fire is for trial ; the fire of
purgatory is for punishment. This fire tries the works
of men ; the fire of purgatory purifies their persons.
This fire tries all works whether good or bad ; the fire
of purgatory is kindled only for the latter. It is a fig
urative description of the effects of divine judgments,
in sweeping away the false opinions which even good
men may hold and publish in connexion with the great
truths of the gospel ; or, of the future judgment, when
every work shall be made manifest, and some of the
views and practices even of genuine believers, into
which, although they hold Christ the head, they were
betrayed through ignorance and prejudice, will be dis
approved, although they themselves shall receive the
end of their faith, even the salvation of their souls.
The fire will consume the wood, hay, and stubble, but
will not touch their persons. Other passages which
are referred to are still less to the purpose.
The best argument for purgatory is the immense
gain which it brings to tbe worthless church that pat
ronizes it. The satisfaction of Jesus Christ, and
the surplus satisfaction of the saints who suffered more
than their sins deserved, are dealt out by the Pope
and his underlings for the benefit of the living and the
dead. But, although freely they have received, they
are not disposed freely to give. They, no doubt,
think it reasonable, that a treasure so precious should
not be thrown away, and that, if souls are to be re
lieved from excruciating sufferings, their friends on
earth should pay for so valuable a favour. Great effi
cacy is ascribed to masses and prayers said for them ;
but if there are no wages, there will be no work. The
miserable beings in prison may remain there, and be
tormented forever, for aught that the vicar of Christ
and his servants will do in their behalf, if there is not
a more powerful motive than charity. Great sums of
money have therefore been given, and rich endow
ments have been founded, to secure the prayers and
masses of the priests ; and such was their influence in
past ages, that, if the civil power had not arrested
their progress, they would have engrossed the greater
part of the property of Christendom. The delusion
was supported by a train of false miracles, and visions,
and revelations, with which the legends of the Church
of Rome are filled, and which one does not know,
whether to despise for their silliness, or to abhor for
their impiety.

LECTURE LXXXII.
ON THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.
State of the Body after Death.— The Resurrection.— Proofi
of it. — Believed by the Jews. — Universality of the Resurrec
tion. — Identity of our Present and Future Bodies. — Resur
rection, the work of Divine Power. — Connexion -between
the Resurrection of Christ and that of the Saints. — The Na
ture of the Bodies of the Saints. — Opinion respecting a Par
tial Resurrection.
We have seen that all must die, the righteous as
well as the wicked, for the grave is the house appoint-
* 1 Cor. iii. 13. 15.

THE RESURRECTION.

437

ed for all living. Confining our attention to tbe for
mer, we have inquired what becomes of their souls ;
and it has appeared, that as, being distinct from the
body, they survive their separation from it, so they
neither sink into sleep, nor enter into an intermediate
slate, but are made perfect in holiness, and immediate
ly pass into heaven. Besides the explicit assurances
which are contained in the Scriptures, we are led to
the conclusion by the consideration, that the sleep of a
disembodied spirit is inconceivable : that the purgation
of it by fire, is physically impossible ; and that to sup
pose a process of expiatory discipline, is derogatory
to the perfection of the atonement of Christ.
The next subject of inquiry is the state of the body
after death. It may seem sufficient to say, that it is
committed to the grave, in which it putrefies, and after
a certain time is reduced to dust. This is the popu
lar view of the subject; and as the language com
monly used is founded upon the words of Scripture,
" Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return,"*
so it is sufficiently accurate for ordinary purposes. It
is. certain that all that is earthy in the human body is
reduced to earth ; but this is only an inconsiderable part
of it. It is a vulgar error to suppose that the body
is a solid mass of matter. On being subjected to an
analysis, it is found to be a compound of different sub
stances ; and, when the air involved in it is extricated,
and the fluids are evaporated, the residuum is much
less than is commonly imagined. It is enough to have
adverted to this subject in passing. At death, tbe
body is committed to the grave, or is disposed of in
some other way ; and what of man is mortal perishes
to our apprehension.
When speaking of the death of tbe saints, the Scrip
tures say that they " die in the Lord," and " sleep in
Jesus ;"! and from these expressions it has been in
ferred, that, as there subsisted an intimate relation be
tween him and them during life, the union is not dis
solved by the separation of the two constituent parts
of their nature. As the relation extended to their
whole persons, to the body as well as to the soul, it
is supposed to continue in reference to both. There
is no difficulty in conceiving the continuance of the
union of the soul, because it is still animated by the
Spirit of Christ; but it is not so easy to understand
the union of a piece of dead matter, of a heap of dust,
of particles scattered hither and thither, to the living
Saviour in heaven. Yet the notion is manifestly favour
ed by the expressions formerly quoted, and, perhaps
too, by the assertion in another place, that the bodies
of believers are " the temples of the Holy Ghost."!
If they once belonged to Christ, they do not cease in
their new state to be a part of his property. He
claims them as his own, because he shed his blsod to
redeem them : tbey are a part of his mystical body,
the church, which is made up not of separate spirits,
but of human beings ; and they are therefore objects
of his care, at the time when they most seem to be
forsaken. It is a wonderful thought, that what to us
is so disgusting that we cannot bear to look upon it,
what is so worthless that we care not perhaps where
it is laid, or to what use it is applied, what is con
founded with the common earth, and accounted the
vilest of all things, should be precious in the eyes of
that great Being who looks upon ten thousand worlds
as nothing!
To the bodies of believers, the grave is a place of
rest. So far, indeed, as this rest implies exemption
from toil, and pain, and weariness, it is equally so to
the bodies of the wicked. Both have lain down, like
the traveller at the end of his journey, and the hire
ling when he has fulfilled his day. In calling the

*Gen. iii. 19.
{1 Cor. vi. 19.

f Rev. xiv. 13. 1 Thess. iv. 14.

grave a place of rest to tbe righteous, we unconscious
ly associate with the state of their bodies that of their
souls, which are truly at rest in the peaceful abode of.
heaven; or we anticipate the result, when, awakened
as from a long refreshing sleep, they shall rise with
renovated life and vigour, to enjoy everlasting fe
licity. " Go thou thy way till the end be : for thou shalt
rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days."*
In these words, death is presented to Daniel under the
emblem of a state of repose; and, at the same time,
he is cheered with the hope of a happier lot, which
will succeed at a distant period. Having considered
at some length the death of the righteous and its con
sequences, we are led, in the next place, to speak of
their resurrection.
I begin with remarking, That the resurrection of
the body is a matter of pure revelation. Reason does
not suggest it; or rather, to reason it seems incredi
ble ; and to those who have no other teacher, it is
unknown, or when proposed, is rejected by them.
Two or three passages, indeed have been found in the
writings of heathens, from which it appears that some
of them had an idea of a resurrection ; but their
knowledge must have been derived from revelation,
incidentally, or in the channel of tradition, and their
belief was confined to themselves. With a few ex
ceptions, the wise men among the Gentiles were
either ignorant of the resurrection, or derided it. In
the dialogue of Minucius Felix which is entitled Oc
tavius, Caecilius, who personates a heathen, reproaches
the Christians with contriving aniles fabulas,, old wives'
fables. " They tell us," he says, " that they shall
be reproduced after death and the ashes of the funeral
pile ; and believe their own lies, so that you might
think that they had already revived. O twofold mad
ness ! to denounce destruction to the. heaven and the
stars, which we leave as we found them, but to prom
ise eternity to themselves, when dead and extinguish- ¦
ed !" When Paul in Athens spoke of the resurrec
tion of the dead, some of the philosophers mocked-!
In the Church of Corinth, there were persons who,
influenced by their original opinions, affirmed that there
was no resurrection of the dead ;! and, in the second
Epistle to Timothy, mention is made of Hymeneus
and Philetus, who affirmed that the resurrection was
already past ;|| that is, finding that the doctrine was
explicitly taught by the Gospel, and that they could
not retain the Christian name if they should flatly
deny it, they explained it away, as expressive only of
a resurrection from a state of ignorance and sin.
Since the resurrection of the dead has been made
known by revelation, it has been attempted to establish
it by the principles of reason ; and an argument has.
been founded on the justice of God, which requires,
that as men have obeyed or disobeyed him in their
whole person, so, in their whole person they should
be rewarded or punished. And it does seem agreeable
to justice, that the body, which in this life is asso
ciated with the soul in all its actions, should share
in its future recompense. But, whatever force there
may be in this argument to us, who already believe the
point which it is intended to prove, there is no reason
to think that it would have led any man to the con
clusion, who had no other means of arriving at it.
Without revelation, our ideas of Divine justice would
have been very imperfect. We could not have as
certained exactly what were its demands ; nor do I see
that reason could have objected if it had been said,.
that justice would be satisfied with the infliction of
such punishment as the soul was capable of enduring
in a separate state. The argument ascribed to the

* Dan. xii. 13.
|| 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18.

f Acts xvii. 32.

XI Cor. xv.

433

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

ancient philosopher Phocylides, one of tbe few who
are understood to have entertained the idea of a re
surrection, seems to be better: "It is not good that
the admirable harmony which appears in the constitu
tion of men, should be entirely dissolved. We hope,
therefore, that the remains of the dead will come forth
from the earth, and return to the light." What views
led him to this observation, I cannot tell ; but it may
be turned into an argument from the wisdom of God,
who it is not to be supposed will destroy a species of
creatures, after having been induced by sufficient rea
sons to create it. Were the body of man to remain
for ever in the grave, the human species would be de
stroyed ; for there would be then no specific difference,
that we know of, between men and angels, both being
pure spirits unconnected with matter. That peculiar
race, which united tbe visible and invisible worlds,
was allied to earth by one part of its nature and to
heaven by another, would disappear, and a link in the
chain of being would be broken. We might conceive
God to annihilate a species, in the exercise of his
sovereignty, or in the exercise of his justice; but we
could not so easily conceive him to change a species,
or, in translating the inhabitants of this globe to a
higher region, to retain only one half of their original
nature, and consign the other to the unconscious ele
ments for ever. What, it might be asked, could be
the reason for this change ? Why did he give them
bodies, and then take them away? I do not know
that this argument, as I have now stated it, has been
attended to before, nor do I affirm that it has any force.
It is, however, fully as convincing as the argument
from the justice of God ; but it does not amount to de
monstration, and, at the best, can afford only a degree
of probability.
There are some analogies in the natural world, by
which the subject has been illustrated ; but they are
merely illustrations, and prove nothing. The revival
of all things at the return of spring, is one of the most
common as well as the most beautiful. Trees, and
shrubs, and herbs, and flowers, which seemed to be
dead, and some of which lay hidden in the earth like
the body in the grave, burst forth with new life, and
delight our senses with their verdure and their fra
grance. But the analogy fails in the most important
point. They were not dead ; there was merely a sus
pension of their functions ; but from the body in the
grave the vital principle has totally departed, and its
very texture is dissolved. To make the similitude
perfect, we should see an instance of the reviviscence
of a plant, torn from its bed, deprived of its roots, re
duced to ashes by fire, or consumed by air and moist
ure. On such a plant Spring would shed its genial
influences in vain.
There is a supposed fact in natural history, which,
being credited by the early Christians, and not Ay
them alone, but even by wise men among the Gentiles,
was frequently appealed to as a proof or illustration
of the resurrection of the body. It is the story of the
phoenix, and is thus related in his Epistle to the
Corinthians by Clement, the first Christian in whose
writings it occurs. " Let us contemplate the wonder
ful sign which takes place in the eastern regions,
namely, in Arabia. It is the bird called the phcenix,
and being the only one of it3 species, it lives five
hundred years. When it is about to die, it prepares a
place for itself of frankincense and myrrh, and other
aromatic substances, and enteringinto it at the appoint
ed time, expires. The flesh being corrupted, a worm
is produced, which, being nourished by the moisture
of the dead animal, pushes forth wings, and growing
strong carries away the nest containing the bones of
its predecessor, and places it upon the altar of the
sun in Heliopolis, and then departs. Can it then
seem wonderful that the Maker of all things should

raise those who have served him in holiness and
faith ?"
The point which I have been hitherto endeavouring
to establish is, that the resurrection of the body is a
fact which unassisted reason could not discover, and
of which the natural world can furnish only some
images or similitudes. It is so clearly revealed in the
New Testament, that it is unnecessary to refer to
particular passages ; and I shall therefore at present
mention only a few from the Old Testament, to show
that it was known before the advent of our Saviour
The following- words of Job have been the subject of
much discussion ; but the circumstances in which they
were spoken, the solemnity of the introduction, and
the elevated tone of the language, evidently point to
something greater than a temporal deliverance. " Oh
that my words were now written ! Oh that they were
printed in a book ! that they were graven with an iron
pen and lead in the rock forever ! For I know that
my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the
latter day upon the earth : And though after my skin
worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see
God ; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes
shall behold, and not another; though my reins be
consumed within me."* It is plainly taught in these
words of Isaiah : " He will swallow up death in vic
tory, and the Lord will wipe away tears from off all
faces ;" and again, " Thy dead men shall live, together
with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing,
ye that dwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of
herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead."! I shall
add only one passage more, from the prophecies of
Daniel. "And many of them that sleep in the dust
of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and
some to shame and everlasting contempt."! A strange
notion has been broached, that the Jews were ignorant
of a future state, because there is no express mention
of it in the law of Moses. But, our Lord has proved
it and the resurrection of the body from the words of
God prior to the giving of the law, "I am the God
of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob ;"|| and we see that it is plainly foretold in their
subsequent sacred books. In the Epistle to the He
brews it is affirmed, that it was the hope of it which
supported the martyrs for the Jewish religion. " And
others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that
they might obtain a better resurrection. "§ While the
writer may be understood to refer to all the holy men
who laid down their lives for the law, he had probably
in his eye the sufferers under Antiochus Epiphanes, and
particularly a mother and her seven sons ; of whom
it is related in the second book of the Maccabees, that
they endured the most cruel torments with patience,
and died in the assured hope of a glorious immor
tality. " Thou, like a fury," said one of the sons,
"takestus out of this present life, but tbe King of
the world shall raise us up, who have died for his
laws, unto everlasting life. "If
Reason confirms the dictates of revelation by re
minding us, that the power of God is able to execute
the purposes of his will. " Why should it seem an
incredible thing that God should raise the dead ?" is
a question which may put to silence all infidel ob
jectors. As the event does not imply a contradiction,
it is possible, and may therefore be effected by that
power to which no limits can be assigned. He who
made all things out of nothing, can unquestionably
restore any portion of matter to the form and organiz
ation which he gave it at first. If he fashioned the
human body out of the dust, it would be absurd to
suppose that there is any greater difficulty in raising

* Job xix. 23—27. T Is. xxv. 8. xxvi. 19.
X Dan. xii. 2. || Matth. xxii. 32. { Heb. xi. 35.
IT 2 Mac. vii. 9.

THE RESURRECTION.

439

it from the dust again. To hesitate for a moment
about the possibility of an event which God has
signified his intention to accomplish, because we do
not understand how it can be effected, is a proof of
atheism, or, at least, of stupidity, for it proceeds upon
an assumption, which, to say nothing of its impiety,
it unworthy of a being possessed of any portion of
reason, that the weakness of creatures is the measure
of the strength of the Creator.
A question has been proposed, whether the Scrip
tures teach a universal resurrection, or the resurrec
tion only of the righteous ? I do not know that any
in modern times have confined it to the righteous, but
some of the followers of Socinus. Dr. Macknight
adopted the strange opinion, that the bodies of the
wicked will be destroyed in the general conflagration ;
out he believed that they would be previously raised
from the grave.* The notion of a partial resurrection
has been triumphantly refuted ; but this was an easy
task, as there was no occasion for elaborate argumen
tation, and nothing more was necessary than to appeal
to the explicit declarations of Scripture. Some her
esies have an air of plausibility, by which they may
impose upon the unwary ; and a regard to the honour
of the truth, and the souls of men, requires that we
should enter into a formal confutation of them. But
when certain corrupters of the truth have the audacity
to give the lie to the testimony of God, delivered in
terms which are free from ambiguity, and are the
plainest wrhicb it is possible to use, it is quite suffi
cient to return a simple negative to their unfounded
affirmations, or to treat them with silent- contempt.
If Paul had hope towards God, that there would be a
resurrection, " both of the just and of the unjust;"!
and if our Saviour has told us, that "all that are
in their graves shall come forth ; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life ; and ihey that have
done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation;"! we
may surely give ourselves very little concern about
what any follower of Socinus may say to the con
trary. The question, whether tbe dead will be raised with
the same bodies which were laid in the grave, or with
different bodies, would not have occurred to a plain,
simple-minded man, who was disposed implicitly to
receive the testimony of God. It has arisen from the
propensity of the human mind to speculate about
every thing, and to philosophize where we ought to
believe. It has been asked at those who assert the
resurrection of the same body, whether they mean the
body which died, or the body at any former period, as
it is known to be in a perpetual flux, and few of the
particles which belonged to it in youth remaira in old
age ? It has been asked, whether, as all these par
ticles equally belonged to the individual, they are all
to be restored to him, or only a part; and, in the lat
ter supposition, what part ? Now, although we can
not return a satisfactory answer to such questions, our
ignorance is not a reason why we should entertain
any doubt of the identity of the body; because we
have received assurances of the fact, and should be
content, as we must be in many other cases, with this
general knowledge, while the mode and circumstances
are enveloped in mystery. The very word, resurrec
tion, and the corresponding term clvx.tto.o-ic., both signify
the rising or standing up of something wbich had
fallen or lain down ; and if it is a different body from
their present with which men will hereafter be
clothed, a word has been chosen by the inspired
writers which conveys a fallacious idea. This single
argument, I think, is conclusive. The formation of a
different body for the separate spirit would not be a

- Macknight on the Epistles, 1 Thess. iv. 16.

f Arts xxiv. 15.

{ John v. 29.

resurrection but a creation, — in the secondary sense of
the term, if it was formed out of pre-existing materials.
In corroboration of this argument, I observe, that the
sameness of the body is implied in the reasonings of
Paul in the fifteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the
Corinthians. Some, indeed, have drawn the contrary
conclusion from his words : " That which thou sow-
est, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare
grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain.
But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and
to every seed his own body."* But his meaning will
be obvious, if you reflect upon his design, which is to
show, that the bodies of the saints, of whom alone he
is speaking, will undergo a great and glorious change,
and will not be the same as they now are in respect
of their qualities, as the plant which rises from the
earth is different from the bare grain, the homely-
looking seed from which it springs. It is a physical
fact, that the plant is not different from the seed, as
the. new bodies are supposed to be from the old ; for
it is derived from the seed, and contains a part of its
substance ; and the Apostle himself proceeds upon
this idea, when he says, "Thou fool, that which thou
sowest is not quickened, except it die ;"! plainly sup
posing, that that wbich is quickened is the same sub
stance which died ; and consequently, that the body
of the saints, at the resurrection, is the same body
which underwent putrefaction. He expresses his
meaning in the clearest manner, when he afterwards
contrasts the present and the future state of the body ;
for he assumes it as a fact, that it is the same material
substance which is now corruptible, mean, and weak,
but is afterwards to be incorruptible, glorious, and
powerful; and he sums up his discourse by saying,
" This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal must put on immortality."!
It has been said that the resurrection of the same
body is not necessary; for, although the new body is
not numerically the same, " the body is truly raised,
because, what is raised being united to the soul, there
will arise in the man thus completed, a consciousness
of his identity, by which he will be sensible of the jus
tice of the recompense rendered to him for his deeds."
The consciousness of identity, as far as it respects
the soul, is never suspended, and remains while it is
in a separate state. What, then, is this new con
sciousness which is to arise when if is again embodied ?
If it mean any thing, it must mean a consciousness of
identity in the whole person, and, consequently, a con
sciousness of what is not true ; for, if the conscious
ness refers to the soul alone, it does not begin at the
resurrection, and the word " arise" is used merely to
impose upon us, and to make us believe that this new
body, although totally different, will somehow be con
sidered as the same with the former body. With regard
to the idea, that this consciousness of identity is suffi
cient for all the ends of justice, the question is not,
whether it is true or false, but whether God our judge
will account it sufficient ; and if he has declared his in
tention to raise the same body to be rewarded or pun
ished, speculations about what might have been are not
worthy of notice.
Against the resurrection of the same body, it is ob
jected, that the bodies of men often enter into the
composition of other substances ; that they not only
serve for the nutrition of vegetables, and are the food
of carnivorous animals, but that they are occasionally
devoured by cannibals, and converted into a part of
their bodies. It is easy to conceive them to be re
claimed from animals and vegetables ; but what shall
be done in those cases in which the same particles
happen to belong to different men ?— Two things are
supposed in this objection. First, that all the parti-

* 1 Cor. xv. 37, 38. t lb. 3S.

t lb. 53.

440

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

cies which have ever belonged to an individual will be
united in the composition of his future body ; and sec
ondly, that a part of the substance of one man may
become part of the substance of another. It is evi
dent that, if the first supposition is true, the second
is false ; and that, if the second is true, the first is
false; but we cannot affirm any thing certainly con
cerning either. The objection is addressed to our
ignorance ; but the objectors themselves are equally
ignorant; and as, on this account, they have no right
to advance the objection, so we are under no obligation
to put ourselves to the trouble of answering it. It is
enough for us to know that God, all-wise and almighty,
is able to perform what he has promised.
Some have supposed that there is " a germ or semi
nal principle in the human body, which is not destroy
ed by death ; and which, at the appointed time, will
reproduce the body in a more excellent form than
before, through tbe quickening influence of Divine
Power." But, we may ask, Is the human body a
vegetable? Does it resemble a plant, which, when
its leaves and stem are destroyed, retains life in the
root, and will shoot forth again at the return of spring ?
Will the reproduction of the body, which we have
been taught to consider as miraculous, be the result
of a natural process ? How is this germ or seminal
principle preserved, when the body is reduced to ashes
by fire, or undergoes a complete dissolution in the
grave ? Has any person seen it ? Does any person
understand what it means ? Has it any existence but
in the region of fancy and conjecture? We have fre
quently cause to complain that we meet with gratui
tous assumptions and unintelligible propositions ; and
they occur in the writings of the learned, as well as
in the conversation of the illiterate. Let no man talk
of a germ or seminal principle of the body, till he has
first, after patient thinking, assured himself that he
affixes a distinct idea to his words. I consider the as
sertion, that there is such a principle, to be words and
nothing more. Besides other absurdities, that is im
plied in it, that the body is not entirely dead ; that
there is a part of it, however small, in which life re
mains ; for a dead germ or seed could not reproduce ;
and how there can be life in any particle of it, after
the vital principle has forsaken it, we leave to the
authors of this foolish hypothesis to explain. In our
progress through the system of Divine truth, our way
is impeded, not only by the blunders of vulgar igno
rance, but by the unfounded speculations of false wis
dom and philosophy.
The resurrection of the dead is tbe work of God.
Yet it is ascribed to Jesus Christ without any incon
sistency, because he is a Divine Person, and to him
as Mediator the administration of the moral govern
ment of the Universe is committed. " The hour is
coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall
hear his voice, and shall come forth."* The resur
rection will be a preparatory step to the judgment,
which will immediately follow, and in which, sen
tence will be pronounced upon all the individuals of
the human race, according to their works. " The Lord
himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with
the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God ;
and the dead in Christ shall rise first."! We do not
understand the circumstances mentioned in these
words ; but, if they refer to the ministry of created
beings on this occasion, we are sure that it is not by
their agency that the dead will ' be restored to life.
This is a work appropriated to divine power, which
only is able to effect it. No voice will raise the dead
but the voice of Jesus Christ. The office of angels
will be subordinate ; and as their presence will add to
the grandeur of the scene, so they will be sent to con-

* John v.

f 1 Thess. iv. 16.

vey the righteous from the earth to the light hand of
their Saviour. " He shall send his angels with a great
sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his
elect, from one end of heaven to the other."*
I have already stated, that there will be a resurrec
tion of all men, good and bad, and that the justice of
God seems to require, that as men have served him
or sinned against him in the body, so in the body,
they should be rewarded or punished. With regard
to the wicked, the Scripture contents itself with in
forming us, that they shall be raised, and afterwards
judged and cast into hell. It does not enter into a
detailed account of the state and qualities of their
bodies. All that we learn is, that they shall rise " to
shame and everlasting contempt ;" and hence we may
probably infer, that their external appearance will be
such as is befitting the character of criminals, and will
exhibit marks of the curse, by which their whole per
son is devoted to irretrievable perdition.
In the subsequent part of this lecture, I shall con
fine your attention to the resurrection of the saints.
I begin with remarking, that there is an intimate
connexion between their resurrection, and that of Jesus
Christ. The simple re-union of their souls and bodies,
is not to be considered as the effect of his mediation,
because the same thing will take place with respect to
the wicked ; and of all opinions none is more absurd
than that of certain Divines, who have maintained,
that the general resurrection is a privilege which
Christ has procured for mankind in general by his
death. To the wicked the resurrection is not a privi
lege, but a curse ; it is not the effect of the goodness,
but of the avenging justice of God. What the saints
owe to his mediation is a happy resurrection, the
change of a tremendous evil into an unspeakable bles
sing. As he died not for himself, but for them, he
has taken away the sting of death, or made it cease
to be a penal evil to them; and rising in the character
of their surety, he secured that they also shall rise, to
enjoy the immortal life which is the recompense of
his merit. " Since by man came death, by man came
also the resurrection of the dead."! Death came by
the first man, because through his sin, his descendants,
to whom its guilt is imputed, are rendered obnoxious
to death ; and the resurrection of the dead, must
therefore come by the second man in a similar way.
Through his righteousness imputed to them, they are
made heirs of eternal life. It is perhaps on this ac
count, that God is said " to have raised us up to
gether with him, and made us sit together in heavenly
places ;"! words which seem to import, that the res
urrection of the saints is past, but which can only
mean, that it is infallibly secured by that of Jesus
Christ as their Head and Representative.
" Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become
the first fruits of them that slept.")] The first fruits
were by the command of God presented to him at a
stated season, not only as a token of the gratitude of
the Israelites for his bounty, but as an earnest of the
approaching harvest. In this sense, he is called the
first fruits of the dead. He was the first in order of
time, for, although some were restored to life by the
Prophets and by himself during his personal ministry,
none came out of their graves to return to them no
more till after his resurrection ; and as he was the
first in respect of time, so he was the first in order
of succession ; all the saints following him, as the
harvest followed the presentation of the first fruits of
the temple. The interval is long, and the dreary
sterility of the grave might justify the thought that
the seed committed to it has perished forever. But
our hope rests upon his power, which can make the

* Matt. xxiv. 31.
|| 1 Cor. xv. 20.

flCor. xv. 21. JEph. ii. 6.

THE RESURRECTION.

441

wilderness blossom as the rose ; and we wait till
heavenly influences descend as the dew. of herbs,
when the barren soil shall display all the luxuriance
of vegetation, and death itself shall teem with life.
Of the change which will take place in the bodies
of the saints, Paul speaks in his first Epistle to the
Corinthians; but his words are too general to convey
a distinct idea of the subject. " It is sown in corrup
tion, it is raised in incorruption ; it is sown in dis
honour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness,
it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is
raised a spiritual body."* We may, however, draw
from them some conclusions, respecting the state of
the glorified body.
First, It will be incorruptible and immortal. In
the present state, the human body is liable to disso
lution, and contains in itself the principles of decay.
It is subject to acute and chronic diseases, by which
life is suddenly or slowly extinguished ; and then the
process of putrefaction begins, which terminates in
the destruction of its organization, and the separation
of its parts. In the future state it will be sound and
healthy, and probably be so constituted as not to be
naturally capable of disease and waste, while the
penal cause of its disorders will no longer exist.
" There shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor
crying, nor any more pain."! The body will be im
mortal as the soul. Although things on earth, even
the firmest and most solid substances, are wasted
away ; yet this appears to be the effect of the circum
stances in which they are placed, — of the action, for
example, of air and moisture. We do not know that
all matter experiences decay. We are ignorant of its
state beyond our own world ; but we have reason to
believe that the sun and stars are of the same magni
tude, and emit the same splendour, as at the begin
ning; and can find no difficulty in conceiving any
portion of matter to be made, by the will of God, im
mutable and eternal.
Secondly, The bodies of the saints will be glorious ;
but in what this glory will consist, we are not able to
say. The word, glory, when applied to the body,
suggests the idea of brightness or splendour ; and in
this sense we speak of the glory of the sun and the
stars. It may seem to favour this meaning of the
term in reference to the present subject, tbat at the
transfiguration of our Lord, his face shone as the sun,
and his raiment was while as the light ;! and that
when John saw him in Patmos, his face was like the
mid-day sun, and his eyes as a flame of fire, and his
feet as burning brass,|| and we are told that the bodies
of the saints will be fashioned like unto his glorious
body.§ It is certain, however, with respect to the
latter description, that some parts of it are emblem
atical ; and we therefore cannot consider it as a
true representation of the appearance of his body in
heaven. We are equally uncertain with regard to the
other appearance ; because it does not follow, that the
form in which our Saviour shewed himself to his dis
ciples, living upon earth, and entertaining the com
mon notion of corporeal glory, is the form which he
wears in a state so different from the present. There
is no doubt that, in symmetry, and beauty, and dig
nity, the glorified body will be perfect. It will be
finished after the highest pattern in the universe.
Man will then be fair as in paradise, and fairer still
than in that happy place. Of all the visible works of
God, the most exquisite will be those bodies which
his own Son has redeemed from death with his pre
cious blood.
Thirdly, The bodies of the saints will be powerful.
At present, they are subject to many infirmities ; their

* Cor. xv. 42.-44.
|| Rev. i. 14—16.
3F

f Rev. xxi. 4.
{Phil. iii. 21.

X Matth. xvii. 2.

strength is soon exhausted and they need food, and
rest, and cordials, to restore them. In the future state,
langour and weariness will be unknown. We have no
means of estimating the strength of the glorified body,
as we know of no resistance which it will have to
overcome; but we may perhaps judge of it from a cir
cumstance which is revealed concerning the righteous
in heaven, that they will be uninterruptedly engaged in
the service of God. Constant employment will cause
no fatigue, and sleep will not be necessary to renovate
their powers. It is plain, therefore, that their bodies
will possess a degree of vigour and activity of which
we can form no conception.
Lastly, The bodies of the saints will be spiritual.
It is a remark which must occur to every person, that
a spiritual body is an apparent contradiction ; and we
are therefore under the necessity of understanding the
word, spiritual, in an unusual sense. It seems to sig
nify refined, in opposition to the grossness of the pre
sent body, composed, as it is, of flesh, blood, and
bones ; and to this meaning we are led by the follow
ing words, which the Apostle subjoins as an explana
tion of his account of the glorified body, or as tbe
reason of the change which i^will undergo; "Now
this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God ; neither can corruption inherit
incorruption."* Corruption is the present corruptible
body, which, it is intimated, remaining as it is, or re
taining its present constitution, cannot become incor
ruptible. It must undergo a new modification ; in
consequence of which, although still material, it will
be very different from what it now is. We see mat
ter existing in different states, composing a metal, and
composing a sunbeam ; and hence it is easy to con
ceive the power of God so to refine the bodies of the
saints, that they may be comparatively said to be spir
itual. How pure, I had almost said etherial, must
those bodies be, which will need neither food nor rest,
and will never experience pain or fatigue ! It would
be folly and presumption to speculate upon a subject
of which we have so little information ; but it is
evident that certain parts of the body will no longer
be necessary, those, for example, which serve for the
concoction and digestion of our food; and if the future
body is not to be sustained by other substances, the use
of the blood which circulates through the veins and ar
teries, to convey nourishment to every part, will be
superseded. I might carry this reasoning farther;
but after all we couid arrive at no certain conclusion :
and why should we seek to know what the Scriptures
have concealed ?
Some have entertained the idea that, before tbe gen
eral resurrection, there will be a partial resurrection of
the saints, or of the martyrs ; and found it upon the
following words ; " And I saw thrones, and they sat
upon them, and judgment was given unto them ; and
I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the
witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which
had not worshipped the beast, neither his image,
neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or
in their hands ; and they lived and reigned with Christ
a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not
again until the thousand years were finished. This is
the first resurrection."! This passage has given rise
to the notion of the personal reign of Christ upon the
earth ; and those by whom it has been espoused are
called Millenarians. It is, however, too obscure to be
made the foundation of a positive opinion. It probably
refers to a spiritual resurrection, — a resurrection of the
cause for which the martyrs suffered : which will then
be triumphant; and while their names will be held in
honor, persons of the same spirit will arise and reign
with Christ, in the undisturbed enjoyment of religion

• 1 Cor. xv. 50.

f Rev. xx. 4, 5.

442

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

and its privileges, Satan' being bound, and his agents
reduced to inactivity and silence. Some such inter
pretation is favoured by this circumstance, that John
speaks not of the bodies, but of the souls of those who
had been slain. No wise man would oppose a vision,
m which the description is professedly figurative, to
the plain declaration of Scripture, that the resurrec
tion will take place at the second coming of Christ.
It is worthy of attention that, when speaking of that
event, Paul makes mention of two classes of persons,
the dead in the grave, and those who will be alive;
and says concerning the latter, that they shall be
changed, or undergo the same change with those who
are raised. But, if some of the saints had been pre
viously raised, such a change would not be necessary
to them ; and we may therefore conclude that there
will be no persons of this description among the last
generation of mankind.
" Behold I show you a mystery : we shall not all
sleep, but we shall all be changed."* The law of
mortality admits of exceptions, and an entire genera
tion will be exempted from its operation. I formerly
showed you that death is not necessary to the com
plete sanctification of the soul ; although, in the case
of those who die, that is the period when it is com
pleted. The bodies of those who are alive when
Christ comes, will be as unfit for the heavenly state
as the bodies lying in the grave, and will therefore
undergo the same change ; with this difference only,
that there will be no recomposition, but a sudden
transformation of them. This moment, they will be
weary, hungry, faint, diseased, and racked with pain;
the next, they will be invested with the glories of
immortality. " In a moment, in the twinkling of an
eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound,
the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be
changed."! But, in the first place, as we are inform
ed, the dead saints shall be raised. What a wonder
ful sight ! mortals changed into immortals ! the earth
and the sea yielding up their treasures, and men ming
ling with angels who have descended to convey them
to their own blessed abodes ! " Then we which are
alive and remain, shall be caught up together with
them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and
so shall we be ever with the Lord."!

LECTURE LXXXIII.
ON THE FINAL STATE OF THE RIGHTEOUS.
The Final Judgment of the Saints. — TheirAcqnittal and En
trance into Heaven. — Their Supreme Felicity : its Nature
and Sources.
The resurrection of the dead will be followed by
the general judgment, in which small and great shall
stand before God to receive their final sentence. There
will be a visible appearance of Jesus Christ, who
will come with great power and glory, and will erect
his throne in the clouds. His ministers will be the
angels, who will be sent forth to gather together his
elect from all parts of the earth in which they are
dwelling, or in which their bodies are deposited.
Saints and sinners are now mingled together in the
common offices of life, and are connected by various
ties ; but then they will be parted forever. " Before
him shall be gathered all nations ; and he shall sepa
rate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth
his sheep from the goats ; and he shall set the sheep
on his right hand, but the goats on the _ left." J These
words are commonly understood in a literal sense, as
if the places mentioned would be respectively occu-

*1 Cor. xv. 51. fib. 52.
J) Matth. xxv. 32,33.

} Thess. iv. 17.

pied by the two opposite classes of mankind ; but per
haps a little reflection will show us that this interpre
tation cannot be admitted, and does not accord with
our other conceptions of the grand assize. If the Son
of Man is to sit on his throne in the clouds, and the
saints are to be caught up to meet him in the air, the
position of the two parties on the right and left hand
cannot be so easily imagined, and it may be presumed
to be a figurative description. The place at the right
hand, which will be assigned to the righteous, may
signify the station of honour which they will occupy;
for this is the general idea which that situation sug
gests in Scripture, particularly when our Saviour him
self is said to sit at the right hand of his Father, who
has no right hand, but has exalted him " far above all
principalities and powers."
In the figurative description of tbe transactions of
the last day, in the Revelation of John, we are in
formed that " the books were opened ; and another
book was opened, which is the book of life."* It is
out of this book that the saints will be judged, whether
we understand by it the Gospel, or the divine decree
by which tbey were appointed to salvation. To the
law, as the rule of justification and condemnation,
they are not amenable ; for they have been delivered
from it by Jesus Christ, and when tbey believed in
him, they declared that they ceased to seek righteous
ness by it. The question, therefore, will not be,
whether they have fulfilled or transgressed this law ;
but, whether they possess the precious faith which
God has appointed to be the only means of obtaining
salvation. No inquiry will be necessary for the satis
faction of the Judge, who knows their hearts, and by
his grace produced all the good which will be found
in them ; but it will be necessary for the great design
of the general judgment, which is, the manifestation
of his righteousness in the final allotment of the human
race. To convince all that it is not by an arbitrary
decision that heaven is assigned to them in preference
to others, and that the sentence is founded in reasons
which accord with the rectitude of Divine administra
tion, evidence will be exhibited of the validity of their
title ; and this evidence will be furnished by their
works : " Then shall the King say unto them on bis
right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit
the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of
the world : For I was an hungered, and ye gave me
meat ; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink ; I was a
stranger, and ye took me in ; naked, and ye clothed
me ; I was sick, and ye visited me ; I was in prison,
and ye came unto me."! I' *s evident to every per
son who understands his Bible, that the works of the
saints are here mentioned, not as the foundation, but
as the evidence of their title. If men are not justified
by works, but by faith ; if they are not saved by their
merit, but by grace; it is certain, that the final sen
tence can refer to their works only as proofs, to all
who shall witness the decision, that they are the per
sons to whom the promise of eternal life belongs, or
believers, whose faith wrought by love and thus de
monstrated its genuineness.
It appears that the good works of the saints will be
mentioned in the judgment, and for what purpose they
will be produced. But will any mention be made of
their sins ? This is a question about which those who
have deemed it worthy of attention are divided in sen
timent. It has been said by such as maintain that
they will not be mentioned, that there is no reference
to them in the aecount which our Lord gives of the
general judgment, in the Gospel of Matthew ; that the
remission of them is expressed in such terms as imply
that they are henceforth to be forever concealed, for
they are " cast into the depths of the sea, and are to

* Rev. xx. 12.

! Matth. xxv. 34— 36.

THE FINAL STATE OF THE RIGHTEOUS.

443

be remembered no more ;" that it is not consonant to
the character of the Judge, who is also the propitiation
for their sins, to suppose that he will bring them to light
in a manner so public ; and that, notwithstanding their
full acquittal, we could not conceive the saints not to be
affected with shame, if their crimes, the recollection of
which has often made them blush and hang down
their heads, were exposed to the view of the universe.
But, in opposition to these arguments, it is said that,
according to Scripture, " God will bring every work
into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be
good, or whether it be evil ;"* that justice seems to
require that there should be an impartial review of the
conduct of each individual ; that to recall the memory
of the sins of the saints, will display the virtue of
the atoning blood of Christ, and the riches of the
grace of God, through which they have been par
doned ; that, in many cases, the sins of the wicked
could not be published without the publication of
theirs, as they were associated in the same deeds ;
that some of them are already made public in the
Scriptures, and are held up as a spectacle to all gen
erations ; and that no feeling of shame would be ex
cited, because God has fully remitted their trespasses,
and tbey glory in the righteousness of Christ, with
which they are adorned.
There is some force in the arguments on both sides,
and it is not easy to determine which preponderates ;
but we need not perplex ourselves about the matter, as
in truth the question is more curious than profitable,
and nothing will be gained or lost by a decision in
either way.
But, whether the particular sins of the saints will or
will not be mentioned in the judgment, there can be no
doubt that there will be a general reference to them.
Glorious as their appearance will be, it will be under
stood that they were once sinners, who deserved to be
placed on the left hand of the Judge, but were pardon
ed through Divine mercy ; and it will be an important
part of the transactions of the last day, to publish the
sentence of acquittal in the ears of angels and men. If
their title to the favour of God is often a subject of
doubt to themselves amidst the darkness of the present
state, their fears are dispelled, either before they die,
or immediately after their spirits enter into the pres
ence of God. But by others it is disputed, and the
grounds on which it rests are accounted imaginary,
while their faith is derided as a foolish presumptuous
fancy, and the doctrine of imputed righteousness is
pronounced to be the dream of a shadow. The decision
of the last day will put an end for ever to these sus
picions and accusations. Who shall condemn those
whom God has justified ? There are, besides, many
calumnious charges advanced against the people of
God, through ignorance or malice, which, indeed are in
this case very nearly allied ; for although they may
sometimes originate in mistake, yet there is a disposi
tion on the part of the ungodly to adopt the charges,
from prejudice against religion, and a wish to hold up
to contempt and detestation men whose persons they
hate, because they hate their principles. We know
what were the slanders of the Jews and Gentiles against
the Christians in the primitive times ; it appears from
history, that these have been repeated, or new ones
have been invented in succeeding ages ; and the same
hostility subsists, and discovers itself in the opprobri
ous names with which the genuine disciples of Jesus
are branded. Precisians, puritans, methodists, enthu
siasts, fanatics, hypocrites, are some of the terms of
contempt in the world's copious vocabulary; and they
are applied to them because they have imbibed the
spirit, and act under the influence, of the religion which
even their enemies profess to respect. But the final
* Ecc. xii. 14.

sentence will vindicate the character of the rio-hteous
and make the infamy light upon those with whom it
originated. Then shall these words be fulfilled in all
their extent : " No weapon that is formed against thee
shall prosper ; and every tongue that shall rise against
thee in judgment, thou shalt condemn. This is the
heritage of the servants of the Lord; and their right
eousness is of me, saith the Lord."*
The saints having been openly acknowledged and
acquitted in the day of judgment, will make their tri
umphant entry into the place destined for their recep
tion : "These shall go away into everlasting life."
The place is called heaven, by which we understand
that region of the universe in which angels and the
spirits of the just now dwell, and all the righteous
shall be finally assembled. Where it is situated, we
do not know. We speak of it as above us ; but the
phrase is used in conformity to a notion founded upon
the appearance of the visible heavens. What is above
us at this moment, will be beneath us twelve hours
hence, in consequence of the revolution of the earth;
and what is beneath us, seems to be above to those
who are on the opposite side of tiie globe. Our ideas
of its situation are therefore vague ; and there is only
one thing, which it seems warrantable to eonelude, that
it lies beyond the limits of the visible creation ; for
Jesus Christ, who is now in it, is said to have ascend
ed " above all heavens," that is, above the aerial and
starry heavens, according to the Jewish division of the
superior regions. That it is a place, we have no rea
son to doubt, and it is an imaginary refinement to con
sider it only as a state. It is undeniable that God can
make any place heaven by there revealing himself, and
communicating the fulness of his love ; but this is no
thing to the purpose. Our business is not with specu
lations about his power, but with the declarations of
his word ; and Seripture uniformly supposes that there
is a particular place, which is appointed to be the final
abode of the righteous. There have been curious and
idle discussions respecting the ubi] of Spirits, and
whether, as they are not material, and cannot like body
be confined within definite limits, places can be predi
cated of them ; but there is no occasion at present to
perplex ourselves with tbe arguments on either side,
because the saints in the future state will be clothed
with a material frame. It must be a material place
which is inhabited by our blessed Saviour, and Enoch,
and Elijah, and the saints who came out of their graves
after the resurrection of Christ, and will be inhabited
hereafter by the thousands and millions whom he will
raise to life at his second coming.
Concerning the nature of the place we can form no
conjectures. The descriptions of it are undoubtedly
figurative. Some parts of our earth display scenes of
astonishing grandeur and consummate beauty ; but hea
ven will be inconceivably superior to what the earth
was, even before its loveliness had been impaired by
the curse. It seems reasonable to suppose that it will
be totally different from the earth, because the beings*
who inhabit it, although men, will be entirely changed
in respect of the constitution of their bodies. We are
indeed told in the book of Revelation, that a river flows
in it, and that trees grow upon its banks;! but who
does not perceive, that the subject would be degraded
by a literal interpretation, and that the ideas suggested
are those of beauty, refreshment, and abundance? It
is presented to us under the image of a city of pure
gold, the foundation and gates of which are composed
of precious stones. || "And the city had no need of the
sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it; for the glory
of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
And the nations of them that are saved shall walk in
the light of it; and the kings of the earth do bring thei*

*Isa.liv. 17. f Locality, t Revjcxii.1,2. || lb. xxi. 19,21,

444

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not
be shut at all by day ; for there shall be no night there."*
All that we can say is, that in heaven there will be vis
ible tokens of the presence of God. Upon earth he
manifests himself, not only by impressions upon the
minds ofhis intelligent creatures, but by displays of his
perfections in the splendour of the heavens, and the
various processes which are going on above us and
around us. We may believe, therefore, that he will
manifest himself in heaven, both by a secret intercourse
with the souls of the saints, and by such external signs
as will show that he is near, and that this is his tem
ple and his palace. Who can conceive the majesty
and glory of the place which he has chosen for his pe
culiar residence. Here all the magnificence and beauty,
which we admire in the universe, will be united with
beauty and magnificence of which we can form no idea.
It will be the noblest work ofhis almighty hand.
It has been asked, whether, in this blessed abode,
the saints will know one another ? One should think
that the question was unnecessary, as the answer
naturally presents itself to every man's mind ; and it
could only have occurred to some dreaming Theologian,
who in his airy speculations, has soared far beyond
the sphere of reason and common sense. WTho can
doubt whether the saints will know one another?
What reason can be given why they should not ? Would
it be any part of their perfection to have all their
former ideas obliterated, and to meet as strangers in
the other world ? Would it give us a more favourable
notion of the assembly in heaven, to suppose it to
consist of a multitude of unknown individuals, who
never hold communication with each other; or by
some inexplicable restraint are prevented, amidst an
intimate intercourse, from making mutual discoveries ?
Or have they forgotten what they themselves were, so
that they cannot reveal it to their associates? What
would be gained by this ignorance no man can tell;
but we can tell what would be lost by it. They
would lose all the happiness of meeting again on the
peaceful shore, those from whom they were separated
by the storms of life; of seeing among the trophies
of Divine grace, many of whom they had despaired,
and for whose sakes they had gone down with sorrow
to the grave ; of knowing the good which tbey had
been honoured to do, and being surrounded with the
individuals who had been saved by means of their
prayers, and instructions, and labours. How could
those whom he had been the instrument of converting,
and building up in the holy faith, be to the minister
of the gospel a crown of joy and rejoicing in the day
of the Lord, if he did not recognize them when stand
ing at his side? The saints will be free from the
turbulence of passion, but their innocent affections will
remain ; and could they spend eternal ages without
asking, Are our children here ? Are our still dearer
relatives here ? Have our friends, with whom we took
sweet counsel together, found their way to this coun
try, to which we travelled in company till death part
ed us ? And, if to these questions no answer could
be returned, would they be happy ?
The same mode of thinking which suggested this
question, has led to another strange notion of heaven,
as if it would be a state of solitary enjoyment. It has
been glossed over, too, with the appearance of piety ;
and it has been said, that the saints will be so absorb
ed in the contemplation and enjoyment of God, that
they will not need the society of others, and will be
insensible to their presence. But, while we acknow
ledge that God alone is sufficient to the happiness of
his creatures, and cordially concur in the sentiment
that he is the chief good, we must not permit our
selves to be carried away by imposing sounds, and

follow even piety in its fanciful wanderings. What
some mystic, or some good but enthusiastic man may
have said, is nothing to us, whose ideas of future
and invisible things should rest on a more solid found
ation. The question is, what kind of heaven has
God promised to his people, and what kind of heaven
is suitable to the nature of man ? With respect to
the latter question, I remark, that, although the present
relations among mankind, of father and son, husband
and wife, which are dissolved at death, will not be
renewed, yet the general relation of a common des
cent and a common nature, strengthened by the re
lation arising from a common redemption, will re
main; and the love, too, will remain which is implied
in those relations, and leads to the performance of
their duties. Human nature will be purified and ex
alted, but will not be essentially changed. With
out such a change, however, we could not conceive
its present tendency to union and fellowship with
others to cease. Unless man should become a totally
different being, he could not be perfectly happy in
absolute solitude. It is true, indeed, that, according
to the hypothesis, all his desires will be concentrated
upon his Maker; but before we can admit this as
sumption, we must be assured that his instinctive de
sire for communion with his equals will be extinguish
ed, or in other words, that he will receive a new con
stitution. If love to his fellow-men should remain, it
would, according to the hypothesis be superfluous and
useless ; a power preserved but never to be exercised.
What idea can any person form of the family of heaven,
consisting of insulated individuals, of brothers con
nected in the most intimate bonds, but holding no
correspondence ? With regard to the other part of
the question, which relates to the heaven which God
has promised to his people ; you know that it is
positively represented as a state of society. And how
could it enter into any sound mind to conceive of it
otherwise ? Are not its inhabitants the identical per
sons, who were congregated into one body upon earth,
and united in the same faith, and love, and worship ;
and why, when they are assembled again in the ce
lestial sanctuary, should they be supposed immediate
ly to separate, that each may dwell in his own recess,
through an eternal duration, like the solitaries of the
desert ? It is not thus that revelation describes the
world to come. " In my Father's bouse are many
mansions."* What a wild imagination must it be
which would suppose that those mansions are to be
tenanted by individuals living in a state of seclusion
from the family ? No ; the natural suggestion is, that
heaven is furnished with every accommodation ; that
there all those comforts will be found which we
usually enjoy in a house — rest, peace, society, and
friendship ; that it is the place of final meeting to the
children of God, as the members of a human family,
who were separated during the day, and scattered
abroad in pursuit of their respective employments,
assemble in the evening in their common habitation.
In the revelation of John, they are represented as
" standing" before the throne ; but that we may not
imagine that they stand there as units composing the
aggregate number, without any other tie but juxta
position, they are farther represented as engaged in
the same service of adoration and thanksgiving. It
is not the song of each man for himself, but the song
of the multitude of the redeemed, which will be heard
in the celestial temple. " After this I beheld, and
lo, a great multitude, which no man could number,
of all nations and kindreds, and people, and tongues,
stood before the throne, and before tbe Lamb, cloth
ed with white robes, and palms in their hands ; and
cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation unto our

* Rev. xxi. 23—25.

* John xiv. 2,

THE FINAL STATE OF THE RIGHTEOUS.

445

God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the
¦Lamb."* There, they will meet, and rejoice, who
upon earth went to the house of God in company ;
and there, they will meet who never met before, and
will hail one another as brethren.
Praise is represented to be the employment of the
saints in' heaven ; and who can doubt that the repre
sentation is just ! Every individual will feel his in
finite obligations to Divine grace, and will experience
ineffable delight in expressing them. Whether there
will be vocal praise in heaven, cannot be ascertained
from the figurative descriptions of it; but that it will
be vocal does not seem improbable, as the saints hav
ing bodies, may be conceived to have also organs of
speech. Yet, on reflection it cannot be supposed,
that praise will be their only and perpetual exercise.
They will serve God day and night in his temple ;
but there are other ways in which this service may
be performed. They will have minds to contemplate,
as well as hearts to love bim; and why may we not
presume that a portion of their happy existence will
be devoted to the survey of the glorious manifestations
of his attributes, and the review of his wonderful
works ? They will be surrounded with their redeem
ed brethren ; and will they not enter into conversation
with them upon subjects in which they are all equally
interested ? Will they not listen with delight to one
another's history, and feel their hearts glow with ad
miration and love, while in every new tale there are
new displays of Divine wisdom and goodness ? But
we speak as children do of the actions of men, and
with still less knowledge. We are ignorant whether
language will be used in heaven as the vehicle of
thought, or some new medium of communication will
be established. We understand still less the manner
in which intercourse will be maintained between men
who have bodily senses and organs, and angels who
are incorporeal beings. But one thing we know,
that angels and men will be united in one holy so
ciety, and will dwell together in perfect friendship,
loving one another, receiving and communicating hap
piness. But the felicity of the saints in the heavenly world,
will not arise solely from the nature of the place which
they inhabit, and from the company with which they
are associated. As the chief end of man is the glory
of God, so his supreme happiness consists in the enjoy
ment of him. This is the judgment of all regenerated
men ; and heaven is the object of their hope, because
in that place their desires for his presence and the full
communication ofhis love, will be gratified. " Whom
have 1 in heaven but thee ? and there is none on earth
whom I desire besides thee."!
Our Saviour pronounces the pure in heart to be bles
sed, " for they shall see God."! There is only an ap
parent contradiction between his words and those of
Paul, who says of the blessed and only Potentate, that
" no man hath seen, or can see him ;"|| for the one
6peaks of mental, and the other of corporeal vision. As
God is a spiritual being, he has never been seen by
mortal eyes; the appearances of him which are men
tioned in Scripture having been symbols and sensible
forms assumed for a time. For the same reason, no
man will see him, even in the future state ; for it should
be remembered that, although the bodies of the saints
will be highly refined, it is physically impossible that
a spirit should be perceived by material organs. Jesus
Christ will be seen, because he is clothed with human
nature ; but the Father dwells amidst inaccessible light.
It is not inconsistent with what is now stated, to sup
pose, a visible manifestation ofhis glory, similar to the
symbol which appeared in the most holy place, or the

* Rev. vii. 9, 10.
J 1 Tim. vi. IS.

! Ps. lxxiii. 25. { Matth. ,. 8.

representation made to Moses, when the Lord passed
by him, and proclaimed his name ; because, this would
not be God himself, but only a sign of his presence.
The saints will see God with their minds, or attain
knowledge clear and comprehensive, when compared
with the obscure and imperfect knowledge, which they
at present derive from his works and his word. " Now,"
says Paul, " we know in part, and prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that
which is in part shall be done away. For now we see
through a glass darkly; but then face to face : now I
know in part ; but then shall I know even as also I am
known."* Strong as this language is, it must not be
understood of an adequate knowledge; for an infinite
being can be comprehended only by an infinite under
standing. The knowledge of the future state will be
comparatively perfect, free from doubts and errors, and
much more extensive than it is at present possible to
acquire. Here, our progress is slow, and impeded by
obstacles. There, knowledge will be infused into the
mind without the operose process of instruction and in
quiry. Here, our views are limited, and we see only
the skirts of his glory ; there, the revelation will be as
ample as our finite faculties will permit. What the
saints already know, will shine with new light, and
present itself to their minds with an evidence and a
satisfaction which they never formerly experienced ;
and many things will be disclosed to them, which it
had not entered into their hearts to conceive : myste
ries will be explained, difficulties will be solved, and
excellencies will rise to view in the Divine nature, of
which no vestige was discoverable in his works. How
glorious will he appear, when every veil is removed,
and he is contemplated in the fulness of his attributes !
The sight will be transporting, and will excite the
highest admiration and joy.
As the Almighty cannot be sought out to perfection
by any finite mind, we do not conceive the knowledge
of the saints in heaven to be stationary. It is possi
ble, indeed, that although it is now progressive, it may
arrive at a point beyond which it is destined not to
proceed ; at least, we could not prove this supposition
to be absurd. The soul might acquire, on its first en
trance into heaven, or on its re-union to the body at the
last day, all the knowledge of which it was capahle;
and this being sufficient for its happiness, there might
be no further expansion of its faculties. But we nat
urally judge of the future state by the present ; and find
ing that the soul now advances from siep to step, we
are led to anticipate its perpetual progression. There
is no doubt that ihe will of the Creator can indefinitely
enlarge its powers, and that, in the infinitude ofhis na
ture, there will be new discoveries to be made for ever
and ever. In the course of an eternal duration, all the
wonders of creation may be surveyed, however wide its
extent, and however numerous its parts ; but He, in
comparison of whom it is as nothing, can never be fully
understood. The knowledge of God in the future state will be
accompanied wilh love; for it is impossible to contem
plate infinite excellence without loving it, without lov
ing it intensely and supremely. In this world, the
saints prefer God to their chief joy; and there are sea
sons when their hearts go out to him with an ardour
which no created object can excite, with vehement de
sire for the closest union and the most intimate fellow
ship. But this flame will glow more ardently in the
pure atmosphere of heaven. Here, love struggles with
the infirmity of the flesh, the reluctance of corrupt na
ture, the operations of selfishness, the opposing influ
ence of visible things, by which the senses and the
imagination are so powerfully affected ; but there, free
and unconfined, it will be concentrated upon its object

* 1 Cor. xiii. 9—12.

446

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

with ineffable delight. Brought back from his wander
ings into the immediate presence of his Father, man
will indeed love him with all his heart, and soul, and
mind, and strength. The fervour of his affection will
never abate, nor will any thing occur to suspend it, or
to turn it into a different channel. God will always
maintain the pre-eminence, and appear infinitely greater
and better than all other beings ; and his love to other
beings will be in perfect harmony with supreme love
to God, will flow from this exalted source and will be
attracted by his image, as impressed upon them in all
its loveliness and glory. Some ancient philosophers
imagined, that, after death, the souls of men were ab
sorbed by the Divine essence, from which they had
originally emanated ; and mystics have talked of being
identified with God, and deified in him. These are ihe
dreams of ignorance, and the ravings of insanity. But
there will be a union of the most intimate kind between
God and the soul in the future state; such a union as is
effected by the purest and most active mutual love ; and
the saints will be one with him in a higher sense than
we are able to conceive. There will not be a moment
ary opposition of desires and interests. They will re
joice in God as he is, and every power will be devoted
to him alone. Upon him their thoughts will be con
stantly fixed, and in communion with him their never-
failing joy will consist.
" Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail ;
whether there be tongues, they shall cease : whether
tnere be knowledge, it shall vanish away."* But love
never fails. It is adapted to every condition of our
nature, and constitutes its moral perfection. " Now
abideth faith, hope, love, these three : but the greatest
of these is love."! In the world to come, faith will be
unnecessary, because its object is seen; and hope be
cause its object is possessed. Faith will terminate in
vision, and hope, in enjoyment; but love will remain,
and join all hearts in one.
From the observations already made, the happiness
of the saints in the celestial regions is unquestionable ;
but for a more full illustration of it, we may consider
that it will arise from the absence of all the causes of
pain and sorrow, to the operation of which they are at
present exposed ; from the presence of the highest
possible good, and from the certainty of the perpetual
possession of it.
" There shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor
crying, neither shall there be any more pain, for the
former things are passed away."! ^in and suffering
are connected. as cause and effect. But all the inhabi
tants of heaven will be sinless, and consequently will
no longer be subjected to those sufferings which are
now the just punishment or chastisements of their
offences, and are necessary to check their wayward
dispositions, and to awaken them to repentance.
There will be no disease, or pain of body, no anxiety
of mind, no fear, no regret, no disappointment, no un
satisfied wishes, no restlessness and discontent, no
seasons of melancholy and depression, no broken friend
ships, no envy and jealousy, no distressing sym
pathies, no separation from those whom we love.
Affliction, when it now passes over the mind, some
times makes deep furrows, which time does not erase.
But there will be no trace of past sorrows in the heart
of the saints ; no wounds still bleeding, or so slightly
healed that a touch opens them again. Remembering
all the evils which befell them in this sublunary state,
all the sad scenes which they witnessed, all the losses
which they sustained, all the agonies which they en
dured, their minds will be smooth and placid as the
bosom of a lake when not an air breathes upon it. Re
flection upon the past will serve only to heighten the
contrast, and to give them a more lively feeling of

* 1 Cor. xiii. 8.

f lb. 13.

} Rev. xxi. 4.

their present enjoyments. Who can conceive the calm
of the heavenly regions, where no tempest blows, and
the sound of lamentation is never heard ; where no
qualms of conscience are felt, and not a transient
thought disturbs the serenity of the soul ; where every
emotion and every reflection is delightful, and all with
in and without is bliss ! They to whom death made
this world a blank, and who went down into the grave
mourning because they were bereaved, mourn no more,
having found those whom they bewailed, or far better
friends. They have no will but the will of God ; and
those whom he does not love, have ceased to be the
objects of their regard. " God himself shall wipe
away all tears from their eyes."*
But this is not the sole cause of their felicity. They
are not only exempt from all evil, but are put in pos
session of the greatest possible good ; and the good is
not the perfection of their own nature, or the re
sources of their enlightened and holy minds, but God
himself, who is their everlasting reward. The soul
having wandered from him, finds no rest upon earth ;
nor would it find it in heaven, if he were not there.
The happiness of man in paradise, was the favour of
his Maker ; and this alone will be his happiness when
he is recovered from the effects of the fall. How could
he be happy in a state of separation from God ? Can
a tree live and flourish, when cut off from all com
munication with the elements which are appointed to
nourish it ? The rational creation, abandoned by him,
would wither and die; like the vegetable creation,
when the rain and dew of heaven are withheld. The
wicked will be miserable, not so much on account of
the place to which they are consigned, — for the Divine
favour could change a prison into a palace, — as be
cause they will see God afar off, being banished from
his gracious presence, and separated from him by an
impassable gulf. It is the presence of God which
makes heaven, the asylum of the saints, the seat of
perfect joy. There they see him as he is, and' hold
communion with him, intimate, uninterrupted, and
everlasting. Surely he who made the soul of man has
access to it, and is able to impress such a sense of his
love as will fill it with ineffable satisfaction. The
pleasure which we at present experience from pious
meditation, or from the contemplation of nature,
and tbe participations of the blessings which it sup
plies, is referrible to him as its Author; and shows
us that he can make the faculties of our souls, and the
organs of our bodies, vehicles of bliss. When he shall
no longer withhold his hand, but pour out upon the
objects of his favour blessings in profusion, their most
ample desires will be gratified, and their highest ex
pectations surpassed. If the saints upon earth triumph,
because they can say, "The Lord is the portion of our
inheritance ;"! how much greater will be their exulta
tion, when they know tbe full value of their portion,
the boundless extent of their inheritance ! God himself
will be their God. He who is all- fair and all good, to
whom all perfection belongs, and of whose transcen
dent excellence this glorious universe is only a sha
dow, — he will be theirs, and will bless them for ever ;
he will be all in all, around them and within them, the
light of their understandings, the joy of their hearts,
the object of their perpetual praise.
Let it be observed once more, that this felicity will
be heightened by the knowledge that it is everlasting.
In heaven there is no apprehension of evil, which dis
turbs our best hours upon earth, and is excited partly
by the suggestions of conscience, and partly by our
experience of the vicissitudes of human affairs. _ Here
we ought to rejoice with trembling; and often in our
most cheerful moments we are visited with the unwel
come forebodings of a change. Who can say without

* Rev. xxi. 4.

f Psalm xvi. 5.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE WORD OF GOD.

presumption, " Tomorrow shall be as this day, and
much more abundant ?" The joys of religion are
equally subject to mutation as those of a temporal
nature ; either because the saints are not at all times
¦disposed to receive them, and by the unhappy influence
of unbelief they are excluded from their souls ; or, be
cause God is pleased to suspend them for the trial of
their faith and the chastisement of tbeir sins. The
6tate of heaven is totally different. The duration of
all created beings is progressive, and is made up of
moments following each other in perpetual succession ;
but that of the saints will bring no change of circum
stances, and may be compared to the duration of the
sun and the stars, which, from age to age, are fixed in
the same point of space, and shine with undiminished
splendour. Eternity will then have commenced,
which, as it flows on, carries all things along in a uni
form uninterrupted stream of bliss or wo. The very
possibility of an end would mar the felicity of the
righteous. It would be suspended while the question
was asked, Will our joy last for ever? and the doubt
implied in that question would make fear pass over the
mind as the shadow of a cloud, and dim the lustre of
the surrounding scenery. Still more fatal would be
tbe effect, if there were positive ground to suspect that
their joy would come to an end. The idea of annihila
tion, from which nature recoils, would be doubly ter
rible. Who could bear the thought of losing life in
its highest perfection ; of closing his eyes on this
transcendent glory to behold it no more ; of sinking
into eternal insensibility after ages of rapturous bliss?
But it is an eternal redemption of which Jesus Christ
is the Author. The last change which his followers
experience is death ; or, if you will, the resurrection,
when the separate spirits will be again embodied.
They then enter upon a career which will never be
finished. Ages will run on more rapidly than hours
among mortals : but thousands of ages will take no
thing from their felicity. God has made them by his
gift, what he himself is in his own nature ; and of
them, as well as of him, it may be said, that their
years shall have no end. " There is no night there."
"The sun shall no more light by day; neither for
brightness shall the moon give light unto thee : but
the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and
thy God thy glory. The sun shall no more go down ;
neither shall the moon withdraw itself : for the Lord
shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy
mourning shall be ended."*
Whether there will be different degrees of glory in
heaven, is a question more curious than useful. Those
who adopt the negative allege a variety of reasons, —
as, that all the saints are clothed with the righteousness
of Christ, and being equal in this respect, have a title
to an equal reward ; that they all stand in the same re
lation to God, as his children are all the first-born, and
will therefore receive tbe same inheritance ; that it
would seem an imperfection, if one of them had less
glory than another, and the former might conceive
something better tiian he actually possessed, and be
disturbed by an anxious desire for it; that our Saviour
has promised to all a kingdom, and has said that they
shall all shine forth as the sun ; and that, while we
speak of a difference among them, we use words to
which no distinct meaning can be annexed, as it is
granted that all will be perfect. Those who adopt the
positive side of the question, appeal to the different de
grees of grace in this world, from which they infer that
there will be different degrees of glory in the next.
They grant that all saints will be perfectly happy, but
compare them to vessels of different sizes, which are
all full, although some contain a greater quantity than
others ; and they support themselves by several pas-
» Is. Ix. 19, 20.

447
sages of Scripture, as the parable of the talents,* in
which the servants are recompensed according to their
diligence ; the declaration of Paul, that " he who sow-
eth sparingly shall reap also sparingly ; and he who
soweth bountifully, shall reap also bountifully;"! and
of Daniel, that " they that be wise shall shine as the
brightness of the firmament ; and they that turn many
to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever."! With
respect to the last passage, the supposed difference in
the degree of splendour must be considered as imagi
nary, till it is shown what is meant by the "brightness
of the firmament," and that it is inferior to the bright
ness of the stars ; and till it be proved that something
more is intended, than simply to convey, by a variety
of phrase, the general idea of glory. The passage in
the Epistle to the Corinthians, which says that one
star differs " from another in glory,"|| has been also
quoted in favour of this opinion, by those who attended
to the sound, without thinking of the sense. Any in
telligent person who reads the passage, will perceive
that the Apostle is speaking of a totally different sub
ject, — the difference between the present and the future
bodies of the saints ; and is illustrating it by the dif
ferent appearances which matter assumes in the plastic
hands of the Almighty.
It is of no consequence what view you take of the
question ; and to discuss it either here or elsewhere,
would serve no valuable purpose. The prize proposed
to all is of incalculable value, and is worthy of the
highest efforts which are made to obtain it. Whether
the final allotment of the saints shall be equal or un
equal, they will all be content, and will all rejoice with
joy unspeakable.

LECTURE LXXXIV.
ON THE EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE.— THE
WORD OF GOD.
External Means of Grace Necessary to all but Infants. — The
Word of God the Earliest and Principal Means. — Division
of the Word into the Law and the Gospel. — Different Senses
of the term Gospel. — Its Proper Meaning as Distinguished
from the Law. — The Gospel not a New Law of Grace. — Its
Efficacy as a Means.
In the preceding "lectures, we have surveyed the
scheme of redemption in its contrivance, its execution,
and its application. Originating in the love of God be
fore the world began, it was carried into effect by the
mission and death of his Son; and its blessings are
communicated to us by the agency of his Spirit. In
this wonderful economy all the persons of the Godhead
are concerned, and each performs his appropriate part.
It is the work of God alone ; and, in one view, resem
bles the creation of the universe, in which he had no
assistant, and accomplished all things by the immedi
ate exertion of his power. But in another view, it may
be compared to the work of providence, in which he is
the great Agent, but his designs are carried on by the
instrumentality of means ; by second causes, physical
and moral ; by the laws of gravitation, and motion, and
light; by the activity of men, and the ministry of
angels. In considering the external means which he employs
for the salvation of those whom his Son died to re
deem, we must direct our attention in the first place to
his Word, in wbich his will is revealed, and by which
the intellectual and moral powers of man are influenced
in subservience to his purpose ; for God deals with him
in religion as a rational being. The effect must be as
cribed to his power, acting upon the soul in a manner

* Matth. xxv. 15.
|l 1 Cor. xv. 41.

f 2 Cor. ix 6.

| Dan. xii. 3

448

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

unknown to us t but in ordinary cases it does not oper
ate immediately. I say in ordinary cases, because we
must except from this rule infants, who being born in
sin, need to be regenerated as well as adults, but are
not the proper subjects of that process by which the lat
ter are renewed. Of the change which they undergo
we can form no idea, as it is not accompanied with any
external effects by which it might be distinguished, not
even by a new train of thoughts, and volitions, and
affections, of which they are incapable ; but whatever
It is, it is produced without means, by the direct agency
of the Spirit. In this case means are excluded, because
they cannot be used ; for infants, not being yet moral
agents, are not the proper subjects of conviction, illu
mination, and conversion, in the established sense of
the terms. In the economy of grace, as well as in that
of nature, divine wisdom connects variety wilh regu
larity, and changes its modes of procedure according
to circumstances ; being equally wonderful in deviating
from its general laws as in adhering to them.
The exclusion of means, as far as we know, is con
fined to infants. We have no reason to think that men
are sometimes illuminated by inspiration, and that good
impressions are made upon their minds independently
of any external cause. It has been supposed, indeed,
that God may make known his will, and communicate
the benefits of redemption to pious heathens, without
his word and ordinances. Who those heathens are
that may be called pious, without an abuse of the term,
I do not understand ; nor could any man, whose notions
of piety were formed upon Scripture and sound reason,
ever find them out; and till it is proved that there are
such persons, we may save ourselves the trouble of in
quiring how they will be disposed of; but every thing
that is said concerning the possibility of a revelation to
them, without the word, written or preached, is a gra
tuitous assumption, and besides, appears to be at vari
ance with revelation itself: "Whosoever shall call
upon the name of Ihe Lord, shall be saved. How then
shall they call on him in whom they have not believ
ed ? and how shall they believe in him of whom they
have not heard ? and how shall they hear without a
preacher ? and how shall they preach except they be
sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of
them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad
tidings of good things ! So,, then, faith cometh by
hearing, and hearing by the word of God."* These
words comprehend all that we are authorized to be
lieve on this subject; that salvation is connected in
the Divine constitution with the means of grace; and
that, without these, the end is not to be expected. If
God ever sets aside this constitution in particular
cases, he has not told us of it; and to affirm that he
does so, is downright presumption.
From the beginning, the application of redemption
has been conducted by external means, or by the reve
lation of the will of God, and ordinances founded upon
that revelation. Immediately after the fall, God was
pleased to make known his purpose of grace to our
first parents not by a direct address, but by conveying
a notice of it in the threatening pronounced upon the
serpent who had deceived them. As the threatening,
while it foreboded evil to him, betokened good to them,
it had in this respect the nature of a promise, and has
therefore been so called. It is not to be supposed,
however, that this is all the information which was
given them concerning the Redeemer. Something
more explicit and ample was necessary to relieve their
minds from the fears of guilt, and to direct them in
the new system of worship adapted to their circum
stances ; of which sacrifices were an important part.
Of the additional intimations which might be made to
the patriarchs, the Scriptures have given only a partial

* Rom. x. 13—17.

account ; but partly by tradition, and partly by occa
sional communications, the knowledge of Divine mer
cy, and the future Saviour, was maintained till the
days of Moses, who flourished fifteen hundred years
before the Christian era. But although, between him
and Adam, there was a long interval of two thousand
and five hundred years, the intermediate steps were
few, in consequence of the longevity of the early in
habitants of the world. From the creation to the
present moment, there have not been an hundred and
fifty individuals in a line ; from the creation to Moses,
there were not twenty. Hence it appears, that, with
out new revelations to revive and enlarge the original
revelation, the communication made to our first parents,
which, concise as it was, could be easily remembered,
might have been transmitted pure and entire to the
lawgiver of the Jews, by whom it was committed to
writing. Revelation was greatly enlarged by tbe ministry of
Moses, and additions were made to it till the days of
Malachi, when the canon of the Old Testament was
completed. After a long interval, the Baptist appear
ed, to prepare the way for our Saviour; who, being in
the bosom of the Father, and acquainted with his
counsels, declared him to the world, and empowered
his disciples to perfect revelation by their writings,
which were composed under the direction and assis
tance of his Spirit. The whole Scriptures are deliv
ered to us as the rule of our faith and obedience, and
are the instrument which God employs for the conver
sion of sinners, and the advancement of the divine
life in their souls. They are the light which conducts
them to the Saviour, and guides them in ihe way of
Salvation. This important office we assign to the
whole, and not exclusively to a part, on the authority
of the Apostle Paul ; who, having said concerning
Timothy, that " from a child he had known the Holy
Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto
salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus,"
adds, " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc
tion, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of
God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all
good works."* The Word is the principal means
which God has appointed for the application of re
demption. There are indeed other religious institu
tions ; but as they are founded on the Word, so, as
far as they contribute to accomplish this end, their
efficacy is derived from it. Prayer is an eminent
means of obtaining spiritual blessings; but the direc
tory of prayer is the Word, from which alone we learn
what blessings we should ask, and what are the
grounds on which we may hope for success. The
sacraments also are means of salvation ; but they
would be unintelligible, unless their design, and the
import of tbe symbols and actions, had been explain
ed ; and we should have no encouragement to use
them, if we had not been assured that they are seals
of the new covenant, and the Holy Spirit had been
promised to render them effectual..
The word of God consists of many parts, histories,
doctrines, promises, threatenings, reproofs, exhorta
tions. I shall perhaps speak of these particularly
afterwards; but, in the mean time I observe, there is
not one of them which is not conducive to the great
design of saving the soul. There are two great divis-
ions°of the word of God, which have been made by
Theologians, and which, as they have a foundation in
the word itself, are 'entitled to particular attention.
These are, the Law and the Gospel. I shall begin
with the latter, and in the first place, inquire what is
the import of the term.
The word Gospel, is used in our language to ex-
* 2 Tim. iii. 15—17.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE WORD OF GOD.

449

press the Greek word azyyexiov, which signifies good
news. Without losing this idea it admits of different
applications, and is employed in a more general, or in
a more restricted sense.
First, It signifies the history of Christ; and, ac
cordingly, is the title prefixed to each of the four nar
ratives of his birth, doctrine, miracles, death, resur
rection, and ascension, which were composed by Mat
thew, Mark, Luke, and John. These received this
name at a very early period, arid it is retained in all
Christian churches. Sometimes they were called
Memoirs of Christ; but this designation does not
seem to have been ever generally adopted. The other
was suggested, not only by the nature of the narra
tives, which contain the best news that ever reached
the ears of men, but by one of the inspired writers
who -has prefixed it to his account of our Saviour;
namely Mark, who commences with these words,
"The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the
Son of God." This is evidently the title of his book,
as the words of Matthew, " The book of the gener
ation of Jesus Christ," are the title of the subjoined
genealogy. Mark calls his narrative a Gospel, and
by his authority the same name is given to the com
positions of the other Evangelists.
Secondly; The Gospel signifies the Christian reve
lation, or the system of doctrines, ordinances, and
laws, which Jesus Christ has delivered to us, and
which is justly called good news; because the great
subject of which it treats is salvation, and the design
of all its subordinate parts is to conduct us to the en
joyment of it. This is its meaning in the commission
which he gave to his Apostles, " to go into all the
world, and preach the Gospel to every creature."*
They were sent, not merely to proclaim pardon and
eternal life through him, but to instruct men in all
the details of his religion ; as is plain from the paral
lel passage in Matthew, " Go ye, therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the pame of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you."! The same extensive sense is given to the
word, when Paul says, that " God shall judge the
secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my Gos
pel ;"! meaning, either that the future judgment is
announced by tbe Gospel which he preached, or that
the Gospel is the rule by which those who have lived
under the dispensation of it will be judged. In both
cases, the Gospel comprehends more than a revelation
and promise of salvation through Christ. If you read
the Scriptures attentively, you will find that there are
many passages which require to be interpreted in this
liberal manner. According to this view, the Gospel
contains, not only doctrines and promises, but also
precepts and threatenings. This is generally acknowl
edged ; and, at the same time, a strange inconsistency
may be observed in the conduct of some men. While
tbey cannot deny that the Gospel signifies the whole
institute of Jesus Christ, they will not allow you to
speak of it as such, and without scruple charge you
with heresy, if your language deviate a hairs-breadth
from their arbitrary standard. There is another and
restricted sense of the Gospel, which will be after
wards considered, according to which you must always
regulate your phraseology. It has no commands or
threatenings ; and therefore, to mention the precepts of
the GospeT, is to betray your ignorance, to corrupt the
truth, and to turn the new covenant into a covenant of
works. — -But, with the leave of those zealots, we might
remind them that they are now retracting what they
formerly granted, and binding us to one view of a sub
ject, after their own acknowledgment that it admits of
more views than one. The Gospel largely taken has,

* Mark xvi. 15. f Matth. xxviii. 19, 20. X Rtm'- "• 16-
3 G 39

and strictly taken bas not, precepts. Speaking of it
in the latter sense, I should err if I said that it had
precepts ; and speaking of it in the former, I should
equally err if I said that it had not precepts. None
but Antinomians will deny that the religion of Christ
comprehends a law to be obeyed, as well as doctrines
to be believed. If the phrase, precepts of the Gospel,
has been improperly used, that is not a reason why it
should be condemned, since it expresses a scriptural
truth, but a reason why it should be used cautiously,
and in such a manner as not to mislead. Let us study,
with all possible care, to be orthodox in sentiments and
language ; but let us remember, that when we go be
yond Scripture, we fall into the heterodoxy which we
are solicitous to avoid. When tbe Apostle Paul
speaks of the Gospel, he is careful to remind us that,
while it manifests the Grace of God, it also incul
cates the duties of morality : " The grace of God that
bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching
us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we
should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this
present world."*
In the third place, The Gospel signifies the revela
tion of tbe grace and mercy of God to sinners, or the
joyful tidings of salvation through Christ. In this
view, it answers exactly to its name, nothing being
proclaimed by it but what is good news to our fallen
and guilty race ; and it is when the Gospel is thus
limited, that it is distinguished by Divines from the
Law, considered not only as a covenant of works, but
even as a rule of life. That this is sometimes the
meaning of the word, although not so often as some
may imagine, is evident from the following passages.
" The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath
sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliv
erance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the
blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach
the acceptable year of the Lord."! " " am no*
ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power
of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth, to
the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is
the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith ;
as it is written, The just shall live by faith."! In the
first passage, the gospel offers pardon, liberty, and
consolation to sinners ; and in the second, it exhibits the
righteousness of Christ as the foundation of tbeir hope.
The word occurs in the same sense when the Scriptures
speak of testifying " the gospel of the grace of God,"|
and of the "light of the glorious gospel shining into
the mind ;"§ and when Paul says, "I marvel that ye
are so soon removed from him that called you into the
grace of Christ, unto another gospel ;"f designating
that as the Gospel which reveals grace in the free justi
fication of sinners, in opposition to the doctrine which
suspends this blessing upon our personal obedience.
First, The Gospel, strictly understood, comprehends
the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, and the gracious
declarations founded upon them. It is the Gospel
which informs us, that in relation to us God is love;
that he thought upon us from eternity, and purposed ,
to save us from destruction and to restore us to hap
piness ; that with this view he appointed his only-be
gotten Son to be our Saviour, and entered into a
covenant with him, by performing the condition of
which, he should obtain all blessings for his people;
that in the fulness of time, he sent him into the world
to be the messenger of his mercy, laid our sins upon
him, and exacted an atonement for them ; that in con
sequence of the sacrifice upon the cross he is pacified,
and is ready to receive us into favour ; that he has also
sent the Holy Spirit to illuminate our minds, and to

*Tit. ii. 11.
|] Acts xx. 24.

t Luke iv. 18.
} 2 Cor. iv. 4.

X Rom. i. 16, 17.
If Gal. i. 6.

450

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

sanctify our souls ; and that pardon, grace, comfort,
and eternal life, are given freely to those who believe.
It is evident, that these doctrines and declarations may
be justly called " good tidings of great joy." Nothing
can be more acceptable news to a sinner, who is sen
sible of his guilt, and alarmed at the consequences;
nothing can be more consoling than to hear that the
God whom he has offended is reconciled, and that he
shall find a refuge from his justice in the arms of
his mercy. You will observe that in these declara
tions and doctrines God appears working out salva
tion for us, without our assistance or interference;
and that he appears solely in the character of the God
of grace, his justice being appeased, and opposing no
obstacle to the emanation ofhis love.
Secondly, The Gospel strictly taken, comprehends
the great and precious promises. " This is the cov
enant that I will make with the house of Israel ; after
those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into
their mind, and write them in their hearts ; and I will
be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people :
and they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and
.every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord ; for all
shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For 1
will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their
sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."*
To these we may add the promises of assistance, con
solation, protection, deliverance, and eternal life. They
.all breathe love. They are all expressive of the good
will of God towards men. They exhibit under various
aspects, his grace accommodated to our necessities.
They bless us at present, and give the hope of blessed
ness hereafter. It should also be considered, that the
promises are free in this sense, that nothing is required
but that we should embrace them ; and that if a cer
tain state of mind must precede the performance of
some promises, which in this view may be considered
as conditional, it is produced in us by the grace which
is held out to us in others.
Thirdly, The Gospel strictly taken, comprehends
the free offer of Christ and salvation. As God gave
him in his incarnation and mission, so he still gives
him to all in the gospel ; that is, he exhibits him as a
Saviour, and authorizes sinners to believe in him.
There is no exception made of persons on account of
their country, their parentage, their profession, their
rank in society, or even on account of the number and
degree of their sins. Every descendant of Adam is at
liberty to claim an interest in the common salvation,
the most illiterate, the meanest, the most unworthy.
All are made welcome to Christ, both hy himself and
by his Father. " My Father giveth you tbe true
bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which
cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the
world."! " Come unto me, all ye that labour and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest."! The uni
versality of the offer is a proof of its freeness ; which
is further manifest from the consideration that, no con
ditions are prescribed, no equivalent is demanded,
nothing is required, but our acceptance of the gift.
" Ho ! every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and
he that hath no money ; comeye, buy, and eat ; yea come,
buy wine and milk without money and without price."||
God appears in the character of a generous benefactor,
who gives all and receives nothing in return, except such
expressions of our gratitude as are prompted by his own
Spirit. ,
Lastly, The Gospel strictly taken, comprehends the
earnest and affectionate invitations addressed to sin
ners. Some of these have been quoted. The Bible
is full of them, and we find them alone or intermixed
with other subjects. " Unto you, O men, I call ; and

* Heb. viii. 10—12
} Mattb. xi. 23

tJohn vi. 32,33.
|| Is. Iv. 1.

my voice is to the sons of men."* The object of them
is to persuade men to accept the gift which God presents
to them, to awaken their attention, excite their affec
tions, to make them perceive and feel that it is their
interest and their duty to comply. So far as they
have the nature of commands, or constitute a moral
obligation upon those to whom they are addressed,
they do not belong to the gospel in the strict sense
in which the term is at present used; but, as ex
pressive of God's regard to sinners, and of the sin
cerity of his desire for tbeir salvation, they are a part
of the gospel, and an amiable display of its grace.
The design of thus accurately defining the Gospel,
is not to distinguish words but things, to fix the bound
aries of the two great divisions of the word of God,
and to guard against the danger of confounding them
together. It may happen that a person who clearly
perceives the difference of the things, does not with
equal care distinguish them in words; or that, know
ing that the revelation of Jesus Christ contains doc
trines of grace and free promises, and that these con
stitute a different class from its precepts, does not as
sign a distinct name to each, but sums them all up
under the general denomination of the gospel. Shall
we therefore condemn him as ignorant, and a corrupter
of the truth ? There are persons who make no scruple
to do so, not knowing that they at the same time pro
nounce a sweeping sentence upon the Church of God,
from the earliest times down to a very recent date.
Our modern definitions were little known, I believe,
till the Reformation ; and those who lived before it,
back to a very rem ote_ period, expressed themselves on
this subject in language which seems to us to be loose ;
yet we are not to suppose, that till a century or two
ago, no Christian understood the Gospel, properly so
called, and that all were in an error with respect to
the true nature of the dispensation of grace. Let us
retain our more correct phraseology ; but let us re
member that things are of more importance than words,
and not hastily make a man an offender for a word,
whose views are perhaps as scriptural as our own.
There are however some modes of expression which
should not be passed over without animadversion, be
cause they evidently are founded in mistaken views
of the subject, and mix things together which ought
not to be confounded. There are many who represent
the gospel as a new law of grace. It is a law, they
say, because it prescribes certain duties to be performed
by us, as the condition of salvation ; and it is a law of
grace, because the condition is comparatively easy,
faith and sincere obedience being accepted, instead of
the perfect obedience which the first covenant required.
I had occasion formerly to speak of this system, and to
show that it is contrary to Scripture ; and I now refer
to it, not with a view to refutation, but to lay before you
an instance in which gross ignorance of the gospel is be
trayed. Those who teach this system, preach another
gospel, that new gospel against which Paul declaims
with so much vehemence in his Epistle to the Galatians.
It is plain that the Galatians had not renounced Chris
tianity, but that they had been tempted, or at least some
of them, by false teachers, to conjoin their own works
with faith, as the ground of their acceptance, exactly
according to the plan of Neonomians. Now, observe
what he says of them : " Christ is become of no effect
unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law ;
ye are fallen from grace."! They had fallen from
grace, or abandoned the gospel while they professed
to adhere to it, by embracing a doctrine which was not
the gospel. The gospel is corrupted by every attempt
to introduce works, either as the sole or the concomit
ant cause of our justification ; by representing faith as
effectual to justify us, because it produces good works;

* Prov. viii. 4.

f Gal. v. 4.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE WORD OF GOD.

451

by teaching that any personal qualifications are requi
site to recommend us to- the favour of God ; by resting
sur right to Christ, or our warrant to believe in him,
upon certain previous exercises and affections of our
minds ; by proposing any foundation of hope but his
atonement and obedience. By these expedients, you
convert the gospel, which is a pure declaration and
offer of grace, into a law which prescribes duties and
rewards them. The gospel indeed is sometimes re
presented as a law, the law which has come out of
Zion, the law of faith ;* but in those cases a law sig
nifies simply the will of a "superior, a declaration of
the will of God ; or the designation is given to the
gospel in its more enlarged sense, according to which
it contains precepts as well as promises, and in par
ticular, requires faith as the means which God has ap
pointed for giving an interest in the offered salvation.
It is on this account that faith is sometimes described
as obedience ; for example, when the gospel is said
to be preached to all nations " for the obedience of
faith ;" when the Apostle remarks concerning the
Jews, that "they had not all obeyed the gospel," and
when he says of our Saviour, that " being made per
fect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all
them that obey him."!
To sum up what has been said, in the words of a
celebrated foreign Divine, "If we take the Gospel in
a strict sense, as consisting of mere promises, or an
absolute exhibition of salvation in Christ, then it proper
ly prescribes no duty, exacts nothing, orders nothing,
not even this, — believe, trust, hope in the Lord ; but
it relates, tells, signifies to us what God promises in
Christ, what he wills to do, and is about to do. Every
¦prescription of duty pertains to the law ; and this must
foe held, if we would with constancy maintain, with
all the Reformed, the perfection of the law, as contain
ing all virtues, and all the duties of holiness. But the
law, accommodated to the covenant of grace, and, ac
cording to it, written on the hearts of the elect, com
mands us to embrace all those things which are pro
posed in the Gospel with unfeigned faith, and to regu
late our life suitably to its grace. When God, there
fore, promises, in the covenant of grace, to the elect
sinner, faith, repentance, and consequently eternal life ;
the law, the obligation of which can never be dissolv
ed, and which extends to every duty, binds the man to
assent to that truth ; to set a high value upon those
promises ; to desire them earnestly ; to seek them and
embrace them. Moreover, since the admirable provi
dence of God has disposed the promises in such an
order that faith and repentance precede, salvation fol
lows, a man is bound by the same law to approve and
love this arrangement, and to expect salvation in no
other way. He who accepts the promises of the cove
nant in the order in which they are proposed, binds
himself by that acceptance, first to perform the duties
contained in prior promises, before he can hope to
come to the enjoyment of those which are posterior.
In this respect the covenant is mutual. God proposes
his promises in the Gospel in a certain order. Man is
bound by the force of tbe law, acting in subservience
to the covenant of grace, to embrace the promises in
that order. While faith does so, the believer binds
himself at the same time to the study of a new life,
before he can expect a happy life ; and in this manner
the convention is on both sides.''!
Thus it appears that, when we understand the word
Gospel in what is conceived to be its proper sense, it
does not enjoin, but merely declares and promises.
Even those precepts which may be peculiarly called
evangelical, do not belong to it ; as, to believe, to re
pent, to hope for salvation ; and they can be called
*Is.ii.3. Rom.iii.27. f Rom. xvi. 26. x. 16. Heb.v.9.
{ Witsii. Animad. Irenicao, cap. xv. § 9.

evangelical only on account of their object, which is
the grace of God revealed and offered in the Gospel.
In truth, they emanate from the law. It follows that,
when a minister inculcates these and other duties, he
preaches the law; and then only preaches the Gospel,
according to this definition of it, when he proclaims the
love of God in Christ, and the blessings and privileges
of believers. But I have shown you that the Gospel
has a more extensive meaning ; and consequently, that
we may be said to preach the Gospel, when we incul
cate the institutions and laws of Christ upon evangeli
cal principles.
Every part of the word of God, as we have already
remarked, is subservient to the application of redemp
tion, but this office belongs in a particular manner to
the Gospel, which is the only means of beginning the
work in the soul, and holds the principal place in car
rying it on. Every faithful minister, therefore, will
preach it; not only because it is his duty to declare all
the counsel of God, but because he knows that upon
a faithful exhibition of the Gospel depends the success
ofhis labours. It will not be the sole subject of his
discourses ; but he will give it the pre-eminence to
which it is entitled ; like Paul, who said to the Corinth
ians, "I determined not to know any thing among you,
save Jesus Christ, and him crucified ;"* and he will
teach all the other part of Divine truth in connexion
with it.
First, It is by the Gospel that men are converted.
From their state of insensibility and security, they may
be raised by the doctrine of the law ; but it is the Gos
pel alone which will turn them from sin to God. Mere
terror would drive them, if possible, farther from God ;
while it increased their fear, it would increase their
hatred, and create such a desire as our first parents felt,
to retire from his presence, and to conceal themselves
from his eyes. Nothing will prevail upon a man, con
scious of guilt, and dreading deserved punishment, to
draw near to his offended Creator, but the assurance
that he is disposed to be merciful, that something effect
ual has been done to appease his anger, and that he will
receive and pardon those who, in sincerity, supplicate
his favour. Such an assurance is obtained only by the
Gospel, which makes known his gracious design, and
points to the atonement of Christ, which has reconciled
the exercise of his mercy with the claims of his jus
tice. Hence it is evident that the Gospel, considered
simply as a moral means, and independently of the
Divine constitution, which has connected the influ
ences of the Spirit with the preaching of it, possesses*
a fitness, an adaptation to the end proposed, which is
not to be found in any other pan of the Word. The
character of God, notwithstanding its intrinsic excel
lence, will appear repulsive to the transgressors of his
law, unless there be added to it the amiableness and
the attractions which it derives from the mediation of
Christ. Accordingly, the Gospel has, in every age,
proved the power of God unto salvation. It was by
the preaching of it that three thousand were converted
on the day of Pentecost, and myriads were afterwards
induced to renounce Judaism and heathenism, and to
embrace the religion of Christ with the full consent of
their hearts. By the same doctrine the great spiritual
revolution was effected at the Reformation. Men, in
deed, had long perceived some of the corruptions and
abuses of the, Church of Rome; and when the light of
Divine truth began to shine, they saw them more fully
and distinctly; but what had the most powerful effect
of all, was the doctrine of the cross, the offer of salva
tion, without the intercession of saints, and without
penance and the merit of good works, through the
atoningblood and vicarious obedience of the Redeemer.
When the Moravians established themselves in Green-

« 1 Cor. ii. 2.

452

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

land, they endeavoured to reclaim the rude nations of
that inhospitable region from idolatry and superstition,
by teaching the doctrines of natural religion ; but they
laboured for several years, without exciting attention,
or gaining a single convert. As soon, however, as they
changed their system, and began to preach Christ cru
cified, the poor savages listened with wonder, eagerly
inquired whether what they now heard was true, and
believing with the heart, were, baptized. For a long
period a Church has flourished in that frozen clime, and
the dreary desert has been enlivened by the songs of
salvation. It is still by the same doctrine that the hu
man heart is impressed. The preaching of the law, or
of morality, without the Gospel, is a cold and unprofit
able exercise; and what every man who knows the
truth must have expected a priori, is realized in expe
rience. Virtue is disregarded, and vice is practised,
by those in whose ears lessons of duty are sounded
from Sabbath to Sabbath. Astonishment has been
sometimes expressed, that such preaching should prove
totally useless, while the preaching of salvation by
grace, which in the opinion of the disputers of this
world, tends to licentiousness, should produce a quite
contrary effect. But there is no cause for such aston
ishment. Every man who calmly considers the nature
of the Gospel, will perceive that it is calculated to ex
cite love to God, and to engage our active powers in his
service; and every man who understands his Bible,
knows that it is this doctrine alone which God has
promised to accompany with bis blessing.
Secondly, It is by the Gospel that peace of con
science is obtained. It is called tbe Gospel of peace,
because it brings tidings to us of the reconciliation
effected between God and men by the blood of Christ ;
and when believed, it dispels our fears, and enables us
to look up to him with confidence. Men may talk of
peace of mind to be procured by the performance of
their duty, of the calm recollections of virtue, and the
serenity which they diffuse over the soul ; but their ig
norance and insensibility are truly pitiable. If they
knew their duty, they would feel that they could not
perform it so perfectly as to satisfy the demands of an
enlightened conscience, and that their best works are
attended with such defects as might be made the ground
of their condemnation at the tribunal of the Omnfscient.
It is his voice alone, which stills the tumult of the soul.
How would it be agitated by the sense of past and
present sins, if it had no other refuge than it may find
in itself! When conscious of innumerable transgres
sions and infirmities, and condemned by its own impar
tial sentence, it is relieved solely by a view of the
atonement, and the promise of pardon. It will be found,
I presume, that the state of a person's mind is regula
ted by his views of the Gospel. Those who mingle
faith and works together, cannot rise to the confidence
of hope but by the aid of presumption ; and if their con
sciences are in any degree faithful, they must be liable
to be disturbed and alarmed by every failure. But when
a Christian steadfastly contemplates ihe propitiatory
sacrifice of Christ, and the evidence that it was perfect
ly acceptable to his Father, he enjoys peace, notwith
standing his feeling of utter unworthiness ; peace which
nothing can interrupt, but the suspension of his faith:
" Being justified by faith, we have peace with God,
through our Lord Jesus Christ."*
Thirdly, It is from the Gospel that the consolation
of Christians flows. Ask them, what soothes their sor
row, sustains their patience, brightens their hopes, and
cheers their lonely hours, and they refer to some doc
trine or promise of the Gospel. The view which it
gives of the character of God is consoling ; for it ex
hibits him as wise, affectionate, faithful, and constant
in his love as a Father, in whose hands they may trust

* Rom. v. 1.

their best and dearest interests, and of whose attention
and regard they are never permitted to doubt. In con
nexion with this view is the equally comfortable one
which it gives of his dispensations. Our fearful and
foreboding minds are apt to suspect evil in adverse
events, to see tokens of wrath in the surrounding scene,
to apprehend the most alarming consequences, to think
that we are abandoned for ever. But the Gospel sheds
light upon the darkest events ; and, although it does
not explain every difficulty, and substitute knowledge
in the room of faith, yet it enables us to anticipate with
confidence a glorious and happy result, for it assures us
that the reign of God is the reign of love. In one word,
the great remedy for the pains and disappointments of
the present life, is the hope of a better. Reason spec
ulates about it, and nature desires immortality ; but the
Gospel reveals it, and gives the certain hope that our
future existence will be happy. Its promises are our
charter to the heavenly inheritance, which is rendered
valid and unalterable by the death and resurrection of
Christ. Lastly, It is tbe Gospel alone which purifies the
heart. I have already remarked that experience has
proved, and is daily proving, the preaching of moral
ity without the Gospel to he fruitless labour. The
Gospel alone gives such views of the character, and
dispensations, and designs of God, as will make a
lasting- impression upon that part of our constitution
which is the seat of holiness ; namely, the heart, or
the affections and active principles of our nature. If
love is the fulfilling of the law, obedience will be
best secured by that system wbich is best adapted to
inspire love. The outcry which has been raised
against the doctrine of salvation by grace, is often
sounding in our ears; and you know that such repre
sentations have been given of its tendency and conse
quences as might lead us to believe, that licentious
ness must abound wherever it is embraced ; or, if facts
extort an acknowledgment that such is not alway3
the effect, it is insinuated, either that the holiness of
its abettors is hypocritical, or that it is owing to some
accidental cause, which counteracts the influence of
their creed. Nothing, it is pretended, is so effectual
to secure obedience, as to suspend our hope of eternal
life upon it. This is to make religion a calculation of
interest, so that they alone will attend to its injunc
tions who prefer the happiness of the world to come,
to tbe pleasures of sin. But, if there should be per
sons who prefer the pleasures of sin because they are
present, to the happiness of heaven which is future,
this scheme can do nothing for them. It has no other
expedient by which it might prevail upon them to
make a wiser choice. We know tbat there are many in
whose eyes earthly pleasures possess superior attrac
tions, and have so completely gained the ascendency^
that the strongest arguments can produce no change
of inclination ; and hence it appears, that this plan,
which depends for its success upon an accurate corn-
parison, and a fair estimate of consequences, is, in
their case, an airy speculation. In this, as in every
other instance, the foolishness of God is wiser than
men. The Gospel, by inspiring the love of God,
creates the love of holiness, from wbich obedience
flows spontaneously, and does not wait till it is ex
torted by the consideration of interest. It thus gives
a charm to obedience, infuses into it a feeling of de
light, and ensures our perseverance ; for the pleasures
of sin will not, for any length of time, draw the
Christian aside from a course of life in which he has
experienced greater happiness than they could ever
impart. The question is not, whether he shall consent
to suffer for a time, in the hope of a recompense here
after ; but whether he shall make a present sacrifice,
which no sublunary gain could compensate ; whether
he shall forsake the fountain of living water, and hew

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE WORD OF GOD.

453

out to himself a broken cistern which can hold no
water. As no holiness is genuine but that which
springs from the faith of the Gospel, so no other is
steady in its principle, and will stand the test of
temptation. They alone will serve God with fidelity,
who look upon hiin as their Father, and confide in the
promises of assistance and acceptance ; and they alone
will follow Christ through good report and bad report,
who feel the constraining influence of his love.

LECTURE LXXXV.
ON THE WORD OF GOD.
On Preaching the Gospel. — The Law as distinguished from the
Gospel. — Its use in awakening Sinners and as a rule of life
to Believers. — Connexion of the Law and Gospel as means
of Salvation. — Use of the other portions of Scripture. —
Observations on the Reading and Preaching of the Word. —
Necessity of the accompaniment of the Spirit.
In the preceding lecture, I endeavoured to ascertain
tbe various senses which the word Gospel bears in
Scripture. It has appeared that, besides being the
title of the four inspired narratives of our Saviour,
and being used also to denote the whole revelation
which was published to the world by him and his
Apostles, it is sometimes restricted to that part of it
which contains the doctrines of grace, and the prom
ises of salvation. It is contrary to Scripture itself to
call this alone the Gospel, as this name belongs to the
whole Christian system ; but this is exclusively its
meaning when we speak of the Gospel as distinguish
ed from the Law.
It is of importance to be accurate in our language
on this subject; but it is still more important to be
accurate in our ideas. Much confusion prevails, not
only among private Christians, whose mistakes can
be accounted for from want of instruction or from the
neglect of inquiry, but also among those who, being
appointed teachers of others in faith and verity, prove
blind leaders of the blind. There are not a few of the
latter class who are as ignorant of the true distinction
between the Law and the Gospel as any of their hear
ers ; who, accordingly, confound them together, and
while they profess to preach Christ, teach a doetrine
in which be holds only a subordinate place. It is
necessary that a minister should be able rightly to
divide the word of truth, to distinguish things which
in themselves are different, to state them in their order
and connexion, and to apply them to the purposes
which they are respectively intended to serve. Nothing
is more disgraceful to him, than to mistake one thing
for another, and by his bungling manner of handling
the word of God, to render it of no effect.
Men may preach the graee of God, but not preach
the Gospel. The phrase may occur often in their dis
courses and writings; and thus the simple maybe led
to believe that they are reading and hearing evangelical
doctrine, while those declaimers are in truth labouring
to subvert the Gospel of Christ. However loud and
eloquent may be his praise of Divine grace, if a per
son make it consist in giving us a milder law, in low
ering the terms of acceptance, and admitting our sin
cere endeavours, instead of perfect obedience, as the
Condition of future happiness ; if he represents it as
grace given to all indiscriminately, to enable them to
work out their salvation ; or a grace which it is left to
ourselves to receive or rejpct at our pleasure, which
may be lost, and will prove ineffectual unless we lend
our aid to it ; it is evident, that he knows neither what
he says, nor whereof he affirms.
Again, A man may preach salvation by faith, and
riot preach the Gospel of Christ. His doctrine is or
thodox in sound, but is erroneous in sense. For what is

the faith which he teaches ? Is it a bumble depend-
ance upon the righteousness of Christ, to the exclu
sion of our own? No; it is what he calls believing
obedience ; not faith alone, but faith and obedience
conjoined ; the name of the cause being given not only
to itself, but to its effect, out of compliment to Scrip
ture, and to please fastidious ears. You will find that,
in this manner, some teachers of faith explain their
own meaning. We are saved by faith, not solely as it
receives Christ, but as it works by love; or, in other
words we are saved not simply by a living faith, which
proves its genuineness by good works, but by faith
which includes good works, and derives its efficacy
from them. And thus, while sinners are told that they
are justified by faith, and so far the doctrine seems to
be Scriptural, they are in reality led to believe that
they are justified by works.
Farther, Ministers may preach the atonement, and
yet not preach the Gospel of Christ. They may ad
mit that Christ died for our sins; that his sacrifice
was acceptable to God ; that, for his sake, he pardons
us; and that to his mediation we are indebted for all
the blessings of salvation ; but, while they give goodly
words, they may hold sentiments which render them
in a great measure nugatory. If they teach that our
Redeemer died, not actually to reconcile God to us,
but to render him reconcilable ; that he died to procure
the making of a new covenant with us, the terms of
which are to be fulfilled by ourselves ; that he died to
give efficacy to our repentance, meaning that somehow
it becomes, through his death, a sort of satisfaction
for our sins ; in all these cases, they misrepresent the
nature, and extenuate the value, of the atonement of
the cross. They take away with the one hand what
they had given with the other. According to their
doctrine, it is not true that the blood of Christ cleanses
us from all sin, that through it we have redemption,
that by it he has made peace : because there still re
mains something to be done by us, to render his blood
effectual for our deliverance from something to be add
ed to it as the conjunct cause of our pardon.
In the next place, Men may preach the privileges
of believers, and not preach the Gospel of Christ.
They may talk of justification, without referring to
Scriptural faith by which alone it is enjoyed; of
sanctification, without assigning the grace of the
Divine Spirit as its only efficient cause ; of protection
by the power of God, and peace and joy ; while the
protection depends upon our own dutiful Conduct, and
may be forfeited if we are not careful to deserve its
continuance ; the peace arises, not from the applica
tion of the blood of Christ to the conscience, but from
our own fidelity in the performance of our duty; and
the hope is not founded on the promises of God, and
ihe righteousness of Christ,, but on the recollection of
our own meritorious deeds. The privileges enumer
ated are conferred by the Gospel, and are exhibited in
its declarations; but as soon as you disjoin them from
Christ, and ascribe the enjoyment of them to any other
cause than his mediation, they cease to be gifts of
grace, and are changed into the rewards of the law.
It is in Christ, in a state of union to him, and solely
for his sake, that God blesses us with all spiritual
blessings. Lastly, Men may preach tbe happiness of heaven,
and yet not preach the Gospel of Christ. They may
be chargeable with doing so on two accounts, either
because they misrepresent the nature of that happiness,
or because they do not truly state the means of ob
taining it. To affirm that we are indeed pardoned
through the atonement of Christ, but that we must
ourselves establish a right to eternal life by our
obedience, is to preach something very different from
the Gospel ; although an attempt should be made to
qualify the doctrine, and to give it an evangelical form,

454

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

by subjoining that it is tbe grace of God which enables
us to obey. This is plainly to set even grace in opposition
to Christ, as if it were intended to help us to perform
a part of the work of salvation, which he claims as
exclusively his own. Nor is the Gospel preached
when heaven is described as a place of rest, and enjoy
ment, without a reference to 1he presence of Christ in
it, as constituting the chief source of its glory and
blessedness. We all condemn the grossness of the
Mahometans, who expect a sensual paradise ; but
even professed Christians are by no means united in
their views of the world to come. The notions of
many are altogether undefined ; but, if it is not con
sidered as a holy as well as a happy place, and if its
happiness is contemplated under any view which ex
cludes the love and service of the Saviour, or allows
to these only a subordinate place, it is a heaven of
imagination, and not of the Scriptures. As Christ is
the life and glory of the Gospel, so he is associated
with all just conceptions of future felicity. He is the
sun of the celestial world.
It is of the utmost importance that private Chris
tians, and especially ministers of religion, should have
accurate notions of the Gospel. Truth is one, but
error is multifarious. It is truth alone that will pro
mote the salvation of the soul ; every modification of
error is injurious in a greater or less degree. " If ye
know the truth, the truth shall make you free."*
I have said that there are two great divisions of the
Word of God, the Gospel and the Law. Having
spoken of the first, I'now proceed to the second.
The Law, as distinguished from the Gospel com
prehends the preceptive part of the will of God, and
the denunciations of his wrath against transgressors.
There is a twofold view in which the law may be con
templated — as a covenant of works, and as a rule of
life ; and in both it is conducive to the general design of
the Word, which is the application of redemption.
The Scriptures give an account of the covenant of
works, not indeed under this name, but in terms which
imply all that it signifies. Considered in itself, this
covenant is opposed to our salvation. It prescribes
terms which we are utterly incapable of performing,
and denounces a curse upon every transgressor. But
this is not all. So far as it proves to any the occasion
of endeavours to seek justification by their own works,
it stands in the way of their final happiness, for it is
certain that the attainment of it by such means is im
possible. When men, reading in the Scriptures that
he who doth these things shall live by them, con
ceive that this is not merely the statement of a hypo
thetical case, but the proposal of a plan to be acted
upon, and hence, commence a course of obedience in
the expectation of success ; they turn aside from the
grace of the gospel and involve themselves in all the
difficulties and perplexities of a hopeless undertaking.
They wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction.
They convert the information, which, wisely used,
might have led them to the Saviour, into the means of
blinding their minds, and alienating their hearts from
him. This is not the purpose for wbich the law as a
covenant is made known to them in the Scriptures.
God did not intend that they should attempt to repair
what is broken, and to re-establish what is set aside.
Tbe design is altogether of a different nature. It is to
rouse men from a state of security, and to apprise
them of their danger, that they may flee for refuge to
lay hold upon the hope set before them in the gospel.
" By the law is the knowledge of sin." It shows us
that we have transgressed, and what are the conse
quences of unpardoned guilt according to the divine
constitution. This is the office which it is appointed
to serve, or the relation which it bears to the revelation
* John viii. 32.

of Christ. This revelation and the law are distinct ;
but they are associated for a general purpose, the one
being preparatory to the other, and paving the way
for the cordial reception of it. The declaration of human
guilt, and of the dreadful recompense which awaits it,
is intended, not only to vindicate the holiness and
justice of God as the moral Governor of the world,
but to impress upon his offending subjects a sense of
their perilous situation, that tbey be excited to escape
from it by embracing the offers of his mercy. As
this is the aim of the threatenings in the word of God
where they do not stand alone, but appear in con
nexion with the premises of pardon and salvation; so
it is the design of the strict injunctions of obedience,
and of the occasional representation of it as the
original term of our acceptance with Gcd. It is a
fatal error to suppose, that the design is to encourage
us to attempt the obtaining of the divine favour by
our feeble endeavours. It is to convince us that the
terms are so high, that we ought to despair of fulfilling
them ; so that we. may no longer " go about to estab
lish our own righteousness," and may " submit to the
righteousness of God." The Scriptures speak to us
in the same mannei as our Lord addressed the young
man, who proposed this question, "What good thing
shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life?" To sup
pose that, when Jesus said to him, " If thou wilt enter
into life, keep the commandments,"* he seriously
meant to signify to him, that he might so keep them
as to attain the reward of immortality, is to suppose
that, on this occasion, he contradicted himself, and
taught a doctrine which himself and his Apostles
have expressly condemned. He adapted the answer
to the question; and as the young man was seeking
salvation by the law, he told him what he must do,
not to encourage him in his error, but to correct it;
and accordingly he proceeded to bring his obedience.
in which he trusted, to the test, and to show him that
it was sadly defective.
Thus you perceive the subservience of the covenant
of works, and consequently of those parts of the word
in which it is announced, to the gracious designs of
God towards sinners. The covenant itself is disan
nulled, as every agreement is by the failure of one of
the parties. The other party ceases to be bound by
bis stipulations, and has a right to demand that the pen
alty be inflicted. God does not now deal wilh men ac~
cording to this covenant, except in the way of punish
ment for the breach of it ; and the only character which
he sustains in relation to those who are under it, is that
of a Judge. He promises life to no man upon its terms ;
but, still demanding obedience as naturally due to.him,
he threatens death because it has not been performed.
Its original sanctions are published, to show ns what
we owe to our Maker', what we have failed to perform,.
and what evil we have brought upon ourselves, that we
may feel the necessity of another plan of salvation, and
may believe in Him who is " the end of the law for
righteousness." Let us now consider the law as a rule of life ; and
first, let us ascertain what it signifies under this desig
nation. The law, as a rule of life, is the law divested
of its federal form, and considered simply as an author
itative declaration of the duty which God requires from
his people. It enjoins obedience ; not, however, as the
condition upon which their future happiness is sus
pended, but as the homage which they owe to God as
the supreme Governor of the world, and the Father of
those who believe. I acknowledge that there are con
nected with it promises of spiritual blessings; but it
should be observed, that obedience is not the procuring
cause of those blessings, but merely the qualification
which must precede the enjoyment of them, and that
* Matth. xix. 16, 17.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE WORD OF GOD.

tbe reward is wholly of grace. I acknowledge too,
that even eternal life is sometimes represented as a re
compense of the obedience of the saints ;. but it is plain
to every person who understands the Scriptures, that it
is a recompense only in an improper sense, and is so
called because it will follow their obedience, and com
pensate every labour to which they have submitted, and
every sacrifice which they have made for the glory of
God. We must beware of imagining that, having set
aside the old covenant, God has made a new one with
man under the Gospel; and that the law of works is
revived under a different name, and with some abate-
of its rigour, in accommodation to human infirmity.
The true situation of believers does not resemble that
of servants who obey their masters for hire, but that of
men who obey their Father from love, and who although
they know that the inheritance is secured to them, ex
pect in the mean time to be treated kindly and liberally
according to their dutiful conduct.
The law, as a rule of life, is subservient to the salva
tion of believers in various ways. It is the directory
of their conduct, their guide in their whole course. It
is of the utmost importance to know what is pleasing
to God, and we learn it from the law, which is a sum
mary of all our duties. Heathens have no means of
ascertaining their duty, except by reasoning and the
dictates of conscience ; and hence their systems of mor
ality have always been imperfect. It is an inestimable
advantage wbich Christians enjoy, that they have only
to look into the " perfect law of liberty," as an Apostle
calls it; not to engage in lengthened discussions, but
to read ; simply to ask, What is written ? What says
the law ? and, whatever obscurity may attend some
parts of revelation, whatever difficulties may present
themselves to the mind when contemplating them, in
consequence of the limited nature of our faculties, and
the impossibility of perceiving the link which connects
them with other things the trulh of which must be ad
mitted, — the moral precepts are plain to every capacity,
and nothing hinders any man from perceiving them, but
carelessness or corrupt inclinations, by which his judo--
ment is perverted. With respect to some other points,
Christians differ from one another; but in their views
of the duties of holiness, all conscientious inquirers are
agreed. The law serves also to excite them to their
duty. Its instructions are authoritative. It not only
tells them what they should do, but it commands them.
They hear the voice of God in its precepts. A sense
of obligation is created ; conscience re-echoes his voice,
or republishes the command, and exacts instant and
cheerful obedience. It accompanies them as a monitor,
who speaks although they alone hear, in the midst of
company as well as in the solitude of retirement, and
says, This you ought to do; that you must not do.
God promises to write his law upon the hearts of his
people ; and the promise is performed when their minds
are so enlightened by it, their consciences are so im
pressed, and their wills are so controlled by its author
ity, that they make it the rule by which their whole
conduct is governed.
Unholy men set no value upon this part of the word
of God. The law they regard as a restraint, because
they wish to live without any rule except their own in
clinations. It appears in a different light to those
whose aim it is to please and glorify God, and they are
thankful that he has himself instructed them so clearly
and particularly. The words of the Psalmist are ex
pressive of the sentiments of all the saints : " More to
be desired are thy statutes than gold, yea, than much
fine gold ; sweeter also than honey and the honey-comb.
Moreover, by them is thy servant warned, and in keep
ing of them there is great reward."* The commands
of the law, its admonitions, and even its reproofs, are

» Ps. xix. 10, 11.

455
acceptable to bim who is desirous that nothing may be
found in him, on which God would look with disap
probation. If holiness is an essential part of salvation, the util
ity of the law is manifest. It is the standard of holi
ness. It shows what the saints ought to be, and what
God has purposed to make them. It is the pattern ac
cording to which his Spirit fashions them ; and its pre
scriptions are the means of exciting them to make pro
gress in holiness, to go from strength to strength, to
press towards the goal of perfection. Its purity, which
to others is a formidable objection, is the reason why
the saints so highly esteem it. They love it because
it is without a flaw; because it is a true image of the
moral excellence of its Author; because it urges them
on in their course, and will not permit them to stop, till
their heart and conduct exhibits its exact counterpart.
Hence they offer up such prayers as these: "Teach
me, O Lord, the way of thy statutes ; and I shall keep
it to the end. Give me understanding, and I shall keep
thy law ; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.
Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for
therein do I delight. Incline my heart unto thy testi
monies, and not to covetousness. Turn away mine
eyes from beholding vanity, and quicken thou me in
thy way."*
It is necessary, in speaking of the law as a rule of
life to believers, carefully to consider its connexion
with the gospel. It is, founded upon the gospel ; that
is, it is given to them as persons who by the gospel -
have been brought into a state of favour with God, and
are in possession of great spiritual privileges. This
is supposed to be taught by the preface to the ten
commandments which were promulgated to the Israel
ites from Sinai ; "I am the Lord thy God, which have
brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the,
house of bondage."! The ^act' 'l nas keen observed,
brought forward as the reason or motive of our obe
dience, is that the Lawgiver is our Lord and Redeemer,
or stands in a saving relation to us-! Thus the pre-.
face is explained by our Church; but to establish this
view of the words, it would be necessary to ascertain
the precise nature of the transaction at Sinai ; a sub
ject of difficult discussion, and in determining which,
even those who are called orthodox are by no means
agreed. The difficulty is certainly not lessened by a
passage in the writings of Paul, which imports that
the law given at that time, might be conceived to havo
set aside the promise made to Abraham of salvation
through his illustrious seed ;|| a supposition for which;
it does not appear that there would have been any
ground, if it had been known to be a publication of
the covenant of grace. The words under considera
tion may be understood simply to import, that, since
God had revealed himself to the Israelites in prefer
ence to other. nations, and had rescued them from the
hands of their enemies, they should pay a sacred
regard to his commands. 'Whatever view we may
take of the preface to the law, we are certain that,
as a rule of life, it emanates from the God of love,
and calls upon believers to perform obedience in testi
mony of their gratitude for his goodness. A distinc
tion which has been often made may be mentioned, be
cause it expresses an important truth, that the law U
not given to believers that they may live by it, but
that they are to obey it, because they already live.
When more plainly and fully expressed, the sentiment
is, that obedience is not enjoined upon believers, that
they may obtain the favour of God and eternal life;
but they are required to obey, because he has " accept
ed them in the beloved," and they have the Holy Spirit,
who dwells in their hearts to assist them.

* Ps. cxix. 33—37.
X Shorter Catechism, Q. 44.

f Exod. xx. 2.
|| Gal. iii. 17.

456

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

The law commands, and the gospel promises. Now
there is a perfect accordance between the. promises o f
the one, and the commands of the other. The promises
exhibit the grace oy which we are enabled to obey the
commands; and we see in the connexion between
them, the fulfilment of the humble and pious request
of Augustine, " Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis."* The
believer is fully furnished for every good work. If the
law commands us to love the Lord our God with all
our heart, the gospel promises that he will " circumcise
our hearts to love him."! ¦"' tne 'aw commands us to
Tepent, the gospel promises " the spirit of grace and
of supplications, that we may mourn as for an only
son, and be in bitterness as for a first-born."! If the
law commands us " to make to ourselves a new heart,"
God promises in the gospel " to take away the heart
of stone, and to give us a heart of flesh."|| If the law-
requires us to " walk in all the ordinances and com
mandments of the Lord," this is the promise of the
gospel, " I will put my Spirit within you, and cause
you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judg
ments, and do them."§ It would be easy to go into a
long detail, but the specimen which I have given is
sufficient and will direct you in your inquiries into the
subject. The law and the gospel are the two grand divisions
of the word of God ; but they do not exhaust its con
tents. It comprehends other subjects, which con
tribute to the general design, and are entitled to our
attention at present. "All Scripture is profitable."
The word of God contains a history of the human
race from the creation to the flood, and a more partic
ular history of the Israelites, and of other nations
who were settled in their vicinity, and with whom
they were connected in various ways. The history
of the Israelites is the history of the Church, till the
canon of the ancient Scriptures was completed ; and
in the New Testament the subject is resumed. It
therefore affords illustrious displays of the wisdom,
and power, and grace, and faithfulness, and holiness
of God. The history of the Israelites, and of other
nations, is the history of Providence ; and is interest
ing, not only as a detail of ancient facts, in which
view it gratifies curiosity, but as an illustration of the
character and conduct of God as the moral Governor
of the world, and in this view it is conducive to
piety. There are other authentic histories from which
much useful instruction may be derived ; but from
the manner in which they are conducted, our atten
tion is fixed almost exclusively upon the operations
of men, their schemes of policy, the achievements
of their power, and the vicissitudes of their fortune ;
While the histories which we find in the Bible lead
us directly to God. The revolutions in the state of
things are the effects of his will and agency ; nations
rise and fall according to his pleasure ; the passions
of men are instruments wielded by his arm ; he per
mits their wrath to go forth, and sets bounds to it
which it cannot pass. This representation of the
course of events is new ; the affairs of mankind are
exhibited to us in the light of religion ; and from
the signatures of Divine agency upon them, they are
calculated to awaken sentiments of reverence for God,
confidence in bis care, and submission to his will.
When, in reading the Scriptures, the mind is directed
to him, its histories prove highly edifying ; and pious
impressions are made upon those who had perused
other histories with indifference, or solely with the
interest which was created by the nature of the events,
and the eloquence of the writers.
The word of God presents also examples of good-
* Grant what thou requirest, and require what thou wilt.
t Deut. xxx. 6. X Zech- xii- 10- li El- xi- 19-
\ Ex. xxxvi. 27. i

ness and wickedness in the conduct of individuals.
With respect to the latter, they are warnings to us ;
beacons erected to point out the rocks upon which
others have been shipwrecked, as well as testimonies
borne to the power and justice of God in their punish
ment, that others may hear and fear. I refer only to
a single instance, that of Pharaoh, because particular
notice is taken of it by an Apostle. " The Scripture
saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have
I raised thee up, that I might show my power in
thee, and that my name might be declared through
out all the earth."* The examples of conversion,
and of faith, patience, and obedience, are intended
to encourage both sinners and saints. They display
the riches of Divine mercy in the pardon of trans-
gressoj-s, that those who are awakened may not de
spair; and they show that the grace of God has been
sufficient for his people in past ages, that by its aid
they have resisted powerful temptations, and have
been enabled to perform difficult duties, that others
may be excited to tread in their steps. In the Epistle
to the Hebrews, a short account of the ancient wor
thies who by their faith and their works had glori
fied God, is concluded with this exhortation : " Where
fore, seeing we also are compassed about with so
great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every
weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us,
and let us run with patience the race that is set Be
fore us."!
The miracles recorded in Scripture tend to exalt
our ideas of the power of God, and to confirm our
faith. It is by them that the Scriptures are proved
to be bis word ; for they are the attestation which
he gave to the divine mission of Moses and the
Prophets, of Christ and his Apostles. The same
purpose is served by the prophecies, as it is manifest
that the Prophets were his inspired messengers, who
foretold, long before they happened, events which no
human sagacity could have foreseen, and which de
pended upon the free agency of men. They serve
also to confirm our belief of the moral administration
of God, when we see the system of human affairs con
ducted according to a plan previously revealed by him ;
and they minister to the encouragement and consolation
of the saints, by throwing a cheering light upon the
future, and unfolding the prospect of the reign of
righteousness and truth in the earth, and of the final
deliverance of the Church from the power of her
enemies. The utility of tbe devotional parts of Scripture is
obvious. They present models to be imitated by the
saints in their pious exercises, and excitements to cul
tivate communion with God. The Psalms of David,
in particular, have been held in high estimation in
every age. There, we are presented with an example
of faith and love, soaring to a height which few have
reached, even with all the advantages of the superior
light and grace of the Gospel. We see the ardent
longings of his soul for God ; his deep distress when
sin had interrupted his fellowship with him, or tbe
violence of men had excluded him from the sanctuary ;
and his joy when God again made the light of his
countenance shine upon his soul. We see how he,
and the other holy men whose compositions are found
in the same collection, trusted in God amidst affliction,
and persecution, and desertion, adored his judgments,
embraced his promises, obeyed his commandments,
and prayed for his favour. These things are examples
to us ; " They are written for our learning, that we
through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might
have hope."! They are a specimen of the manner in
which God deals with his people ; they show us how
spiritual joy is gained and lost; what is the exercise

* Rom. ix. 17,

f Heb. xii. 1. {Rom. xv. 4.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE: THE WORD OF GOD.

457

suitable to the particular circumstances in which we
are placed ; how we should wait upon God ; and what
are the advantages of perseverance in prayer and sup
plication. They are the means of infusing the same
spirit into others ; and often has the devotion of Chris
tians been kindled by the flame which glowed in the
bosom of these holy Jews.
The word is to be used by reading and hearing it,
both being appointed to be means of salvation : " The
Spirit of God," says our Church, "maketh the read
ing, but especially the preaching of the word, an effec
tual means of convincing and converting sinners, and
of building them up in holiness and comfort through
faith unto salvation."* I shall not call in question
this proposition, so far as it respects the pre-eminence
of preaching ; although I must say, that the Scrip
tures quoted in proof, do not appear to me to establish
the point, but when fairly interpreted, to imply nothing
more than tbat God accomplishes his gracious designs
by the word, whether read or heard ; for some of them
relate to the one mode of dispensing it, and some to
the other, and none of them gives the preference to
either. I acknowledge that more is said concerning
the effects of the preaching, than of the reading of
the word ; although nothing can be stronger than the
assertion of Paul, that the Scriptures read " are able
to make us wise unto salvation ;"+ but for the more
frequent mention of the former, it is easy to account
without the supposition of its superior efficacy. For
some time after Christ gave a commission to his Apos
tles, no part of the New Testament was written ; and
when its books were published, they existed only in
manuscripts, which could not be transcribed without
much time and expense, and to which therefore com
paratively few could have access. From the nature
of the case, the Gospel was chiefly propagated by
preaching, and the references to this mode of dis
pensing it are consequently frequent. Preaching was
necessarily the principal means by which the world
was converted and the primitive church was es
tablished ; and it must have continued so, till copies
of the Scriptures were multiplied, in consequence of
the invention of printing. There is no doubt that God
has, in every age, blessed the reading of the word
for illuminating the minds of men, and changing their
hearts ; and that many a conversion has been effected,
in private dwellings as well as in the Church, by the
silent perusal of tbe Scriptures as well as by the living
voice of the ambassadors of Christ. The benefit
which the saints derive from tbe study of tbem is the
subject of daily experience ; and they can tell how
Divine light has shined into their minds, and their
hearts have been filled with peace and joy ; how their
drooping spirits have been revived, and their impaired
strength has been recruited, while they turned over the
sacred pages, and devoutly meditated upon their con
tents. In our own times, the Scriptures have proved
effectual to open the eyes of not a few Heathens, and
Mahometans, and Jews, and Roman Catholics, and
nominal Christians in the Protestant Churches; and
from the unexampled zeal to circulate them, which has
been recently displayed, and which, there can be no
question, is under the direction of Providence, there
is reason to believe that it is the Divine intention to
make eminent use of them in accomplishing the great
spiritual revolution which is approaching.
' These observations are not designed to impugn the
common doctrine of the superior efficacy of preaching ;
although, at the same time, I would say, that unless
it can be established by scriptural proofs, it is no arti
cle of faith, and must be considered merely as a de
duction of experience. There can be no dispute that

* Shorter Catechism, Q. t
3 H

7-2 Tim. iii. 15.

the preaching of the Gospel has been productive of
mighty effects, not only at the commencement of the
present dispensation, but in all the subsequent ages.
The promise which our Lord made to the Apostles has
been continued to their successors in the ministry:
" Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world."* It is an ordinance of Christ, which he will
accompany with his blessing. It has been, and it
will be, the effectual means of awakening the careless,
of leading the convinced sinner to the Saviour, of com
forting the dejected, of confirming the wavering, of
conducting the saints from one degree of faith and
holiness to another, till they " come to the measure of
the stature of the fulness of Christ."
There are some peculiar advantages in the mode of
dispensing the word by preaching. A minister may
be compared to a guide, who points out to the traveller
objects which might have escaped his notice, and ex
plains things which he might not have otherwise un
derstood. It is not my meaning that the Scriptures
are so dark as to need a commentary, and to be a seal
ed book to the unlearned. In all matters necessary to
salvation, they are plain to every person of common
capacity. But the truths of revelation, although they
compose a regular system, all the parts of which are
closely connected, are not delivered in a systemalio
form. They are scattered up and down in the Bible;
and it requires attention and time to bring them to
gether, and arrange them, thaj they may throw light
upon one another, and exhibit in one view all the in
formation communicated to us on the subject of reli
gion. Besides, there are in the Scriptures things hard
to be understood, subjects which are obscure from
their own nature, or from their relation to other things,
which no longer exist, or are not generally known, and
which thus require learned and laborious research.
Hence, it is necessary that there should be persons,
who are fitted by their education, and bound by their
profession, to engage in those inquiries ; and at the
same time enjoy leisure and retirement from the bustle
of the world. Such a class of men is provided by the
institution of tbe ministry; and as in the primitive
times they were qualified for their office by the extra
ordinary gifts of the Spirit, the want of these must
now be supplied by diligent study. Thus the preach
ers of the word are enabled to bring " out of their
treasures things new and old ;" to lay open the whole
scheme of revelation ; to illustrate what is dark ; to
solve what is difficult ; to reconcile what seems con
tradictory ; to display the connexion and harmony of
Scripture ; and to render every part of it subservient
to the design of making the Christian perfect. The
utility of the ministry does not absolutely depend upon
the superior talents of the persons by whom its duties
are performed. Suppose that their" abilities should not
be greater than those of some of their hearers, or
should not even be equal, yet the latter may be bene
fited by their instructions; because their attention has
been more directed to the subject, and they may be
well conceived to understand better than others, a
book which is their daily and principal study.
The preaching of the word possesses also this advan
tage, that the/ occasion, the place, the voice of the
speaker, the solemnity and earnestness ofhis delivery,
are calculated to make an impression. Ministers, in
deed, however eloquent they may be, can operate only
on the natural affections, and move them in various
ways ; but the circumstances already mentioned have
an obvious tendency to excite attention to the truths of
religion ; and this state of mind is more favourable than
the listlessness with which men often peruse their Bi
bles at home. This, however, is a secondary consid-

* Matth. xxviii. !

458

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

eration, which will not account for the success with
which the preaching of the word is attended.
It should be remembered that, when we represent
the word, read and heard, as contributing to accomplish
the salvation of sinners, we consider it only as a mean,
the success of which is owing to a power that works
unseen Rational arguments will convince the under
standing, and the descriptions and appeals of eloquence
will move the affections ; but the heart, even the word
of God, when left alone, is not able to change. There
is no virtue in its terms more than in those of ordinary
language. Its subjects, indeed, are the most interest
ing that were ever presented to human contemplation ;
but the mind is so blind that it does not perceive their
excellence, and the heart is so corrupt that it cannot
relish them. " The natural man receiveth not the
things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness
unto him ; neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned."*
To ensure the success of his word, God has promised
the Holy Spirit to accompany it; and it is his office to
remove the veil which hides its glories from our eyes,
and the obstacles which prevent its entrance into our
hearts. If there is an incapacity in men to discern
spiritual things, it cannot be remedied but by supernat
ural influence; as a man born blind cannot be made to
see but by the same power which created the light and
the eye. Whence is it that men who have been train
ed to accurate thinking, and are capable of perceiving
the evidence and estimating the importance of religion,
do often disregard its truths, and even treat them with
contempt; while others of far inferior ability discover
the marks of a Divine origin in the Gospel, and give it
a cordial reception? Whence is it that it fixes the
attention of the giddy, but escapes the notice of the
thoughtful ; and that of the members of a family who
have been educated in reverence for it, and upon whom
its lessons have been frequently and solemnly inculca
ted, one, it may be, believps, while the rest continue
indifferent to its truths ? These things, I think, cannot
be accounted for, but by the Scripture doctrine of grace,
which operates according to its sovereign will ; for if
the word possessed a power in itself to convert the
soul, we might expect the change to be accomplished
in every case where the means were used with equal
diligence, and the effect to be greatest in those who
were predisposed by the superior cultivation of their
faculties. Upon no other principle can we explain
other facts in the history of religion ; as, that the word
of God should at last engage the serious attention of a
person who had, for a long series of years, discovered
the utmost indifference to it; and that it should make
a sudden impression, like a flash of lightning betoken
ed by no appearance of the sky, but an impression
which ever after remains. It is evident that now the
time of gracious visitation is come. The man is the
same as he ever was, and the truths are the same which
he has repeatedly heard; but a new power attends
them, by which his attention is arrested, and his mind
is convinced. While the word was left to work by its
own power, it effected nothing; but now it proves
mighty through God, and brings every thought into
captivity to Christ. When Paul preached to the wo
men of Philippi, who were assembled for prayer, they
all heard ; but of one the historian says, — "A certain
woman named Lydia heard us : whose heart the Lord
opened, that she attended unto the things which were
spoken of Paul."! -^n<^ l^ls ls tne true acc°unt of
every conversion. The change is secretly effected, by
the Spirit of God concurring with the word. Paul may
plant and Apollos water, but it is God that giveth the
increase.!

* 1 Cor. ii. 14. f Acts xvi. 14. X 1 Cor- '»'• 7

LECTURE LXXXVI.
ON THE SACRAMENTS.
Definition of the Term.— Their Nature and Design. --Account of
them. — Observations on their Origin; their Significancy; hovj
they are to be Used, and by Whom; and the Source of their
Efficacy, not Affected by the Intention of the Administrator.
The word of God read and heard, is the principal
mean which is employed for the salvation of men. We
have spoken of it at some length in the preceding lec
tures, and shall now proceed to consider the other
means which concur with the word, to accomplish the
gracious designs of heaven with respect to believers.
However beneficial they are, they are not all of equal
necessity with the word, and are to be viewed as aux
iliaries to it. It is by the word alone that faith is pro
duced, and the seeds of holiness are sown in the heart.
The office of the other ordinances to which I refer, is to
assist in maintaining and strengthening faith, and in
rearing the Christian graces to maturity. There is no
doubt that men might be saved without the sacraments,
if they were placed in such circumstances that they
could not enjoy them ; but we have no authority to say
that they might be saved without the word.
As I am now to enter upon the consideration of the
Sacraments, it is proper to begin with a definition of the
term. A Sacrament is defined to be "the visible form
of invisible grace." Others have called it " a sign and
seal of the grace of God in Christ;" or more fully, "a
visible sign and seal, divinely instituted, to signify and
seal to our consciences the promises of grace in Christ,
and to engage us to faith and obedience to God." The
Church of England says, in the twenty-fifth Article,
" Sacraments ordained of Christ, be not only badges
and tokens of Christian men's profession ; but rather,
they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of
grace, and God's good-will towards us, by the which
he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken,
but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him." The
doctrine of our own Church on this subject, is thus ex
pressed in the Confession of Faith : — " Sacraments are
holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immedi
ately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his
benefits, and to confirm our interest in him ; as also
to put a visible difference between those that belono-
unto the church and the rest of the world ; and solemn
ly to engage them to the service of God in Christ ac
cording to his word."* There is a more concise defi
nition in the Shorter Catechism: "A sacrament is a
holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein by sensi
ble signs, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant
are represented, sealed, and applied to believers."!
These definitions, which are virtually the same, are
substantially true ; but are objectionable on this ground,
that they are founded on too limited a view of the sub
ject. As definitions of the sacraments of the New Tes
tament, they are right; but their particularity renders
them not strictly applicable to sacraments in general.
It will afterwards appear that there are other Divine in
stitutions to which the name of sacrament may be given,
besides baptism and the Lord's supper, and even circum
cision and the passover. I would therefore prefer a more
general definition, and say, that a sacrament is a sign
and seal of the promises of God, a visible institution, by
which we are assured that the blessing promised will
be bestowed upon those to whom the promise is made.
The word Sacrament, which has been adopted
into the language of the church, is not found in the
Scriptures. Use has rendered it sacred, insomuch
that if any person should object to it, he would run
the risk of being accounted profane. He might

* Conf. xxvii. 1.

f Quest. 92.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE SACRAMENTS.

459

with propriety be called scrupulous and whimsical,
or might be suspected of affecting singularity, but for
the charge of profaneness there would be no founda
tion ; because the term, being of human origin, may
be set aside at any time, if another more convenient
were discovered. Sacrament is a word borrowed from
the Latin language, in which it bears different signifi
cations. First, it denotes the sum of money which
each of the parties in a law-suit was required to lay
down at the commencement, and which, being for
feited by the party who was cast, was devoted to sa
cred uses, and hence was called sacramentum. Second
ly, it signifies an oath, on account of its sacred nature ;
and particularly the oath by which the Roman soldiers
bound themselves " to obey their commander in all
things to the utmost of their power, to be ready to attend
whenever he ordered their appearance, and never to
leave the army but with his consent." It is supposed
that in this sense it was anciently applied to the
symbolical institutions of the church, because in
these, we, as it were, enlist under the banner of Jesus
Christ, and engage to follow him whithersoever he
leads us ; and this idea is brought forward almost in
every book and eveTy sermon on the subject of the
sacraments. I have long been disposed to doubt
whether this is the true account of the ecclesiastical
application of tbe term. In the writings of the early
Christians it received a new meaning, of which I be
lieve there is no example in the classics. It signifies
a mystery, as every person knows who is conversant
with the ancient records of the church, and as any of you
may learn by looking into the Vulgate translation
To give you a few examples : " Great is the mystery
of godliness,"* is there rendered, " Great is the sacra
ment of godliness"—" magnum est pietatis sacramen
tum ,-" for the words of Paul subjoined to the account
of the institution of marriage, "This is a great mys
tery, but I speak of Christ and the church ;"] we
have, " This is a great sacrament," — sacramentum hoc
magnum est; and in the Revelation, " The mystery of
the seven stars, which thousawest in my right hand,"
is "the sacrament of the seven stars,"! — sacramentum
eeplem slellarum. This is the translation of the word
itvo-Tupiov, which was used by the Greeks to denote not
only the profound and incomprehensible doctrines of
the Trinity, and the incarnation, but also baptism and
the Lord's supper, and especially the latter, which
was called dyiov fLvo-Tupioy ;\\ partly no doubt because un
der external symbols spiritual blessings were veiled,
buf partly also on account of the secret manner in
which it was celebrated. As the heathens had their
mysteries, to which none but the initiated were ad
mitted ; so the church came at an early period to
allow none to be present when the Lord's supper was
administered, but the baptized ; and Heathens, Jews,
excommunicated persons, and catechumens, were ex
cluded. Now, I think it probable that the word mys
tery having been used by the Greeks to express bap-
tisin and the Lord's supper, and the word sacrament
having been used by the Latins as synonymous with
mystery, it is in this way that we are to account for
its application to those symbolical institutions. The
sacraments are the mysteries of our religion. I do not
deny at the same time, that the other sense of the
word may have had' some influence, as there are oc
casional allusions in the writings of the ancients to
the military oath in speaking of the sacraments.
Before leaving this topic I would observe, that what
has been said concerning the meaning of the word
Sacrament, will throw light upon a passage in the
celebrated letter of the younger Pliny to tbe Emperor
Trajan.§ Speaking of the Christians, who are the

» 1 Tim- iii. 16.
| A holy mystery.

T Eph. v. 32. X Rev.
{ Plin. Epist. Lib. ii. 10.

.20.

subject of tbe letter, he says, that they were accus
tomed to meet on a stated day, and sing a hymn to
Christ as God, — seque Sacramento obstringere,  to bind
themselves by an oath, (according to the common trans
lation,^ not to commit any crime, &c. I have no
doubt that the word was used by Pliny to signify an
oath ; but I suspect that he was led into an error by
taking it in its usual acceptation, and not knowing the
peculiar sense which it had received among the Chris
tians, from some of whom he had derived his informa
tion. When they told him that in their meetings they
were wont se Sacramento obstringere, he understood
sacramentum to be an oath, while they used it to ex
press tbe sacred supper, in which the disciples of
Christ engage to renounce the works of wickedness,
and to follow after righteousness and godliness. This
interpretation is the more probable, as no other writer
has made mention of an oath sworn by the Christians
in their religious assemblies ; but we learn from Jus
tin Martyr, that on a stated day, or the first day of the
week, they did assemble to observe the ordinances of
the Gospel, and in particular to commemorate the
death of Christ in obedience to his command.* This
was the sacramentum of which Pliny had heard, with
out knowing what it meant ; and if I am right in thus
explaining it, we have here an early example of this
peculiar sense of the term.
It is probable then, that the symbolic ordinances of
our religion were called sacraments, not as is com
monly supposed, in allusion to the oath which the
Roman soldiers took to be obedient to their general,
but because they were considered as mysteries, on
account either of the recondite sense of the symbols,
or of the air of mystery with which the sacred supper
was celebrated in the ancient church.
In a Sacrament, two things are to be considered ;
the sign% and the thing signified. The sign is some
thing material and visible, something addressed to the
senses ; and by this a sacrament is distinguished from
other religious institutions. There is no such sign in
prayer and praise, and the preaching of the gospel ;
but these consist in the use of words as expressive of
certain truths, and certain sentiments and affections
of the mind. The thing signified is the privilege or
blessing, of which the sign reminds and assures us,
and which it represents by its nature, its use, the form
of administering it, or by positive institution, in con
sequence of which both are associated in our thoughts..
The typical ordinances of the law thus far resembled
sacraments, that they exhibited a sign by which some
thing spiritual was signified ; but they differed from
them inthis respect, that they were not confirmations.
of the promises, but adumbrations of future events,
figurative representations of the future ratification of
the covenant by the sufferings and death of the Mes
siah. The form of a sacrament is by some made to
consist in the words which accompany the adminis
tration of it, but seems to be .more accurately stated
by others to consist in the union established between
the sign and the thing signified, by the divine institu
tion or promise. This union implies three things;
that the sign becomes significant, whereas it would
otherwise have conveyed no idea of any thing but
itself; that it assures us of the blessing or privilege
which it represents ; and that it actually exhibits the
blessing to be enjoyed by those who rightly use the
sacrament. From this union arises what has been
called sacramental phraseology, or, certain expressions
in which the names of the sign and the thing signified
are exchanged. Thus, the name of the sign is given
to the thing signified, when Christ is called " our
passover;"f anQ the name of the thing signified is
given to the sign, when the bread is called the body

I * Justin. Mart. Apolog. Secund. 1 1 Cor. v. 7.

400

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

of Christ. The foundation of this interchange is the
sacramental union, which so couples them together
that the one may be predicated of the other. In the
same manner the union of the two natures in the per
son of Christ gives rise to those propositions, in
which the properties of one nature are affirmed of his
whole person, or even of the other nature, without im
plying any mixture or confusion of the natures them
selves. The reason why God has instituted sacraments, is
his condescension to our infirmity. " He knows our
frame, and remembers that we are dust." Although
it is the design of religion to withdraw us from the
government of our senses, yet since it does not pro
pose to make us totally different creatures, and since,
from our natural constitution, our senses have a pow
erful and necessary influence upon us, he has been
pleased to render them subservient to the purposes of
religion. What we hear does often awaken very
strong emotions in our minds; but it is an old remark,
that the impressions of the eye are more vivid than
those of the ear.
Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem,
Queiu quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus.*
" If thou wert an incorporeal being," says Chrysos-
tom, " God would have delivered his gifts to thee
naked and incorporeal ; but since thy soul is connect
ed with a body, he has delivered things intellectual by
sensible signs." When we are disposed to doubt
what we hear, the sacraments present themselves to
our eyes, and are put into our hands, to assure us by
our sight, and touch, and taste, that what the word
has told us is true. The word speaks to all ; but the
sacraments single out individuals, and assure them
that, if they are used aright, the blessings which they
represent belong to them in particular. In contracts
or covenants between man and man, it has been an
ancient practice for the parties to ratify them with
their respective seals. God entering into covenant
with us, has added sacraments as seals for the con
firmation of it, not to bind himself more strongly, as
if it. had been possible that he should retract ; but to
give a pledge of the performance of the promises,
which should be satisfactory to us, because conforma
ble to our usages. If our faith were perfect, we may
presume that sacraments would not be necessary. They
are therefore, as I have said, an accommodation to our
infirmity. Before I proceed to make other observations upon
the nature and design of sacraments, I shall briefly
give an account of those which God has annexed to
the covenants into which he has entered with mankind.
A learned author has supposed that there were four
6eals or sacraments of the covenant made with our first
parent, and that these were the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil, paradise, the Sabbath, and the tree
of life.! I apprehend that in representing them as so
many he has consulted imagination more than judg
ment. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil
is entirely out of the question, because it was the sub
ject of the condition of the covenant, which is mani
festly a thing totally different from a seal. Paradise
and the Sabbath are equally objectionable, because
Adam enjoyed both while he was performing tbe con
dition ; and it would be absurd to suppose his right to
the promised reward to have been confirmed by a sac
rament, before his course of obedience was completed.
If there was a seal of the covenant, Adam, while the
trial was going on, could only be permitted to look at
it as a pledge that the blessing would be bestowed
* Horat. Ars Poet. Things received by the. ear affect the
mind more languidly than those which are submitted to the
faithful eyes.
! Witsius de (Econom. Fed. Lib. I. cap. vi.

when tbe trial was finished. But he was in posses
sion of paradise; and the Sabbath, with its holy exer
cises and heavenly delights, was made for him. It re
mains, therefoi e, that the tree of life alone can be con
sidered as a sacrament or seal ; and that it may be
viewed in this light, we may infer from the reason as
signed for his expulsion from the garden, "lest he
put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life,
and eat, and live forever;"* words which import that
the tree was an emblem of the life which he should
have enjoyed had he completed his course of obe
dience, and tbat by eating its fruit his title would
have been confirmed. Having transgressed the cove
nant, he had no right to the seal, and he was removed
from its vicinity, lest he should have dared to pro
fane it.
The next covenant of God with the human race was
made after the flood, when he promised that water
should not again cover the earth. Strictly this was
not a covenant, because there was no stipulation ;
nothing was prescribed to man to be done, and the
performance of the promise depended solely upun the
faithfulness of God. But the original word is used
with considerable latitude, to denote not only a cove
nant, properly so called, but a promise or a divine
institution even when it relates to inanimate things.
Thus God speaks of his " covenant of the day and
of the night."! " I w*" establish my covenant with
you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the
waters of a flood, neither shall there any more be a
flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the
token" or sign " of the covenant: I do set my bow in
the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant be
tween me and the earth."! Phe rainbow was the sign,
or seal, or sacrament, of this covenant, for these words
mean the same thing. Some have very unnecessarily
perplexed themselves with inquiring how the rainbow
could be a sign, if Noah had formerly seen it; and if
he had never seen it before, how we shall account for
it not having appeared, as the natural causes of it
must have existed from the beginning. There is no
doubt, that if there were clouds before the deluge,
there must have been rainbows, unless they had been
prevented by a miracle, the supposition of which is
absurd. But there was no reason for preventing them
from being formed at an earlier period ; because it is
not necessary to constitute any thing a sign, that it
should be new. We may presume that the tree of
life stood in the garden of Eden before God made a
covenant with Adam, that it existed before it was a
seal ; so likewise did the rainbow ; but while formerly
it was only a natural phenomenon, it henceforth was
appropriated to a sacred use, and acquired a new sig
nification. When we see it in the heavens, we ought
to remember that it ratifies the ancient promise, that
mankind shall not again suffer the punishment which
was inflicted upon the inhabitants of the antediluvian
world. The covenant which God made with Abraham and
his posterity was confirmed by circumcision. " Ye
shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall
be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you."|
To this the passover was afterwards added at the time
of the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, if,
as it is commonly accounted, it was a seal of the cov
enant of God with them as his peculiar people. " It
shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for
a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lord's law
maybe in thy mouth ; for with a strong hand hath the
Lord brought thee out of Egypt. Thou shalt there
fore keep this ordinance in his season from year to
year."§ The particular consideration of these I shall

* Gen. iii. 22. f Jer. xxxiii. 20. t Gen. ix. 11—13.
|) Gen. xvii. 11. j Exod. xiii. 9, 10.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE SACRAMENTS

461

reserve to another opportunity. They were abolished
with the system to which they belonged ; but the new
dispensation is not destitute of the usual appendage of
sacraments. They are equally necessary as formerly
to confirm the promises of God, and to promote the
consolation of his people ; and they constitute a part
of the system of religious worship which Jesus Christ
has given to his church. The two sacraments of the
New Testament are baptism and the Lord's Supper,
which will be afterwards considered. An explanation
of their nature, and the discussion of the controver
sies to which they have given rise, will lead us into a
detail which will occupy several lectures.
In the remainder of this lecture, I shall lay before
you some general observations upon sacraments, with
a view to illustrate their origin, nature, and design.
First, All sacraments are of divine institution. The
rainbow, as I have already remarked, must have been
often seen prior to the flood ; but then it was merely
an object of wonder to the ignorant, and of curious in
quiry to men of science. Nothing was indicated by
it, but that the sun was shining in one quarter of the
heavens, and in the opposite region there were clouds,
which refracted and reflected his rays. It was the
divine institution which made it significant, and con
verted it into an assurance of protection by almighty
power from a universal inundation. From the same
source, the tree of life, and the sacraments of the Old
and the New Testament, derived their symbolical mean
ing and their authority. Had not God set them apart
to a religious use, the tree of life would have convey
ed no more information to Adam, than any other tree
in the garden ; and tbe elements in the Christian
sacraments would have afforded as little support to
our faith, as the water with which we daily wash our
hands, and the bread and wine which we use at our
ordinary meals. And here I may mention by the way,
what I omitted in its proper place, and the sacra
ments of the Christian Church, furnish a proof that
the sign or seal of a covenant is not necessarily a new
thing; for nothing is more common than the sub
stances employed as figures or emblems, and they are
used in the same manner as in the ordinary occasions
of life. In every covenant between God and man he
makes the promise, and therefore he only can confirm
it. It would be high presumption in any person to
come forward with his devices in aid of the divine
faithfulness ; because his interposition would imply,
either that the word of God was not worthy of credit
in itself, or that he was acquainted with an expedient
to make its truth more apparent, and to remove the
doubts and suspicions which the human mind is too
apt to entertain. Hence we condemn the conduct of
the Church of Rome, which has multiplied the num
ber of the sacraments to seven, while no man, who
takes the Scripture as his guide, can find any more
than two. The authority of man has here intruded into
the exclusive province of God. However august and
sacred these additional sacraments may be in the eyes of
the deluded votaries of ignorance and superstition, it is
certain that they represent no grace, and can convey no
blessing, and ought to be considered as bold corruptions
of the purity and simplicity of the Christian ritual.
Secondly, The signs which God has appointed to
ratify his covenant are significant ; that is, they are
fitted by their nature and qualities to represent the
blessings which he has promised to bestow. The bow
is never seen but in the time of rain, or when there are
watery clouds in the sky ; and it is a sure sign that
the clouds, which have overspread the heavens, are
passing away, and that the sun is again looking forth
upon the earth. Thus it is naturally adapted to the
purpose of its constitution, which is to declare that a
second deluge is not to be apprehended. The tree of
life, whatever it was, no doubt produced excellent

fruit ; and although, amidst the ravings of folly, no
thing is more absurd than the supposition that it pos
sessed a virtue to make men immortal, yet, from its
nutritious and invigorating quality, it was an expres
sive emblem of the immortality which Adam would
have enjoyed through tbe will and power of his Cre
ator. Water, which purifies our bodies and our gar
ments from the filth which they have contracted, is a
lively figure in baptism of the influences of the Holy
Spirit, which wash our souls from sin, so often re
presented under the image of uncleanness. Nothing
could have been more properly chosen to signify the
efficacy of our Saviour's atonement, in giving life and
joy to our souls, than bread, the staff of life, and
wine, the exhilarating and strengthening quality of
which was expressed in an ancient parable, where
it is said " to cheer God and men." Hence you
see with what wisdom the signs and seals of God's
covenants have been selected. They are not alto
gether arbitrary, so that no connexion subsists be
tween them and the tilings which they signify, but
what arises from positive institution. There is an
analogy or resemblance, in consequence of which the
signs remind us of the blessings exhibited by them,
without any effort of ingenuity on our part. Thus
our senses minister to our salvation. We are neces
sarily conversant with material objects, and it is a
gracious provision which has given them a meaning
and a use, by which our thoughts are led to heavenly
'objects. Nature becomes the image of grace ; aud
the impressions of external things, under the plastic
power of religion, spiritualize our minds, and promote
the interests of divine life in our souls.
Thirdly, The signs or seals which God has annexed
to his covenants, are assurances on his part that the
blessings promised in them shall be enjoyed. This
is their proper design. They are intended for the
satisfaction of those with whom the covenants are
made. God speaks thus of the rainbow, "And the
bow shall be in the clouds ; and I will look upon it,
that I may remember the everlasting covenant between
God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon
the earth."* Accommodating his language to our
conceptions, he represents the bow as a token which
would remind him of his covenant, while the mean
ing evidently is, that the bow would remind us of it;
and that, as long as it appears in the sky, we have no
reason to fear that his promise will fail. Baptism and
the Lord's Supper are securities to those who have a
right to them, that they shall enjoy the privileges
which the ordinances respectively exhibit. The one
declares that God gives them his spirit as a purifier,
to cleanse their souls from sin, and to prepare them for
the kingdom of heaven ; and the other seals their in
terest in the death of Christ, and their title to its pre
cious fruits. We may remark by the way, that the
doctrine of the Church of Rome, according to which
there is a conversion of the bread and wine in the
Eucharist into the body and blood of our Saviour, de
stroys the essence of a sacrament, which is a visible
sign of an invisible grace. Transubstantiation gives
us the thing signified, and leaves only a false appear
ance of the sign. The Lord's Supper, in the Church
of Rome, is therefore no sacrament at all. The sac
raments of the new covenant are not the proposed
blessings themselves, but symbolical representations
of them; nor does it appear, although the common
opinion and the common way of explaining them are
different, that they are properly designed to communi
cate the blessings of the covenant, but tbat their office
is to assure us that they shall be communicated. The
intention of them may be explained by the following
words : " God, willing more abundantly to show unto

* Gen. ix. 16.

462

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel,
confirmed it by an oath ; that by two immutable things
in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might
have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to
lay hold on the hope set before us."* His simple
promise is worthy of implicit credit. He might have
refused to give us any other security, and it would
have been impious on our part to demand it, because,
by doing so, we should have impeached his veracity;
yet, placing himself as it were, on a level with us, he
has voluntarily given the highest confirmation of his
word which we could ask from one of our fellow-men,
of whose integrity we entertained a suspicion. He has
not only promised, but sworn. In like manner, and with
the same design, he. has first declared his good will to us
through Jesus Christ in the Gospel, and then has exhib
ited his grace to us in sacraments, applying itto us in ex
ternal signs, and so binding himself to communicate it
to our souls.
Fourthly, While all sacraments are intended to be
used for the ends of the institution, the mode of using
them is not always the same. Some are only to be
looked at; some are externally applied to the body;
and some are designed for its nourishment. The seal
of the covenant with Noah is used by looking at it;
and as the covenant was made with all men, in what
ever region of the earth they reside, it is placed in the
heavens that all may have an opportunity to observe it.
In baptism, water is not only exhibited, but sprinkled
or poured upon the person ; and in circumcision, the
sign of the covenant was impressed upon the body.
In the Lord's Supper, bread and wine are presented, not
to be gazed at with distant reverence, but to be eaten
and drank ; and in the passover, a lamb was killed and
roasted with fire, and the Israelites feasted upon it. It
follows that those are highly culpable who are disqual
ified for using sacraments to their proper ends, by igno
rance of their nature and design. Such are they who
regard them as mere ceremonies, of little importance,
in themselves, although entitled to a respectful obser
vance as institutions of religion ; and they who ascribe
to them a purpose which was not contemplated by their
Author. To this censure those are subject, who imag
ine that baptism is effectual by the simple application,
and regenerates every child to whom it is administered ;
and those who substitute the Lord's Supper in the room
of the sacrifice of the cross, and trust in it as a sort of
atonement for their sins. They, too, cannot be ex
cused, who, knowing that the sacraments are intended
for use, live in the habitual neglect of them, or at least,
of the sacrament of ihe Supper. Does not their con
duct imply that this ordinance is superfluous? or is it
a virtual declaration that they do not consider them
selves as having an interest in the covenant of which
it is a seal ? The common apology is, that they are
destitute of the necessary qualifications ; and in the case
of many, it may be true. It is a fact, however, not to
be rested on as an excuse, but. to be deplored ; and it is
calculated to excite serious alarm, for tney who have
not a right to the seal, have not a right to the blessings
of redemption.
Fifthly, Sacraments are intended for the use of those
alone with whom the covenants to which they are ap
pended are made. The covenant of preservation from
a second deluge was made with all mankind, and the
sign of it appears in the clouds, where every eye may
see it. Circumcision was the distinguishing mark of
the seed of Abraham, whom God had chosen to be bis
peculiar people; and, if the passover be considered as
another seal of that covenant, we know that no stranger
was permitted to eat of it. Baptism and the Eucharist
exclusively belong to the disciples of Christ, as distin
guished from heathens, Mahometans, and Jews. In-
* Heb. vi. 17, 18.

fants receive baptism, as having been admitted into the
covenant with their parents ; and both ordinances are to
be administered to such adults alone as, by a credible
profession of faith, appear to be the people of God.
But it is necessary to proceed farther, and to state that
a credible profession gives a right to the sacraments
only in the judgment of the Church; and that, in the
sight of God, none have a right to them but believers
and holy persons. Hence, the members of the Church
are exhorted to examine themselves, to ascertain their
state and character before they go to the holy table,
" lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment
to themselves."* As the sacraments of the new cove
nant ought not to be administered to any person who
may not be presumed to be a saint; so, however fa
vourable the appearances are, if he who receives them
is not a genuine Christian, he is an usurper of privi-
leges to which he has no title. In all such cases, the
sacraments are like seals affixed to a blank. Their
declared meaning is unaltered ; but in the present ap
plication they signify nothing. They do not, and can
not, confirm the blessings of salvation to the man who
does not believe. What have they to do with the secu
rities that the promises shall be performed, by whom
the promises have not been embraced ? What have
they to do with the pledges of our Saviour's love, and of
eternal redemption, whose affections are engaged by the
pleasures of sin, and whose days are spent in the pur
suits of the world?
Lastly, The efficacy of sacraments depends solely
upon the Divine blessing, whether we consider them as
channels in which grace is conveyed, or as means ap
pointed to confirm the faith and promote the consolation
of the people of God. This concluding observation re
lates to the Christian sacraments, with respect to which
strange notions are maintained by the Church of Rome,
in direct contradiction to the proposition now laid down.
There are two opinions to which it is opposed ; that the
sacraments, when rightly administered, are effectual in
themselves ; and that, to the right administration, the
intention of the administrator is necessary. Thus the
Council of Trent has decreed : " If any man shall say,
that the sacraments of the new law do not contain the
grace which they signify, or do not confer grace upon
those who do not oppose an obstacle to it, as if they
were only external signs of grace or righteousness re
ceived by faith : let him be accursed."! Again, " If
any man shall say, that grace is not conferred by the
sacraments of the new law themselves, ex opere operato,
but that faith alone in the Divine promise is sufficient to
obtain grace : let him be accursed."! This barbarous
phrase, opus operatum, which is utterly unintelligible
without an explanation, signifies the external celebra
tion of tbe sacraments. It has been defined by Popish
writers to be the performance of the external work,
without any internal motion ; and sacraments have been
said to confer grace ex opere operato, because, besides
the exhibition and application of the sign, no good mo
tion is necessary in the receiver. All that is required
is, that no obstacle shall be opposed to the reception of
grace, and the only obstacle is mortal sin. But as sins
of this class are reduced by the Roman casuists to a
very small number, — all others being accounted venial,
— the exceptions to the efficacy of the sacraments which
are made by this negative qualification, are quite incon
siderable. Thus the sacraments are converted into a
species of magical charms, which work in some mys
terious way, without the concurrence of the patient;
and the exercise of the intellect and the will, of the ra
tional and moral faculties of man, is excluded. I should
think that, according to this doctrine, they would do as
much good to the receiver when he is asleep as when

* lCor.xi.29.
+ Sessio vii. De Sacramenlis in gentre, Canon vi.
X Ibid. Car.on viii.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE SACRAMENTS.

463

lie is awake. It is vain to ask any proof of this doc
trine from Scripture, for none is to be found. It is vain
to ask how its abettors can reconcile to philosophy and
common sense the idea, that a material substance, by a
particular mode of application, shall produce a spirit
ual effect upon tbe soul. It is one of the mysteries of
the church which she cannot explain. If it shall be
said, that God has so connected his grace with the
sacraments, that it shall be infallibly communicated
when they are administered ; we have a right to de
mand some more proof than an assertion, that he has
in this instance divested himself of his sovereign power
over his own gifts, and committed the absolute dispo
sal of them to the ministers of religion; or, that he has
introduced into this part of religion a mechanical pro
cess, instead of the moral economy which prevails in
all the other parts of it. The Gospel does not produce
its effects ex opere operato, or by the mere sound of the
words in our ears, but by the power of the Spirit open
ing the understanding and heart to receive it. What
ground is there for supposing that the mode of opera
tion is different in the sacraments? or, that here alone
these words are not true, " Neither is he that planteth
any thing, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth
tbe increase?"* In opposition to this absurd and im
pious tenet, we maintain that sacraments do not work
grace physically, as if they possessed some intrinsic
energy ; but morally and hyper-physically, as signs and
seals which God accompanies with his blessing. The
doctrine of our Church, as declared in its standards, is,
that " the grace which is exhibited in or by the sacra
ments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in
them," but "by the blessing of Christ, and the work
ing of his Spirit."!
There is another error opposed to the proposition,
that the efficacy of sacraments depends upon the bles
sing of God, which makes their efficacy and validity
depend upon the intention of the administrator. The
Church of Rome pronounces a curse upon any man
who shall say, that " there is not required in the min
isters who celebrate them, an intention to do what the
church does."! Now, the church not only goes
through the external forms of the sacraments, but
means that they should be true sacraments and should
communicate grace to the receivers. If a priest have
not this intention, the form only of a sacrament ex
ists ; the essence is wanting. Great disputes have
arisen in the Church of Rome with respect to this
intention ; whether it should be an actual intention ;
formally arising in the mind at the time ; whether a.
habitual intention will not suffice ; or, whether it is
not enough that it is virtual, that is, that the priest
have formerly had this intention, and is disposed to
have it, although from some cause he has it not actu
ally at present. In one thing all are agreed, that, if
the intention is wholly wanting, if the priest posi
tively intends that the sacrament which he is cele
brating shall not be a sacrament, it has no validity, —
is a mere sign without the substance. In this case the
child is not regenerated in baptism, as Papists sup
pose all children rightly baptized to be ; and the bread
and wine in the Eucharist are not converted into the
body and blood of Christ, but continue what they
were. It is not necessary that I should point out the
gross impiety of a doctrine which subjects Divine
institutions to the arbitrary pleasure of men, who have
power to defeat the design of Jesus Christ in giving
them to the church, and are constituted the sovereign
dispensers of his grace. The priests of Rome have
an absolute controul over Omnipotence, and can exert
it in the miracle of transubstantiation, or restrain it,
according to tbeir perverse inclinations. It was never
* 1 Cor. iii. 7. t Conf. xxvii. 3. Sh. Cat. Q. 91.
J Con. Trid. Ses. vii. de Sac. in gen. can. xi.

pretended that the intention of the preacher is neces
sary to give efficacy to the word ; and it is altogether
arbitrary to suppose it to be necessary to the efficacy
of the sacraments. As the latter were instituted by
God and not by men, nothing besides his blessing can
rationally be conceived to be requisite to accomplish
their design, but the administration of them according
to the prescribed form. The intention of the adminis
trator has as little to do with the effect, as the inten
tion of the physician has with the success of the med
icine which he gives to his patient, or the intention of
the husbandman with the fertility of the soil. God
has not suspended our salvation upon the precarious
volition of other men, over whom we have no power.
The consequences of this doctrine are perplexing
and alarming in the highest degree to the members of
the Church of Rome. As' it is impossible to know the
intention of their priests, they can never be certain
that they have received any of the sacraments. It is
possible that they have not been baptized and there
fore cannot be saved. If an unbaptized person is made
a priest, all his actions in that character are invalid ;
all the sacraments which he administers are vain cere
mony. If he is a bishop, those whom he ordains are
not priests ; and if he is Pope, the bishops whom he
consecrates have no more power than laymen. No
Papist can tell whether the elements in the Eucharist
have been transubstantiated or not ; and,' for aught that
he knows, they are simple bread and wine, and in
adoring them, he is upon his own principle guilty of
idolatry. In short, according to the doctrine of inten
tion, the Church of Rome may be no Church, and the
Pope, the bishops, and the priests, may all be usurp
ers of offices to which they have no title. Let them
relieve themselves from this difficulty as they can ;
they have made the snare in which they are caught.
We believe that " the efficacy of a sacrament does not
depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth
administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit and the
word of institution."*

LECTURE LXXXVII.
ON THE SACRAMENTS.
Consequences^ of the Popish Doctrine concerning the Intention
of the Priest in Sacraments. — The Sacraments of the
Mosaic Dispensation. — Circumcision, its Origin, Form and
Import. — The Passover, Proof that it was a Sacrament ; its
Form and Significancy. — The Jewish Superseded by the
Christian Sacraments of Baptism and tbe Lord's Supper. —
The Five Spurious Sacraments of the Church of Rome.
In the last lecture, I explained the nature of sacra
ments, and made some general observations upon them.
My last observation was, that the efficacy of Sacra
ments depends upon the blessing of God, and it was
opposed to two errors of ' the Church of Rome, that
sacraments communicate grace ex opere operato, or by
the mere administration of them, without any exercise
of mind on the part of the receiver, if he is not in
mortal sin ; and that the intention of the priest to do
what the church does, is indispensably necessary to
give them validity. We have seen, that as the latter
opinion is unscriptural and impious, so it involves its
abettors in the most painful uncertainty, and is an en
gine powerful enough to overturn the whole fabric of -
their church. It is possible that, from the want of
intention in their present priests, they have no sacra
ments ; and that, from the same want in a former race
of them, their present priests are not priests, theit
bishops are not bishops, their pope is not the vicar of
Christ. Their religious offices may be performed by

* Conf. xxvii. 3.

464

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

men who have not been baptized, and therefore are not
Christians; and they may be daily guilty of the gross
est idolatry, in worshipping bread and wine, which
they suppose to be the body and blood of our Saviour.
If it should be said that it is altogether incredible,
that a whole generation of priests should conspire to
defeat the design of the sacraments, still, the uncer
tainty remains with respect to individual cases. How
does any man know, that the priest who baptized him
had the proper intention, or that the priest had it, by
whom that priest was baptized ? If there was a sin
gle failure in the line of succession, from tbe Apostles
down to the present time, all that followed were un-
christianized. Men of different characters may be
supposed to have existed in that succession, and if
some were upright, others were wicked. There may
have belonged to it such priests as Luther met with at
Rome before he appeared as a reformer ; men who
made a jest of sacred things, and annulled the sacra
ments with a deliberate design. He tells us that, in
celebrating the Lord's Supper, some of them, instead
of repeating the words of institution, hoc est corpus
meum,* by which transubstantiatioii is supposed to be
effected, said with a low voice, Panis es, et panis eris.
Bread thou art, and bread thou shalt be.
It may surprise us that the Church of Rome should
have adopted an opinion clogged with such difficulties,
and leading to such eonsequenees ; and it may be
thought that she has been drawn into it inadvertently.
But whether or not the matter was well considered
when it was first made an article of faith, it was not
re-enacted by the Council of Trent without opposition.
Yet, altWough the inferences deducible from it were
represented to the fathers, they passed the decree for
merly quoted, not choosing to acknowledge the falli
bility of the church, by revoking one of its dogmas,
nor to abandon a tenet so well calculated to increase
the power and influence of the clergy. This is pro
bably the origin of the doctrine of intention, and is
certainly the reason why it is retained. The great ob
ject of the Church of Rome is, to create a sacred re
verence for its ministers, and to establish their uncon
trolled dominion over the people ; and nothing can be
conceived more effectual for this purpose, than the be
lief that they can make or not make sacraments at
their pleasure ; that they can communicate or withhold
the grace of God; that, in short, the salvation of the
people is subject to their disposal. Join the two
opinions which we have considered together, and you
will perceive in both an artful but wicked contrivance,
to reduce tbe minds of men to a state of spiritual
slavery under their yoke. The sacraments are effec
tual ex opere operato, or, by simple application convey
grace to the receiver; and the priest can make them
sacraments or empty ceremonies as he chooses. How
august, in the eyes of the ignorant and superstitious,
must those men appear, who can open or shut the
treasury of heaven ; who have power to turn material
substances into the body, blood, and divinity of Christ,
by a few words, muttered like a magical incantation !
In the preceding lecture, I gave a short account of
the signs or sacraments appointed to confirm the cov
enants which God has made with men. I then men
tioned those of the Old Testament, which have been
superseded by the seals of the Christian dispensation.
The brief notice which was taken of them was suffi
cient at that time ; but it will be now proper to attend
to them more particularly.
The first in order is circumcision, wbich is called
the token or sign of the covenant with Abraham.! B
was then first instituted, or at least it then first became
significant, and it was enjoined upon the Israelites as
a rite to be observed in all their generations. Hence

* This is my body.

t Gen. xvii. 11.

our Lord said to the Jews, " Moses therefore gave
unto you circumcision, not because it is of Moses, but
of the fathers."* Herodotus affirms that the Col-
chians, and Egyptians, and Ethiopians, alone of all
men practise circumcision. The Phe.nicians and
Syrians in Palestine acknowledge that they learned it
from the Egyptians.! It is not surprising, that 'in
fidels should eagerly lay hold of this account to con
tradict the relation of Moses ; but it is surprising, that
persons, professing to be Christians should have dis
covered a disposition to give credit to the profane, in
preference to the inspired historian. The account of
Herodotus is manifestly false ; for, first, he asserts
that the Phenicians practised circumcision, contrary
to a well known fact, that all the inhabitants of Pales
tine except the Jews were uncircumcised ; and, sec
ondly, he says that they owned that they received it
from the Egyptians, whereas it is certain, that the
Jews never acknowledged any such thing. Laying
aside the divine authority of the history of Moses, it
is astonishing that any man should have ever lent an
ear to Herodotus on this subject. For what, I ask,
did he know about the matter? Nothing but some
idle tales, which he had heard from persons as igno
rant as himself. It should be remembered, that
Herodotus wrote about fourteen hundred years after
the institution of circumcision according to the Scrip
tures, and was therefore totally incompetent to decide
concerning its origin.
The eireumeision of a child took place on the eighth
day after his birth, and was performed by the father
of the family, or by any other person whom he
chose to employ. While it constituted a visible
proof that the person was one of the descendants of
Abraham, and consequently was comprehended in the
covenant which God had made with that patriarch
and his seed, it was significant of certain spiritual
blessings, to which those who, like him, believed in
God, were admitted. To Abraham, it was " a seal
of the righteousness of faith which he had, yet being
uncircumcised."! Before this rite was instituted, Abra
ham had " believed in God, and it was counted unto
him for righteousness ;"|| and circumcision was a con
firmation of the righteousness which he had obtained
by faith, or of his justified state, and of the blessings
and privileges connected with it. God had promised
the Messiah to him and- his seed, and, along with the
Messiah, not only temporal, but spiritual and heavenly
blessings ; and Abraham, embracing this promise,
had engaged to walk before God, and to be perfect.
Of this covenant, the sign and seal was circumcision;
a declaration to his believing descendants, as well as
to himself, that to them the promises belonged, while
it implied a profession on their part of their trust in
the illustrious seed, in whom all the families of the
earth should be blessed ; and hence to them, as well
as to him, it was a seal of the righteousness of faith.
We could not conceive the Most High to have enjoined
this rite solely for the purpose of displaying his
authority. We may not be able to explain satisfac
torily why he fixed upon it in preference to any other ;
but we must believe that something more was intend
ed than merely to set a mark upon the Israelites. Like
all his other signs, it was significant, if not by its own
nature, yet in consequence ofhis institution.
I proceed to observe, that as it was a seal of the
righteousness of faith, so it was also a sign of the re
novation of tbe heart. This is evident, on the one
hand, from those passages which speak of the "cir
cumcision of the heart" as the work of God, and as
necessary to our loving him ; and, on the other hand
from those which call depravity the " foreskin of the

* John vii. 22.
{ Rom. iv. 11.

f Herodot. lib. ii. c. 104.
|| Gen. xv. 6.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE SACRAMENTS.

465

heart," and represent the wicked as " uncircumcised
in heart."* In these passages, we have examples of
what is called sacramental language, according to
which the sign is put for the thing signified, and the
thing signified, for the sign. The expressions quoted
would have been unintelligible, if circumcision had
been simply a mark on the body to distinguish one
nation from another. It is plain that it was instituted
for another purpose, and that the Israelites understood
that a spiritual meaning was couched under it. There
was an internal circumcision necessary to render them
the seed of Abraham according to the promise, and
full heirs of the blessings of the covenant. The New
Testament confirms this view of tbe rite, when de
scribing believers in Christ as having undergone the
change which it signified, it says, " In whom also,"
that is, in Christ, "ye are circumcised with the cir
cumcision made without hands, in putting off the body
of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ."!
To the same purpose are the words of Paul in the
Epistle to the Romans: "For he is not a Jew that is
one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is
outward in the flesh : but he is a Jew, which is one
inwardly : and circumcision is that of the heart, in the
spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise is not of
men, but of God."!
While circumcision was a sign and seal of the
righteousness of faith, and of the regeneration of the
heart, it laid those to whom it was administered, un
der an obligation to live according to the law of the
covenant, into which they had been admitted. They
became bound to observe all the ordinances of God,
and to obey all the commands which he had given to
his people; "Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou
keep the law ; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy
circumcision is made uncircumcision."|| The circum
cised were engaged to cultivate purity of heart and
conduct ; to mortify the flesh with its affections and
lusts ; to keep at a distance from the world lying in
wickedness, from which they were separated by a
visible mark of distinction ; and as they always car
ried about the sign of the covenant, to behave in every
place, and on every occasion, like persons dedicated to
the service of Jehovah.
Circumcision was a temporary ordinance, and was
abolished with the other institutions of Moses. Al
though a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, it was
adapted only to a particular dispensation of it, and
therefore ceased when another economy was intro
duced. The council of Jerusalem, after a solemn
discussion of the question, pronounced that it ought
not to be enjoined upon the converted Gentiles.§ It
was not, at the same time, forbidden to the Jews ; but
it ought to be observed, that it was permitted, and not
commanded. For this permission the same reason
may be assigned, which accounts for the liberty to
practise for a time other rites of the ceremonial law ;
a concession to the strong prejudices of the Jews in
favour of them, which it pleased God to subdue by
gradual means. If, however, any converted Jew in
sisted upon the necessity of circumcision to salvation,
the Apostles were no longer tolerant, but condemned
the dangerous error in unqualified terms : " Behold, I
Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ
shall profit you nothing. "If Hence you perceive, that
there is no contradiction between those passages of
Scripture in which circumcision is permitted, and those
in which it is condemned; for, in tbe former, it is con
sidered merely as a rite to which the Jews had bpen
long accustomed, and which they might retain from
innocent motives; and, in the latter, it is viewed as

* Lev. xxvi. 41. Deut. x. 16. xxx. B. Jer. i v. 4. Acts vii. 51.
f Col. ii. 11. J Rom. ii. 28, 29. || Rom. ii. 25.
j Acts xv. i Gal. v. 2.
31 30

usurping the place of the righteousness of Christ,
and made by the ignorant the foundation of their hope.
The question, whether circumcision will be retained
by the Jews after their conversion to Christianity, is
not worthy of attention. Seme have been so foolish
as to affirm that it will, and to argue in favour of it
from Scripture misunderstood. They might have pro
ceeded a step farther, and from the latter part of Ezekiel's
prophecies have concluded, as I believe some wrong-
headed persons have done, that the temple of Jerusalem
will be rebuilt, and the ancient system of worship will
be restored.*
The passover is usually accounted the other seal of
the covenant, under the former dispensation. It must
be acknowledged, that we have not the same evidence
that it stood in this relation to the covenant which we
have with regard to circumcision ; and it is rather by
inference that this rank is assigned to it, than by posi
tive explicit institution. It is said, indeed, to have been
to the Israelites "for a sign upon their hands, and for a
memorial between their eyes ;"* but this seems to be
a proverbial expression, importing that it was design
ed to commemorate their deliverance from Egypt. It
was, in the first place, a commemorative ordinance;
and, in the second place, it was typical of our redemp
tion from a worse bondage than that under which the
Israelites groaned. For this view of it, we have the
authority of an Apostle, when he says, that " Christ
our passover is sacrificed for us."!
The reasons for which it may be considered as a
sign or seal of tbe covenant, are the following. It is
acknowledged that it was an eminent type of Christ.
Now, as the Israelites were commanded to make a
feast of the paschal lamb, their eating it may be con
sidered as an external representation of the communion
of believers in the benefits of his death ; and thus it
will appear to correspond with the Eucharist, which
is confessedly a sacrament. Again, the sprinkling of
the blood upon the door-posts and lintels of their
houses, is called a sign in the following words : "And
the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses
where ye are ; and when I see the blood, I will pass
over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to
destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt."! Al
though God said, that when he saw the blood, he
would pass by tbeir houses, it is not to be supposed
that this mark was necessary to enable him to distin
guish them from the houses of the Egyptians ; and
the meaning obviously is, that it would be an assur
ance to them that tbey should be safe amidst the gen
eral destruction. The passover, therefore, served the
same purpose with all other seals or sacraments ;
namely, to attest the promise of God, to give the Is
raelites a visible pledge that the promise would be
performed. The last argument for the sacramental
nature of the passover, is the substitution of the Lord's
Supper in its room ; for immediately after the celebra
tion of the one, our Saviour instituted the other. This
circumstance appears to authorize us to look upon both
as ordinances of the same kind, and to conclude that
the passover was a seal of the old dispensation, as the
Eucharist is of the new.
The following is a short account of the passover.
On the tenth day of the first month, the Israelites were
commanded to take for each family a lamb of the first
year, without blemish, and to keep it to the fourteenth
day. In the evening of the fourteenth, it was to be
killed, and its blood was to be sprinkled upon the two
sideposts, and the upper door-post of their houses.
The flesh was to be roasted with fire, and wholly
eaten with bitter herbs; or if any of it remained till
the morning, it was to be burnt with fire. The bread
used on that occasion was to be unleavened ; and for

« Exod. xiii. 9. r 1 Cor. .. 7. t Exod. xii. 13.

466

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

seven days, they were not to allow any leaven in their
houses. They were farther commanded to eat it with
their loins girded, their shoes on their feet, and their
staves in their hands ; and to eat it in haste, because
they were immediately to set out on their journey
from Egypt to the promised land. Such was the
original institution, from which tbe subsequent ob
servance differed in some particulars. The passover
was first eaten by the Israelites in the ordinary places
of their residence, but afterwards in Jerusalem ; the
blood was not sprinkled upon their houses, but upon
the altar ; and, instead of being in the dress and posture
of persons who were about to set out upon a journey,
they celebrated this feast in their ordinary habits, and
reclining at their ease. This is evident from the ac
count of the celebration of the passover by our Saviour
and his disciples.
That this ordinance was significant, like all other
seals, partly appears from what has been already said,
and may be more fully shown by the following partic
ulars. — First, The animal which was to be used on
this occasion was a lamb ; by which our Saviour was
prefigured, who was called by John the Baptist, " the
Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world."* There may be an allusion to other sacri
ficial lambs, and particularly to those which were dai
ly offered in the evening and the morning; but we
cannot doubt that there is a reference also to the paschal
lamb, since we know from the highest authority, that
it was typical of Christ. Not to dwell upon the re
semblance of temper between the type and the Anti
type, which is commonly mentioned, and is spoken
of by the prophet, when he says, "he is led as a
lamb to the slaughter,"! but which, I believe, was
not in the contemplation of the Baptist, who, in the
words quoted above, referred to his substitution and
vicarious sufferings ; there is a circumstance worthy
of particular attention, that the lamb of the passover
was without blemish, free from any disease or defect.
.In this respect, it was a figure of Jesus Christ, who
was holy, harmless, and undefiled, and separate from
sinners. As his human nature, when born of the
virgin, was a holy thing, so his whole life was dis
tinguished by the exact performance of his duty ; and
he would challenge the most sharp-sighted of his
enemies to discover a single flaw in his conduct :
'* Which of you convinceth me of sin ?"! Only a pure
and spotless oblation could be acceptable to God, and
available to expiate the offences of others.
Secondly, The paschal lamb was slain, and thus pre
figured our Redeemer, who " poured out his soul unto
death." He is called not simply a Lamb, but " a Lamb
slain from the foundation of the world ;"|| because his
death had been adumbrated from the earliest ages by
the sacrifice of lambs. Why were altars erected, and
priests consecrated, and the bodies of animals con
sumed with fire ? Had God any pleasure in such ser
vices, considered in themselves ? Wras his eye delight
ed with the sight of blood ? or, Were his nostrils grat
ified with the smell of burning carcasses ? Notions so
gross must be left to the heathens, who supposed that
their gods were corporeal beings, and had senses like
those of men. The design of all the oblations of the
flock and the herd, was to teach the important truth,
that Divine justice could not be appeased, and punish
ment averted from the guilty, but by the effusion of
blood. The paschal lamb was a type; and it was slain
to prefigure the death of the Messiah, as the only mean
of delivering mankind from a greater evil than the bond
age of Egypt.
Thirdly, The blood of the paschal lamb was sprin
kled on the door-posts and lintels of the houses of the
Israelites, and represented the application of the great
*Johni.29. fls.liii.7. } John viii. 46. ||Rev.xiii. 3.

atonement to be afterwards made, to the consciences of
men. The ultimate design of this rite was symboli
cally to teach an important truth, which is clearly re
vealed in the Gospel, that the blood of Christ, although
shed as a sacrifice for sin, will not avail unless it be
applied. Had the blood of the paschal lamb been per
mitted to flow upon the ground, it would not have pre
served the Israelites from the destroying angel ; his
safety depended upon his using it according to the
commandment. There were various aspersions of
blood under the former dispensation; but there is no
reason to doubt that the Apostle refers to that at the
passover, as well as to others, when he calls the blood
of Christ, " the blood of sprinkling." " Ye are come
to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things
than that of Abel."* We may apply what was spoken
at the institution of the passover, to the subject of the
salvation of sinners. As God promised that he would
pass by every house on which he should see the blood
of the paschal lamb, so he now averts his wrath from
every sinner upon whom he sees the blood of Christ;
that is, every man who appropriates the atonement to
himself by faith, is secure from the effects of his aveng
ing justice. " There is no condemnation to them that
are in Christ Jesus."
Having given you a short account of the sacraments
of the Jewish Church, I proceed to observe, that they
have been superseded by the Christian sacraments.
This is plain with respect to the passover; for we have
already seen, that immediately after the celebration of
it, the Lord's supper was instituted ; and an intimation
was thus given, that the latter was henceforth to sup
ply the place of the former. Besides, the Apostle Paul
obviously refers to the change, when he describes the
new ordinance by terms borrowed from the old : " Purge
out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump,
as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover
is sacrificed for us : therefore let us keep the feast, not
with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and
wickedness ; but with the unleavened bread of sincer
ity and truth."! So far as the passover was com
memorative of the redemption from Egypt, there was
no reason why it should be continued when the church
ceased to be national, and was to comprehend the Gen
tiles as well as the Jews ; and, so far as it was typical,
it was laid aside as useless when that wbich it prefig-.
ured was accomplished. That baptism has come in the.
room of circumcision, may be inferred from two con
siderations ; that, like circumcision, it signifies our puri
fication from sin ; and, tbat it is the ordinance by which
we are admitted into the communion of the visible
church. As Paul connects the passover and the Lord's
supper, so he connects circumcision and baptism ; lead
ing us to conclude, that there is a change or substitu
tion in the one case as well as in the other. " In whom
also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made
without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of
the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; buried with
him in baptism."! B is evident from these words,
that baptism is "the circumcision of Christ;" that is,
it is the ordinance which he has given to the church
instead of circumcision, and which, when rendered ef
fectual by his Spirit, is accompanied with the internal
purification, of which circumcision was a sign. As
God said to Abraham, " Every man-child among you
shall be circumcised ;" so Christ said to his Apostles,
" Go and teach all nations, baptizing them."
I should now proceed to speak of the Christian sac
raments in the order of their institution; but before en
tering upon the consideration of them, it will be proper
to give you a short account of the spurious sacraments
of the Church of Rome. While we acknowledge only
two, that church maintains that there are seven ; hav-

* Heb. xii.24. j- 1 Cor. v. 7,8. J Col. ii. 11,12.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE SACRAMENTS.

467

ing added to Baptism and the Lord's Supper, tbe five
following; confirmation, penance or penitence, orders,
marriage, and extreme unction.
The first is confirmation. In the primitive church,
the imposition of hands was practised as a religious
rite, and it is mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
among the first principles of the doctrine of Christ.*
It was used in setting persons apart to a sacred office,
in working miracles, and in communicating supernat
ural gifts. After the Samaritans were converted and
baptized by Philip the Evangelist, Peter and John,
who had been sent to them by the other Apostles, laid
their hands upon them, that they might receive the
Holy Ghost.! The rite continued to be observed after
the days of the Apostles, not only in ordaining the min
isters of religion, but in the case of the baptized ; and
it was supposed that, by the imposition of hands, the
influences of the Spirit were communicated to them.
It was performed, however, immediately after baptism,
and not as at present in those churches which keep up
the practice, after an interval of several years, when
young persons, having been previously examined, are
presented to the bishop. Upon this ancient ceremony
is founded the pretended sacrament of confirmation ;
and in order to render it complete, the Church of Rome
has made certain additions to the primitive mode. Two
things are acknowledged to be necessary to constitute
a sacrament: matter, and a form. In order to find mat
ter, which was wanting in the simple imposition of
hands, they have invented a chrism or ointment, com
posed of olive oil and balm, — the former signifying
clearness of conscience, and the latter the savour of a
good reputation ; and it is blessed by the bishop, who
alone has power to perform this ceremony.. The form
of the sacrament consists in the application of this
chrism to the forehead of the person, while at the same
time these words are pronounced, " I sign thee with
the sign of the cross, and confirm thee with the chrism
of salvation, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost." I need not say that not a vestige
of this mummery is to be found in the New Testament.
Confirmation isj-etained in the Church of England, but
it is divested of these superstitious additions, and is not
considered as a sacrament. At a certain period chil
dren who have learned the catechism, appear before the
bishop, and renew their baptismal engagements ; when
the bishop prays, that God, who has regenerated them
by water and the Holy Ghost, and given unto them the
forgiveness of all their sins, would strengthen them,
and increase in them the manifold gifts of his grace.
He then lays his hands upon them, and offers up another
prayer to the same effect. It may be justly objected,
that the ceremony itself is superstitious, being entirely
of human institution ; that the qualifications are super
ficial, as any person may see by perusing the trifling
catechism which the young people are required to learn ;
that it proceeds upon the supposition that they are all
already the children of God ; that while it assumes
what in many cases is false, it is calculated to foster
an ill-founded persuasion of the favour of God ; and
that, having been so grossly abused in the Church of
Rome, it should have been entirely laid aside by a
Protestant Church, as it has manifestly no claim to an
apostolical origin. Unhappily, the Church of Eng
land thinks herself adorned, when she wears some of
the rags of popery.
The second spurious sacrament, is penance or peni
tence. In the New Testament, Christians are com
manded to "confess their faults one to another;"! but
not a word is said about confession to a priest. In the
early ages of the church, a public confession of their
sins was required from those who were guilty of great
offences, particularly of apostasy ; and this was a neces-
• Heb. vi.2. f Acts viii. 17. } James v. 16.

sary step to their restoration to tbe fellowship of the
church, from which they had been excluded. This
practice being found inconvenient, private confession
was introduced ; and penitents were required to come
to the bishop, or to a priest appointed for the purpose.
It would be tedious to trace all the changes which took
place in this part of ecclesiastical discipline ; and to
show how the penance enjoined upon offenders was
made private, as well as their confessions; how instead
of penance prayers were substituted, so many prayers
for example, instead of so many days of fasting ; and
howithe rich were permitted to purchase an exemption,
by giving alms to the poor and the church. It is suffi
cient to observe, that in the Church of Rome auricular
confession is established ; that is, every member of that
church is required to make confession to a priest at
least once a year. In doing so, he is bound to act can
didly and freely, to conceal nothing, but to make known
to the confessor all the sins which he has committed
since he last appeared before him, and even the secret
thoughts of his heart. It is easy to see that this insti
tution invests the clergy with an uncontrolled power
over the laity ; for nothing gives one man a firmer hold
of another, than his knowledge of such parts of the con
duct of the other as he should most anxiously wish to
conceal. There is a security, indeed, provided in the
secrecy which is enjoined upon confessors, who are
forbidden under the severest penalty to reveal any thing
which has been disclosed to them ; but still the reflec
tion that the penitent has deposited in the bosom of the
priest matters upon which his honour, and perhaps his
life, depends, must retain him in a state of absolute
subjection to him. It is the business of the priest to
ascertain whether the person is penitent; and here a
distinction is made between contrition, or sorrow for sin
arising from the love of God, and attrition, arising from
an inferior cause, as the loss which he has sustained,
the shame which he has incurred, or the danger to
which he has exposed himself.* To a man who takes
the Scripture as his guide, it would seem that the lat
ter was not repentance at all ; but in the Church of
Rome, either the one or the other is sufficient. There
remains the satisfaction or penance enjoined upon the
penitent, which consists in fasting, but rendered as easy
as possible ; in repeating a number of prayers, which
it seems Papists consider as a punishment ; or in some
other thing which may be performed without a single
sentiment or feeling of piety. The sacrament of peni
tence consists, like every other sacrament, of two parts,
the matter and the form. The matter is the confession
of the penitent to the priest, his contrition, and his sat
isfaction. The form is in these words pronounced by
the priest, " I absolve thee," &c! You will observe
to what a wretched shift Papists are driven to make
out a sacrament. There is no visible sign in this sac
rament, but words and feelings of the mind ; and the
performance of certain acts is, with palpable absurdity,
converted into the matter of it. Prayer might be made
the matter of a sacrament with equal propriety. The
form is impious and blasphemous; and when a worth
less priest presumes to give absolution, we may indig
nantly say, "Who can forgive sins but God?" The
whole is comparatively a modern invention, and is no
more entitled to be accounted an ordinance of Christ,
than the feat of a mountebank, or the trick of a juggler.
The third sacrament is called the sacrament ef or
ders, because it relates to the consecration of the differ
ent orders of office-bearers in the church. Of those in
the Roman hierarchy there are seven, — porters or door
keepers, readers, exorcists, acolytes, sub-deacons, dea
cons, and priests. To these some add an eighth, the
order of bishops ; but others consider it not as a dis-

* Concil. Trident. Sessio xiv. De Penilentia, cap. iv.
f Ibid. cap. iii.

468

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

tinct ordeT, but as a higher degree of the priesthood.
As Jesus Christ has appointed certain persons to per
form the public offices of religion, so there is a pre
scribed form of setting them apart, which we learn from
the practice of the Apostles. They ordained ministers
and deacons by prayer, and the imposition of hands.
This was the simple form used by them, and it contin
ued for a long time to be observed without any super
stitious addition. If, in the first age, the imposition of
hands was accompanied with the communication of the
extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, it simply denoted, af-
tei miracles had ceased, the designation of the person;
and prayer was offered up for the divine blessing upon
him and his labours. In this manner he was devoted
to God, and received authority to preach the gospel and
administer the sacraments, or to care for the poor and
take part in the government of the church, according to
the nature of the office with which he was invested.
In process of time, when men began to corrupt the or
dinances of the gospel, under the pretext of adorning
them and rendering them more august, various ceremo
nies were introduced, by which the original simplicity
of the form was destroyed. In the Church of Rome,
the plan was adopted of delivering to a priest the sacred
vessels, — the paten and the chalice, or the plate and
the cup, — and accompanying this action with certain
words empowering him to celebrate mass, and offer
sacrifice to God ; and thus they have contrived what
they deem the' essential parts of a sacrament. In the
ordination of a priest, the matter is the vessels which
ere delivered to him, and the form is the pronouncing
of these words, " Take thou authority to offer up sac
rifices to God, and to celebrate masses both for the dead
and for the living, in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost." You will observe that
this sacrament is wholly a human invention ; men have
contrived both the matter and the form, for of neither is
there the slightest vestige in the New Testament. It
rests entirely upon the decrees of popes and popish
councils, who have no more power to appoint new
means of grace, and new seals of the covenant, than
the first person whom we shall meet in the streets.
There is nothing which bears any resemblance to a sac
rament in the apostolical form of ordination. Prayer
is a simple act of religious worship ; and the imposition
of hands is no more a sacramental action in this case,
than it was in the performance of miracles, when it was
occasionally, but not uniformly used.
The fourth spurious sacrament is marriage. It may
excite surprise that any person, possessed of common
sense, should have ever thought of giving this name
and office to a civil contract ; for in this light it may
surely be considered, although it was instituted by
God himself. Civil government is also his institution,
but we do not therefore look upon it as a religious
ordinance. The celebration of marriage in this coun
try, by the ministers of religion, does not alter its na
ture. This is an accidental circumstance, not at all
necessary to its validity ; and the union would be as
firm and as holy, if the law, to which it belongs to re
gulate the form, should appoint marriage to be cele
brated by the magistrate. You may also be curious
to know how Papists have contrived to make a sacra
ment out of marriage, as it does not really occur to us
tbat it furnishes the essential parts. This business
has caused no little perplexity to them; but they have
finally rested in this determination, that the matter of
the sacrament is the consent of the parties, and the
form, the words or sign by which their consent is ex
pressed. Here, then, is a sacrament, in which some
thing that cannot be seen or felt or heard, is the mat
ter, namely, the inward consent of the mind : and
consequently an external sign, which is indispensable
to every sacrament, is wanting. With respect to the
form, it consists in words, as in the other sacraments ;

but, whereas in those they are pronounced by the
priest, in this they are pronounced by the parties.
Marriage is therefore an anomalous sacrament, for it is
made and celebrated exclusively by the persons who
receive it. It is impossible to conceive a more com
plete mass of absurdity. That cannot be a sacrament
which is not even an ordinance of religion, and is not
peculiar to tbe members of the church. It was origin
ally instituted for the human race in general, and all
men have an equal right to it. The marriages of Jews,
and Heathens, and Mahometans, are as valid as those
of Christians. Papists plead that the Scripture calls
marriage a sacrament, for, where Paul, speaking of
it, says, " This is a great mystery,"* the Vulgato
reads, " This is a great sacrament." But I have ac
counted for this -translation, by showing you, that
anciently sacramentum was used as equivalent to iuvo-ru-
piov. It is evident that nothing more can be inferred
from the passage, than that marriage is an emblem of the
union between our Saviour and his followers ; and per
haps not even so much is intended, for the Apostle seems
to confine his words to this union alone, and to put us
on our guard against thinking that he is speaking of
marriage, when he immediately adds, " But I speak of
Christ and the church." The mystery is the mystical
union. The last spurious sacrament of the Church of Rome
is extreme unction. It is called unction, because the
person who receives this sacrament is anointed with
oil ; and extreme unction, because it is administered
in ariiculo mortis, when he is understood lo be at the
point of death. The matter is olive oil, which has
been blessed by a bishop ; and the form consists in the
application of this oil to the five senses, with these
words : " By this sacred unction, and his most tender
mercy, may God pardon every sin which thou hast
committed, by seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and
touching."! The oil is put upon the different parts of
the body, as the name of each is enunciated. The
person is understood to receive the remission of his
sins, and to be prepared to enter into heaven, after
having undergone a complete purification in purgatory.
If extreme unction were, indeed, an institution of
Christ, it would be invaluable as a sure passport to
immortality ; but if it be a human device, what can
we say, but that, to those who depend upon it, it must
prove a passport to the place of darkness and sorrow ?
For this sacrament, as well as for marriage, Papists
plead Scripture, but with equal want of success. The
passage to which they appeal, is in the Epistle of
James : " Is any sick among you ? let him call for the
elders of the church : and let them pray over him,
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord : and
the prayer of faith shall save the sick."! Those who
imagine that these words favour the sacrament of ex
treme unction, allow themselves to be carried away by
a sound without any regard to the sense. It is obvious
that the two things are totally different. The anoint
ing of James was miraculous, or a sign accompanying
a miracle, which, from the following words concerning
the twelve disciples when they were sent forth by our
Lord, seems to have been frequently used in the apos
tolic age : " And they cast out many devils, and
anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed
them."|| But, although ihe Church of Rome still
claims the power of working miracles, we know that
the pretension is absolutely false ; and besides, it is
not alleged that there is any miracle in the present
case. The design of anointing a sick person in the
days of the Apostles, was to restore him to health ;
the design of the popish anointing, is to prepare him

* Ephes. v. 32.
t Concil. Trident. Sessio xiv.de Extrema Vnctione,cup.i.
X James v. 14. |] Mark vi. 13.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : BAPTISM.

469

Cor death. The one, when accompanied with faith,
saved the sick ; but the other is not administered till
all hope of recovery is gone. It is certain that,
although oil was used after the days of the Apostles
oh various occasions, and was, in particular, applied
to the sick, it was not till a late period tbat the sacr%
ment of extreme unction was devised by the School
men, and the Council of Trent established it by law :
" If any man shall say that extreme unction, is not
truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ
our Lord, and promulgated by the blessed Apostle
James, but is only a rite received from the Fathers, or
a human figment; let bim be accursed."*
Regardless of the fulminations of the antichristian
church, we reject all these sacraments as the devices
of impious men ; and adhering to the word of God as
the sole rule of our faith and practice, we receive only
the two sacraments which our Lord and Saviour has
instituted, Baptism and the Holy Supper.

LECTURE LXXXVIII.
ON THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM.
Baptism, the Rite of Admission into the Church. — Difference
between the Baptisms of John and Christ. — Application of
Water Necessary. — Certain Popish additions to the Rite. —
Mode of Applying; the Symbol. — Immersion not Necessary.
—Who may be Baptized. — Baptism of Infants Vindicated.
I now proceed to consider tbe two sacraments of the
Christian Church, which alone are worthy of attention
and have a claim to be observed with devout reverence,
because they alone are of Divine institution. I begin
with Baptism, by which we are initiated into the fel
lowship of the Church, and which, in the order of dis
pensation, precedes the Lord's Supper ; none having a
right to the holy table but those who have been pre
viously purified by the washing of water and by the
word. It has pleased God, under both dispensations, to in
stitute an external sign of admission into the church,
and of the participation of the blessings of the cov
enant. From the days of Abraham to the coming of
Christ, the sign was circumcision ; but as it implied
an obligation to obey the law of Moses, which is
now repealed, it is laid aside, and baptism is sub
stituted in its room. After his resurrection, Jesus gave
the following commission to his disciples: "Go ye
therefore, and teach" or make disciples of " all nations
—fLieBiiTevcnLTe otzvtcl tcl eBvn — baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost;
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you : and lo ! I am with you alway, even
unto the end of the world."! Baptism had been pre
viously administered to those who acknowledged him
as the Messiah, and desired to be admitted into the
number of his followers ; not, however, by himself, but
by his disciples, as we learn from this passage in John :
" When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees
had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples
than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his
disciples,) he left Judea, and departed again into
Galilee."! We cannot, therefore, consider the ordin
ance as new, when he gave a commission to the
Apostles prior to his ascension ; but it then received a
more extensive application, as they were authorized to
administer it to men of every nation. Baptism was
administered also by John his forerunner; and that
which is now practised is commonly accounted a con
tinuation of it. But although they resemble each

* Sessio xiv. de Exlrema Unclione, can. i.
f Matth. xxviii. 19, 20. J John iv. 1—3.

other in the external sign, and the mode of applying
it, there are some respects in which they materially
differ. "John baptized his disciples into the faith of
the Messiah as to come ; we are baptized into the
faith of him as actually come. The baptism of John
was evidently designed to serve a temporary purpose,
in common with all the other parts of his ministry ;
the baptism of Christ is to continue to the end of the
world. The one did not properly belong to the Chris
tian dispensation, but was preparatory to it; the other
is an ordinance given by our Saviour to his church,
to supply the place of circumcision. Christian bap
tism is administered in the name of the persons of the
Trinity ; whereas we have no evidence that the
Divine Persons were explicitly recognized in the bap
tism of John. From these considerations, it appears
that the two ordinances differ so much in their form,
in their design, and in their relation to the present
dispensation, that they may be regarded as perfectly
distinct, and consequently, that a person who had
been baptized by John might have been baptized again
by an Apostle."* If this reasoning is just, we are at
no loss to understand a passage in the Acts, which
has caused no small perplexity to commentators, and
about which they have been much divided in senti
ment. Speaking of some men who had received only
the baptism of John, it says, that when they were
more fully instructed by Paul, " they were baptized
in the name of the Lord Jesus."! It seems unques
tionable that they were rebaptized, and the reason
was, that the baptism of John, and that of Christ,
were different ordinances.
It is an opinion adopted by not a few, that ouf
Lord borrowed this rite from the Jews, among whom
it was customary to baptize proselytes, whether
male or female, by immersing the whole body in wa
ter. Men View subjects in different lights, according
to their habits of thinking ; but I confess, that to me it
seems highly improbable that he would adopt one of
the most solemn ordinances of his religion from the
corrupt church of Judea, and found it upon a practice
manifestly superstitious, which they had added with
out authority to the commandment of God. It is al
together incredible that, while he condemned their
vain traditions and observances, he would embody
one of these in his own institute, and thus counteract
the effect of his reproofs. No mention is made of the
baptism of proselytes in the works of Philo and
Josephus, and the first notice of it is found in the
Mishna and Gemara ; of which the one was com
posed at the earliest date in the second century, al
though learned men in general bring it much farther
down, and the latter is so late as the seventh. There
is no evidence that the practice existed in the time of
our Saviour, and it is much more likely that, among
the Jews, it was an acknowledged imitation of his in
stitution, than that he was indebted for it to them.
Baptism is performed by the application of water
to the body. This is a point which it may be judged
altogether superfluous to prove, because it seems to
admit of no dispute ; but there have been found fools
and perverse controvertists to call in question the
plainest facts. Some have maintained that Christ did
not enjoin the baptism of water, but of doctrine ; and
argue that, as Christianity is a spiritual religion, all
external rites are excluded from it. It is quite suffi
cient to answer, that the Apostles did actually baptize
with water. But it has been alleged by some who
could not deny this fact, that the baptisrn of water
was only a temporary institution, and that it is super
seded by the baptism of the Spirit. Let them prove
their allegation, for this burden lies upon them. It

* Dick's Lectures on the Acts, p. 406. 2d Edit,
t Acts xix. 5.

470

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

happens unfortunately for their hypothesis, that the
baptism of water was used after the dispensation of
the spirit had commenced, and in an age when the in
fluences of the Holy Ghost were most abundantly
communicated ; and it is a complete refutation of it,
that, when our Lord instituted this rite, he promised
to be with his disciples in executing his order, not on
ly to the end of that age, but to the end of the Chris
tian dispensation, or " of the world," as we have
translated the word.
In the Church of Rome, baptism is celebrated with
several other rites besides the application of water.
Not only is the sign of the cross made, and the per
son exorcised to drive out evil spirits, but salt is put
into his mouth, to signify that by grace he is freed
from the corruption of sin; spittle is applied to his
nostrils and ears, to intimate that the Holy Spirit
gives light to the mind to perceive the heavenly truth ;
he is anointed .with oil on the crown of his head, that
he may understand that he is henceforth joined to
Christ as a member of his body, and is called a Chris
tian from Christ the anointed one : if he be an adult,
he is clothed with a white garment, or if a child, a
white handkerchief is given to him, to represent the
glory of the resurrection of which he is an heir, the
beauty with which his soul now purified from sin is
adorned, and the innocence which he should study to
maintain during his whole life. Lastly, a burning wax
candle is put into his hand, to showthat faith, being in
flamed with charity which he received in baptism, is
to be nourished and increased by the study of good
works. It is well that Papists have explained the
various parts of this exhibition, which would have
otherwise puzzled every human understanding. Some
of these rites were introduced at an early period ; but
they are all human inventions, which disfigure the
simple ordinance of Christ, and have been rejected by
our Church in its just zeal for the purity of bis in
stitution. The manner in wbich water should be applied to
the body, whether by affusion or aspersion, or by im
mersion, is a question which has divided Christians
into different parties, and has been discussed with
great vehemence of contention. An attempt has been
made to decide the controversy by an appeal to the
meaning of the original terms. Bur-n^a, it is com
monly said, signifies to immerse, or plunge into water,
and consequently $-j.vtio-ll*. and ^xtctiotlloo, are properly
translated immersion. BxirTiclai is derived from Qltttu,
which has the same signification, and is used to ex
press the action of dipping and dyeing. Examples,
however, have been produced from which it appears,
that the idea sometimes conveyed even by this verb,
which it is commonly admitted signifies to dip, is that
of sprinkling, rather than of dipping. In the Revela
tion our Saviour is described as clothed with a gar
ment — fiifizfLLtevov clillclti — dipped in blood,* says our
translation, but rather sprinkled or stained; for he is
represented as a warrior and a conqueror, and the
garments of such a person after a battle are not dipped
in blood, but stained or sprinkled with the blood of
his enemies, which has spouted from their wounds.
This is the image presented to us in the parallel pass
age of Isaiah, where in the same character he says,
"Their blood shall be sprinkled on my garments, and
I will stain all my raiment."! The sentence pro
nounced upon Nebuchadnezzar was, that bis body
should be " wet with the dew of heaven ;"*and it is
thus translated in the Greek version, Am tk Ipoo-ov tou
wpw.v to o-u/lcl clvtov efi*,cp».\\ Here the word signifies to
tprinkle, or moisten by sprinkling, for his body was not

•Rev. xix. 13. T Is. lxiii. 33. {Dan. iv.23.
|| His body shall be {ebapbe) moistened with the dew of hea
ven.

wetted by being dipped in dew, but by its falling up
on him.
I do not intend to deny that $clwtu ever means lo dip,
but that this is its only sense; and hence we may
fairly conclude, that although its derivative /Sxar-jja
also means to immerse, it does not follow that this is
its only signification. Two examples have been quot
ed from the Apocryphal writings, in one of which it
denotes washing without specifying the form, and in
the other it seems to be synonymous with sprinkling.
Judith is said to have washed herself in the camp, or by
the camp at a fountain of water, eficmTicliTo mi tk Trnynt
tov icTsLToc* The place, a fountain or spring, naturally
excludes the idea of immersion, and the phrase is
em tk my»c, at ihe fountain, not ey tk miyv, as it would
have been if she had bathed in it. The son of Sirach,
speaking of a person who has been purified from the
pollution contracted by touching a dead body, calls him
fi-LTTTi^oLLevo; utto v&.eev.\ But when we consult the law
of Moses to which he refers, we find that he was puri
fied by aspersion. That his uncleanness might be re
moved, the water of separation was sprinkled upon
hirn, as you will see in the nineteenth chapter of-
Numbers-! If then the word was so understood by
Jewish writers in Greek, we may presume that it re
tains the same in the New Testament, or that this
meaning may be assigned to it when circumstances
do not forbid ; and that it is unwarrantable to affirm,
from the simple use of the term in reference to this
ordinance of Christ, that we are bound to administer it
only by immersion. " The Pharisees and all the
Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, hold
ing the tradition of the elders. And when they come
from the market, except they wash," or baptize them
selves, " they eat not. And many other things there
be which they have received to hold, as the washing"
or baptisms "of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of
tables."|| The washing of the hands was performed
among the Jews by pouring water upon them, as ap
pears from the express testimony of Scripture : "Elisha
the son of Shaphat poured water on the hands of
Elijah. "§ The "baptizing" after their return from
market, probably signifies the same thing with wash
ing their hands, as it is very improbable that on every
such occasion they washed the whole body ; and at any
rate, if they put themselves to this trouble, the body
would be washed in the same manner with the hands,
by pouring water upon it. There is no reason to think
that this baptism consisted in immersion. Cups and
pots and brazen vessels may have been "baptized"
by being plunged into water; but as the operation
could have been performed equally well by pouring
water into them, and upon them, we can draw no
certain conclusion respecting the mode, and the words
fixTTTigesv and IZclxtio-lloc., convey nothing more than tbe
general idea of washing. The last word in this pass
age, xxivuv, is improperly rendered tables in our version,
and the proper translation is beds or couches. These were
the couches on which they reclined at tbeirmeals. They
were so large as to hold several persons at the same
time ; and from their size it seems reasonable to sup
pose that they were "baptized," not by being im
mersed in water, but by being washed with the hand
or sprinkled, to remove any real or fancied impurity.
Hitherto we have found nothing to justify the con
fidence with wbich it has been asserted, that lixwTi£a
necessarily signifies to immerse. But to supply what
may be wanting in the evidence arising from the word
itself, it is alleged that such phrases are joined vrith
it, as clearly show that it was by dipping or plunging
that baptism was originally administered. For exam-
* Judith xii. 7.
f Ecclus. xxxiv. 25. Purified from (the touch ot) the d»td
{Num. xix. 13. || Mark vii. 3,4. { 2 Kings iii 11

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : BAPTISM.

471

pie, John is said to have baptized in Jordan* — tv tu
\eeS*m — standing, no doubt, in the water, and success
ively dipping his disciples. That the preposition ev
often denotes the place in which any thing is done, can
not be denied ; but among its many senses, it signifies
also at, or nigh to. " Now, in ihe place — tv to to™ —
where he was crucified, there was a garden,"! not in
the identical spot, but in its immediate vicinity. In like
manner — o irveyes ev too ^ixccl/l — is " the tower," not " in
the pool of Siloam,"! but close by it. It has been re
marked, that while Matthew says that John baptized
" in Jordan," the Evangelist John tells us that he was
baptizing " beyond Jordan ;"|| and as we cannot suppose
a contradiction between their statements, we must re
concile them by understanding Matthew to mean close
by Jordan, and the other Evangelist, that the place
was on the opposite bank of the river. Besides, al
though John had actually taken his station in the river,
it does not follow that he immersed his disciples, be
cause he might have chosen it for convenience, as the
number to be baptized was great, that there might be
a sufficient supply of water at hand to pour upon their
heads or faces.
The use of the preposition n; and ex or «ff, in reference
to baptism, is supposed to furnish an argument equally
conclusive in favour of immersion. It is related in
tbe history of the Ethiopian eunuch, that he and
Philip "went down both into the water — at to iSm^ —
and he baptized him. And when they came up out of
the water — ex tou iSx.To; — the Spirit of the Lord caught
away Philip."§ Here it is said is an instance of
baptism by immersion, as it could only be for that pur
pose that the Evangelist and his convert went into
the water. It is certain that en does sometimes signify
into, and ex out of; but it is equally certain that at other
times the proper translation of the one is lo, and of the
other is from. When Jesus came — tit to LtvefLiuv — lo the
sepulchre of Lazarus,f we know that he did not enter
into it; and when ships came from Tiberias,** —
w 7ti$tetcL$oo, — we do not suppose that they sailed out
of the midst of the city, but that that was the place
from which their voyage commenced. The preposition
tx. simply signifies the point from which, and ut, the
point to which a movement is made. In the present
case nothing more is intimated by the sacred historian,
than that Philip and the eunuch went to the place
where they saw water, and that after baptism they
both left it. A different preposition is used in the
narrative of our Saviour's baptism, and our trans
lators have improperly rendered ctytfix am tou HxTot,
"he went up straightway out of the water,"!! be
cause the true sense of *»•» is from, not out of, and
it marks the place from which he went up, without
at all suggesting the idea that be had been in the
water. There is an expression on which the Baptists lay
much stress as favouring their practice of immersion,
which occurs in two passages. In both we are said
to be "buried with Christ in baptism ;" and hence it
So inferred that we ought to be baptized by immersion,
which only is emblematical of a burial. You will
find the one passage in the sixth chapter of the
Romans, and the other in the second chapter of the
Colossians.!! There is an appearance of childish
ness in thus explaining the expression, which is mani
festly figurative. In the Epistle, to the Romans the
Apostle first says, that we are baptized into the death
of Christ, and then adds, that we are buried with him
in baptism ;" referring not to the form, but to the import
of the ordinance, by which it is signified, that through

* Matth. iii. 6. t John. xix. 41. (Luke xiii. 4.
|| John i. 23. } Acts viii. 38, 39. \ John ix. 38.
** lb. vi. 23. ft Matth. iii. 16. Mark i. 10.
11 Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12.

his death we become dead to sin, or are delivered
from its power. In the very next verse he expresses
the same idea by another figure, when he says, that
" we have been planted together in the likeness of his
death." How comes it to be supposed that the one
figure refers to the mode of baptism rather than the
other? Why should it resemble burying more than
planting? What reason can be assigned for laying
hold of the one expression in preference to the other,
but the desire to support a hypothesis ? Would it cat
have been more suitable to the character of honest and
intelligent interpreters of Scripture, to conclude that
as there is a mixture of figures, the Apostle did not
allude to any external rite, and merely intended by
both to signify that baptism is a sign of our fellow
ship with Christ in his death? Besides, Baptists
proceed upon an erroneous idea of our Saviour's burial,
into which it is strange that any person should have
fallen, who had read the New Testament with any de
gree of attention. They seem to think that he was
buried after the manner of our country, where a dead
body may be said to be immersed in the earth, be
cause it is let down into a grave and covered with
mould. Had his body been interred, we might have
fancied a resemblance between its burial and plunging
of the baptized into water. But nothing is more re
mote from the truth. The sepulchre of Christ was an
apartment hewn out of a rock, the floor of which was
on a level with the ground, or depressed only a little
below the surface, and which was so capacious that a
person could sit and stand upright in it. Here his
body was deposited, and was covered only with the
grave-clothes. Let Baptists now point out the resem
blance between the plunging of the baptized into
water, and the burial of Christ. No two things in
the world are more unlike, and this silly argument
vanishes into smoke.
We have seen that nothing certain can be learned
from the original term ficamelm, because it has differ
ent meanings, signifying sometimes to immerse, and
sometimes lo wash. When a word is used to denote
an action which is figurative, it seems a fair way of
determining its sense, to observe how the thing which
the action represents is in other places expressed.
As the water in baptism is emblematical of the in
fluences of the Spirit, we may bring to the illustration
of the term to baptize, the passages of Scripture which
speak of the communication of those influences ; and
there is not one of them which alludes to immersion.
The Holy Ghost is said " to fall" upon men, to be
" poured out" upon them ; and in reference to the
same subject, God promises " to sprinkle clean water
upon us," " to be as the dew unto Israel,"* and that
his grace shall " come down as rain upon the mown
grass, and as showers which water the earth."! If
water is a significant emblem of the Spirit, because it
purifies, is it not reasonable to suppose that a resem
blance was intended between the application of the
water and the manner in which the communication of
the Spirit is described ? It is by no means probable
that God should speak of his own operations in one
way, and symbolically represent them in a different
way ; that he should promise to sprinkle or pour out
his Spirit upon us, and to confirm this promise would
command us to be plunged into water. There would
be no analogy in this case between the promise and
the seal ; and the discrepance would give rise to a
confusion of ideas. This I conceive to be an argu
ment of considerable force in favour of our mode of
administering baptism, and an objection against im
mersion which cannot be easily evaded.
I may add, that there is little probability tbat the

* Acts. x. 44. Zech. xii. 10. Ezek. xxxvi, 25. Hos. xiv. S.
f Ps. lxxii. 6.

472

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

baptisms recorded in the New Testament were per
formed by immersion. We have already considered
the case of John, and shown that he did not baptize in
Jordan itself, but on its banks. It is not very credible,
that the three thousand converts on the day of Pente
cost were dipped. There was a pool in Jerusalem,
called the pool of Siloam ; but we do not know whether
from its size and situation it could have been fit for
the purpose. Besides the gross indecency of it, it
Would have been a tedious process, if all this multi
tude had put off 'and put on their clothes in public ;
and it is very unlikely that they were plunged with
their garments upon them. When whole families
Were baptized in their own houses, there is no reason
to think that, on every occasion, a sufficient quantity
of water could be found for immersion. We are cer
tain, that in very few of our houses the baptism of
immersion could be practised ; and tbe houses of the
Jews and Greeks, we presume, were not better accom
modated. Some men seem to believe that, in the
Apostolic age, every house had a font or bath ; but
why they believe this no man can tell, except that it
suits their hypothesis. The Apostles could not ad
minister baptism by immersion in every place ; so that
if this had been the mode, when they had made con
verts they must have often been under the necessity
of leading them away to a pond or river, and, in many
regions of the east, must sometimes have made long
journeys in order to find one. But there is not a sin
gle fact in the New Testament which gives counte
nance to this idea. The narrative implies that they
baptized converts on the spot, and, consequently, that
only a small quantity of water was necessary, which
could be always procured.
The argument for immersion fails, upon a careful
examination. It is founded upon the assumption that
£»rTi£a> has only one meaning, while it has more ;
upon a mistake of the import of two prepositions, eit and
ex.; and upon a fanciful analogy; it is contrary to the
usual language of Scripture respecting the thing sig
nified by baptism, and to the general strain of the
history, which relates instances of baptism when im
mersion could not be practised. With whatever con
fidence this has been pronounced to be the only scrip
tural mode, the evidence preponderates on the oppo
site side. We may therefore persevere in our own
practice, and assure ourselves that they are lawfully
baptized upon whom water has been only sprinkled or
poured. There is a point of still greater importance than the
mode of baptism, about which Christians are divided
in sentiment. A controversy has arisen with respect
to the persons to whom it should be administered ;
those who are called Paedobaptists maintaining that,
in certain circumstances, children have a right to the
ordinance, while Antipaedobaptists confine it to adults.
There is but one opinion with regard to grown up
persons not baptized in infancy, who profess faith in
Christ and a desire to be received into the communion
of the Church. In this case the command is explicit;
and it is because they are so distinctly mentioned,
while nothing is said concerning infants, that baptism
has been supposed to belong exclusively to the former.
«' Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved."* The qualification in the sight of God, who
6earches tbe heart, is faith unfeigned ; and in the sight
of men, who can judge only by moral evidence, is a
credible profession of it, or such a profession as ap
pears to them to be sincere. Accordingly, the Apos
tles acted upon this principle, as we learn from the
history of their proceedings. I select the instance of
the Ethiopian eunuch. When this man had heard the
* Mark xvi. 15, 16.

gospel from the mouth of Philip, he said to bim, " See,
here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart,
thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."* The Apos
tles were sent to teach or make disciples of all nations,
by instructing them in the religion of Christ; and
when those whom they had addressed acquired a com
petent measure of knowledge, and recognized Jesus
Christ as their Lord and Saviour, they were then to
baptize them. Baptism is not to be administered to a
Jew, a Mahometan, or a heathen, who still adheres to
his original creed, nor to a man who may ignorantly
express a wish for it. It is a badge of Christianity,
which would be absurdly and profanely attached to a
person who retained the principles of another religion,
or gave a blind assent to a system which he did not
understand. Upon the connexion of faith with baptism, Antipse-
dobaptists found what they consider as an unanswera
ble argument against the baptism of infants. If it is
required that he who is baptized should believe, it
follows that children ought not to be baptized, be
cause they are not capable of faith. The argument
has a specious appearance, which imposes on super
ficial thinkers ; but when it is thoroughly canvassed,
it will be found, I trust, to be destitute of force.
When our Lord says, " He that believeth and is bap
tized, shall be saved," be no doubt teaches that bap
tism should be administered to a believer; but if we
infer that none but a believer should be baptized, let
us observe tbe consequence which will follow from
his words. Faith is made as necessary to salvation
as to baptism; and it is as fairly deducible from his
words that none can be saved, as that none should be
baptized but believers. Thus, children are excluded .
from heaven, as well as from this initiatory rite. This,
however, our adversaries will not allow. They admit,
as well as we, that many children are saved ; and, con
sequently, admit that what is required from adults in
order to their eternal happiness, is not required from '
infants. If they will be consistent, they must further
admit that this text speaks of adults alone; and, con
sequently, that the argument drawn from it against
the baptism of infants is a sophism, more being con- )
tained in the conclusion than in the premises. It evi
dently speaks of adults, for it supposes them to be
capable of faith. But because faith is made neces
sary to their baptism, it is not made necessary to the
baptism of infants, any more than it is necessary to ]
the salvation of infants, because it is necessary to the '
salvation of adults. And with respect to infants, since,
according to our antagonists, the thing signified is
granted to them, it will not be easy to assign a good
reason why the sign should be denied.
Infants were proper subjects of circumcision. Cir
cumcision implied an obligation to observe the ordi
nances and commandments of God ; and hence the cir
cumcised person is pronounced to be " a debtor to do
the whole law."! If, under the ancient economy,
there had been some persons of similar views to those
of Antipaedobaptists, they might have brought forward
as specious reasonings against the circumcision, as is '
now produced against the baptism, of children. They
might have said, ' Children have not yet attained the
use of reason, and are therefore disqualified for coming
under a moral obligation. How can they be bound to
obey a law which they do not understand ? They
know not what is going on when circumcision is ad
ministered to them; and, with respect to them, it is
mere mockery, a rite without a meaning. Let it be
reserved for grown up persons, to whom its design can
be explained, and who can rationally and voluntarily

* Acts viii. 37.

tUai.v. 3.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : BAPTISM.

473

accede to the covenant of wbich it is a seal.' Yet the
male children of the Israelites were circumcised on
the eighth day>after their birth ; and why then may
t not the children of Christians be dedicated at as early
a period to the service of God ? The objection might
have been strengthened by the remark which an Apos
tle has made, that, in the case of Abraham, in whom
i, circumcision commenced, it was " a seal of the right
eousness of faith."* Here it might have been said,
faith preceded circumcision. It not only preceded, but
was pre-supposed as the indispensable qualification of
the person to be circumcised ; and as this took place
in the case of Abraham, the father of the Jews, it was
certainly intended to signify that the rite should not
be performed upon any of his posterity, unless they
possessed the same qualification. This is exactly the
argument of our antagonists against the baptism of
children; but we see at once how little it avails. The
children of Christian parents may as well be baptized,
as the children of Jewish parents were circumcised,
without faith.
Had it been the will of God that the religion of
Moses should become universal, the persons sent forth
to promulgate it would have received a commission
similar to that of the Apostles, and would have been
commanded, first to teach all nations, and then to cir
cumcise them. If any person had inferred, from the
terms of their commission, that none should be cir
cumcised without being previously taught, we know
that the conclusion would have been wrong, because
there was a previous command to administer this rite
to children ; and hence we perceive the fallacy of in
ferring from the Apostolical commission, that believers
only should be baptized. It may be said that the two
cases are different, because there is an express law
for the circumcision of children, but no precept for
for their baptism. We answer, that, as there is a pre-
f cept for circumcising them, and admitting them into
the church, it appears that their age is no obstacle
' to the participation of the seal of the covenant ; and
that, as this privilege was once conceded to children,
we presume that it is continued to them, and de
mand, not assertion, but proof, that it is revoked.
In this case, the onus probandi lies upon our antag
onists. It is in vain to tell us that " circumcision was a
" sign of carnal descent, a mark of national distinction,
and a token of interest in those temporal blessings
that were promised to Abraham." All this may be
true ; but it is also true that it was a sign of spiritual
/ blessings, a seal of the righteousness of faith, and was
therefore precisely of the same import with christian
baptism. The passages of Scripture which speak of
" circumcising the foreskin of the heart," of " cir
cumcising the heart to love the Lord," and of the re
generated " as the true circumcision," demonstrate
that it was a seal of the covenant of grace ; and conse
quently, that the new seal, which has displaced it but
bears the same signification, may, with equal propri
ety, be administered to infants. It is the interest of
Antipsedobaptists to show that baptism has not come
in the room of circumcision ; but, however necessary
it may be to their scheme, they cannot proceed in the
attempt without setting aside the express declaration of
Scripture. Attend to the following words of the Apos
tle : "In whom also ye are circumcised with the cir
cumcision made without hands, in putting off the body
of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ ;
buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen
with him through the faith of the operation of God."!
The subject of discourse is regeneration, or the putting
off of the body of sins ; and of this change, it is in
timated circumcision was formerly a sign. The bles-

'Rom. iv. 11.
3K

t Col. ii. 11.12.

sing is continued under the new dispensation ; but is
it now without a sign ? Is there no representation of
it to our senses under the Gospel ? Yes, it is still
adumbrated by a new ordinance, and we are circum
cised with the circumcision of Christ, when we are
buried with him in baptism. The mention of baptism
in the same sentence with circumcision as equivalent
to it, and as significant of the same spiritual change
in the state of the soul, cannot fail to suggest to any
person, who is not prejudiced, that the one is the sub
stitute of the other. Circumcision has ceased ; but
there is another initiatory rite given for the same pur
pose, which ought, therefore, to be administered to
the same persons for whom circumcision was de
signed. There was no occasion to specify children in the
commission given to the Apostles ; because they and
all the Jews would understand that, since baptism had
come in the room of circumcision, their children had
the same right to it as themselves. Both having been
comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham,
they would naturally conclude that the new covenant
or dispensation was of equal extent. If a change had
been made to the exclusion of infants, it would have
excited surprise, and given rise to inquiries, and called
forth explanations on the part of the Apostles, to sat
isfy the new converts, that they might acquiesce in
this unexpected limitation of their privileges. We
cannot suppose that an alteration so important, and
so deeply affecting the interest of their families, would
have passed in silence. Yet we do not find a single
hint, that the ordinance wbich had come in the room
of circumcision was to be administered to adults
alone, and that their children must wait till they were
capable of making a profession of faith. The lan
guage in which the Jews were addressed on the day
of Pentecost, instead of suggesting a repeal of the
law, seems rather to import that it was to continue in
force: " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For
the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all
that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God
shall call."* In what other light could the audience
understand these words, than that the promise of sal
vation through Christ was made, not to those alone
who believed, but to their seed : that their families
were to be admitted to the privileges of the new dis
pensation as well as themselves ; and that baptism
was to both a sign and seal of their interest in the
covenant. They would naturally and unavoidably
judge this to be the meaning of the declaration, es
pecially as it was expressed in the same terms which
had been used at the institution of circumcision : " I
will establish my covenant between me and thee, and
thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an ever
lasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy
seed after thee." " This is my covenant which ye
shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after
thee : Every man-child among you shall be eircum- /
cised."t God made a covenant with Abraham and
his seed, and the promise is to believers of every na
tion, and their children. There is no difference in
these two cases ; seed and children have the same sig
nification ; and the plain inference is, that the child
ren of Christians are to be baptized, as the children
of Jews were circumcised.
Our Lord said on a certain occasion, " Suffer little
children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for of
such is the kingdom of heaven."! The kingdom of
heaven frequently signifies tbe new dispensation, or
the church upon earth ; and if this is the meaning
here, children are pronounced to belong to it, and have

» Acts ii. 38, 39. f Gcn- xvii- 7> 10- t Matth. xix. 14.

474

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

an undoubted right to the sign of admission. If, how
ever, as some contend, it is the state of glory, the in
ference is still good, that being heirs of eternal life
tbey ought not to be denied the ordinance which is
the seal of their title to it. It is more probable, that
" the kingdom of heaven" is in this passage the
church, and our Lord assigns as the reason why
children should be suffered to come to him, that he
recognized them as members of it. It is a pitiful
evasion to say that tcioi/tw, such, signifies not children,
but persons of child-like dispositions. It makes our
Lord reason inconclusively ; for how could it be a
reason that parents should bring their children to him
to be blessed, that persons resembling children in
humility and teachableness, are members of his
church ? If this interpretation of the passage did not fa
vour their own hypothesis, Antipaedobaptists themselves
would exclaim against it as forced and unnatural.
Passing other arguments from Scripture in favour
of infant baptism, I shall conclude by calling your
attention to the fact, that in the Apostolic age, not on
ly believers themselves were baptized, but their house
holds. Lydia was baptized, "and her household."
The jailor of Philippi was baptized, " and all his ;"*
and Paul baptized " the household of Stephanas."!
These are only a sample of tbe hundreds and thou
sands of families, to whom this rite was administered
upon the faith of their parents. A household compre
hends all the individuals living together under the
same roof, and subject to the same domestic govern
ment ; and certainly children are not excluded. This
would be an arbitrary and most unwarrantable limita
tion of the term. When it is used on any other oc
casion, it always suggests the idea not only of ser
vants but of children, and, in the first place, of the
latter ; and it would suggest this idea to all the read
ers of the New Testament, if their minds were free
from prejudice, and had nothing in view but to dis
cover the truth. Were we told now that a certain
man had been baptized and his family, there is not one
of us who would not immediately think of his chil
dren, and conclude, that they had all been washed
with water in the name of the Trinity. It may be
objected to this view, that we have no certainty that
there were children in the families mentioned ; but
this is a miserable subterfuge. What was done in the
cases specified, was done in many other instances ;
for they are recorded as a specimen of the mode of
procedure, and it would be truly wonderful, if among
all the converts in the primitive times, there was not
one who had children ; so wonderful indeed that no
man in his sober senses could believe it. As the ex
istence of children in families is so common that tbe
exceptions are rare, we are authorized to conclude,
that they were often found in the houses of the early
disciples ; and the argument from the baptism of house
holds is obviously on our side. We have satisfactory
evidence that the Apostles baptized infants ; and un
less they were considered as belonging to the church,
and proper subjects of this seal of their admission in
to it, we can affix no meaning to these words of Paul,
"The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,
and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband :
else were your children unclean ; but now are they
holy."! The holiness of children which they derive
from the faith of their parents, can signify nothing but
I their separation from the world, and their dedication
to the service of Christ, of which their baptism is a
sign. It appears now that we have a better warrant for the
baptism of children than human authority ; that it is
not a corruption of a divine institution ; and that they
who confine it to adults are chargeable with wresting

• Acts xvi. 15, 33. ] x Cor. i. 16. { 1 Cor. vii. 14.

from believing parents and their offspring, a privilege
which God has granted to the spiritual, as well as to
the natural posterity of Abraham.

LECTURE LXXXIX.
ON THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM.
Baptism Administered in Name of the Trinity.— Meaning and
Import of the Words Used. — Who may Baptize. — Lay Bap
tism ; Baptism by Heretics. — Place of Baptism. — Sponsors.
— The Blessings of Regeneration; Pardon, Adoption, and
Resurrection to Life, Signified by Baptism. — Duties of the
Baptized. The symbol in baptism is water, which is applied
to the body by aspersion or affusion, and has been
chosen, as will afterwards appear, as an expressive
sign of internal purification. I proceed to slate that
the ordinance is to be administered in the name
of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
At our reception into the communion of the church,
there is a solemn recognition of the blessed Trinity,
and a distinct mention of the three persons of the God
head, as one in essence and equal in power and author
ity. The order in which they are enumerated, corres
ponds to the order of subsistence, which we do not
understand, but according to which the Father is the
first, the Son begotten of the Father is the second, and
the Spirit proceeding from both is the third. This is
not the proper place for demonstrating the divinity of
the second and the third persons of the Trinity, but
we cannot pass on without remarking, that one proof
is furnished by baptism. They are associated with
the first person in the same religious ordinance. We
are called to look up to them all with equal reverence,
to expect the blessings signified and sealed from them
all, and to consider ourselves as brought under obliga
tions to give them all the same homage and obedience.
Can it be believed, that, as some affirm, the Son is
only a man like ourselves, and the Holy Ghost is an
angel or merely a name for a divine operatiorrupon the
mind ? Has our Lord commanded us to be baptized
in the name of God, of a creature, and of a manifes
tation of divine power?
It may be deemed questionable, whether the express
mention of all the persons of the Trinity is essential
to baptism ; because in the Aets, when Paul baptized
some of the disciples of John, he is said to have bap
tized them " in the name of the Lord Jesus."* It may,
however, be supposed that the historian gives only an
abbreviated form ; and it is probable, that the Apostles
would adhere to the terms of their original commis
sion. There was no reason why they should deviate
from it; and we take the course which becomes us,
when we literally follow the instructions of Him who
¦gave this ordinance to his church.
The expression in the original is not ev to ovo/mti,]
but ut to ovaLta.X It has been remarked, that these two
forms of expression are of different import : that the
former denotes the impulsive cause of an action, and
the latter the object, or final cause of it. Whether
it, and a; should be thus distinguished, when they are
joined with the noun ovo/uci, I will not pretend to deter
mine ; but it is certain that the one preposition is
sometimes used for the other, or that tic is used when »
would have expressed the meaning equally well. If
we adopt the common translation of the phrase, it will
signify that we are baptized by the authority of the
persons of the Trinity. It is worthy of attention, that
when ovollo. occurs in connexion with baptism, the ex
pression commonly is w to ovofta. ; and the words of the

* Acts xix. 5.

f In the name.

I To the name.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : BAPTISM.

475

Apostolic commission may be rendered, " baptizing
them to the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost." The meaning may be collected by a
reference to the words of Paul to the Corinthians :
" Was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized to
the name of Paul ? I thank God that I baptized none
of you, but Crispus and Gaius, lest any of you should
say, that I baptized in my own name."* These ques
tions were suggested by the schism among the Cor
inthians, of whom some said, "lam of Paul, and
others, I am of Apollos ;" and to convince them of
the folly and sinfulness of their conduct, the Apostle
reminds them that they were not baptized to his name,
initiated by that ordinance into the faith and profession
of his religion, but into the service of Christ, who
alone should for this reason be acknowledged as their
Master. There is, however, one instance of a different
form of expression, which may give rise to a suspicion
that ut to ovolvl and ev tu ovo/lcvti are equivalent, and that
the alleged distinction between them is rather fanciful
than real. When the Holy Ghost had fallen upon
Cornelius and his company, Peter " commanded them
to be baptized in ihe name of the Lord,"] tv to ovo/xclti
tou Kvpiov. It is possible, however, that there was a
design in using both expressions, and that they were
intended to convey different ideas ; tv to ovollxti denot
ing the authority from which the ordinance has pro
ceeded, and ac to ovofta., the object to which we are de
dicated in it.
The administration of baptism in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, sig
nifies that we are baptized by the authority of the per
sons of the Holy Trinity. They all concurred in
giving this institution to the church, as they all co
operated in our salvation, of which it is a sign. It is
a memorial of the love of the Father, in sending bis
Son to be the Saviour of the world, of the love of the
Son in assuming our nature and dying for our sins,
and of the love of the Spirit in coming forth to purify
our souls. The united wisdom, and power, and grace
of the subsistences in the Divine essence, were dis
played in the redemption of fallen man, and our ad
mission to the new covenant is their conjunct act.
Again, the administration of baptism in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
signifies that we are baptized into the faith and profes
sion of the Holy Trinity. We are baptized to their
name. This mysterious doctrine of our religion, that
there are three Persons in one undivided essence, equal
in power and glory, is explicitly and solemnly recog
nised : and it follows, that whoever afterwards denies
this fundamental truth under whatever pretext, who
ever ascribes divinity Jo the Father alone, and pro
nounces the Son and the Spirit to be inferior to him,
renounces the faith which he was bound by the most
sacred engagements to maintain. But a simple ac
knowledgment of the Trinity does not fulfil the de
sign of our baptism. We are required to regard the
persons of the Godhead with devout affections, corres
ponding to the manifestations of them in redemption ;
to look up with reverence and love to the Father as
our Father ; to feel our obligations to the Son, and to
depend upon him alone for pardon and eternal life ; and
to expect from the Holy Ghost those gracious opera
tions and aids, by which we shall be sanctified and
prepared for heaven, and those consolations which will
be a source of peace and transcendent happiness,
amidst the difficulties and distresses of life.
In a word, the administration of baptism in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;
imports that we are dedicated to the service of those
Divine persons ; that we are engaged to offer religious
worship to them, as separately and conjunctly the pro

per objects of it, and to yield unreserved and uninter
mitted obedience to their law, as revealed in the Scrip
tures. Baptism, which is denominated a seal of the
covenant, ought to be viewed in the light of a federal
transaction. On the one hand the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, promise to bestow upon the baptized the
blessings of salvation, of which water is a symbol ;
and on the other hand, they come under an engage
ment " to observe all things whatsoever Christ has
commanded us."
Before I proceed to speak of the blessings which
are signified and sealed by baptism, it may be
proper to inquire to whom it belongs by right to ad
minister this ordinance. The catechism of the Coun
cil of Trent, having stated that bishops and priests
have a right to baptize, and that deacons may baptize
with their consent, goes on to say, " that the lowest
rank is of those, who on an urgent necessity may bap
tize, but without the use of the solemn ceremonies.
Of this sort are all persons, yea even of the lay-people,
whether men or women, what sect soever they profess;
for this power is permitted even to Jews, infidels, and
heretics, when necessity compels, provided that in do-
ino- so they intend to do what the catholic church does
in°that kind of administration."* In particular this
office is assigned to midwives, " who are allowed to
baptize in the presence of a man who is unskilful in
the performance of this sacrament, although such lib
erty is not granted to other females."! This is what
is called obstetrical baptism, from the Latin word ob-
sletrix, which signifies a midwife. In the ancient
church lay-baptism was held valid although irregular ;
but the baptism of women, and of Jews and infidels,
was rejected.
The admission of persons not invested with the sa
cred office to baptize, originated in the notion of the
absolute necessity of this rite to salvation. Hence,
the above catechism says, " We may admire the ex
ceeding wisdom and goodness of our Lord in admitting
these to baptize; for, seeing this sacrament must
necessarily be received of all, as he appointed water
to be the matter of it, than which nothing can be more
common, so also would he have no one excluded from
the administration of it, although it be not lawful for
all to use the solemn ceremonies ; not as though the
rites and ceremonies are of more dignity, but that they
are of less necessity than the sacrament."! This in
ducement to such a disorderly practice, does not exist
among us, who believe, that although baptism being a
Divine institution, no adult person could safely neglect
it; yet it is not so connected with salvation, that un-
baptized children are excluded from the kingdom of
heaven. We cannot persuade ourselves that the salva
tion of infants is so much in the power of their parents,
that they can deprive thern of eternal life by their care
lessness or deliberate wickedness. Baptism is only a
sign of the communication of spiritual blessings ;
and we entertain no doubt, that as the sign is not
always accompanied with the thing signified, so the
thing signified is often enjoyed without the sign. We
do not, with Papists and too many Protestants, and
particularly with some half-popish Divines of the
Church of England, hold the strange and unscriptural
opinion, which is too much countenanced by the lan
guage of their liturgy, that baptism is regeneration.
In the office of baptism, the priest prays that God
would give "his Holy Spirit to this infant, that he
may be born again ;" and after baptism says, " Seeing
now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is re
generate, and grafted into the body of Christ's church,
let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits."
" We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father,

* 1 Cor. i. 13—15.

f Acts x. 48.

* Cat. Concil. Trid. Pars ii. de Sacram. {22.
fib. {24. Jib. {23.

476

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

that it bath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with
thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by
adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy church."
We maintain that, as many of the Jews were uncir
cumcised in heart, so many children of Christians are
unbaptized in heart ; and we see melancholy and ir
resistible proof of the fact in their subsequent conduct.
We are convinced, that there is a baptism of the Spirit
distinct from the baptism of water ; that the former
does not always accompany the latter ; and that God
gives the Spirit to whom he pleases, without limiting
the gift to the use of the sign. " Although it be a
great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance," says
our Confession of Faith, "yet grace and salvation are
not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person
can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that
are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."*
If it were once admitted, that baptism is not abso
lutely necessary to salvation, the practice of allowing
laymen, women, Jews, and infidels, to baptize would
be given up without reluctance. In this, as in many
other cases, one error has led to another. But we ob
ject to the practice on another ground, namely, that it
is an invasion of the right of the ministers of religion,
to whom alone it belongs to conduct the worship of the
church, and dispense the ordinances. They only have
authority to administer baptism, who have received a
commission from Christ to preach the Gospel. These
two parts of the office are joined together, and should
be exercised by the same persons : " Go and make.
disciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching them."
Such were the words of Christ to the Apostles ; and
he addressed them as the first in a long succession of
individuals, who, although not endowed with miracu
lous powers, were to be employed in performing the
ordinary functions of religion. The work of the min
istry in all its departments, is committed to pastors and
teachers, by whom it has been carried on since Apos
tles, and Prophets, and Evangelists ceased. There
seems to be no reason, except the unscriptural idea
that baptism regenerates ex opere operato,] and is con
sequently of absolute necessity to salvation, — there
seems to be no reason why laymen should be per
mitted to baptize, and not be permitted also to cele
brate the Eucharist; a liberty which, so far as I
know, no church ever conceded to them. Lay-bap
tism ought to be held invalid ; and, were a case of this
kind to occur, the person should be baptized again by
a lawful minister of Christ.
There is a more intricate question respecting bap
tism by heretics, which gave rise to a keen controversy
in the primitive church. Doubts of its validity had been
for sometime entertained ; but, in the third century,
the Christians in Asia came to a decision, in more than
one Council, that all heretics should be re-baptized be
fore their admission into the communion of the Cath
olic Church. Stephen, who was then bishop of Rome,
was filled with indignation, and proceeded to ex-com
municate the Asiatics ; but their cause was espoused
by Cyprian and the other bishops of Africa, who, in
defiance of the threatenings of Stephen, pronounced
baptism administered by heretics to be void of all effi
cacy and validity. It was finally determined by the
Council of Nice, that those who had been baptized
by heretics, should be received into the church simply
by the imposition of hands ; with the exception of the
followers of Paul of Samosata, whom the Council
commanded to be re-baptized, because his sect did not
acknowledge the Trinity. Those who maintained the
invalidity of the baptism of heretics, comprehended
under this denomination all the sects which had sep
arated from the great body of Christians ; for the char-
*Conf. xxviii. { 5.
f By the external observance of the ordinance.

acter was applied in those times with great latitude,
and was sometimes given to worthy persons, who op
posed prevailing errors and superstitions. The decree
of the Council gave a sanction to the baptism of all the
different societies of professed Christians, and except
ed those alone by whom the ordinance was essentially
corrupted. Some are said to have baptized " in the
name of the uncreated God, and in the name of the
created Son, and in the name of the sanctifying Spirit,
who was created by the created Son;" others, "in
the name of the Father the only true God, of Jesus
Christ the Saviour and a creature, and of the Holy
Ghost the servant of both ;" and others, " in the name
of the Father, by the Son, and in the Holy Ghost."
It is evident that baptism administered in such
forms, is not Christian baptism. It is essentially de
fective, because it sets aside the doctrine of the Trin
ity, into the profession of which our Lord commanded
his disciples to be baptized. There is, however, con
siderable difficulty in settling the general question re
specting the validity of baptism. Where the form is
exactly observed, may it not be vitiated by the admin
istrator, although he bear the character of a minister
of Christ? Is every man to be recognized as a min
ister of Christ, having authority to officiate in his
name, who is called such ? the man who errs in the
fundamental doctrines of religion, the man who holds
the Trinity, but is guilty of idolatry, and is tainted
with all the pollutions of the Romish Church ? It
seems to be generally agreed not to scrutinize this
matter too minutely, and to admit baptism administer
ed by any person who holds the office of the ministry
in the church to which he belongs, and who observes
tbe form prescribed by our Saviour, although it may
be encumbered with superstitious rites.
With respect to the place of baptism, it may be ob
served, that as soon as the Christians had churches,
it was administered in them, before the congregation
of the faithful, and the practice of baptizing in private
houses was condemned. The law, however, was re
mitted in favour of the sick and infirm, and might be
dispensed with by the authority of the bishop. Out
Church retains this law ; and private baptism is one
of the five articles of Perth, which were abjured by
our fathers at the renovation of the National Cove
nant. The Scripture gives no direction relative to this
matter; but it is more consonant to the design of the
ordinance, which is a recognition of the baptized as
members of the church, that it should be publicly cel
ebrated. It has been alleged, as an argument for the
public administration of baptism, that it should be
preceded by the preaching of the word ; and an appeal
is made to the commission of the Apostles, " Go and
teach all nations, baptizing them." I would advise
you, for the credit of your understandings, never to
make use of this argument.
The word translated to teach, signifies, to make dis
ciples. As men can be made disciples of Christ only
by teaching, it is certainly implied that they should
be taught before they are baptized ; but the sense of
the passage is totally misapprehended, when it is
understood to mean that baptism must be accon>
panied with the preaching of a sermon. Christ
commands his Apostles to instruct men, before they
receive them into his Church ; and some sage com
mentators conclude that we must preach to adults
when we baptize children ! This is undoubtedly ad
mirable reasoning.
There is no fixed time for the administration of
baptism. In ancient times, some maintained, that
as children were circumcised, so they should be
baptized, on the eighth day after their birth. It
was proposed by others, that it should be deferred for
three years ; and many put it off to old age, and to
their last illness, from an idea that they should obtain

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : BAPTISM.

477

a* once tbe forgiveness of all tbeir sins. It became
the common practice to baptize at Easter all who had
been born since the last return of that festival, except
in cases of necessity, when baptism was performed at
any season of the year. I shall only observe, that as,
on the one hand, indecent haste should be avoided,
which would seem to imply a belief that baptism is
absolutely necessary to salvation; so, on the other
hand, parents should beware of unnecessary delay,
and should embrace an early opportunity of dedicating
their offspring to God.
The persons by whom children should be presented
in baptism, are their parents, and not sponsors, who
in the ancient church were called ayaJV^oi, susceptores,*
and are known in the Church of England by the names
of godfathers and godmothers. It is in the right of
their parents that children are baptized ; parents are
their natural guardians, and upon them the law of God
imposes the duty of bringing them up in the nurture
and admonition of the Lord. Sponsors are unknown
to the Scriptures, and the part which they perform is
truly ridiculous. Nothing can be more inconsistent
with common sense, than to make them answer in the
name of the speechless child. "Dost thou, in the
name of this child, renounce the devil and all his
works ?" " I renounce them all." " Dost thou be
lieve in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ
bis only-begotten Son?" " All this I steadfastly be
lieve." " Wilt thou then obediently keep God's holy
will and commandments, and walk in the same all the
days of thy life?" "I will."
I now proceed to inquire into the import of baptism,
or what blessings ifsignifies and seals.
The first blessing signified by baptism, as it is the
first blessing promised in the new covenant, is regen
eration. I call your attention to the following passage
in the Epistle to Titus : — " But after that'the kindness
and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
not by works of righteousness which we have done,
but according to his mercy he saved us, by the wash
ing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ
our Saviour."! Here mention is made of the thing
signified by baptism, and in such a manner as mani
festly to allude to the ordinance itself. Not only is
the Holy Ghost said to be " shed upon us," in refer
ence to the description of his influences by the meta
phor of water, but we are farther said to be saved by
the " washing of regeneration." The original term,
xovt^ov signifies a bath and ihe water contained in ii,
and must be understood to refer to baptism, the only
washing with water which is known in the Christian
church ; and the expression, the washing of regener
ation, conjoined with the "renewing of the Holy
Ghost," obviously teaches what baptism imports,
namely, the purification of the soul from sin. I quote
also the words of our Lord to Nicodemus, " Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of
God."! The change which is declared to be neces
sary to qualify us for admission into the spiritual and
heavenly kingdom of God, is called a second birth.
The expression was not understood by Nicodemus, and
still excites the surprise, and even the ridicule of some
who profess to be like him, masters in Israel ; but its
meaning is easily apprehended by those who have
studied the Scriptures with attention and humility. It
signifies a moral change effected in the soul by the
Spirit of God, who infuses into it a principle of divine
life, rectifies the disorder of its faculties, and enables
it to fulfil the purpose of its being by glorifying its
Maker. It seems to be designated a new birth, to
intimate that the subject of the change enters upon a
* Undertakers, or sureties, f Tit. iii. 4 — 6. {John iii, 5.

new mode of existence, is introduced as it were into
a new world, becomes a part of the new creation : " If
any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things
are passed away, behold all things are become new."*
The agent is the Holy Ghost; but our Lord speaks
" of water," as well as " of the Spirit." It is the
opinion of some, that the same thing is expressed by
different terms, agreeably to a phraseology not unfre-
quent in the scriptural style; but it is more probable
that water is mentioned because it is the emblem of
the influences of the Spirit. It has been objected, that
there cannot be an allusion to baptism, because the
institution of it was posterior to the interview with
Nicodemus. But this is a mistake, originating in the
supposition that it took its rise from the commission
given to the Apostles after the resurrection, while it is
to be dated from the commencement of our Saviour's
ministry, and only received a new enactment prior to
his ascension. To the conversation with Nicodemus,
this remark is subjoined by the Evangelist: "After
these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land
of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and bap
tized."! From the passages now cited, it appears
that baptism is significant of the regenerating influ
ences of the Spirit.
A second blessing signified by baptism, is tbe for
giveness of sin. Peter said to the Jews, who were
awakened by his sermon on the day of Pentecost,
" Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name
of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins;"! and
when Ananias was sent to Paul, after he had met the
Lord in the way, he addressed him in the following
words: "And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be
baptized, and wash away thy sins."|| It is not to be
inferred from these passages, that remission is insep
arably connected with baptism any more than regen
eration, so that every person to whom it is adminis
tered, is immediately delivered from a state of con
demnation. The idea is unscriptural, and is adopted
only by those who are grossly ignorant of the econo
my of grace, in which God reserves to himself a
right to give or withhold spiritual blessings according
to his pleasure. But wre are plainly taught, that it is
a sign of remission, or that the application of water
to the body, is a symbol of the purification of the
soul from guilt, by the atoning blood of Christ. It
holds out in figure, the means by which children are
delivered from original sin, and a'dults from both
original and actual. In the ark, "a few, that is,
eight souls, were saved by water ; the like figure
whereunto," says Peter, " even baptism doth also now
save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,
but the answer of a good conscience towards God, by
the resurrection of Jesus Christ."§ It is the symbol
of salvation; and those to whom the blessing signified
by it is imparted, shall as certainly escape the aveng
ing wrath of God, as Noah and his family escaped the
destruction of the flood.
A third blessing signified by baptism, is admission
into the family of God ; for it represents our fellow
ship with Christ, through whom we become his chil
dren. It is the sign of our reception into the church,
the part of the family which is upon earth ; the other
part, consisting cf the spirits of just men made per
fect, being in heaven. The visible church, compre
hending a great proportion of ignorant and worldly-
minded men, cannot be considered as entitled to this
high character; but according to the constitution of
its Founder, the true church is an assembly of persons
who know and obey the truth, and in baptism we are
enrolled among them. The voice of God says from
heaven, " I will be a father unto you, and ye shall be

*2 Cor. v. 17.
U Acts xxii. 16.

¦(¦John iii. 22.
§1 Pet. iii. 21

X Acts ii. 33.

478

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

my sons and daughters." As an Israelitisb male child
was recognized by circumcision to be a descendant of
Abraham, and one of the chosen people, so we are
declared by baptism to be disciples of Christ, and
members of the household of God : " By one Spirit
we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews
or Greeks, whether we be bond or free, and have all
been made to drink into one Spirit."* As the baptism
of water is the external sign of the baptism of the
Spirit, it must represent what this internal baptism
effects; and the Apostle teaches us, that by partaking
of the Spirit, we are incorporated with the people of
God of all nations and conditions. Baptism is there
fore a recognition of our right to the privileges of adop
tion, which unquestionably belong to the members of
his family, and, in particular, of our right to the ex
ternal privileges of the church. In these, Jews, Ma
hometans, and Heathens, have no interest. They are
strangers and foreigners; but the baptized are fellow-
citizens with the saints. They are placed under the
care of the ministers and rulers of the church, should
be regarded by the members as brethren, and have an
interest in their love and their prayers; they are ad
mitted to the benefit of public and private instruction ;
they may claim, if adults, a place at the table of tbe
Lord ; and if children, are entitled to this other seal
of the covenant as soon as they show themselves qual
ified for it by their attainments in knowledge, and the
general propriety of their conduct. It has been ob
jected against the administration of baptism to infants,
that it can be of no advantage to them, because they
are incapable of understanding, or even perceivino- the
transaction. But, besides that it may be productive
of the most beneficial effects at a future period, when
they come to know its meaning, and reflect upon its
solemn obligations ; it is of no small moment that it
introduces them into the society of the people of God.
If the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man
availeth much, we oufjht to set some value upon the
prayers which are offered up by ministers and people
for the young, who are to succeed them in the pro
fession of the truth. If a religious education is of un
speakable benefit, it is one of the happy fruits of their
baptism, in which their parents engaged to instil into
their minds the principles of piety and morality. If
the company of good men, their counsels, their admo
nitions, their example, are calculated to be useful,
they enjoy these in consequence of their adoption
into an association separated from the world lying in
wickedness. The last blessing signified by baptism, is a resur
rection to etprnal life. Some have supposed that there
is a symbolical representation of this event in the
rising of the baptized person from the water: but as it
has appeared that this is not the scriptural mode of ad
ministering the ordinance, we may pronounce this idea
to be altogether fanciful. Paul refers to a connexion
between baptism and the resurrection of Christ, when,
having said that we are buried with him by baptism
into death, he adds, "If we have been planted in the
likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness
of his resurrection."! He is speaking of our death
to sin, and our life to righteousness, or of the spiritual
change in the present slate, of which baptism is a sio-n ;
but if it is expressive of one great effect of the resur
rection of Christ, it may be very naturally considered
as a pledge of all its blessed fruits, and, in particular,
of a glorious immortality. The same Apostle says to
the Colossians, "Ye are buried with him in baptism,
wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith
of ihe operation of God, who hath raised him from the
dead,"! still signifying, that baptism imports our in
terest in the resurrection of Christ, and its conse-

* 1 Cor. xii. 13.

fRom. vi. 5.

X Col.ii. 12.

quences. It was called by the ancients, the earnest of
good things to come, and the type of the future resur
rection. May this not be the meaning of that passage
in ihe fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, concerning which there has been such a
diversity of opinion ? " Else what shall they do which
are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not? why
are tbey then baptized for the dead?"* Some of the
Fathers understood the expression imp tot ytxpcct, to
mean to be baptized into ihe hope of the resurrection of
the dead ; or what amounts to the same thing, to sub
mit to baptism that they might fill up the places of
those who had died, thus declaring their belief that
they had not perished, hut were alive in a better world,
and their hope that, through Jesus Christ, to whom
they dedicated themselves in baptism, they also should
be raised again to enjoy the same glorious recompense.
According to this view of the passage, a resurrection
to life is one of the blessings signified and sealed by
this institution. It assures us of a triumph over death
and the grave, through the redeeming blood of Christ,
with which we are sprinkled ; and of admission into
heaven, for which we are qualified by the washing of
regeneration. It is the seal of God impressed upon
the members of his family, to distinguish them from
the heirs of perdition. Like the blood of the paschal
lamb on the houses of the Israelites, it is a pledge of
the Safety of believers on that awful day, when sin
ners shall rise to shame and everlasting contempt, and,
were it possible, would hide themselves again in the
grave from the wrath of the Judge.
Let us inquire what are the obligations of baptism,
or what are the duties incumbent upon those to whom
it has been administered.
We have already remarked, that it is a federal rite,
in which God promises to bestow upon men the bless
ings of the covenant of grace, and they come under
an engagement to obey the law of the covenant.
When an Israelite was circumcised, he was bound to
keep the whole law, " for circumcision," says Paul,
"verily profiteth if thou keep the law; but if thou
be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made un-
circumcision."! Baptism is of the same import, and
ratifies our subjection to the authority of Christ, whose
disciples we profess to be, and into the communion of
whose church we are admitted. The commission to
baptize all nations was connected with an injunction
" to teach them to observe all things whatsoever he
had commanded them." To this federal transaction
Peter alludes, when he says, that " baptism doth now
save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh
but the answer of a good conscience toward God,"—
o-vvaSwtut cLyuBm empaTh/to..] UmpecTHLicL signifies an inter,
rogation, and likewise an answer to an interrogation,
and refers in the present case to the questions proposed
to the candidates for baptism, of which we have a
specimen in the words of Philip to the eunuch of
Ethiopia, " If thou believest with all thine heart thou
mayest." When an adult person could answer this
question and others of a similar nature with a good
conscience, baptism was to him an assurance of salva
tion. He had entered with an upright heart into the
service of Christ, and should certainly receive the
promised recompense.
First, Baptism implies an engagement to believe all
the truths which Christ has revealed. It imports, as
we have seen, a profession of our faith in the Trinity,
a doctrine which, when viewed in its connexions and
consequences, is found to involve all the other doctrines
of Christianity. Being recognized as the disciples of
Jesus, we publicly own him as our teacher, and place
ourselves under his care, to receive his instructions
without murmuring or disputing. Full confidence must

1 Cor. xv. 29.

T Rom. ii. 25.

fl Pet. iii. 21.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE LORD'S SUPPER.

479

be placed in his wisdom as infallible, and obedience
must be yielded to his authority without hesitation.
The baptized ought to believe without demanding any
other evidence but his testimony ; to embrace every
doctrine whiGh he delivers, although its truth be not
manifest to reason, nor deducible from its principles.
The man who makes his own understanding the mea
sure of his creed, who admits into it only what he
deems plain and perspicuous articles, and rejects such
as are mysterious, disregards the command which
came from the excellent glory, and retracts tbe sub
mission which he pledged in his baptism. In the
early ages of the church, when converts from Judaism
and Heathenism sought admission into it, the candi
dates for baptism were previously instructed in the
principles of the Christian religion, and were required
to make a public profession of their faith. Certain
questions were proposed, to which satisfactory answers
were expected. The formulary was different in different
places ; but the subject was the same, and is contain
ed in the creed, which goes under the name of the
Apostles', although it was not composed by them. It
is a summary of what was considered to be the doc
trine of the Apostles, and of the faith which the mem
bers of the church were bound to profess and main
tain. Secondly, Baptism implies an engagement to ob
serve the ordinances of Christ. When we enter into
a new society, we pledge ourselves to conform to its
laws and usages. When a Heathen was baptized, he
renounced polytheism and idolatry, and bound himself
henceforth to worship the living and true God, through
his Son the only Mediator. When a Jew was baptiz
ed, he renoiuiced the altar, the priesthood, and the ob
ligations of The law, that he might offer spiritual sac
rifices, in the name and through the intercession of the
High Priest of our profession. As Christ is the Su
preme Lord of the church, it belongs to him only to
appoint religious ordinances ; and consequently, the
engagement of which we are speaking, extends no
farther than his will as expressed in the Scriptures ;
it imposes no obligation upon us to observe any of the
inventions of men in religion. Baptism does not intro
duce us into the particular society of Christians by
whose ministers it is dispensed, but into the Catholic
church ; and the duties arising from it are exclusively
those which are incumbent upon all the followers of
Christ, without any reference to the peculiarities of a
party. We are not baptized into the observance of
the rites and ceremonies, or into the belief of the .er
roneous dogmas of the church in which we happen to
be born. Baptism is our dedication to Christ; and its
design is fulfilled, when, adhering closely to his in
stitutions, we worship the Father in Spirit and in
truth. Lastly, Baptism implies an engagement to obey the
commandments of Christ. In the primitive church the
candidate was solemnly asked, " Dost thou renounce
tbe devil, and his pomp and his service, and dost thou
join thyself to Christ?" and upon his returning an
affirmative answer to these questions, baptism was ad
ministered to him. After having reminded Christians
of their baptism, as expressive of their communion
with Christ in his death and resurrection, Paul ad
dresses the following exhortations to them : " Like
wise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto
sin, and alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that
ye should obey it in the lusts thereof; neither yield
ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness
unto sin ; but yield yourselves unto God, as those that
are alive from the dead, and your members as instru
ments of righteousness unto God."* As the ear of
*Rom. vi. 11—13.

the Hebrew servant who loved his master was bored,
to denote that he was to remain in his house durino
his life, so, by the command of Christ, water is
sprinkled or poured upon us, to signify that we are de
dicated to his service for ever.
Baptism, like circumcision, is administered but
once ; not, as Papists maintain, because it impresses
an indelible character upon the soul, or a mystical
quality by which the baptized are fitted for the ser
vice of God, conformed to Christ, and distinguished
from others ; but because regeneration, of which it is
significant, is not repeated, and the obligations under
which it places us can never be disannulled.
Although children are insensible of the transaction,
and can therefore at the time derive no moral benefit
from it, yet reflection upon it at a subsequent period
may be productive of the happiest effects. To a mind
seriously disposed, it must be an affecting considera
tion, that almost as soon as we entered upon life, we
were received into the church of the living God, placed
under the dispensation of grace, and consecrated to
our Creator and Redeemer. The situation is evidently
calculated to awaken sentiments of gratitude, and to
call forth our most fervent wishes and diligent endeav
ours, that the merciful intention of Heaven with re
spect to us may be accomplished. If a young per
son attend to the circumstances in which he is placed,
he will feel that he is not at liberty to choose bis own
manner of life, to dispose of himself according to his own
pleasure ; but is under engagements which it will be
his interest to fulfil, and which he cannot violate with
out great guilt and inexpressible danger.
The baptism of children is calculated to produce the
best effects upon parents. It places their children in a
new relation to them, and presents them under a new
aspect. Parents are now their spiritual guardians,
appointed to superintend their eternal as well as their
temporal interests. Their children are a sacred, de
posit, and are not so much theirs as the Lord's, for
whose service it is their chief business to prepare
them. Their own concern in the solemn transaction,
is a powerful appeal to their consciences, and calls for
their active endeavours to accomplish the design with
which they presented them to be baptized. Some dis
approve of exacting any vow or promise from parents,
and administer the ordinance with a simple declaration
of their duty. It is not a matter of much moment
whether they come under a verbal engagement, or not,
because the law of God previously binds them, and
their appearance is a recognition of their obligations.
In the act of giving their children to the Lord, they
virtually promise to educate them for his service, and
to make their souls, still more than their bodies, the
objects of solicitude.

LECTURE XC.
ON THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.'
Institution and Primitive Simplicity of the Rite. — Its Gradual
Corruption. — Transubstantiation. — Meaning of the Words
of Institution. — Its Contrariety to the Language of Scrip
ture, to Reason, and to Common Sense. — Pascal's Defence
of it Examined.
Our Lord, having eaten the passover with his dis
ciples the evening on which he was betrayed, institut
ed the sacred supper, to be a memorial of his suffer
ings, a sign of his presence with the church, and a
seal of the new covenant which he was to confirm the
next day with his blood. An account of it is given
by the Evangelists ; but that which I shall lay before
you, as the most distinct and complete, is found in one
of the Epistles of Paul, to whom it had been com-

480

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

municated by our Saviour himself. " I have received
of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That
the Lord Jesus, the same night on which he was be
trayed, took bread ; and when he had given thanks he
brake it, and said, Take, eat ; this is my body which
is broken for you ; this do in remembrance of me.
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he
had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament
in my blood ; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in re
membrance of me. For as oft as ye eat this bread,
and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till
he come."*
It is evident from the words of the institution, that
it was intended to be a perpetual ordinance. Accord
ingly we learn from the Scriptures that it was observed
in the Apostolical church ; and we know that from
those days down to the present time, it has been celebra
ted by his professed disciples without interruption. In
the primitive church, the original institution was re
tained in its simplicity, as we see from the second
apology of. Justin Martyr, who wrote early in the
second century. No ceremonies were added to render
it more sacred and venerable in the eyes of the people ;
no false notions were entertained of its design ; no
mystery was supposed to be concealed under the sym
bols and the prescribed actions; the words of Christ
were understood according to the meaning which com
mon sense would put upon them, and the ordinance
was regarded as a memorial of his passion, and a
means of strengthening the faith and increasing the
love of his followers. That Father, indeed, informs
us, that they did not receive the bread £; xoivov aprcv and
the cup, it xoivov 7T0LLX., " as common bread and wine ;"
but it is plain that he did not consider them as sacred
in consequence of any change which they had under
gone in their nature, but solely on account of the pur
pose to which they were applied, and their sacramen
tal relation to our Saviour. That he looked upon them,
although not common, as still bread and wine, appears
from his calling them expressly " nourishment," by
¦ ; which our flesh and blood are nourished through their
conversion into our substance.
In this light the elements were received for several
ages after the days of Justin Martyr, as is manifest
from many passages which have been quoted from the
Fathers, and which show, that they considered them
as still bread and wine, and as having acquired the
names of the body and blood of the Lord only in con
sequence of his appointment, and their sanctification
by the offices of the ministers of religion. In process
of time highly figurative language began to be used,
which, if literally understood, imported a corporeal
presence of Christ; and such modes of expression
were employed to excite the greater reverence for the
institution, and it may be, in some cases, to display
the eloquence of the speaker or writer. A notion
was adopted by some, and brought forward in the
controversy with the Eutychians, that there was a
union between Christ and the elements, similar to that
between the divine and human nature in his person.
Now, although this notion supposed the elements to
remain unchanged, to be bread and wine after as well
as before consecration, as the human nature retains its
essence and properties notwithstanding its personal
subsistence in the divine ; yet, it manifestly prepared
the way, in connexion with the rhetorical language
mentioned above, for the idea of a real transmutation
which was afterwards broached. Ignorance was fast
spreading over the Eastern, and particularly the West
ern church. Men without learning, and with only a
form of religion, were the fit subjects of delusion,
and would receive with little hesitation the most
absurd and incredible opinions, if they were recom-

* 1 Cor. xi. 23—26.

mended by an air of mystery, and enjoined by the
authority of priests.
It was in the ninth century that a real change of the
substance of the elements in the Lord's Supper, was first
openly and explicitly maintained. The author of this
heresy was Pascasius Radbert, abbot of Corbey in
France, who, in a treatise concerning the sacrament of the
body and blood of Christ, taught " that after the conse
cration of the bread and wine, nothing remained of these
symbols but Ihe outward figure, under which the body
and blood of Christ were really and locally present ; and
that the body of Christ thus present in the eucharist,
was the same body which was born of the virgin, suf
fered on the cross, and was raised from the dead."*
This novel opinion met with powerful opposition from
many distinguished persons of the age. In particular,
by the command of the emperor Charles the Bold,
Johannes Scotus, and Ratramn or Bertram, composed
treatises with a view to state the true doctrine of the
eucharist. The work of Scotus has perished ; but
that of Ratramn is preserved, and gives the same view
of the subject which is adopted by the Protestant
churches.! But the monstrous notion of Radbert ac
corded with the love of mystery, which has so power
ful an influence upon a great part of mankind; and it
was so well calculated to increase veneration for the
clergy, and to consolidate their dominion over the peo
ple, that although clearly refuted, it would not be
easily abandoned by those whose interest it was to
maintain it. Revolting as it is to common sense, as
well as contrary to the faith of the church in the pre
ceding ages, it obtained powerful patronage, was gradu
ally diffused among the nations of the west, and was
finally established as an article of faith 19 the Church
of Rome, under the name of Transubstantiation. It
received its final sanction from the Council of Trent,
which enacted the two following decrees. " If any
man shall deny that in the sacrament of the most holy
Eucharist, there are contained truly, really, and sub
stantially the body and blood, together with the soul
and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and therefore
a whole Christ; and shall say that they are only in it
as in a sign, or by a figure, or virtually ; let him be ac
cursed." Again, " If any man shall say that in the
holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there remains the
substance of the bread and wine, together wilh the
body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall
deny the wonderful and singular conversion of the
whole substance of the bread into the body, and the
whole substance of the wine into the blood, the species
of bread and wine only remaining, which conversion
the catholic church most fitly calls Transubstantiation ;
let him be accursed."!1
The doctrine of transubstantiation, which was at
first rudely exhihited, required time, and labour, and
ingenuity, to mould it into its present form. In order
to explain it more distinctly, let me request your at
tention to the following particulars.
First, The Church of Rome teaches that the sacra
ment of the body and blood of Christ is not a sign or
figure, as is the case in other sacraments, and partic
ularly in baptism, in which water represents the in
fluences of the Holy Ghost; but that the true body
and blood of Christ are really and substantially present.
Communicants receive not the sign, but the thing sig
nified, for here they are identified.
Secondly, Whereas the eye sees nothing but bread
and wine, Papists farther teach, that tbe substance of
the elements is annihilated, and only the species re
main. There is merely an appearance of bread and
wine. The accidents, namely, the colour, the taste,
* Mosheim, Cent. ix. chap. iii. { 19
t Lib. de Corpore, 224, 284, et passim.
j Concil. Tnd. Sess. 13. de Euchar. cap. viii. can. 1,2.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE: THE LORD'S SUPPER.

481

tbe smell, the shape, are miraculously retained, while
that which supported them is taken away. Our senses
assure us that bread and wine are before us ; but faith
tells us that these are the incarnate Redeemer himself.
We have accidents without a substance.
Thirdly, The Church of Rome teaches another mys
tery with respect to the corporeal presence of Christ.
It has been always understood to be an essential pro
perty of body to be extended, as it consists of parts
placed beyond parts, which must occupy a certain por
tion of space; and such, therefore, it is acknowledged,
is the body of our Saviour in heaven. Bui in the
Eucharist, as they suppose, his body is present with
out extension. As we have seen that accidents may
subsist without matter, so, it seems, matter may sub
sist without accidents ; or in other words, although
extension is a property of body, there may be a body
which is not extended. The body of Christ is present
in the Eucharist, after the manner of a spirit ; it does
not fill up the space left vacant by the annihilation of
the substance of the elements; that space is a pure
vacuum, or is filled only by the accidents. Hence it
follows, that the division of the elements does not di
vide the body and blood of Christ, for that which is
not extended is not frangible and separable ; but, in
every particle of the bread, and in every drop of the
wine, the whole body and blood of Christ are contain
ed. If you should not comprehend all this, I cannot
help it. It is enough to have stated fairly the doctrine
of the Church. I am not obliged to make you under
stand what is absolutely unintelligible.
Fourthly, The change is effected when the follow
ing words are pronounced : " This is my body" —
" This is my blood." Till this moment the elements
were truly what they appeared to be, bread and wine ;
but as soon as the words are finished, they are tran
substantiated. The words are evidently declarative ;
but Papists consider them as productive or creative.
A virtue goes forth with them to effect the wonderful
change, as it accompanied the words of the Apostles
when they commanded the diseased to be whole; but
the miracle is far more extraordinary than any which
they performed, because nobody sees it, and still all
are bound to believe it. When a common juggler per
forms his feats, one substance vanishes, and another
appears in its place ; but this is the wonder of won
ders, that here there is a change of substances, yet no
change is perceived, and all things continue exactly
as they were. This is a happy circumstance for the
Popish jugglers, as no dexterity is necessary to im
pose upon the senses, and all that is required is a suffi
cient degree of credulity in the spectators.
In defence of this doctrine, Papists appeal to tbe
Words of institution, and affirm that they must be un
derstood in their obvious and literal sense. "This is
my body," must niean, " This is truly my body ;"
and "This is my blood," "This is truly my blood."
Yet, even they will not contend that other passages
of Scripture, in which the phraseology is similar,
should be subjected to the same rigid interpretation.
They never suppose that, when our Lord said, " I am
the vine," "I am the way," "lam the door," he
meant us to understand that he is literally a vine, a
way, and a door; but readily concede that we should
put a spiritual sense upon such passages. It belongs,
therefore, to them to assign a satisfactory reason why
the same liberty should not be granted in explaining
the words of institution. It may, indeed, be more justly
claimed in the present than in any other case, because
the words confessedly relate to a sacrament, in which
symbols are employed ; and nothing is more natural
than to give the name of the thing signified to the
sign. It has been remarked, that, in the Hebrew and the
Syriac, a dialect of which was spoken by our Lord,-
3L 31

there is no word which expresses to denote, signify, or
represent, and tiiat its place is supplied by the verb of
existence. When we would say, this thing signifies
another thing, the Jews said, this thing is another
thing. Thus the seven good kine and the seven ill-fa
voured kine in Pharaoh's dream, " are seven years,"*
that is, signify seven years of fertility or barrenness;
the ten horns in Daniel, " are ten kings,"! or> are
emblems of them ; " the seven stars are the angels of
the seven churches, and the seven candlesticks are the
seven churches,"! the stars and the candlesticks being
representatives of the angels and the churches. There
is one passage in particular which exactly resembles
the words under consideration, and is a sure guide in
the interpretation of them, as it expressly refers to
that ordinance, in the room of which the Lord's Sup
per has succeeded. Moses said of the paschal lamb,
" It is the Lord's passover,"! Just as our Saviour said
of the bread, "This is my body." The passover was
the act of God, who passed over the houses of the
Israelites ; the lamb was only a memorial of it, and
was so understood by every Israelite. Now, if we
reflect that the Jews were accustomed, in this case to
call the sign by the name of the thing signified, wo
shall perceive that the disciples were in no danger of
mistaking their Master's meaning, when he called the
bread, his body ; that they must have instantly under
stood his design, and known that nothing more was
intended than to constitute the bread a sign or memo
rial of his body, especially as he added, "This do
in remembrance of me." The two expressions are
so perfectly alike, that it is impossible to put any
sense upon the one which may not be put upon the
other ; and it would be as rational to infer from the
former, that the paschal lamb was God himself in the
act of passing over the houses of the Israelites, as it
would be to infer from the latter, that the bread is the
very body of Christ which was born of the virgin,
and nailed to the cross. It is evident that the disci
ples understood him simply to mean, that the bread
was a sign and memorial of his body, from the cir
cumstance that they expressed no surprise, and stated
no objection, as they would have done if the doctrine
of transubstantiation had occurred to them ; and as
the Jews did on another .occasion when they inter
preted literally what he had said about eating his flesh
and drinking his blood. "The Jews, therefore, strove
among themselves, saying, How can this man give
us his flesh to eat?"§ The Jews in modern times re
tain their ancient idiom, and say that a thing is, when
it only signifies or represents. At the celebration of
the passover they speak thus of the unleavened cakes
wbich they use on that occasion : " This is the bread,"
that is, a memorial of the bread, " of poverty and
affliction, which our fathers did eat in Egypt."
The language of the New Testament, in other places
where the Lord's Supper is mentioned, is so far from
favouring the doctrine of transubstantiation, that it ex
pressly overthrows it. It is synecdochically called the
breaking of bread ; but this designation would be im
proper and false if there was a change of the sub
stance, because then it would not be bread which was
broken, but the true body of Christ. The Apostle
Paul calls the symbol of our Saviour's body, bread,
not only before but also after consecration.^ Papists
will allow that it is properly called bread before, but
how can they account for the retaining of the name
after the substance of bread is annihilated ? Would
they allow any member of their Church to call the
consecrated wafer, bread? I presume that if he should
dare to speak the language of the Apostle, he would
be suspected of heresy, and compelled by threats and

*Gen.xli. 26, 27. fDan. vii. 24. JRev.i.20.
|| Exod. xii. 11. § John vi. 52. IT 1 Cor. xi. 26 -28,

482

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

punishment to recant ; and hence we may conclude,
that Paul's ideas on the subject were very different
from those of the Pope and his priests. He has ex
plained himself in another place, in such a manner as
to satisfy any reasonable man. " The cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood
of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the
communion of the body of Christ?"* The manifest
import of these words is, that by partaking of the
symbols of his body and blood, we have fellowship
with him in his atoning sacrifice, and all its precious
fruits. Papists draw an argument for transubstantiation
from the words of our Lord, in the sixth chapter of
John, where he speaks of himself under the figure of
bread which had come down from heaven, and then
adds, " The bread that I will give is my flesh, which
I will give for the life of the world."! " When,
therefore," says the Catechism of Pius the Fifth, "in
so plain and clear words he called his flesh, bread,
and true meat, and his blood, true drink, it might well
seem sufficient to declare that there remains no sub
stance of bread and wine in the sacrament."! But the
compilers of that catechism, and all Papists who
make use of this argument, should have read the
whole discourse, and read it attentively, and consid
ered the occasion on which it was delivered: and they
would have found that it has no relation to the Eucha
rist, and that instead of upholding, it overthrows their
doctrine. It was delivered before the institution of
the Eucharist; and to suppose that he spoke of it by
anticipation, is to represent him as speaking unintel
ligibly from design, as he must have known that it
was impossible for any person present to understand
him. It is plain that he spoke of the benefits which
were to result to the human race from his death, and
of the spiritual participation of them by faith ; for he
says, " He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and
he that believeth on me shall never thirst."|| It is
farther evident, that the Eucharist is not the subject
of discourse, from two passages, of which the one de
clares, that "unless we eat his flesh, and drink his
blood, we have no life in us ;" and the other says,
" Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath
eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."§
If these passages refer to the sacrament of the Sup
per, it follows, that no man can be saved unless he
partake of it, and that every person who does partake
of it, shall be raised to immortal life. I do not know
whether Papists will admit the first of these infer
ences, but the last they will reject; and if they would
therefore explain Scripture, not by detached expres
sions, but according to its connexion and harmony,
they must allow that our Saviour does not intend the
sacramental eating of his flesh, but the cordial belief
ofhis doctrine, which is frequently represented by the
metaphors of eating and drinking. The Jews, it ap
pears, understood what he had said in the same carnal
sense which the Church of Rome annexes to the words
of institution. Like the members of that Church, they
took all grossly and literally, being equally incapable
as they of apprehending the spiritual meaning. Mis
led by their own error, they were astonished, and no
doubt shocked ; as they well might be if theirs had
been the just interpretation of his words. But our
Lord told them that they were mistaken ; and, as if
with a view to reprove such of his professed follow
ers as should afterwards dream of a real manducation
ofhis body, he said, " It is the Spirit that quickeneth,
the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that I speak
unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."«f The
*1 Cor. x. 16. -fJohn vi. 51.
ICat. Concil. Trident. Pars ii. Dc E"rh. Rat-ram. ? 37
J John vi. 35. { lb. 53, 54. K lb. 63.

meaning obviously is, that his words, which had given
so much offence, were to be understood in a spiritual
sense ; that he did not speak of a literal eating of his
body ; and that, although such a thing had been prac
ticable, it would have been productive of no salutary
effect. Thus he overturns the whole fabric of transub
stantiation, so far as it is founded upon this, and con
sequently upon any other passage ; for his words must
be spiritually understood elsewhere as well as here,
the reason being always the same. As the supposed
change of the elements is false, so it is pronounced by
him to be useless. "The flesh profiteth nothing."
It is sufficient to show, that transubstantiation re
ceives no support from Scripture, and is founded on
such a perversion of its language as can be accounted
for, only by the ignorance and superstition of the age
when this monstrous opinion was invented. But there
are several other objections against this doctrine, which
fully justify the Protestant churches in rejecting it.
First, It destroys the nature of a sacrament. Two
things are necessary to a sacrament, a sign and a thing
signified, an object presented to our senses and some
promised blessing which is represented and sealed by
it. This definition is admitted by the Church of Rome.
The catechism of Pope Pius says, that, according to
the Latin doctors, sacraments might conveniently be
called " sensible signs, which work or effect that
grace which at Ihe same time they signify ;" and it
adopts the definition of Augustine, which has been uni
versally followed, that " a sacrament is a visible sign
of a holy thing," or " a visible sign of an invisible
grace."* Baptism accords with this definition, for
water represents the purifying influences of the Spirit,
and the sign is distinct from the thing signified. But
by transubstantiation the sign is miraculously taken
away, and the thing signified is put in its place. We
say that the bread is a sign of the body of Christ;
hut Papists affirm that it is his body itself. It is true
that there is still an appearance of bread, but it is only
an appearance ; and, besides that it would be strange
and harsh to maintain, that a fallacious appearance is
a sign given by God himself to his church, it would
be absurd to make a thing the sign of itself. But this
Papists do, while they hold that there is nothing real
before us but the very body of Christ. Thus the Lord's
Supper is no sacrament at all. The symbols are anni
hilated, and the substance occupies their place.
Secondly, Transubstantiation implies some things
which are contrary to the clearest notions of mankind,
founded upon experience. It is by experience that we
come to know what are the properties of body. Now
there are three things respecting it, about which no
doubt was ever entertained by any philosopher who
was possessed of common sense. The first is, that a
body is confined to a particular place. It has figure,
and is bounded by lines describing the portion of space
which it occupies. It may be transported from one
place to another ; but it appears to us as impossible that
it should be in two places at the same time, in Europe
and in America, in heaven and on earth, as that two
and two should make five. The second thing concern
ing body, of which reason informs us, is that it is ex
tended. It consists of parts, each of which fills a
certain portion of space ; and the portion is greater or
less, according to the aggregate of parts. To suppose
matter to exist without extension, is as unintelligible as
to suppose it to exist without divisibility. The third
thing, which is equally evident with the other two, is,
that the qualities of matter are dependent upon matter.
We know indeed only the qualities of matter ; but we
necessarily conclude that there is something to which
they belong, a substratum by which they are support
ed. We can form no conception of whiteness, if
* Pars ii. de Sacram. { 3, 5.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE LORD'S SUPPER.

there is nothing white ; of roundness, if there is nothing
round ; of extension, if there is nothing extended.
To imagine that there may be accidents without a sub
stance, is not more rational than to imagine that there
may be thought without a thinking being, and would
lead us into the ideal philosophy, which affirms that
there is no external world, and that the objects which
appear to be without us, are only sensations or percep
tions of the mind excited by some unknown cause.
Transubstantiation is at variance with these dictates
of reason. First, It supposes a body to be, at the
same time, in more places than one. It is in heaven
at the right hand of God, and it is on earth on the al
tars of the Romish Church. It does not come down
from heaven to earth ; but it remains in heaven, and
yet is upon earth. It is present, not in one place on
earth only, but in a thousand places, in the east and
the west, the north and the south ; wherever a priest
has, with a due intention, pronounced the words of in
stitution. It is not present, as a piece of matter may be,
by being divided into different parts, and carried hither
and thither; but it is wholly present in Rome, wholly
present in Paris, wholly present in this city, wholly
present wherever mass is celebrated. I may add, that
the human nature of Christ according to this doctrine,
exists at the same moment in very different states. It
is glorified on the throne of heaven, and humbled on
the altar ; it is seen and adored by the blessed spirits
above, and concealed from men under the species of
the elements. This simple statement is itself sufficient
to show, that the wildest dream of a madman is not
more absurd than the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Secondly, It supposes, as I showed when giving
you an account of the doctrine, that matter may sub
sist without extension. The body and blood of Christ
are really and substantially present in the Eucharist;
but they occupy no portion of space. It would have
been natural to conclude, that when the elements are
annihilated, their place was filled up with that into
which they are changed ; but wonderful as this would
have been, we are required to believe something still
more extraordinary. Here is the mystery of mysteries !
We touch the bread and feel that it is a solid substance ;
but let us not mistake. It is not bread ; it is not flesh ;
what is it? It is an assemblage of accidents, which
have no substance, and are mere appearances. There
is flesh indeed present; but it cannot be touched, for
it is present after tbe manner of a spirit. You may
divide this bread, or this flesh, or this assemblage of
accidents, into a thousand parts; but in each of these
parts the whole of Christ is contained. Now, what is
this but to say, that there is matter which is not mat
ter; that is, to assert, without disguise, the most pal
pable contradiction ? A man may say that he believes
it; but to do so is as impossible as to believe that a
thing may be and not be at the same time. Lastly,
The doctrine supposes that the properties of matter
may be separated from it, and may subsist by them
selves. Our senses tell us that the consecrated wafer is
bread. It looks like bread, it tastes like bread, it
smells like bread ; but still it is not bread, but both
flesh and blood, according to the doctrine of concomi
tance, which will be afterwards explained. What is
more, the space which the bread originally occupied is
a vacuum, for the body of Christ is present without
extension. Here, then, we have extension where there
is nothing extended ; colour where there is nothing
coloured; taste and smell where there is.nothing sap-
orific or fragrant. If any person should affirm it to be
possible that a man's shape and features might continue
to be visible, after he had removed out of sight, even
Papists would pronounce him to be a fool or a mad
man ; but they are unquestionably subject to the same
charge, when they teach that all tbe properties of bread
may "remain after the bread itself is annihilated.

463
But Papists have recourse to a miracle, and tell us,
that although these things respecting matter and its
properties are true, according to' the ordinary course of
nature, God acts in this case, by his almighty power,
in an extraordinary manner. We acknowledge that his
power is infinite, that it can do many things which to
us are inconceivable, that it is able to accomplish events
in a manner different from, and contrary to, the course
of nature. But observe, that it is one thing to be con
trary to the course of nature, and another to be contrary
to the nature of things. When God preserved the three
Jewish confessors in a furnace, he did not change the
nature of fire, or make it cold, but merely defended their
bodies, in some way unknown to us, from its influence.
When he made a piece of iron swim upon water, he did
not render water solid or iron light, but supported it by
his power, as a man might have done with his hand.
There was no alteration of the essence and qualities
of the substances which were the subjects of those
miracles, but a suspension of the laws by which they
are usually governed. The pretended miracle of tran
substantiation is of a totally different description. It
supposes a complete change of the nature of things.
It supposes effects to be produced which are manifest
ly impossible, and which it is therefore no limitation
even of Divine power to affirm that even it cannot per
form. The just definition of almighty power is, that it
can do every thing possible ; things impossible are not
the objects of power, any more than things which do
not exist are the objects of sight. Now, it is contrary
to the nature of body, that it should be in different pla
ces at the same time; for it necessarily enters into the
idea of it, that it occupies a particular portion of space.
It is contrary to its nature, that it should exist after the
manner of a spirit, or without filling any portion of
space ; for extension is as essential to it as life is to a
living being. It is contrary to its nature, that its pro
perties should remain after it is annihilated ; for its pro
perties are modifications which as necessarily exist
with their subject, as the shadow disappears with the
body which projected it. The ubiquity of a particular
body, is want of extension, and the continuance of its
qualities after its destruction, are things absolutely im
possible ; and to appeal to the power of God, serves on
ly to confound the minds of those who are too ignorant
or too indolent to examine the subject with accuracy.
These things even the power of God cannot do, be
cause they cannot be done. They imply a contradic
tion ; and we might with equal reason say, that although
two and two are four, yet divine power could make
them five. To every mind but that of a Papist, the
contradiction is as manifest in the one case as in the
other. Thirdly, Transubstantiation contradicts the testimo
ny of our senses, which assure us, as we have repeat
edly observed, that there is no change of theelements.
Our senses are the means by which we become ac
quainted with external things and their properties; and
as we are instinctively led to confide in their evidence,
so we find from experience, that the notices which they
give us are true. The offices which they perform
are of the most important nature. They are not only
our guides in providing for the welfare of our bodies,
and guarding against the dangers to which they are ex
posed ; but it is by them that we perceive the proofs of
the existence and perfections of God, in creation and
providence ; and to them were addressed the proofs of
the supernatural communications which he has made
to us concerning his gracious purposes, and the reali
ties of the invisible world. If it be said, that our sens
es frequently deceive us, we acknowledge the fact, but
deny that on this. account their evidence should be sus
pected. They deceive us when they are in a diseased
state, when their functions are carelessly performed,
when the object is in such a situation as not to be fully

484

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

subjected to tbeir test; but, in other circumstances,
their testimony is infallible. No man whose eye is
sound, supposes an object which is green to be red,
or mistakes a bush for an animal, when it is near; no
man in health calls sugar sour, or vinegar sweet.
About these things there is no question, except among
sceptical philosophers, who do not believe, or at least
pretend not to believe, the evidence of their senses,
while they rely upon it as implicitly as any of the vul
gar- The doctrine of transubstantiation subverts the evi
dence of our senses. We see bread and wine in the
Eucharist ; we smell them, and we taste them ; and
yet we are told that they are not bread and wine, but a
collection of unsubstantial accidents, under which the
body and blood of Christ are concealed. Here, then, is
one case in which our senses deceive us, and how can
we depend upon their testimony in any other case? If
they have misled us once, they may mislead us a thou
sand times. Should it be said that the deception, for such
we must call it, is in this instance. effected by a mir
acle, it may be asked, How are we certain that we
shall not be imposed upon by a miracle on other oc
casions? How shall we know when the notices of
our senses are true, and when they are fallacious ? If
God had told us, that in this case alone he would im
pose upon our senses, but in all others would leave
them to their natural operations, we might have been
satisfied. But he has told us no such thing, and con
sequently we are reduced to the greatest perplexity.
We can never be absolutely sure that objects are as
they appear to us. What we imagine to be a tree,
may be a man ; what we suppose to be earth, may be
water. We have no certainty that the miracles of
Christ and his Apostles were really performed.
Those who are said to have witnessed them, may have
been the subjects of illusion ; and it would not have
been more wonderful if they had mistaken common oc
currences for supernatural events, than it is that every
time when the Holy Supper is celebrated, the incarnate
Son of God should seem to be a piece of bread. Tran-
Eubstantiation leads to downright scepticism. We can
neither believe our own eyes and ears, nor give credit
to the testimony of others. But a doctrine which leads
to scepticism must be false. A doctrine cannot be true
which contradicts the evidence of sense, any more than
a doctrine which contradicts the dictates of reason.
Both are from God as well as revelation ; by both God
speaks to us; and what is contrary to their testimony
in their proper sphere, cannot come from Him who is
never at variance with himself.
For this imposition upon our senses, the Church of
Rome accounts in the following manner: " Since it is
the most horrid thing in the world to the nature of
men," says the catechism of the council of Trent, " to
be fed with man's flesh, or to drink his blood, God has
most wisely ordered, that his most holy body and
blood should be administered to us under the species of
those things, bread and wine, by whose common and dai
ly use and nourishment we are mostly delighted. And
there are adjoined these two conveniences, whereof the
first is, that we are freed from the reproach of infidels,
which we could not easily have avoided, if we should be
seen to eat our Lord under his own species. The other is,
that while we thus take the body and blood of the Lord,
in such a manner, that notwithstanding what is truly
done cannot be perceived by the senses, this avails very
much to increase faith in our souls."* The amount
of this reasoning is, that transubstantiation is a mira
cle which God has found it expedient to conceal, lest
Christians should be disgusted, and infidels should
laugh : although it is not easy to see how its conceal
ment can hinder the ridicule of infidels, as they are so-
* Pars ii. de Euch. Sac. { 46.

lemnly assured by the infallible church, that this shock
ing, transmutation does actually take place, and that
flesh and blood are really swallowed under a differ
ent form.
It was impossible that a doctrine so contrary to
Scripture, to reason, and to our senses, should have
been adopted but by slow degrees, and in an age of
gross ignorance and superstition. It is astonishing
that it should be retained amidst the increase of know
ledge which distinguishes modern times, and after its
impiety and absurdity have been so successfully ex
posed ; and that not only should it obtain credit among
the vulgar of the church of Rome, but men of genius
and learning should be implicit believers of it. W'here
can we find a stronger proof of the power of prejudice
in binding the mind, than when we observe such a
man as Pascal, not to mention many others, adopting
and defending an opinion, the absurdity of which he
would, in different circumstances, have been the first
to perceive, and to expose with unrivalled eloquence.
" We should go out of the state in which we are," he
says in his Lettres Provinciates,* " which is a state
of faith, and is opposed by Paul as much to the law as
to clear vision, if we possessed only the figures with
out Jesus Christ, because it is the property of the law
to have only the shadow, and not the substance of
things ; and we should go out of it also, if we possessed
him visibly, because faith, as the same Apostle says,
is not of things which are seen. Thus the Eucharist
is perfectly proportioned to our state of faith, because
it truly includes Jesus Christ, but under a veil; so
that this state would be destroyed, if Jesus Christ were
not really under the species of bread and wine, as her
etics pretend ; and it would be also destroyed if we re
ceived him openly as in heaven, since this would con
found our state with the stale, of the Jews, or with that
of glory. This is the reason of this divine mystery.
This makes us abhor the Calvinists as reducing us to
the condition of the Jews, and aspire to the glory of
the blessed, which will give us the full and eternal en
joyment of Jesus Christ. Hence we see that there
are many differences between the manner in which he
is communicated to Christians and to the blessed, and
that among others, he is received here by the mouth,
and not so in heaven ; but that all the differences de
pend solely upon the difference between the state of
faith in which we are, and the state of clear vision in
which they are."
Whatever ingenuity may be displayed in this pas
sage, it is liable to this objection, that it assumes the
doctrine of transubstantiation to be true, and then pro
ceeds to prove its truth by a mistaken view of its adapta
tion to the present condition of the church. The argu
ment entirely fails. The difference between us and ihe
Jews does not consist in our having Christ really and
corporeally under the veil, while they had the figure
without the substance : but in the fulfilment of the types
in the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ, by which the
full enjoyment of all spiritual blessings has been ob
tained. The superior excellence of the Christian dis
pensation does not arise from the bodily presence of
the Saviour, but from the clear revelation of him in
the gospel, and the abundant communication of grace,
in consequence ofhis ascension into heaven. Any per
son who reads the Scriptures without prejudice will
perceive, that these are expressly mentioned as the priv
ileges of the present church, while there is not a single
hint concerning such a presence of Christ as Papists
imagine. When the Apostle Paul represents him as a
High Priest of good things to come, or in whom the fig
ures of the law have been realized, he, at the same time,
describes him as a High Priest who has passed into the
heavens. It is equally a mistake to suppose the dif-

* Let. xvi.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE LORD'S SUPPER.

485.

ference between the militant and the triumphant church
to be, that although both are favoured with his bodily
presence, he is veiled from the saints on earth, but
manifested to the saints in heaven. This statement is
directly opposed to that of Paul, who expressly affirms
this to be the difference, that on earth we are absent
from the Lord, and in heaven we shall be present
with him. " Knowing that, whilst we are at home in
tbe body, we are absent from the Lord ; we are willing
rather to be absent from the body, and to be present
with the Lord."* This single passage overthrows the
idea, that in the Eucharist he is present with us but
under a veil.
Transubstantiation is not only contrary to Scripture,
and reason, and common sense, but it leads and has
led to other dangerous errors. A view of these will
tend more fully to expose the doctrine, and to show
that it is not a harmless absurdity. It has polluted the
Church of Rome with idolatry, obscured the glory of
the sacrifice of Christ, and given rise lo the audacious
mutilation of the sacred institution of the supper.
These consequences will be considered in the next
lecture.

LECTURE XCI.
ON THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.
Errors Consequent on Transubstantiation; Idolatry; Sacrifice
of the Mass; Mutilation of the Sacrament. — Lutheran Doc
trine of Consubstantiation. — Objections to it. — Doctrine of
Zuinglius Respecting this Rite, and of Calvin.
Transubstantiation is not a speculative opinion,
which, although erroneous in itself, leads to no practical
consequences of an objectionable nature. While there
is sufficient reason to reject it for its contrariety to
Scripture, and reason, and common sense, it will ap
pear worthy of reprobation to every person who con
siders the other dangerous errors to which it has given
rise. The first which I shall point out to you, is the idol
atry which is founded on the doctrine of transubstanti
ation. When the priest has changed the bread into
the body of Christ, by pronouncing the words, "Hoc
est corpus meum,"] he adores it with bended knee, and
rising, elevates it, that it may be seen and adored
by the people. The same forms are observed after he
has consecrated the wine. Such is the order of pro
cedure in the Roman missal ; and it is founded upon the
doctrine of the church as declared by the Council of
Trent. " There is no room for doubt, that all believers
in Christ, according to the custom always received in
the catholic church, should offer to this most holy sac
rament the worship of Latria, which is due to the true
God, for it is not to be the less adored, because it was in-
stituted by Christ our Lord to be taken. For we be
lieve that the same God is present in it, whom the
eternal Father, introducing into the world, says, "Let
all the angels of God worship him." This declara
tion is supported by the following canon. " If any
man shall say, that in the holy sacrament of the
Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not
to be adored, even with the external worship of Latria ;
and therefore that it is not to be venerated by a pecu
liar festival, nor carried about in processions, ac
cording to the laudable rite and custom of the univer
sal church, nor to be publicly exhibited to the people
that it may be adored, and that those who worship it
are idolaters ; let him he accursed."!
Notwithstanding this dreadful denunciation, we do

not hesitate to affirm that the worship of the elements'
is idolatry. One argument might suffice to establish
this charge, namely, that we have proved that there is
no such thing as transubstantiation, to the satisfaction
of every person whom God has not given up to strong
delusion to believe a lie. If our former reasonings are
conclusive, the elements are simple bread and wine ;
and those who worship them are as gross idolaters as
the heathens, who adored a naked sword or a shapeless
stone. It may be thought that, although Christ should
not be present in the elements, yet, as they suppose
him to be present, and direct their worship to him, .
their mistake will excuse them. But it is not our in
tention, it is the law of God which is the rule of our .
conduct; and to suppose our intention to be a valid
apology for our transgression of it, is to set aside the
authority of the law, and make man a law to himself.
In no part of Scripture are we commanded to worship
the elements ; nor are we commanded to worship God
in every thing, or in any thing in which he is present.
We are to worship himself, but not the objects around
us, under the pretext that we worship God himself,
who is in them. It may be said that there is a dif
ference in the present case, because what we see is
Christ himself in his body, and blood, and Divinity.
But, granting that it is Christ, we may still question
whether, as he does not manifest himself to us, we are
authorized to worship him here, any more than in the
sun, in which we are certain that his Divinity, the pro
per object of worship, is as truly present as in the
sacrament. Besides, the Church of Rome commands
us to worship the " sacrament," which undoubtedly
signifies not only Christ corporeally present, but the
species which remain. Now, if the accidents can
subsist by themselves, as they suppose that they do,
they are created things, however shadowy ; and he,
therefore, who adores the whole sacrament, worships
them together with Christ, or the creature together
with the Creator ; the veil, as well as the thing veil-.
ed ; the dress, as well as the person who wears it ;
and how can he escape the charge of idolatry? Al
though the doctrine of transubstantiation were true, no
Papist can be certain that Christ is in the sacrament ;
and consequently, upon his own principles, he may be
guilty of idolatry every time that he partakes of it.
If the intention of the priest is wanting, the elements
remain simple bread and wine. But this is not the .
only ground of apprehension. "If the bread is not of
wheat," says the Roman missal, " or if, being of
wheat, it is mixed of grain of another kind, in such
quantity that it is not wheaten bread, or is otherwise
corrupted, the sacrament is not effected. If it is made
of rose water, or of any other distillation, it is doubt
ful whether it is effected." Again. "If the wine is
turned into vinegar, or is wholly putrid, or is made of
sour or unripe grapes, or is mixed with so much water
that the wine is corrupted, the sacrament is not effec
ted." Once more, " If any man shall diminish, or
change any thing in the form of consecration, and by .
the change of the words, tbe words have not the same
signification, the sacrament will not be effected."*
This mighty miracle, it seems, depends upon many
pre-requisites, the omission of which will completely -
prevent it. Here, as in the incantation of magic, un
less the ipsissima verba] are repeated, the expected
effect will not follow. It appears, too, that there are
some substances which cannot be converted into the
body and blood of our Saviour, as, sour wine, and
bread made of barley or oats ; but how they happen
to be so stubborn as to retain their nature, in spite of
all the power of the priest, we must leave to the abet
tors of this mystery to explain. It is evident that, ac-

* 2 Cor. v. 6, 8. t This is my body.
1 Sessio xiii. de Euch. cap. ,. et can. 6.

* De Defect, circa Missam occurrentibus, iii, iv, et v.
f The very words.

486

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

cording to tbeir own ideas, they are in constant danger
of idolatry. It is their concern to extricate themselves
as they can.
The second error founded on transubstantiation, is
the notion lhat the Eucharist isa true and proper sacri
fice for the sins of the living and the dead, or the souls
in purgatory ; Christ who is corporeally present, is not
only given to the communicants, hut is offered to God
as a propitiation for them. The Council of Trent ex
pressly affirms that this sacrament is a sacrifice by
which God is appeased, and that its benefit extends
not only to men upon earth, but to the departed saints
who are not yet fully purified ; and in the usual man
ner anathematizes every man who shall dare to con
trovert its decision. " If any man shall say that, in the
mass, a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God ;"
or shall say, "that in these words, 'This do in re
membrance of me,' Christ did not constitute the
Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other
priests should offer his body and blood ;" or shall say,
" that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of
praise and thanksgiving, or a naked commemoration
of the sacrifice made upon the, cross, but not propitia
tory : let him be accursed."* The subject is farther ex
plained in the catechism which was published by or
der of the council. "The Eucharist was instituted,
that the church might have a perpetual sacrifice, where
by our sins might be expiated, and our heavenly Father,
who has oftentimes been grievously offended by our
wickedness, might be turned from his anger to mercy,
and from the severity of his just revenge to pity. We
may observe the figure and resemblance of this thing
in the paschal lamb, which was used to be offered as a
sacrifice, and eaten as a sacrament by the children of
Israel."! The great argument for the sacrifice of the mass, is
apostolical tradition, by which they mean any thing
which was said or done by some dreaming dotard or
superstitious fool in remote ages, and which other do
tards and fools were pleased to admire, and to retain
as wise and good. But as, notwithstanding the high
authority which they ascribe to tradition, they are well
pleased when they can find any appearance of support
from Scripture, they have drawn from it some new ar
guments to confirm the faithful, and to confound here
tics. Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine to
Abraham, when he was returning from tbe slaughter
of the kings. This is a very simple fact, which it
might be supposed, has no relation to the subject be
fore us ; but, if we lack ingenuity, Papists have it in
perfection, and have discovered in this transaction the
whole mystery of the sacrifice of the Eucharist.!
How they know, we cannot tell ; but Melchizedek, it
seems, offered the bread and wine to God, before he
presented them to Abraham. Now, Melchizedek was a
priest, and Christ is a priest after his order ; and there
fore he must have instituted an unbloody sacrifice, un
der the species of bread and wine. Some of us, per
haps, do not perceive the connexion between the pre
mises and tbe conclusion : but this is owing to our
blindness. If we had lived in the days of the power
and triumph of antichrist, the inquisition would have
opened our eyes. To be serious, it is plain, beyond
all reasonable dispute, that, although Melchizedek was
a priest, and in this character blessed Abraham, his
giving him bread and wine was a mere act of hospi
tality. — Again, it is said, in the prophecies of Mala-
chi, " From the rising of the sun even unto the going
down of the same, my name shall be great among the
Gentiles; and in every placa incense shall be offered
unto my name, and a pure offering."|| Now, what
can this pure offering be but the sacrifice of the mass,

* Sess. xxii. de Sacrif. JWissae, can. 1, 2, & 3.
fPars ii. de Euch. Sac. } 75.
t Cat. Trid. Pars ii. de Euch. Sac. j 80. || Mai. i. 11.

which is presented to God on a thousand altars, in the
east and in the west? But, if these blundering inter
preters, who seem totally incapable of distinguishing
when a passage should be understood literally, and
when figuratively, would adhere uniformly to their
plan, they would maintain that the whole Mosaic
ritual should be revived ; for the worship of the Gen
tiles in the times of the gospel, is described in language
borrowed from it, and they are represented as bringing
their burnt offerings and sacrifices to the sanctuary.*
If, in such passages, the literal sense is rejected by
all, what reason can be given for retaining it on this
occasion ? Why should we suppose that the "pure
offering" of Malachi is a real sacrifice any more than
the " burnt-offerings" of Isaiah ? Why should we
not admit that, in the ono ease as well as in the other,
there is only a metaphorical application of the reli
gious terms of the Old Testament to the New, and
that the peace-offering and the incense are the holy
sacrifices of prayer and praise ? This is beyond all
question the meaning; and the Church of Rome is
driven to the most wretched shifts, when it seeks sup
port from a solitary passage, which the laws of sound
criticism require to be explained in conformity to other
similar passages. — A third argument is founded on the
declaration, that Christ is "a priest forever;"! which
they cannot conceive to be true, unless he continue to
offer sacrifice for sin. And here they give a curious
account of the mass, making it, although we shonld
naturally suppose it to be a new sacrifice, in fact the
very sacrifice which was offered upon the cross ; and,
at the same time, tbat, while they say that this sacri
fice is offered by their priests, they may not seem to
destroy the perpetuity of his priesthood by giving him
successors in office, they identify the priests of the
Romish Church with the High Priest of our profes
sion. " We acknowledge it to be, and it ought to be
accounted, but one and the same sacrifice, which is
done in the mass, and was offered on the cross."
" There is one and the same priest, Christ the Lord :
for the ministers who make this sacrifice, sustain not
their own but the person of Christ, when they conse
crate his body and blood, as is evident from the words
of consecration ; for the priest says not, ' This is
Christ's body,' but, ' This is my body :' bearing the
person of Christ our Lord, he changes the substance
of the. bread and wine into the true substance of his
body and blood."! But this is a mere shift ; for, as
the ministers of antichrist are supposed to be real
priests, and to offer a real sacrifice, although they rep
resent Christ, and act in his name, they are unques
tionably as much distinct priests as were tbe successors
of Aaron; and if it should be said that there is only
one priesthood, namely, that of Christ, which they as
his ministers exercise, the same thing might be said
of the Levitical priesthood, which was one, although
its functions were performed by many individuals.
According to the doctrine of the Church of Rome,
Christ has successors in office, and therefore is not a
Priest forever, in the sense of the Scriptures, which
compare him to Melchizedek, because no person comes
after him. Thus the argument which they advance to
support the sacrifice of the mass, condemns it, since
the priesthood of Christ is not perpetual if its func
tions are committed to other hands.
It is an astonishing blunder to suppose that the per
petuity of his priesthood requires the uninterrupted
repetition ofhis sacrifice. Is sacrificing the only duty
of a priest ? Is not intercession an essential part of
his office ? And if our Lord Jesus Christ offered a
sacrifice once, which fully accomplished its design by
appeasing Divine justice, and obtaining eternal re
demption, and has gone into the celestial sanctuary to
~~* Is. lvi. 7. f Heb. vir21~
X Cat. Trid. Pars ii. De Euch. Sac. { 81, 82.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE LORD'S SUPPER.

487

intercede for his people upon earth, is it not true that
he is made a priest, " after the power of an end
less life?"* Why should his sacrifice be repeated ?
Was there any defect in the first oblation, which
is supplied by the ministrations of the priests of
Rome ? The sacrifice of the mass is derogatory
to our Saviour in the character of our High Priest,
and is directly opposed lo the reasoning of Paul on
this subject, in the Epistle to the Hebrews. His man
ifest design is to demonstrate the superiority of Christ
to the Priests of the law in every respect, and partic
ularly in this, that they offered many sacrifices, but
he offered only one, which does not need to be
repeated : " He offered himself once." " By one
offering he has forever perfected them that are sanc
tified ;" and " having, by himself, purged our sins, he
sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."!
The third error arising from transubstantiation, is
the mutilation of the sacrament, by the withholding
of tbe cup from the laity. Hear the Council of Trent!
" The holy synod, taught by the Holy Ghost, who is
the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of
counsel and piety, and following the judgment and
practice of the church, declares and teaches, that the
laity, and the clergy when not officiating, are not
bound, by any Divine precept, to receive the sacra
ment of the Eucharist under both kinds." It goes on
to state, that the church has authority to make such
changes in the dispensation of the sacraments as shall
be found expedient. " Wherefore," it is added, " the
holy mother, the church, acknowledging this her au
thority in the administration of the sacraments, al
though from the beginning of the Christian religion,
the use of both kinds was not unfrequent, being in
duced by weighty and just causes, in consequence of
the extensive change of practice in the progress of
time, has approved this practice of communicating
under one kind, and decreed that it should be a law :"
" And farther declares, that, although our Redeemer,
in the last supper, instituted this sacrament in two
kinds, and so delivered it to the Apostles, yet under
one kind only, whole and entire Christ, and the true
sacrament, are taken; and that, therefore, those who
receive only one kind, are deprived of no grace neces
sary to salvation."! It is worthy of particular atten
tion, that the Council does not plead, on this occasion,
either Scripture or Apostolical tradition ; that it ac
knowledges both kinds, the bread and the wine, to
have been instituted by Christ, and the ordinance to
have been thus celebrated in the primitive times ; and
yet, that it has the effrontery, to declare, that one kind
constitutes a perfect sacrament, and that thus only it
should be observed. In all the proceedings of the
apostate church, there is not an instance of more un
disguised and avowed opposition to the authority of
Christ. It might have gone on with no greater impi
ety to abolish baptism, or the Sabbath, or any other
ordinance. Yet, without pretending any authority but
that of " the church," the holy synod, as it calls itself,
pronounces a curse upon every man who shall affirm,
that, by the command of God, both kinds should be
received; that the Holy Catholic Church has not suffi
cient reasons for denying the cup to the laity ; and
that whole and entire Christ is not received under the
species of bread alone. ||
You will be curious to know what are the weighty
reasons by which the church has been induced lo
make this essential change in the original institution.
You shall hear them. " First, Great care was to be
taken lest the blood of our Lord should be spilt upon
the ground, and this did not seem easy to be avoided
* Heb. vii. 16. t lb. vii. 29. x. 44. i. 3.
t Sessio. xxi. de Com. sub utraq. spec. cap. 1, 2, 3.
|| lb. can. 1, 2, 3.

if it should be administered among a great multitude
of people. Secondly, Since the sacred Eucharist ought
to be in readiness for the sick, it was much to be feared
that, if the species of wine were to be kept somewhat
longer, it might become sour." The catechism of Pope
Pius, from which these reasons are extracted, does not
tell us what would be the consequence ; but as, if the
wine is sour at first, it is not changed into the blood
of Christ by the words of consecration, the danger
to be apprehended probably is, that, if the species,
that is, the accidents, should become sour, the blood
would be turned again into wine. "Thirdly, There
are very many who can by no means endure the taste,
nor so much, indeed, as the very smell of wine.
Fourthly, Wherefore, lest that which was given for the
sake of spiritual health might hurt the health of the
body, it was very wisely established by the church
that the faithful should receive only the species of
bread. Fifthly, This may be added to the other rea
sons, that in very many countries they have a very
great scarcity of wine, nor can they procure it from
other places, but with great charges, and with tedious
and difficult journeys. Lastly, What is most of all to
the purpose, the heresy of those was to be rooted up
who denied, that whole Christ is in each species, and
asserted that the body only, without the blood, is con
tained in the species of bread, and that the blood
was contained under that of wine. Now, therefore,
that the truth of the Catholic faith might be more
evidently placed before our eyes, the communion
of one species, that is, of bread, was wisely intro
duced."* This last reason is founded on the doctrine of con
comitance. This term is used by the Popish Church
to signify that whole Christ is present under either of
the species.! Although the bread is said to be chang
ed into his body, and the wine into his blood, yet his
body and blood are not to be considered as in a state
of separation. Wherever his body is, there is his
blood ; and wherever his blood is, there is his body.
Both are present under each of the species; and if you
divide the species of bread into particles, and the wine
into drops, Christ is in every one of them, in bis body,
soul, and Divinity, as much as in the whole bread and
the whole wine. Hence you perceive how the denial of
the cup to the laity has originated in transubstantiation.
It was first supposed that he was corporeally present
in the Eucharist ; and then it followed, as Christ can
not be divided, that whoever received one species, was
as fully a partaker of him as if he had received both
species. The cup was superfluous ; nothing was lost
by its being withheld. By the same reasoning it
might have been given to the laity, and the bread been
denied. As the Church of Rome believes the doctrine of
concomitance to be true, it should have the same effect
in relation to the priests as to the people ; and as the
priests receive a whole Christ under the species of
bread, there is no good reason why the cup should be
given to them any more than to others. It was neces
sary, however, to make a distinction between them and
the laity, and to secure that profound veneration for-
their persons as sacred, which it is the great object of
the whole system to maintain. But the doctrine of
concomitance is false, because its foundation is false.
There is a peculiar absurdity in it ; for the Church of
Rome exhibits separately the signs of the body and
blood of Christ, and at the same time assures us that.
they are not separate but conjoined. For what pur
pose were separate symbols instituted, if the things
which they signify are blended together, or the one is
included in the other ? Whatever papists may affirm,
* Cat. Con. Trid. Pars ii. de Euch. Sac. } 70.
t lb. } 33.

488

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

as tbe Lord's Supper is a memorial of his death, he is
represented in it as dead, and his blood as poured out
from his body as an atonement for sin. They exist
separately in the signs, and are given separately to the
communicants. To affirm, therefore, that they are con
comitant, or that either of the symbols comprehends
both, is to destroy the meaning, and to defeat the de
sign of the institution. As they do not plead Scrip
ture or apostolical tradition for taking away the cup
from the people, there is no occasion to bring forward
arguments in refutation of their practice. They are
self-condemned ; they acknowledge that the word of
God, and the primitive church, are against them. We
are fully warranted to affirm, that the Eucharist, as
administered by them, is no sacrament, an essential
part being wanting. The command to drink the wine
is as express as the command to eat the bread ; and
wiih respect to the former, our Saviour has been more
explicit, as he foresaw the daring impiety of the fol
lowers of Antichrist. Of the bread, he simply said,
according to Matthew's account, "Take, eat;" but
when he gave the cup, he said "drink ye all of it."*
I proceed to lay before you the opinions of Protes
tants respecting the Lord's Supper : and I shall begin
with that of the Lutheran Church.
Although Luther perceived the absurdity of transub
stantiation, and renounced it, yet the literal interpreta
tion of our Saviour's words, to which he had so long
been accustomed, retained a firm hold of his mind,
and led him to adopt an opinion equally unintelligible
and unscriptural. He believed, that although the
bread and wine are not changed into the body and
blood of Christ, yet that his real body and blood are
received by the communicants along with the sym
bols. This is called consubsianiialion, to signify that
the substance of the body and blood of Christ is pre
sent in, with, or under the substance of the elements;
and sometimes impanation, a word which imports that
he is in the bread. Papists say that the substance of
the elements is annihilated, and only the accidents re
main ; Lutherans affirm that they retain their proper
nature, and that the human nature of Christ is mys
teriously conjoined with them. Luther indeed pre
tended to give an explanation of his doctrine by say
ing, that as fire and iron are united, so the body of
Christ is joined to the bread in the Eucharist. His
followers, however, acknowledge that it is a mystery
which we cannot comprehend, but which we are
bound to believe on the authority of Scripture, and
however incredible this union may seem to us, the al
mighty power of God is able to effect it.
Luther supported his doctrine by this argument,
tbat Christ is at the right hand of God, and the right
hand of God is everywhere ; but he afterwards aban
doned it, and with good reason. The right hand of
God does not signify his power, which is omnipresent
as his essence is, but the highest glory and authority.
It is a figurative expression, which when interpreted
according to the laws of sound criticism, appears not
to have the most remote connexion with the subject in
question; for by no species of reasoning does it follow,
that the human nature of our Saviour is omnipresent,
because it is exalted above all principalities and pow
ers. If the " right hand of God" has any relation to
place, it is in the higher regions of the universe ; and
Christ " sitting at it," overthrows tbe doctrine of con-
substantiation, for God is said to have " set him at his
right hand in the heavenly places."! The argument
was revived by some of the followers of Luther, who
maintained the ubiquity of the human nature of Christ,
and accounted for it by the power of God, which they
alleged, could render it omnipresent ; or by the per
sonal union between it and his divine nature, in con-

* Matth. xxvi. 27.

f Eph. i. 20.

sequence of which the properties of the latteT wen
communicated to the former. An appeal to th<
power of God overawes the mind, and there is an ap
pearance of presumption and impiety in calling in
question the possibility of any thing which is said to
be done by it. But as it is no limitation of the divine
omniscience, that it does not know what is unknow
able, so it is no limitation of omnipotence, to say tha'
it cannot perform what is impossible. God canno'
make a circle square, because it would then cease to
be a circle ; or a rod straight and crooked at the sam6
time, because the thing implies a contradiction. In
like manner, he cannot make the body of Christ om
nipresent, because place or locality is an attribute of
body, and to ascribe omnipresence to it is to destroy
its essence. Lutherans indeed have assigned a double
presence to it, the one circumscribed and local, and
the other celestial, supernatural, and divine. But this
is an arbitrary distinction contrived to support their
hypothesis, and besides it destroys itself; for if the
human nature of Christ have a local presence, it can
not also have ubiquity ; and if it have ubiquity, it can
not at the same time be confined to a place. The
communication of the properties of the divine to the
human nature is inconceivable, and would not have
been admitted, but as an expedient to extricate them
from a difficulty. The doctrine of the church in all
ages, — and it is agreeable to Scripture, — has been
that the two natures of Christ, although hypostatically
united, continue distinct; that each retains its peculiar
attributes ; that omnipotence, omniscience, and omni
presence, although predicated of the person, belong
to him only as God ; and that the sole effect of the
union with respect to the human nature, is to enhance
the value of its actions, which are truly the actions of
the only-begotten of the Father. To suppose that
divine properties are communicated to the human na
ture, is to confound the Creator with the creature;
and it may be confidently affirmed to be impossible
even for omnipotence to make that infinite which is
finite. Consubstantiation is liable to many of the same ob
jections which may be advanced against transubstan
tiation. It supposes the body of Christ to be at the
same time in heaven and on earth, in Europe and in
America ; it supposes it to be in a state of glory, and
in a state of humiliation ; it supposes it to be present,
and yet to be imperceptible to any of our senses, and
therefore to be present afteT the manner of a spirit; it
supposes it to be taken into the mouths of the com
municants, and chewed, and swallowed, and digested ;
it supposes that at the last supper, Christ sat at table
with his disciples, and was at the same time in the
bread ; that he held himself in his hand, and then
transferred himself from his own hand into the hands
of his Apostles; and that while they saw him at some
distance from them, he was in their mouths. How
strong is the power of prejudice, which can make any
man believe, or imagine that he believes such absurdi
ties ! After this, there is nothing so monstrous, and
incredible which he might not be prevailed upon to
acknowledge, if he were first persuaded tbat it is
taught in the Scriptures.
That consubstantiation is not taught in the Scrip
tures, might be proved by all the arguments which
have been adduced to show, that the literal interpreta
tion of the words, "This is my body," "This is my
blood," is false. These it is unnecessary to go ovef
again, as they were so lately laid before you. It de
serves attention, that the interpretation of the Lutheran
church is more forced and unnatural than that of the
Romish church. The Papist, suspecting no figure in
the case, with childish simplicity takes the words as
tbey stand, " this bread is my body," and believes that
the one is miraculously changed into the other. The

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE LORD'S SUPPER.

480

Lutheran employs some thought, and exercises a little
ingenuity, and finds that the words signify, not " This
bread is my body," but "This bread contains my
body." By what law does he deviate from the strict
interpretation? Where does he find, that the verb of
existence, is, signifies in, with, or under? Not in any
of the canons of criticism, but in the necessity of his
system, which cannot be supported without this ex
planation. Hence it is evident, that the Papist has
the advantage of the Lutheran ; and that, if the words
are to be literally understood, they favour transubstan
tiation, and consubstantiation is founded on a perver
sion of them. Both doctrines are contrary to Scrip
ture, as well as to reason and common sense ; but that
of Lutherans offers more direct violence to the words
of inspiration.
However objectionable consubstantiation may be, it
is, when compared with the favourite dogma of Pa
pists, a harmless absurdity, as it is not clogged with
the impious consequences which are deduced from
transubstantiation. Although Lutherans believe the
corporeal presence of Christ in the sacrament, they
condemn the worship of it as idolatrous; they do not
maintain tbe sacrifice of tbe mass, nor withhold the
cup from the laity. It is an opinion which has no in
fluence upon their practice, and does not lead them
into error respecting other doctrines of religion. On
this account, it has been regarded by the Reformed
churches with less displeasure than the Popish tenet,
and has been considered by many as not constituting
an insurmountable obstacle to the communion between
them. The opinion of Zuinglius comes next to be con
sidered. Although he does not hold so distinguished
a place as Luther in the history of the Protestant
churches, yet it is certain that he preceded him in
openly opposing the errors and corruptions of the
Church of Rome, made earlier and more rapid pro
gress in the knowledge of the truth, and entertained
far more enlightened views on the subject of the
Eucharist than the German Reformer. He began to
preach the gospel, as we are informed by himself, the
year before Luther first declaimed against indulgences,
and while the name of the latter was unknown in
Switzerland. " He saw," as Melchior Adam relates
in his life, " the error of transubstantiation, or of the
substantial conversion of bread and wine into the body
and blood of Christ, the accidents only remaining; he
saw that the dogma of consubstantiation, or impana-
tion, that is, of the corporeal presence of Christ in
the bread and wine, their substance remaining, which
Luther embraced, agreed neither with the words of
our Lord, nor with the analogy of Christian faith, nor
with the consent of orthodox antiquity; for he saw
that it had not been said by Christ, ' Let this be or be
come my body,' nor even, ' Under this, or in this, my
body is, or is contained.' Yet he did not see what
he should safely adopt, till having weighed many sim
ilar passages of Scripture, and consulted orthodox an
tiquity, as Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine, Theodo-
ret, Bertram, and others, he at length determined,
that in the words of our Lord, ' This is my body,' or,
• This bread is my body,' there is a metonymy pecu
liar to the Hebrew language, and that metonymically
the name of the thing signified is transferred to the
sign ; that the bread is called the body of the Lord,
and the wine the blood of the New Testament, be
cause they are symbols of the body and blood of the
Lord, or because they signify the body and blood of
the Lord sacramentally. Before he published this
opinion, be not only communicated it to his faithful
friends, but took care that it should be made known to
all persons in Germany and France who were distin
guished for learning and authority ; for he foresaw that
the opposite opinion, which' for so many ages had
3M

taken deep root in the minds of men, would with great
difficulty be eradicated."* The opinion which he
finally adopted was this,— " That the bread and wine
were no more than a representation of the body and
blood of Christ; or, in other words, the signs ap
pointed to denote the benefits that were conferred upon
mankind in consequence of the death of Christ; that,
therefore, Christians derived no other fruit from the
participation of the Lord's Supper, than a mere com
memoration and remembrance of the merits of Christ,
and that there was nothing in the ordinance but a me
morial of Christ."
That both Papists and Lutherans should have ex
claimed against this simple view of the sacred institu
tion, can excite no surprise. To some who had re
nounced the errors of both, he appeared to have gone
to the opposite extreme. Those, therefore, who did
not choose to condemn his opinion in express terms,
deemed it necessary to make an apology for it. Thus
Bucer, his contemporary, having remarked that in the
epistles of Zuinglius concerning the sacraments, some
things are found, from which it may be inferred that he
did not attribute as much to the sacraments as ought to
be ascribed to them, admonishes the reader that Zuing
lius did not deny that the sacraments are symbols of
grace, and in their own way are auxiliary to faith ; and
goes on to state, that his object in speaking of them as
he did, was to gua^l men against putting confidence
in the external work, not to evacuate the sacraments of
Christ. " For he had to do with those who defended
the vulgar impiety by which some men are led to
seek salvation from the opus operatum, as they call it,
that is, from the ceremony itself exiernahy performed, be
ing altogether careless of faith in the promises. Against
these he justly contended, that Christ our Lord restores
us to the favour of his Father ; and not the sacraments,
or the external action of the priests in the administra
tion of the sacraments. Whatever therefore you shall
read in these epistles which shall seem to detract some
thing from the sacraments, understand all that to be
said concerning the external action, to the exclusion of
the Spirit of Christ."!
It had appeared to some that Zuinglius denied the
efficacy of the sacraments, and reduced them to mere
signs which work solely by a moral influence ; and
this apology was undertaken to show that this was
not his intention. To have represented them as naked
signs, would no doubt have been improper; because,
if they were instituted for the confirmation of our faith,
they could not have accomplished this design without
the communication of grace; but there seems to have
been a disposition in that age, to believe tbat there was
a presence of Christ in the Eucharist different from his
presence in the other ordinances of the gospel ; an un
defined something which corresponded to the strong
language used at the institution of the Supper, "This
is my body, — this is my blood." Acknowledging it
to be figurative, many still thought that a mystery was
couched under it. It was not, indeed, easy for those
who had long been accustomed to the notion of the bo
dily presence of Christ, at once to simplify their ideas ;
and perhaps, too, they were induced to express them
selves as they did, with a view to give less offence to
the Lutherans. Whatever was their motive, their lan
guage is not always sufficiently guarded. Hence Bu
cer adds, " When it is said that Christ, having left this
world and carried his body to heaven, cannot be con-
substantiated with the bread, do not think that in our
churches he is excluded from the sacred Supper, and
that bread and wine alone are administered as empty
symbols. As the passage of our Lord Jesus Christ in
to heaven, implies only that he is not here after the

* Melch. Adami Vita; Germ. Theol. Viia Zuinglii, p. 39, 4U
•j-Buceri Epist. in Melch. Adami VitaZuinglu, p. 41,42.

490

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

mannei of this world; so we do not deny that he is
united to the bread, or locally included in the bread ;
but not naturally, and after the manner of this world.
We acknowledge that the true body and the true
blood- of Christ, true Christ himself, God and man,
is present to us in the Supper; that by the words and
symbols he is exhibited not for the perishing food
of the flesh, but for the eternal food of the soul, and on
that account is not perceived by sense and reason, but
by true faith."*
These words are very unguarded. While they de
ny, they seem also to affirm, the real presence of Christ
in the sacrament in some mysterious manner, and are
calculated to mislead and to confound the mind. Had
it been said that the bread and wine are merely signs
ofhis body and blood, but that he is contemplated and
enjoyed by the communicants in the exercises of med
itation and faith, we could have understood it; but
what idea can we affix to the presence of the true body
and the true blood of Christ, " not naturally, and after
the manner of this world?" Would not Papists and
Lutherans say the same thing?
The name of Calvin ought always to be mentioned
with respect. He was one of the brightest ornaments
of the Reformation, and in learning, genius, and zeal,
had few equals, and no superior. His opposition both
to transubstantiation and to consubstantiation, is well
known ; and yet, in speaking of the Lord's Supper, he
has expressed himself in the following manner: "The
sum is, that our souls are not otherwise fed with the
flesh and blood of Christ, than bread and wine sustain
our corporeal life. Nor would the analogy of the sign
otherwise agree, unless souls found their nourishment
in Christ ; which cannot be unless Christ truly co
alesce with us into one, and restore us by the eating
of his flesh and ihe drinking of his blood. But al
though it seems incredible that, the places being so
distant, the flesh of Christ should penetrate to us so as
to be our food, let us remember how much the secret
power of the Spirit exceeds our senses, and how fool
ish it is to attempt to measure his immensity by our
standard. What our mind does not comprehend, let
faith conceive, that the Spirit truly unites things which
are disjointed in place. That sacred communication of
his flesh and blood, by which Christ transfuses his life
into us, no otherwise than if he penetrated into our
bones and marrow, he attests and seals in the supper ;
not indeed in a vain and empty sign, but there exert
ing the efficacy of his Spirit, by which he fulfils what
he promises."!
I confess that I do not understand this passage. It
supposes a communion of believers in the human na
ture of our Saviour in the Eucharist; and endeavours to
remove the objections arising from the distance of place,
by a reference to the almighty power of the Spirit, much
in the same way as Papists and Lutherans solve the diffi
culty attending their respective systems. If Calvin had
meant only that, in the Sacred Supper, believers have
fellowship with Christ in his death, he would have as
serted an important truth, attested by the experience of
the people of God in every age ; but why djd he ob
scure it, and destroy its simplicity, by involving it in
ambiguous language ? If he had any thing different in
view; if he meant that there is some mysterious com
munication with his human nature, we must be permit
ted to say that the notion was as incomprehensible to
himself as it is to his readers. The error into which
he and others have fallen is this, that while they ac
knowledge the words of institution to be figurative,
they speak of them occasionally in such terms as
import the literal sense; not attending to this obvious
canon of interpretation, that, in explaining a figure, we
* Buceri Epist. ubi supra.
¦f Calvini Instit. lib. iv. cap. xvii. sect. 10.

should give the true sense in other terms, and uniformly
adhere to it; and that to mix together the figure and the
literal sense, sometimes bringing forward the one and
sometimes the other, creates confusion in the minds of
others, and, instead of illustrating the subject, involves
it in obscurity.

LECTUKE XCIL
ON THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.
True Nature of the Eucharist. — In what Manner Christ it
Present in It. — Observations on the Time of Institution;
The Symbols; The Mode of Administration. — What is Im
plied in Partaking of it, — Who may Partake. — Periods of
Celebrating it.
We have reviewed the opinions of different deno
minations of Christians concerning the Lord's Sup
per, and have seen that even some of those who de
nied the real presence, have not always expressed
themselves with sufficient clearness and simplicity.
The words of institution have impressed them with an
idea, that, although there is no change of the ele
ments, and the true body and blood of our Redeemer
are not contained in them, yet something mysterious
is implied. This charge, at least, may be fairly ad
vanced against those whom we find, even although
they profess to explain the subject, making use" of
figurative language. It is true that, since our Lord
calls the bread and wine his body and blood, we may
be said to eat his body when we eat the bread, and
to drink his blood when we drink the wine ; but then
it should be considered, that we can only eat the one
and drink the other, in the same sense in which the
former is called his body, and the latter his blood,
that is, figuratively. Stript of all metaphorical terms,
the action must mean that, in the believing and grate
ful commemoration of his death, we enjoy the bles
sings which were purchased by it, in the same man
ner in which we enjoy them when we exercise faith
in hearing the Gospel. Why, then, should any man
talk, as Calvin does, of some inexplicable communion
in this ordinance with the human nature of Christ;
and tell us that, although it seems impossible, on ac
count of the distance to which he is removed from us,
we are not to measure the power of the Divine Spirit
by our standard ? I am sure that the person who
speaks so, conveys no idea into the minds of those
whom he addresses ; and I am equally certain that he
does not understand himself. When our Lord speaks,
in the Gospel of John, of eating his flesh and drinking
his blood, all Protestants will acknowledge that he
simply means our reception of him and his benefits
by faith. Why should it be supposed that any other
thing is signified by the Lord's Supper, in which tho
language is virtually the same ? What rule of inter
pretation will justify us in entertaining the idea of
something more mysterious in the one case than
in the other? There is an absurdity in the notion,
that there is any communion with the body and blood
of Christ, considered in themselves ; that he intended
any such thing; or that it would be of any advantage
to us. There is an absurdity in imagining that, by
calling the symbols his body and blood, be meant to
fix our attention upon these, materially considered ;
and in not acknowledging that his design was to direct
our thoughts to himself, as our incarnate Redeemer,
who was substituted in our room, expiated our sins,
and has obtained a perfect salvation for us. The or
dinance is misunderstood, when it gives rise to carnal
meditations ; and is then only observed aright, when
our minds are employed in the spiritual contemplation
of his atonement, and its effects. When our Church,

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE LORD'S SUPPER.

491

iherefoie, says that " tbe body and blood are as really,
but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that
ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their out
ward senses,"* and, that they " feed upon his body
and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth
in grace,"! it can mean only, that our incarnate suf
fering Saviour is apprehended by their minds, through
the instituted signs; and that by faith they enjoy
peace and hope ; or it means something unintelligible
and unscriptural. Plain, literal language is best, es
pecially on spiritual subjects, and should have been
employed by Protestant Churches with the utmost
care, as the figurative terms of Scripture have been so
grossly mistaken. On this ground, I object to the
following words in the Confession of Faith of the
Reformed Churches of France : " We confess tbat, in
the Holy Supper, Jesus Christ feeds and nourishes us
truly with his flesh and blood, that we may be one
with him, and that his life may be communicated to us.
For, although he is in heaven till he come to judge
the world, yet we believe that, by the secret and in
comprehensible virtue of his Spirit, he nourishes and
quickens us with the substance of his body and blood.
We hold that this is done spiritually, not'to put ima
ginations and thoughts in the place of the effect and
the truth, but inasmuch as this mystery surmounts, by
its height, the measure of our senses, and the whole
order of nature."!
It is not the design of these observations to deny,
or call' in question, the presence of Christ in the
Eucharist. I should not hesitate to affirm a real, in
opposition to an imaginary, and in distinction from a
symbolical, presence, had not the phrase been abused
to express a doctrine inconsistent with Scripture and
common sense. But the doctrine of his presence I
would not found, as others do, upon the words of in
stitution, which, when justly interpreted, merely im
port that, the elements are signs ofhis body and blood.
Now, a sign is very far from implying that the thing
signified is present. It is rather understood to repre
sent an absent object, and is put in its place to remind
us of it, because it is removed to a distance from us.
Instead of being a fair conclusion from the words of
institution, that there is a peculiar, mysterious pre
sence of our Saviour, which can be accounted for only
by the miraculous power of the Spirit, it might rather
be inferred that he is not present at all, and that the
design of the symbols is to call him to remembrance
in his absence. . The doctrine of his presence in the
Sacred Supper, is legitimately deduced from his gen
eral promise, which relates to all his ordinances with
out any special respect to the Supper : " Where two or
three are gathered together in my name, there I am in
the midst of them."|| It is this promise which gives us
ground to consider him as present in the Eucharist, in
baptism, in prayer, in the preaching of the Gospel.
In all these ordinances he is present ; and he is pre
sent in the same manner in them all, namely, by his
Spirit, who renders them effectual means of salvation.
This sentiment would be pronounced heretical by the
Church of Rome, and by the followers, of Luther;
and would even incur the disapprobation of many
Protestants, who have been accustomed to think that
Christ is somehow in the Eucharist, as he is not in
any other ordinance. But their belief and their confi
dent affirmation are of no value, if they are not sup
ported by Scripture. And where do they find any
ground for their opinion but in human systems? It
is indeed said, that " the bread which we break is the
communion of the body of Christ, and the cup which
we drink is the communion of his blood."§ No man

* Conf. ch. xxix. { 7. + Larger Cat. Q. 168.
Art. xxxvi. Vide Quick's Synodicon, vol. i. p. 14.
Matth. xviii. 20. j 1 Cor. x. 16.

who admits that tbe bread and wine are only sighs
and figures, can consistently suppose the words now
quoted to have any other meaning, than that we have
communion with Christ in the fruits of his sufferings
and death ; or that, receiving the symbols, we receive
by faith the benefits procured by the pains of his body,
and the effusion of his blood. If it should still be
thought that the strong terms used by our Lord imply
something peculiar to this ordinance, I would remind
you that the same language is employed in reference
to the Gospel ; for our Saviour is speaking of it, and not
of the Eucharist, when he says, " Except ye eat the
flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have
no life in you."* Now, as the man who believes the
Gospel, eats the flesh and drinks the blood of Christ,
as well as he who partakes of the sacred Supper, it
follows, that in both communion with him is of the
same kind, and that there is no reason to imagine any
presence of our Saviour in the Eucharist which is
not in the word.
What has been now said, has no tendency to dimin
ish our reverence for the Eucharist. It is no true re
spect for it, which is founded on a mistaken view of
its nature. It is still a holy institution, in which be
lievers enjoy intimate fellowship with Christ; and is
guarded by an awful sanction, that none may dare to
engage in the service unprepared : " He that eateth
and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh condem
nation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."!
I shall now proceed to give you an account of the
Lord's Supper.
The occasion on which it was instituted by Christ,
was the celebration of the passover with his disciples.
Having sent some of them to procure a place, and to
make ready all things for the feast, " when the even
was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they
were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and
brake it, and gave it to his disciples," &c-! You will
observe that it was during the time of the passover,
while they were eating, and probably towards the end
of the feast, that our Lord instituted the Eucharist.
The one was not finished when the other commenced ;
and, by this continuity, it was intimated that the one
was changed into the other, and that the latter was
henceforth to supply the place of the former.
The time of the institution was the night on which
he was betrayed. He was to be put to death the
next day ; and, in the view of that event, he appointed
the Supper to be a perpetual memorial of it. The
time was calculated to invest it with a particular in
terest, as his disciples would connect with the cele
bration of it the recollection of tbe awful scenes which
immediately ensued. To his followers in every age,
it is a proof of his singular love to them, that while his
own dreadful sufferings were so near, he thought of
them with the most tender regard, and provided for
their encouragement and consolation amidst the evils
of life. They are excited to remember him, by this
testimony that he remembers them.
The symbols which he selected were bread and
wine, of which the former represents his body, and
the latter his blood. The bread and wine were such
as had been placed on the table for the purpose of cel
ebrating the passover. A dispute arose, in former
times, between the Eastern and the Western Church,
whether the bread should be leavened or unleavened.
The Greeks maintain that it should be leavened, be
cause our Lord, they think, ate the passover the day
before it was eaten by the Jews, and consequently,
before the use of unleavened bread had begun. On
the other hand, the Latins affirm that he observed the
passover at the usual time, and, of course, used un
leavened bread, according to the law. This contro-

* John vi. 53. f 1 Cor. xi. 29. X Matt- xxvi 20> 26-

492

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

versy contributed, with other causes, to the schism
between the Churches, which has lasted for many
centuries. It is in the highest degree insignificant, as
the use of either the one kind or the other was purely
accidental, and the quality of the bread has no con
nexion with the nature and design of the ordinance.
The practice of dividing the bread into small pieces,
called wafers, and putting them into the mouths of
the communicants, is a corruption of the Church of
Rome, which takes away the significant action of
breaking the bread, and the emblem of the union and
fellowship of Christians, expressed by their partaking
of one bread, or one loaf, according to the words of
the Apostle : " For we, being many, are one body,
and one bread : for we are all partakers of that one
bread."* With respect to the wine, it has been in
quired, whether it should be mingled with water, or
exhibited pure? We are told that the Jews were ac
customed to mix water with their wine, and that they
did so particularly at the passover; and it has been
inferred that our Saviour complied with the custom of
his country. There is little doubt that he would do
so in a matter so indifferent ; but we do not know
what was the custom in his days, except from Jewish
tradition, on which no dependence can be placed.
This practice generally obtained in Christian church
es, and, as is usual, mystical reasons were assigned
for it ; that the wine and water signified the blood and
water which flowed from our Saviour's side ; that
they denoted the union of his two natures in one per
son ; and that, as nations are called waters in the vis
ions of the Apocalypse, the mixture was expressive
of the union of believers to Christ. Such fancies are
childish and contemptible. As nothing is said of any
mixture in the Scriptures, it is natural to conclude that
the wine should be pure. It has been farther inquired,
whether in cases where bread and wine cannot be pro
cured, it would be lawful to make, use of correspond
ing substances ? To us the question is a mere specu
lation, on which we are not called to decide ; but, as
necessity supersedes positive law, it would be hard to
affirm that the Lord's Supper should not be celebrated,
where the identical materials could not be found which
were used at the original institution.
Our Lord took the bread, and after supper the cup.
This has been supposed to be a significant action, and
has been explained in different ways ; some making it
import, that God took his own Son to be mediator be
tween him and us, and a propitiation for our sins ; and
others conceiving it to mean, that Christ assumed our
nature to die in it. The other actions are understood
from their own nature, or from the words of Scripture;
but the meaning of this action is the subject only of
conjecture, and hence there are different views of its
import. In other words, it is explained according to
every man's fancy. As the Scripture relates the fact,
but subjoins no observation upon it, we are at liberty
to reject human commentaries. I am disposed to think,
that the taking of the bread and wine was not a sac
ramental action, but merely a preliminary step to the
institution. Bread and wine were upon the table for
the purpose of the passover, which Jesus, as Master of
the family, had already sanctified by prayer and
thanksgiving. It was necessary, as he was to com
mence a new feast, that he should take them ao-ain
and distribute them, in order to show the disciples that
this was a new feast, and not a continuation of the for
mer. The taking of the elements by the minister be
fore prayer, appears to me to be a matter of indiffer
ence. I should not blame him who omitted, or him who
observed it; but I could not go along with the latter,
if he considered it as an essential part of the ordinance.
Let us now attend to the first action of our Lord,

with respect to the bread and tbe wine, after he had
taken them. Two words are employed, which signify
lo bless, and lo give thanles. The latter alone is used in
reference to the cup, but both are used in reference to
the bread, and hence it appears that they have virtu
ally the same meaning, as one writer has chosen
the one, and another writer the other. We read in
our translation that Jesus "blessed the bread ;" and
hence it has been inferred that he consecrated it,
or set it apart from a common to a sacred use. The
term, consecration, has found its way even into Pro
testant churches, in relation to the sacraments; and
ministers often speak of setting apart the elements
from a common to a holy use. I presume that they
are consecrated or set apart, not by the actions of men,
but by the institution of Christ, or become sacred by
being devoted to a sacred use. Be this as it may, Ihe
inference from the words of Scripture is groundless ;
because the original says simply, that our Saviour
" blessed," not that he blessed the bread, for the pro
noun it is a supplement. The meaning is, that he
blessed God, as the substitution of the word, to give
thanks,* by some of the Evangelists, plainly shows.
He blessed, or gave thanks to his Father, we may pre
sume, for his love in sending him into the world to
save our fallen race, by his obedience unto death. It
may be questionable whether we should venture to
imitate him in the consecration of the elements, the
right to do which seems to be exclusively vested in
him, as the Head of the church, to whom it belongs
to separate persons and things to the service of God;
but there can be no doubt, that it is our duty to imi
tate him in his thanksgiving. We should never re
flect upon bis death without emotions of gratitude;
and these should be particularly strong when the me
morial of it is before our eyes, and we are assembled
to receive a token of our interest in his atonement, and
of our title to the precious blessings which it has pro
cured. There is no occasion on which the words of
the Psalmist may be adopted with greater propriety,
" Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his
benefits." Having blessed or given thanks, he constituted the
bread and wine signs of his body and blood. This is
the proper place to take notice of this important fact,
although the elements were made significant in the
act of giving them to the disciples. He said of the
bread, "This is my body;" and of the wine, "This
is my blood." Thus, what is called a sacramental
union was established ; by which nothing more is
meant, than that the elements become signs or fignres-
of his body and blood, and bear the names of the
things which they represent. I have already shown
you that the notion of some mystical union, which
cannot be explained or understood, is unscriptural and
superstitious. The relation of the symbols to the re
alities is the same as was the relation of the paschal
lamb to our Redeemer, or as is the relation of the watei
in baptism to the influences of the Spirit. In all these
cases, something distant and invisible is represented
by another thing which is placed within the range of
our senses. It does not belong to man to appoint
signs of Christ's body and blood. This has been
already done by his institution, and bread and wine be
come such signs to us, when, with prayer to God, ws
set them apart for this purpose. The muttering of the
words of institution over the elements, to consecrate
them, or transubstantiate them, more resembles, as we
have said, a charm than an act of religious worship, and
falsely supposes that this makes the sacrament, while
it is made by the appointment of Christ.
Jesus brake the bread. It has been inquired, wheth
er this circumstance is essential to the ordinance, o;

* 1 Cor. x. 17.

* Mark xiv. 23. Luke xxii. 19,

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE LORD'S SUPPER.

may be omitted ; as it is in the Church of Rome,
where the bread is exhibited in small separate pieces,
called wafers, one of which is put into the mouth of
each communicant. We have no hesitation in saying
that it is essential ; that, when it is wanting, the sac
rament is not celebrated according to the original in
stitution ; and that all the reasons which require other
parts of the ordinance to be retained, may be alleged
with equal justice for the retention of this. It is, in
deed, so essential, that the Lord's Supper is some
times designated from it alone, and is called " the
breaking of bread." The rite is significant, and is ap
propriate to the design of the institution, which is to
commemorate our Saviour's death. He himself ex
plained it, when he said, " This is my body which is
broken for you," intimating that the broken bread is
a figure of his body as wounded and lacerated for our
salvation. But of this important fact there is no rep
resentation when a small morsel of bread, in its en
tire form, is distributed to the communicants. We are
reminded by the creaking of the bread, of the severe
suffering which our Lord endured, when his back was
torn with a scourge, his hands and feet were pierced
with nails, and his head was crowned with thorns ;
and our minds are naturally led to contemplate the
sorrows of his soul, which had almost overwhelmed
him, — sorrows which no man can comprehend, but
which undoubtedly arose from a sense of Divine
wrath, on account of the sins of his people which he
had undertaken to expiate. I may remark, before
leaving this particular, that as, in this ordinance,
Christ is represented as dead for our salvation, not
only is the bread broken, but the sign of his blood is
separately exhibited, with an obvious intention to sig
nify that he died by the effusion of his blood, or by
its separation from his body. It is the practice in
some of the Eastern churches to give the bread dip
ped in wine. But as this is an unauthorized innova
tion, so it quite subverts the design of- the ordinance,
so far as it is figurative ; because it exhibits his blood
as remaining in his body, or conjoined with it, instead
of representing it as shed, according to the express
words of our Lord : " This is my blood which is shed
for the remission of sins."
Lastly, our Saviour gave the bread and the cup to
his disciples. I formerly showed you, that the seals
of covenants are intended to be used in different ways ;
to be looked at, as the rainbow in the clouds ; to be
applied externally to the body, as water in baptism ;
to be taken for food, as the bread and wine in the Eu
charist. With regard to a seal of the last description,
it was evidently necessary that it should be put into
our hands, to denote the divine grant of it, and our
right to make use of it. By giving the bread and wine
to the disciples, we may conceive our Lord to have
signified, — and the rite is still of the same import, —
that he and his Father freely and irrevocably give the
blessings of redemption to believers. His atonement,
with all its precious fruits, is as truly theirs, as the
bread and wine which have been put into their bands.
The Eucharist is therefore with propriety denomina
ted a seal, the purpose of which is to authenticate a
deed. Christ gives to worthy communicants, not his
real body and blood, from which they could derive no
advantage, but the invaluable benefits which were
purchased by the sufferings of his body and the effu
sion of his blood ; and by the external action ratifies
the gift.
Let us next attend to the actions of the disciples.
The design of the Lord's Supper being to confirm the
covenant of God with his people, it was necessary,
on the one hand, that the ordinance should be insti
tuted by our Saviour, and on the other, that something
should be done by us to signify our consent to the
covenant. With this view, we are commanded to.

493
take the bread and eat it, and to take the cup and
drink it. This is all that is enjoined upon the com
municants. Various observances are prescribed by
the Church of Rome, which being inventions of her
own are unworthy of notice ; and in the Church of
England, the communicants are required to receive
the sacrament kneeling. It is a vestige of Popery
which it is a dishonour to a Protestant church to re
tain. We can understand the reason why a Papist
kneels, for he believes that what he sees is the real
body of Christ, which he is bound to adore; but we
may be justly surprised to find a person of a different
faith complying with the usage, when the reason of it
is gone. He symbolizes with idolaters; and if a silly
love of pomp and form, and an unscriptural reverence
for antiquity, had not prevailed at the Reformation in
England, this and other superstitious practices would
have been swept as rubbish out of the temple of God.
It might move our indignation to hear that church re
quiring kneeling from greater respect, for the sacra
ment, although till lately she was accustomed to pro
fane it in the grossest manner, by administering it to
the most notorious profligates, as a qualification for
office. Kneeling is a manifest deviation from the
original institution. The disciples celebrated the sup
per in the posture which they observed at their ordin
ary meals. They were reclining upon couches, ac
cording to the custom of their country ; and we imi
tate their example When we sit at the Lord's table, as
we do at our own tables.
In the early periods of society, when language is not
copious, men express their sentiments by actions as
well as by words. This mode was adopted by the
prophets, who sometimes accompanied their revelations
with significant signs. It is retained in symbolical or
dinances, and some traces of it are seen in the daily in
tercourse of life. When a proposal is made by one
man to another, or a question is asked, which requires
an answer in the affirmative, he is understood to con
sent to the proposal, or to answer tbe question, by bow
ing his head, without uttering a syllable. Our silent
actions at the table of the Lord area declaration of our
sentiments, as distinct and intelligible as if we had
clothed them in words. The crucified Saviour is pre
sented to us under the figures of bread and wine; and
by taking and using these we plainly signify, that we
cordially receive him as our Saviour. God gives us
sensible signs, to assure us that his covenant is immu
table, and his promises shall be performed ; and we,
by accepting the signs, express out confidence in his
faithfulness, and our certain expectation of the bless
ings which he has engaged to bestow. Hence we per
ceive the import of the words of the Apostle, which
have been repeatedly quoted : " The cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood
of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the
communion of the body of Christ?"* They signify
that believers enjoy fellowship with their Saviour in
the holy supper. His death is exhibited as the meri
torious cause of their reconciliation to God ; and it is
exhibited in so impressive a manner, as to strengthen
their faith, and to fill them with joy and peace in be
lieving. But this is the privilege of those alone who
are possessed of the faith of which the actions perform
ed by them are expressive. When it is wanting, the
actions are hypocritical ; the symbols are received, but
the Saviour is rejected; and the unworthy communicant
is guilty of tbe body and blood of the Lord ; that is, the
irreverence with which he uses the symbols terminates
upon him whom they represent, and he, as it. were,
crucifies the Son of God afresh, and puts him to open
shame. From this view of the actions enjoined upon Chris-

* 1 Cor. x. 16.

494

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

tians in the celebration of the Eucharist, it appears,
that it is intended to be a public declaration of our
faith in Christ. When he instituted the ordinance, he
Baid, " Do this in remembrance of me." It is a
memorial ofhis death, which serves not only to perpetu
ate the knowledge of that event, but to signify in what
esteem it is held, and what importance is attached to it
by his followers. It is commemorated not merely as
the death of a friend and benefactor, of a teacher distin
guished by his wisdom, or of a saint illustrious for his
virtues ; but of a Redeemer who laid down his life as
a ransom for our souls. Every man who partakes of
the sacred symbols is understood to declare, whatever
may be his secret sentiments, that he acknowledges-
Jesus Christ in the character of his Saviour, and founds
his hope of salvation upon his sacrifice. He presents
to God the death of his Son, as his only plea for bis
favour; and avows to the world, that however lightly
they may esteem the salvation of Christ, he prefers it
to every sublunary enjoyment.
Again, in the Lord's supper we enter into a solemn
engagement to serve him, who loved us, and gave him
self for us. I formerly remarked, that it is commonly
supposed to have been called a sacrament, in allusion
to the military oath of the Romans to be obedient to
their general. I assigned my reason for thinking that
this is a mistake ; and that the word, sacrament, was
used as equivalent to mystery. Be this however as it
may, the celebrated passage in the epistle of the young
er Pliny to Trajan, which represents the primitive
Christians as binding themselves by an oath not to
commit murder, theft, adultery, or any other crime, and
which I have no doubt refers to the Lord's supper,
points out the view which was then entertained of that
ordinance. While it was a commemoration of the
death of Christ, it was understood to be an engagement
to duty. It is an acknowledgment that we are not our
own, but are bought with a price, and that we are there
fore bound to glorify our Saviour, with our bodies and
our spirits which are his. And as there is no commun
ion between light and darkness, those are guilty of the
vilest hypocrisy, and of a daring profanation of the or
dinance, who observe it while they are living in known
and deliberate sin, and are resolved to continue any prac
tice which is forbidden by the law of Christ, or to omit
any duty which it enjoins.
Once more, the celebration of the Eucharist is an
expressive sign of the communion of Christians with
one another in love ; for they meet at the table of the
Lord as brethren and children of the same family, to
partake of the same spiritual feast. The Apostle au
thorizes this view of the subject by the words former
ly quoted. " For we being many, are one body, and
one bread," or one loaf, " for we are all partakers of
that one loaf."* It seems to have been the custom to
provide a loaf of bread, which was broken, and distri
buted to the communicants; and the Apostle observes,
that they were one like the loaf of which they all shar
ed ; their participation of it being a symbol of their
union to one another, as well as to Christ, the head of
his mystical body. In testimony of their mutual love,
the primitive Christians were wont, at least in the second
century, before they proceeded to celebrate the Eucha
rist, to give each other the kiss of charity ; and imme
diately after, as we likewise learn from Justin Martyr,
" they contributed according to their ability and inclina
tion ; and what was collected was delivered to the bish
op or president of the assembly, who relieved with it
widows and orphans, the sick, and those who were in
want from any other cause, prisoners, travellers, and
strangers, and in a word, all that had need."! Pau'
exhorts the Corinthians to " keep the feast, notwith
the leaven of malice and wickedness ;"! intimating
* 1 Cor. a, 17. ! Just. Mart. Apol. 2 J 1 Cor. v. 8.

that envy, resentment, hatred, and revenge, which so
ill accord with the Christian character at anytime, are
particularly incongruous on this occasion, when no af
fection towards our brethren should be entertained but
the purest charity. There are several considerations,
which will naturally occur, and are calculated to draw
Christians together in the strictest bonds of friendship,
Their character is the same, for they are all professed
disciples of one Master; their privileges are the same,
for they are admitted to the same holy communion with
liim ; they are all, if they are genuine believers, equal
ly dear to the Saviour; and they have the hope of meet
ing in their Father's house, and spending eternity in
the most delightful intercourse.
Our Lord has shown for whose use this ordinance is
intended, by administering it to his disciples ; and a
conclusion may be deduced from the passover, to which
the Israelites alone had access, and those who had join
ed themselves to them by submitting to circumcision.
"This is the ordinance of the passover; There shall
no stranger eat thereof. And when a stranger shall
sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the
Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him
come near and keep it ; and he shall be as one that is
born in the land : for no uncircumcised person shall eat
thereof."* Since circumcision was an indispensable
qualification for eating the passover, it follows that bap
tism, which has succeeded to it, is requisite to entitle
a person to a seat at the table of the Lord. I do not
know that this was ever called in question till lately,
that a controversy has arisen among the English Bap
tists, whether persons of other Christian denominations
may not be occasionally admitted to the holy commun
ion with them ; and it became necessary for those who
adopted the affirmative, to maintain that baptism is not
a previous condition. This assertion arose out of their
peculiar system, which denies the validity of infant
baptism. But to every man who contents himself with
a plain view of the subject, and has no purpose to serve
by subtleties and refinements, it will appear that bap
tism is as much the initiating ordinance of the Chris
tian, as circumcision was of the Jewish, dispensation.
An uncircumcised man was not permitted to eat the
passover, and an unbaptizedman should not be permit
ted to partake of tbe Eucharist.
But baptism is not the only qualification. We learn
from the law of Moses, tbat when any of the Israelites
had contracted ceremonial uncleanness, they were not
allowed to join with their brethren in the paschal so
lemnity ; and for their accommodation a second pass-
over was appointed at the distance of a month, during
which they would be purified.! Every person who
has been baptized does not possess the moral qualifica
tions which would entitle him to be accounted a dis
ciple of Christ. He may be an open apostate from
the faith ; or he may be so ignorant of religion, and so
irregular in his conduct, that it would be an abuse of
charity to consider him as a Christian. Hence we
demand, in candidates for the Lord's table,- a compe
tent measure of knowledge, a profession of faith in
Christ, and a. behaviour which will justify us in be
lieving them to be sincere. " All ignorant and ungodly
persons," says our Church, " as they are unfit to en
joy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the
Lord's table, and cannot without great sin against
Christ while they remain such, partake of these holy
mysteries, or be admitted thereunto."!
Hitherto I have spoken of those who have a right
of admission in the judgment of the Church. But
its judgment is fallible, as the state of the heart can
not be certainly known, and it rests solely upon ex
ternal evidence. If it be inquired, Who have a right

* Exod. xiii. 43, 48.
1 Conf. xxix. { 8.

f Numb. ix. 6—12.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE LORD'S SUPPER.

495

before God ? we must answer, that believers are the
only persons ; and for this obvious reason, that the
Eucharist is a seal of the covenant of grace, an in
terest in which is obtained by faith. But even be
lievers are not always prepared to engage in this spiri
tual service. If their faith has declined ; if their con
sciences are wounded by sin ; if they have incurred
the displeasure of God ; they are not worthy to appear
before him, nor capable of the holy exercises which the
ordinance calls for, till they are renewed by repentance.
The reason why the exhortation of Paul to the Cor
inthians, " Let a man examine himself," is still
brought forward by the ministers of rejigion, is the
mixed nature of the societies over which they preside,
and the imperfect state even of genuine Christians.
An investigation of tbeir character by the light of
Scripture, may discover to some an unworthiness
which they did not suspect, and to others a fitness of
which they were in doubt. It is a mistake, however,
to suppose that self-examination must precede the par
ticipation of the Lord's Supper, in tbe case of every
man upon every occasion. There can be no reason
for instituting an inquiry respecting a point which is
fully ascertained. He who possesses the assurance of
faith, and walks in the light of God's countenance ;
he who loves the law of God, and whose conscience
bears testimony to his sincerity, knows his right, and
may exercise it when be has an opportunity. The ex
hortation of Paul primarily respected a society of
professed Christians, among whom great irregularities
prevailed, and to whom a call to sit in judgment upon
themselves was seasonably and properly addressed.
To assist Christians in this inquiry, is the design
of that part of the service of our Church which is
commonly called Fencing the Tables. You will re
member, however, that it is merely an expedient sug
gested by human prudence, and that it is not suppor
ted by scriptural precept, or apostolical example. It
is therefore a vulgar prejudice to account it essential
to the ordinance, and to imagine that it adds any thing
to its perfection or solemnity. The truth is, that to
aid his people in examining themselves, should be the
object of a minister from the beginning to the end of
the year ; and that he should study so to divide the
word of truth, that all may be furnished with the
means of ascertaining their state and character before
they assemble to celebrate the Supper. But although
this part of the service is not necessary, is not adopted
in many Christian societies, and might be laid aside
without in any degree impairing the original institution,
at which it was not observed ; yet there is no doubt
that it has been productive of good, and might have
produced more, if it bad been judiciously conducted.
Ministers should beware of the two extremes, of be
ing too easy or too severe ; of being too easy, lest
they embolden the profane ; and of being too severe,
lest they discourage the pious. There is dangerto be
apprehended from their boundless charity, and from
their gloominess and narrow-mindedness. The word
of God is the only standard of character ; and as it
excludes all who are living in sin, so it invites all
who love the Saviour, although their love should be as
a grain of mustard-seed. The plan at present pursued
in our Church is preferable to that of our predeces
sors, who, taking the decalogue as their standard, ex
communicated sinners of every description and degree,
many of whom were known not to be present, and
would have disclaimed the privilege which was pub
licly denied to them. What had they to do to judge
those who were without ; ought they not to have
judged those alone who were within ?* ^

How often the Lord's Supper should be celebrated,
is a question which has undergone much discussion.
Some contend that it should be administered every
Sabbath ; but in my opinion, the proof from Scrip
ture completely fails. Nothing can be inferred from
the words of Luke concerning the primitive disciples,
that " they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doc
trine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in
prayers,"* unless it should be said, that they ate the
Lord's Supper as often as they prayed, which no man
in his senses ever affirmed. The case of the disciples
at Troas is as little to the purpose; for when we read,
that " on the first day of the week, when they came
together to break bread, Paul preached unto them,"!
it would be a strange fancy to suppose, that to break
bread was the uniform design of their meetings on
the Sabbath. We should thus suppose, contrary to
Scripture, and to the history of the primitive church,
that this was the main object of all their religious
assemblies, that for which their meetings were held,
and to which the preaching of the gospel was secon
dary and subservient; whereas the narrative plainly
imports that it was an occasional design, suggested by
the incidental presence of the Apostle. From the
words of Paul to the Corinthians, " ye come together
not for the better, but for the worse," compared with
what he afterwards says, " when ye come together, this
is not to eat the Lord's Supper,"! it has been conclud
ed, that always when they came together they observed
this ordinance ; because, otherwise, there could be no
force in the argument, that they came together for the
worse, which refers to the disorders of which they
were, guilty in communicating. This is truly wonder
ful logic, which the initiated may understand, but to
every other person it is unintelligible. All that the
Apostle affirms is, that when the Corinthians celebra
ted the Lord's Supper in a riotous manner, they came
together for the worse. He says not one word about
tbe frequency or the rareness of their meetings. The
stupidity of this criticism is almost equalled by that
which is founded on the words, "As often as ye eat
this bread and drink this cup," and represents our Lord
as enjoining a frequent celebration of the Supper ;
whereas every person knows that we use the phrase,
as often, in reference to an action which we perform
only once a year, as well as to an action which we
perform once a day. As often as I take a meal, I ask
the Divine blessing upon it. This happens three or
four times a day. As often as I go to Edinburgh, I
go by a particular road. This happens once or twice
a year. Both expressions are equally proper, and im
ply only, that when the one thing takes place, the
other always accompanies it.
Were we to judge of the Eucharist by human com
memorative institutions, we should suppose it to re
turn at distant intervals ; or, were we to judge of it
by similar institutions of Divine appointment, as the
Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles,
we should conclude that it was to he observed once a
year. There is no precept of Scripture, no apostolical
example, to regulate our practice. Churches are left
at liberty to order their procedure according to their
own views of expedience and utility. The sacred
feast should not be treated as if it were of no value,
and so rarely celebrated as to be almost forgotten ,
nor should it be magnified above other ordinances, and
represented as of indispensable necessity on every occa
sion. And it is arrogance in any denomination of
Christians to imagine that they excel other Christians,
merely because this ordinance is more frequently dis
pensed among them.

* 1 Cor.v. 12.

* Acts ii. 42.

f lb. xx. 7.

X 1 Cor. xi. 17 20.

496

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

LECTURE XCIII.

ON PRAYER.

Prayer Natural to Man.— Definition of Prayer; Comprehen
sive of Adoration, Thanksgiving, Confession, and Petition.
— Object of Prayer, God. — Connexion Between the Char
acter of God and the Duty of Prayer. — Addressed to God
the Father. — Notice of Objections to Prayer. — The Word
of God, the Rule of Prayer. — Blessings to be implored.
In the Gospel, Jesus Christ addresses us in the
name of his Father, declaring his gracious counsels, and
presenting to us the blessings of salvation, accom
panied with an invitation and command to receive
them. In the sacraments, the same subjects are ex
hibited by symbols ; and as they are signs of redemp
tion, so they are seals for the confirmation of the pro
mises, that the faith of true Christians may be
strengthened, and they may abound in consolation and
hope. This external dispensation of religion requires,
on their part, certain sentiments and affections of the
mind, corresponding to the nature of the truths pro
claimed, and the facts brought under their view ; and
certain actions significant of their internal emotions,
and of their consent to the covenant into which God
has admitted them. But the whole of religion is not
comprehended in the manifestations of his good-will
towards them, and the silent expressions of their faith ;
as he speaks lo them, it is their duty to speak to him
in the humble and animated language of devotion.
Nor does their duty consist solely in accepting the
gifts which he is pleased to bestow; they are enjoined
not to wait supinely for the visitations of his favour,
but to solicit them, and to present their requests in
every season of need.
Man is so constituted, that the movements of his
mind give an impulse to his body, and discover them
selves by external signs. The contemplation of high
degrees of excellence, the reception of valuable bene
fits, the apprehension of change, and the feeling of dis
tress, give rise to involuntary exclamations, to ges
tures, and to modifications of the features. Thus a
foundation is laid in human nature for the outward
signs of devotion, whether they consist in words or in
postures of the body. When the Scripture commands
us to bow down and kneel before God, and to " lift
our eyes and our hands" to his oracle, to " make
known our requests" to him in words, and " to call
upon his name," " to cry with a loud voice," and " to
praise him in songs," it merely calls upon us, in our
intercourse with him, to give scope to propensities or
tendencies of our nature, which are called forth on
other occasions, when our sentiments and feelings are
powerfully excited. Religion does not consist solely
in silent meditation. It demands the service of the
whole man ; and there are moments when the tongue
must be employed to give utterance to the varied affec
tions of the heart.
The subject to which I propose now to direct your
attention is Prayer. It may be strictly defined to be
the supplicatory address of a creature to his Creator,
in which he humbly entreats him to confer some bles
sing, to remove some present evil, or to defend him
from future danger, which he has reason to fear.
It is usually understood, however, with greater lati
tude ; and comprehends, according to the definition of
our Church, petition, confession, and thanksgiving, to
which may be added adoration.*
Adoration is the devout celebration of the perfec
tions of God, and ofhis works, in which they are dis
played. It is incumbent upon us to admire the trans
cendent excellence of his character, to acknowledge
him as the first and the greatest of all beings, and to

* Larger Cat. Q. 178. Shorter Cat. Q. 98.

record to his honour the wonderful manifestations of
himself which he has made in creation, providence,
and redemption. The Scriptures are full of examples
which it would be endless to cite : " 0 Lord my God,
tbou art very o-reat : thou art clothed with honour and
majesty ; who coverest thyself with light as with a
carment; who stretchest out the heavens like a cur
tain."* We, indeed, can add nothing to his glory
and felicity, nor, in our highest elevation, can we think
of him in a manner at all worthy of his greatness.;
but sentiments of reverence and admiration necessarily
arise in the mind which contemplates him, and adoration
is the tribute which we owe to the Author of our exis
tence, who has revealed himself to our eyes. This act
of devotion is expressed by praising and blessing God,
We bless him, or pronounce him to be blessed, in whom
there is an assemblage of every thing great, and good,
and lovely, and who, independent of his creatures,
possesses all his resources in himself; and we praise
him as the model of perfection, the eternal source of
life, and beauty, and felicity, the incomparable One,
before whom the universe is less than nothing, and
vanity: " Of him, and through him, and to him, are
all things : to whom be glory for ever. Amen."
Thanksgiving is the expression of our gratitude for
the favours which we have received from him. They
are bestowed without the expectation of a recompense;
and, indeed, as he stands in need of nothing, so we
have nothing to give ; but nature itself dictates, and
religion demands, that we should entertain a lively
sense ofhis goodness, and should give utterance to our
feelings on appropriate occasions. Devout men of
former times have set us an example : " Bless the
Lord, O my soul," says the Psalmist, " and all that is
within me, bless his holy name. Bless the Lord, O
my soul, and forget not all his benefits : who forgiveth
all thine iniquities ; who healeth all thy diseases; who
redeemeth thy life from destruction ; who crowneth
thee with loving-kindness and tender mercies."!
Thanksgivings naturally are associated with petitions ;
for it is impossible, when we present ourselves before
a benefactor to solicit him to befriend us again, not
to recall former tokens of his kindness ; and we shall
have the surer hope of success in our new application,
when we show that we have been duly impressed by
the past. We find the apostle Paul repeatedly ming
ling thanksgivings with his prayers.
Confession is the acknowledgment of our sins to
God, whom we have offended. It is the natural ex
pression of genuine repentance, which so affects us
with a sense of our baseness and demerit, that we can
not refrain from accusing and condemning ourselves.
With many of our sins, our fellow-men have nothing
to do ; and if they are secret, we are under no obliga
tion to publish them. They have no right to call us
to account, and no power to pardon us. God knows
them all ; and we confess them to him, not to give
him information, but to own our guilt, to abase our
selves in his presence, to glorify his holiness and jus
tice, and to signify that we are worthy of punishment,
and hope to be forgiven and restored to favour only
through his mercy. Of this description was the prayer
of David : " Have mercy upon me, 0 God, according
to thy loving kindness; according unto the multitude
of thy tender mercies, blot out my transgressions.
For I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is
ever before me. Against thee, thee only have I sin
ned, and done this evil in thy sight; that thou might-
est be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when
thou judgest."! The prayer of the Pharisee was re
jected, because it consisted of thanksgiving alone;
the formal, hypocritical thanksgiving of a man who
gloried in his fancied superiority to others, but for the

* Ps. civ. 1,2. f lb. ciii. 1—4. 1 lb. li. 1, 3, 4.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : PRAYER.

497

sake of decorum paid a passing compliment to God
for having helped him to attain this pre-eminence :
" God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are."*
Petition is the request of some favours from God.
I have already observed that prayer, in the proper
Bense of the word, consists in petition alone. We ask
blessings from God, because he is the sole fountain of
good ; and we ask blessings of every kind, because
they are at his disposal. " Every good gift, and every
perfect gift, is from above, and cometh down from the
Father of lights, with whom there is no variableness,
neither shadow of turning."! Our .state of constant
dependence and constant want, renders it necessary
thai we should be always presenting petitions. We
have no permanent source of supply at our command,
and even what we possess we cannot call our own.
He who has received grace, should pray that it may
be continued and increased ; he who possesses a com
petent portion of this world's goods, should still pray
for his daily bread, because, without the divine bles
sing, his riches will make to themselves wings, and
fly away as an eagle towards heaven ; his food will
not nourish, and his garments will not warm him.
Prayer should be addressed to God alone: -"Thou
shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt
thou serve."! Nothing can be more explicit than this
declaration, which should have precluded, among those
who acknowledge the Divine authority of the Scrip
tures, all deviations from the path of duty so clearly
marked out in them. It is sufficient to justify us in
rejecting the worship which is given in the Church of
Rome to saints and angels, and in pronouncing it to
be idolatrous. As the statute is express, so the rea
sons on which it is founded are obvious.
First, God alone can hear all our requests. He is
present with us wherever we are, and not only listens
to our words, but understands our thoughts and the
desires of our hearts. In vain should we address our
selves to a being, with respect to whom we were in
doubt whether our voice could reach him, and he were
able to look beyond the exterior, and to judge of our
sincerity. This consideration alone demonstrates the
folly, as well as the impiety, of addressing prayer to
creatures. High as is the rank of glorified spirits,
and great as is the enlargement of their powers, we
have no authentic information that they are acquainted
with the affairs of men upon the earth. It is not im
probable that, except so far as God may be pleas
ed to make discoveries to them for particular pur
poses, they are ignorant of our affairs ; and to suppose
them to know all things, and especially to know
the heart, would be to suppose them to be gods.
The ironical words of Elijah to the priests of Baal,
may be addressed with the utmost propriety to the
man who prays to saints : " Cry aloud, for either he
is talking, or he is pursuing, or peradventure he
sleepeth, and must be awaked. "|| But all things are
" naked and manifest to him with whom we have to
do;" and we pray to him, because we are assured
that his ear is always open to our cry. Besides the
simple knowledge of our requests, his unerring wis
dom can decide upon every case which comes under
his notice. None of those mistakes will happen,
which result from the short-sighted benevolence of
human benefactors ; he perceives what will-be for our
good, and what would be prejudicial to us, and we
may implicitly resign ourselves to his disposal.
Secondly, God alone can grant our requests. There
is nothing at the absolute disposal of creatures. As
there are many things which they cannot do at all, so
those things which are understood to lie within the
sphere of their ability, they can do only when God

*Luke xxui. 11.
IJ 1 Kings xviii. 27.
3N

f James i. 17.

X Matth. iv. 10.32

permits, and assists them by his providence or grace.
Why then should we apply to saints, or even to an
gels, who are dependent as well as we, and, although
superior to us, are subject to similar restraints? An
angel could not deliver us from death, for he does not
hold the keys of the grave and the invisible world ;
an angel could not pardon our sins, for he is not the
Supreme Lawgiver, and the dispenser of mercy. A
saint, a glorified saint, has no grace to communicate
to us, for he has not more than he needs for himself;
he could not, by his own power, relieve us for a single
moment from pain, or procure for us a draught of wa
ter in the parched and thirsty wilderness. To the
worshippers of such beings we may apply the words
of the prophet, "They have no knowledge that pray
unto a god that cannot save ;"* and we may add, that
they would not save although they could, for the bles
sed inhabitants of heaven are too zealous for the Di
vine glory, to appropriate any part of it to themselves,
or to sympathize with the impious men who attempt
to raise them to an equal rank with the Most High.
To him the earth belongs, and the fulness thereof;
the heaven also is his, with all its treasures, and what
good thing can his creatures ask which he is not able
to bestow ? " My God shall supply all your need,
according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus."!
We come, in prayer, to a fountain which is pouring
out a copious and overflowing stream of blessings,
and yet is always full. As withholding doth not en
rich, so giving doth not impoverish him; and we
have no reason, therefore, to fear lest our frequent de
mands should exhaust his beneficence, or our importu
nity should displease him. The benevolence of crea*
tures may be restrained by the apprehension that, by
giving much to others, they shall not have enough for
themselves; but God is all sufficient, and his favour
is never solicited in vain.
This leads me to remark, in the third place, that
God is willing to grant our requests. Prayer pro
ceeds upon the idea of the benevolence of his nature.
Were we to conceive of him as a malevolent or a sel
fish Being; were we to imagine even that he is indif
ferent, or that he would deem it beneath his dignity to
take notice of such insignificant creatures and their
petty affairs, there would be no inducement to present
our petitions to him, and our labour would be bestow
ed in vain. On such views of the Deity, the Epicu
reans pronounced all religion to be vain ; and some
modern philosophers place him at such a distance from
men, that every tie which seemed to unite them is
broken ; and shut up in the mysteriousness of his es
sence, he is only an object of uninteresting specula
tion. The Divine Being is communicative, not how
ever necessarily, as the sun gives out his rays, or the
fountain its streams, for then the universe should have
existed from eternity, and all its inhabitants would be
happy, and happy in the highest degree. But there
is a principle in God which disposes him to diffuse
felicity, according to the dictates of his wisdom, and
in accordance with his other perfections ; and in this
principle originated the creation of heaven and earth,
and the dispensations of providence and grace. It is
the knowledge of this feature in the Divine character,
which encourages us to present our supplications. He
is good, and does good, and for this reason we pray to
him. And surely, when we reflect upon the infinite
fulness of God, to which the goodness of the most
perfect creature bears a less proportion than a drop
bears to all the waters on the surface and in the bow
els of the globe ; and upon his willingness to exer
cise it, which the Scriptures labour to express by the
selection of a variety of terms, calling it his love,,
grace, mercy, good pleasure, and compassion ; we may

* Isa. xiv. 20.

t Phil. iv. 19.

498

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

say of those who address their prayers to the angels
or the saints, in the words of God concerning the Is
raelites, who transferred their homage from him to the
gods of the surrounding nations, " My people have
committed two evils : they have forsaken the fountain
of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken
cisterns that can hold no water."*
It were easy to show that all the other parts of prayer,
when taken in its most extensive sense, are founded
on the character and perfections of God ; adoration on
his transcendent excellence and unrivalled greatness ;
thanksgiving on the numerous and valuable benefits
which he confers ; confession on the relation in which
he stands to us, as our offended Maker and Judge.
But I have confined myself to prayer, properly so
called, or petition ; and in this light it will be viewed,
in what I have farther to say upon the subject.
The reasons which have been now stated, hold out
encouragement to pray, and prove that our prayers
Should be addressed to God alone. But in conse
quence of the situation in which we are placed as sin
ful creatures, something further is necessary to be
known with respect to the object of worship. The
conclusions which innocent beings may legitimately
deduce from his character, are not applicable to the
case of the guilty ; who, if they reasoned justly, would
infer that from his goodness they have nothing to ex
pect, and that his perfect knowledge supplies the evi
dence on which his power will be justly exerted in
subjecting them to punishment. The criminal may
venture to solicit the favour of his judge ; but what
would be the foundation of his hope, if there were no
indication that he is mercifully disposed ?
The prayers which sinners offer up to God are
founded, or should be founded, on the dispensation of
grace. The important question whether God is placa
ble, upon which the religion of the guilty depends, is
answered by the gospel, which declares that he is not
only willing to be appeased, but that he is actually
reconciled to us by the atonement of his Son. The
obstacle to the reception of fallen men, and tbe com
munication of blessings to them, is removed. The de
mands of justice have been satisfied ; the law which
they had broken, has been honoured by the fulfilment
of its precepts, and the establishment of its authority;
and consistently with the holiness and righteousness
of his character and administration, God may extend
his favour to those who in themselves deserved con
demnation and wrath. Spiritual and heavenly bles
sings have been obtained for them, and exhibited in
the promises ; and these are ratified with the blood of
our Saviour. Hence you perceive, that all our prayers
should have a respect to his mediation. God should
be contemplated as manifested in him, and the dis
plays of his perfections in creation and providence can
give encouragement to us, only when they are viewed
in connexion with the work of redemption, in which
'they assume an aspect of benevolence to man, and
are engaged, if I may speak so, to co-operate for our
good. The Maker of heaven and earth will appear to
the person who is apprised of his natural condition, to
;be an object of confidence and hope, only when he is
considered at the same time as the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and in him the Father of mer
cies, and the God of all grace and consolation. The
mediation of Christ furnishes the sole ground on which
we can expect success; it supplies the arguments with
which we should enforce our petitions; and when we
do receive a favourable answer, it is granted in con
sideration, not of our sincerity and fervour, but of his
merit and intercession. Hence you perceive for what
reason our Saviour has commanded us to ask all things
in his name, and also when we do comply with this
* Jer. ii. 13.

injunction. The mere mention ofhis name is not suf
ficient; for it is introduced into many a prayer, which
breathes a spirit the most adverse to the Gospel, into
the pTayers of the self-righteous, who trust much more
to themselves than to him. They alone pray in his
name, who, fully convinced of their own unworthiness,
depend on him alone for acceptance. " We are the
circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice
in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh."*
There is then an essential difference between the pray
ers of a Christian, and those of the professor of any
other religion. The latter addresses God as the Cre
ator ; but the former as the Redeemer of the human
race. Both may appeal to the divine mercy ; but the
one contemplates it under the vague and general no
tion of benevolence awakened by the spectacle of mis
ery, leaving the idea of justice or moral rectitude out
of sight ; while the other fixes his attention upon the
specific manifestation of it in harmony with all the
attributes of Deity. The Christian approaches God
by an intercessor, whose merits will secure the accep
tance of his requests ; but the Mahometan and the
philosopher appears for himself, and trusts that the
naked representation of his case will prevail upon the
Almighty to regard him with a propitious eye. W"e
are not left in doubt which of these modes of prayer
is pleasing to God, and will draw down his blessing
upon us. " I am the way, the truth, and the life, and
no man cometh unto the Father but by me."!
As God is revealed to us in a plurality of persons,
when we say that he is the object of prayer, we must
be understood to mean, that prayer should be address
ed to each of those persons. A title to religious wor
ship is not peculiar to any of them, but is common to
them all. There is the same ground of honour in
each, namely, the possession of the divine essence and
perfections. The Father is the first in order ; but we
must not add with some, in dignity also, lest we de
stroy the equality and undeify the other persons of the
Trinity. There is no perfection in the Father, which
is not also in the Son and in the Holy Ghost. Exam
ples of religious worship addressed to them as well as
to the Father occur in the Scriptures, which are the
standard of our faith and practice. In his last moments,
the blessed martyr Stephen prayed to Jesus Christ,
whom he saw standing at the right hand of God:
"Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."! Equal honour is
given to the holy Ghost. He is understood to be sig
nified by the seven spirits before the throne, to whom
John prayed for grace to the churches, [| as well as the
eternal Father, and his Son the only begotten from the
dead, and we continue to pray to him in our public as
semblies, when in the language of an apostle, we say,
" The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of
God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with
you. Amen."§ Thus we have a full warrant to call
upon any of the sacred persons of the Godhead. They
are all present to hear and to help us; and the part
which each sustains in the economy of redemption,
holds out the highest encouragement to make known
our requests to him. We may with all confidence
draw near to the Father who loved us, to the Son who
died for us, and to the Spirit who sanctifies and com
forts us.
But the ordinary mode of worship, which is estab
lished by the Christian dispensation, is to address the
Father, in the name of the Son, and by the assistance
of the Holy Ghost : and it is pointed out by the Apos
tle in the following words. " Through him," that is,
Christ, " we both have access by one Spirit unto the
Father."^ To the Father a place of eminence and
dignity is assigned in redemption. He is, if I may ex-

* Phil. iii. 3.
|| Rev. i. 4.

T John xiv. 6.
{2 Cor. xiii. 14.

( Acts. vii. 59.
V Eph. ii. 18.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : PRAYER.

499

press myself so, the representative of the Godhead, who
asserts its rights, and demands satisfaction to its jus
tice ; and hence, although all the persons were equally
dishonoured by the sins of men, and the scheme of
salvation originated in their common consent, it was
his anger which the sacrifice of the cross was offered
to avert, and it is his favour which we are directed to
implore. The love of the divine nature is manifested
and exercised towards us in the person of the Father.
On this account, although not to the exclusion of the
other persons, — who, as we have seen, may be directly
addressed, — he is the object of those devotional du
ties, in which the feelings excited in our souls by the
contemplation and experience of divine goodness are ex
pressed. In him the infinite glory, the unbounded per
fection, the transcendent benevolence of the Godhead,
are manifested; and we look to him as our refuge, and
our strength, and our present help in trouble. Through
Christ we believe in God, who raised him from the
dead. Christ was constituted the way, the truth, and
the life, that we might come to the Father; his blood
was shed that we might have boldness to enter into
the holiest of all. Since then it appears from the
New Testament, and from the remarks which have
been made, that the Father is the ordinary object of
Christian worship, it will be proper to inquire distinctly
in what light he should be viewed when we pray to
him. First, We must beware of considering him as alone,
or as exclusively entitled to our worship, and should
remember that the pre-eminence which is implied in
his being the peculiar object of our prayers, is merely
economical. Even when we address the Father, we
do not give honour to him alone. As the Divine nature
which is in him is also in the Son and the Spirit, in
worshipping him we worship the whole Trinity. We
worship God, and each of these persons is God. In con
sequence of the essential union, although one of the per
sons may be immediately in the contemplation of the
mind, we cannot divide the honour so as to withhold it
from another; and, besides, as the Father is the repre
sentative of the Godhead, the glory which terminates in
the first instance upon him, redounds to the Son and the
Spirit. We honour them in the Father, with whom they
are one. This reasoning is justified by our Lord's ex
press declaration : " He that hath seen me, hath seen
the Father."*
Secondly, It is evident from what has been already
Baid, that we must consider him as reconciled. In
this light the gospel reveals him as the object of prayer.
The majesty, and power, and moral purity of the mys
terious Being who presides over nature and pervades
all space, are calculated to overwhelm us with awe and
terror; but the mild glory of mercy shining in the face
of Jesus Christ, revives and comforts the amazed and
trembling soul. " There is forgiveness with thee, that
thou mayest be feared."
Lastly, We should consider him as our Father ; and
in this relation believers are authorized to claim him,
in consequence of his relation to their Saviour. " I
ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and
your God."f When our Lord taught his disciples to
pray! he directed them to begin with saying, " Our
Father which art in heaven." This character, which
he has condescended to assume, reminds us of the tem
per of mind with which we should approach the throne
of heaven; not as slaves, who are afraid to utter their
requests before a haughty and unfeeling master ; nor
as criminals, trembling in the presence of a judge who
has their life at his disposal ; but as children confident
of the affection of their parent, with the language of
faith in our mouths, and the expectation of grace in our
hearts. The name of Father awakens every pleasing

* John xiv. 9.

f lb. xx. 17.

emotion. Will he not. lend an ear to our requests,
although presented with much unworthiness ? Will
not his compassion prompt him to relieve our distress?
Will not his hand bestow all the blessings which we
need ? Christians should reflect, that they are speak
ing to a Father whose heart is more tender than that of
the most affectionate earthly parent, from whose ample
stores they may expect the supply of all their wants,
and to whose all-wise disposal they may resign them
selves without fear.
In speaking of the object of worship, I have shown
that his essential attributes, his dispensations, and the
character of a Father which he has assumed, lay a
foundation for the duty of prayer, and hold out encour
agement to engage in it. But the same subject is view
ed in different lights, according to the different states
of mind in individuals, the associations which they
have formed, the dispositions which predominate, and
the objects which they have in view. Hence, we
find men not only contending about principles, but
sometimes drawing from the same principle the most
opposite inferences. A striking example is furnished
by the different conclusions at which men have arrived
respecting the connexion between the character of God
and the duty of prayer. While we have endeavoured to
prove that his character authorizes and encourages the
duty, others have inferred that it is no duty at all, and
have supported the assertion by an appeal to the same
grounds on which our reasoning is founded. Since
God knows our wants, it can serve no purpose to tell
him of them, as if he needed information; and if he is
a Being of infinite benevolence, there is no occasion to
make use of entreaties, and to fill our mouths with
arguments, because his own nature will undoubtedly
prompt him to promote the happiness ofhis creatures.
There is another argument against prayer, derived from
the wisdom and immutability of God. As he is an in
fallible judge of what is proper to be done, he surely
will do it whether we ask him or not; and if he has
determined that it is not proper, vain and presumptuous
is the hope that we shall prevail upon him to alter his
purpose by our importunity.
In answer to these objections, I would observe, that
although prayer is certainly not necessary to give in
formation to God, yet it does not follow from this con
cession that it is superfluous", because there may be
other reasons of great importance for which it is requir
ed. It may be enjoined as the means of impressing
our own minds more deeply with a sense, of our wants,
and of bringing them into that state in which alone it
is proper that blessings should be bestowed upon us.
It may be enjoined, too, to affect us more strongly with
a feeling of our dependence upon God, and to express
that feeling to others who witness our prayers, with a
view to convince them and ourselves, that the good
things which we obtain do not come to us by chance,
but by his appointment and agency. To suppose tbat
his infinite goodness will prompt him to supply our
wants without any solicitation on our part, is a hasty
inference from a partial view ofhis character, and is con
trary to the analogy of his general administration. The
supposition proceeds upon the idea, that benevolence is
the only attribute of his nature, and that he is instinc
tively and necessarily impelled by it to communicate
himself, as the sun necessarily gives light, or a foun
tain pours out its contents. But as God ispossessed'of
other perfections, there may be moral restraints upon
his benevolence; there may be reasons why it should
not be exercised indiscriminately, and why the suppli
cations ofhis creatures should precede the distribution
of his gifts. The argument proves nothing, by prov
ing too much ; for if we infer from his benevolence that
there is no necessity for prayer, we might also infei
that there is no necessity for means of any kind, and
that all our wants will be supplied without labour.

500

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

God, however, has not ordained that tbe earth should
spontaneously yield its fruits, but has made its pro
ductions the reward of cultivation ; and it is therefore
conformable to the order of things that men should
first ask, and then receive.
The argument from the wisdom of God, which, it is
said, will lead him to do what is fit without being asked,
establishes the very point which it is intended to dis
prove. There are many things, no doubt, which will ad
vance his glory, and which he will therefore do inde
pendently of us; but the point now under consideration,
is the communication of blessings to individuals, and
the question is, Whether it would be proper to bestow
favours upon them without prayer ? We answer, that
it would not be proper, because it would tend to
cherish a spirit of impiety, to dissolve the moral rela
tion of man to his Maker, to encourage the neglect of
him, which is too natural, and the ingratitude which
we so often display amidst the most abundant tokens
of his goodness. Would it be proper that a guilty
man should be pardoned, who will not be at pains to
implore the mercy of his sovereign ? or that Divine
grace should help and comfort us, while we are too in
different to request its assistance ? To talk of wisdom
doing what is fit to be done, as a reason why prayer
should be restrained, is to use words which either
mean nothing, or lead to a conclusion exactly the
reverse of that which is deduced from them. God will
do what is worthy of himself; but it would not be
worthy of him to adopt a mode of procedure which would
terminate in the extinction of religious sentiments. We
acknowledge that God is immutable, and therefore ac
knowledge that it would be vain to hope that we shall
change his purpose by our entreaties. Our prayers
are offered up with no such design. We do not con
ceive that there is any decree which must be reversed
before they can be answered. If there is any case in
which it is uncertain whether our wishes are in unison
with the will of God, as when we pray for the re
covery of others from sickness, our petitions are pre
sented with this reservation. In other cases, we
assume, upon the authority of his word, that he is
ready to bestow blessings upon us, and only wails till
we have made our humble and earnest request. We
ask them wilh confidence, because we know that he is
willing to give them to those who ask in faith. We
do not call upon God to alter the established order of
his administration, but to act conformably to it; and
this is the order, as we are informed by the highest
authority : " Ask, and it shall be given you ; seek,
and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto
you."* Now, here is nothing to be changed, no new
inclination to be excited in the object of worship. It
is agreeable to his character and his purpose to attend
to the supplications of men, for he is described in his
own word as the Hearer of prayer. Whatever false
notions the ignorant may entertain of God, as if he
resembled a man, whose judgment may be convinced
by arguments, and whose affection may be gained over
to those whom he has formerly regarded with aversion ;
true Christians believe that he is of himself disposed
to fulfil our desires. They do, indeed, expect that he
will do something for them, in consequenoe of tbeir
prayers, which he would not have done if they had not
prayed ; but they do not, therefore, consider him to be
a changeable Being. To give blessings when they are
asked, which he would not have given if they had not
been asked, is not more a proof of mutability, than it is
to crown with his goodness a cultivated field, which
would have yielded nothing for the nourishment of
men, if it had not been ploughed and sown. Prayer,
then, is not an attempt to prevail upon the Almighty
to alter his plan ; but it either supposes or produces

» Matth. vii. 7.

in us that state of mind wbich bis wisdom requires a's
a preparation for the reception of his favours. And
certainly it does not destroy or diminish the freeness
of Divine mercies, that they must be sought before
they can be obtained. Who would call in question the
benevolence of the man who was disposed to assist
every person who applied to him ?
Thus, it appears that the objections urged against
prayer have no force, and are as little founded on rea
son as in Scripture. They have been suggested by
the Spirit of irreligion, which labours to estrange man
from his Maker, and says to the Almighty, " Depart
from us, for we desire not the knowledge of thy
ways." The rule of prayer is the word of God. Experience,
indeed, makes us acquainted with our wants ; but the
information which we derive from it, relates chiefly to
the necessities of the body, and of the present life.
The wants of the soul are little felt, till the mind is
enlightened, and the conscience is awakened by the
truths of revelation. It is only in its light that we see
ourselves to be ignorant, guilty, polluted, miserable,
and helpless, when left to our own resources and the
assistance, of our fellow-creatures. A sense of need
is an indispensable pre-requisite to prayer; but it still
remains to ascertain whether God is willing to relieve
us, and to what extent we may expect his goodness to
be exercised. It is evident that, on this subject, we
can obtain satisfactory information only from himself,
and that without an express manifestation of his good
will, we could have no sure ground to go upon in oui
requests. We might ask what he has no intention to
bestow, and neglect what he is ready to give. " The
whole word of God is of use to direct us in prayer;"
its doctrines exhibiting the privileges which he confers
upon believers; its precepts enjoining duties which
only his grace can enable us to perform ; its histories
relating the blessings which men in former ages have
obtained ; its threatenings denouncing evils from which
no arm but his own can deliver us ; its promises hold
ing out to us the good things prepared for those who
seek him ; and the prayers of tbe saints being recorded
as patterns to us, when we are placed in similar cir
cumstances. It is of the utmost importance to attend to this rule
in our supplications. In reference to this subject, we
may say that a man can receive nothing except it be
given him from above ; or, in other words, has no
ground to expect any blessing from God, unless there
be a warrant for asking it in his word. The prayers
of ungodly men, for they sometimes pray, are not
regulated by this standard, but by the suggestions of
imagination, and the desires of their hearts. Give us
riches, they say, give us honours, give us long life,
give us something to gratify our appetites, our ambi
tion, our avarice. Even if they should happen to pre
sent their petitions for blessings which God has pro
mised, they have no respect to his wisdom and
goodness, as pledged in his faithful word, but are im
pelled solely by their eager wishes to obtain what will
contribute to improve their condition. But we are
not permitted to assail his throne with our crude and
random petitions. The spirit, who " makes interces
sion for the saints," enables them to intercede for
themselves, " according to the will of God."* His
grace is the source of supply ; and it therefore becomes
our duty to conform our requests to tbe rule or measure
of distribution established by himself. We proceed
safely, and may feel the utmost confidence, when we
found our petitions upon Scripture ; for we are certain
that, in "this case, we are doing what is agreeable to
God, and there is a perfect harmony between his will
and our desires. But, as soon as we permit our own
* Rom. viii. 27.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE: PRAYER.

501

views of expedience and advantage to dictate, we
must be perplexed with doubt and the fear of offending,
unless all the misgivings of mind be precluded by pro
found ignorance, and complete moral insensibility.
Then only can we pray in faith, when we have a
Divine declaration or promise as the ground of our
petition, and can address God in the words of the holy
Psalmist: "And now, O Lord God, the word that thou
hast spoken concerning thy servant and concerning
his house, establish it for ever, and do as thou hast
said."* The word of God is our directory in prayer. It
holds out encouragement to us to pray for all blessings ;
for he says, "Be careful for nothing; but in every
thing, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving,
let your requests be made known unto God. And the
peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall
keep your hearts and minds through Jesus Christ."!
Nothing really necessary to us can be pointed out,
which is not contained in some declaration or promise.
The blessings for which4 we should pray may be
distributed into two classes, temporal and spiritual.
Spiritual blessings are the pardon of sin, peace with
God, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the continual, influen
ces of grace, the divine presence in the ordinances of
religion, assistance in duties and temptations, comfort
in affliction and its salutary fruits, hope in death, and a
happy eternity. The incalculable value of these bles
sings should give them the first place in our prayers,
and excite our fervent and importunate desires; and
that man is destitute of the spirit of devotion, who looks
upon them as secondary things, and is more remiss in
asking them than in his petitions for temporal bles
sings. With respect to the latter, it may be observed,
that we have no authority to seek great things for our
selves. On this subject, we are altogether disqualified
to judge, and should keep a strict watch upon our de
sires, which are naturally immoderate, and would
prompt us to solicit what it might not be for our good
to possess, or for the glory of God to bestow. We
ought to content ourselves with praying for a compe
tent portion, and should leave its amount to be deter
mined by Divine wisdom. We may pray for health,
and the continuance of life, and other worldly enjoy
ments ; but, at the same time, we should cultivate a
submissive temper, which will acquiesce in the event
without a murmur. Our Saviour has given us direc
tions in the following words : " Seek ye first the king
dom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things
shall be added unto you."! The first care of every
man should be to obtain an interest in the salvation of
Christ, and God will provide for his temporal wants.
But our Saviour is not to be understood as forbidding
us to pray for temporal blessings, either in this pas
sage, or in the preceding verses, where he gives this ad
monition to his disciples, "Therefore, take no thought,
saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink ?
or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? For after all
these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly
Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things."|J
The knowledge of our heavenly Father is not adduced
as a reason why we should not pray for food and rai
ment, nor is this the design of the promise, that they
shall be given, but the intention of both is to preserve
his followers from anxiety, and fear, and distrust.
His injunctions in one place, must be explained con
sistently with those in another; and while he assures
such as believe in him, that those things which are
needful for the body shall not be withheld from them,
he shows it to be their duty to make them the subject
of their petitions to God, by teaching them to say,
" Give us this day our daily bread."

* 2 Sam. vii. 25.
|| lb. 31, 32.

t Phil. iv. 6,7. }Matt. vi.33.

LECTURE XCIV
ON PRAYER.
On Prayer for others.- -Public Prayer. — Private Prayer.  Secret
Prayer.— F.jaculatory Prayer.— Seasons of Pravei\— Forms
of Prayer Objectionable. — Acceptable Prayer.— Answer to
Prayer. In the preceding lecture, I explained the nature of
prayer, showed that it should be addressed to God
alone, removed some objections against it, pointed out
the rule, and specified the blessings for which we
should present our petitions.
It is acknowledged that our prayers should not be
confined to ourselves, but that there are others in
whose behalf we should offer up our supplications to
God. Who these are, we learn from the following
words : " I exhort therefore, that, first of all, suppli
cations, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks,
be made for all men ; for kings, and for all that are in
authority, that we. may lead a quiet and peaceable life
in all godliness and honesty."* While it is evident
from Scripture, and from the dictates of nature, that
certain individuals, related to us by the ties of blood,
and friendship, and religion, should have a particular
place in our prayers, it appears from the words now
quoted, that men of every nation, and of every degree,
should be remembered by us when we draw near to
the throne of grace. Our hearts, like our religion,
should be expanded to embrace the whole family of
mankind. It is an inference from the command to pray for our
selves and others, that there is some efficacy in prayer.
It is not only an expression of our desires, but a mean of
obtaining the divine blessing. It is improper, therefore,
to consider it as solely intended for our personal im
provement, by awakening devout sentiments and feel
ings, and giving scope for the exercise of Christian
tempers ; there is a connexion between it and the end
proposed, similar to the connexion between means and
ends in the economy of nature. To encourage Chris
tians to pray for their afflicted brethren, the Apostle
James says, that "the effectual fervent prayer of a
righteous man availeth much ;"! and confirms the
assertion by the example of Elijah, in answer to whose
prayers, rain was first suspended and afterwards given.
If it should be thought that their case was singular
and miraculous, I would refer you to the words of our
Saviour which are addressed to his disciples in general :
"Ask and it shall be given unto you, seek and ye
shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you."!
The efficacy which we ascribe to prayer, does not re
semble that which the heathens imagined to be in cer
tain words, by the repetition of which the aid of in
visible beings was obtained ; nor does it arise irom
any merit in the duty, which imposes an obligation
upon the Supreme Being to grant our request. It is
the result of a free gracious corstttution, by which
God has engaged to bestow blessings upon those who
ask them in faith. Strictly, the efficacy of prayer
proceeds from the divine promise. We succeed in our
supplications, because God has pledged himself to
attend to them ; but they must precede the exercise of
his goodness, and no encouragement is given to us to
expect any thing from him, if they are withheld.
When he promises blessings he says, " For these
things will I be inquired of by the house of Israel. "||
The efficacy of prayer being ascertained, we are
authorized to hope that our supplications will be use
ful to others as well as to ourselves, and are encour
aged to intercede for them. We should be excited to

* ITim. ii. 1,2.
II Ezek. xxxvi. 37.

f James v. 16.

X Matth. vii. 7.

502

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the performance of tbe duty, -by reflecting that they as
well as we are dependent upon God ; that they are sub
ject to the same necessities, and infirmities, and dis
tresses, which fall to our lot; that they have wants
which he only can supply, and sins which he only can
pardon; that they are actuated by the same desire for
happiness which we feel, are in danger of eternal per
dition, being by nature children of wrath, but are
capable of heavenly bliss. If they pray for themselves,
we should unite our interest with theirs, if we have
any interest with the object of worship, that they may
not fail of success ; if, thoughtless and impious, they
are living without God in the world, they are the more
the objects of our pity, and we are the more loudly
called to remember them because they are forgetful of
themselves. Our prayers will thus be a becoming
expression of love to our brethren of mankind ; and
among all the offices of kindness by which we should
show our love, there is none more decisive, and more
fitted to accomplish the end which we have in view,
if we sincerely desire their welfare, than our earnest
recommendation of them to the favour and care of the
Father of mercies.
In behalf of others, we should ask the same tem
poral and spiritual blessings which we ask for our
selves. We should pray for the poor, that their wants
may be supplied ; for the afflicted, that they may be
restored to health, and fitted by divine grace for life or
death ; for mourners, that they may be comforted ; for
the oppressed, that they may be delivered. We should
pray for the young, that the seeds of piety may be
sown in their hearts ; for the old, that they may have
wisdom to improve the short remainder of life, and ex
hibit a salutary example to their inferiors in years ;
for persons in the other stages of life, that they may
perform the duties of their stations, and fulfil the pur
pose of their being. We should pray for those who
are in sin, that they may be awakened and converted ;
and for those who are in a state of grace, that their
faith may be strengthened, and that amidst difficulties
and temptations, they may persevere to the end. We
should pray for magistrates, that they may be just, and
may rule over us in the fear of the Lord, and that
under their protection we may enjoy all the rights and
privileges which belong to us as men and Christians.
We should pray for the ministers of religion, that they
may be faithful and zealous, and that their labours may
be. crowned with success ; and for the Christian people,
that they may receive " with meekness the ingrafted
seed of the word," and walk in the ordinances and
commandments of the Lord. We should pray for the
catholic church, that truth, and peace, and holiness
may flourish in it; that its limits may be extended till
it comprehend all the inhabited regions of the earth ;
and that the time may come when it shall be said to it,
" Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of
the Lord hath arisen upon thee." "Lift up thine eyes
round about, and see ; all they gather themselves to
gether, they come to thee ; thy sons shall come from
far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side."*
One exception however is mentioned by the Apostle
John : " If any man see his brother sin a sin which is
not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life
for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto
death ; I do not say that he shall pray for it."! There
is a degree of obscurity in these words ; but the sin
unto death most probably is the sin against the Holy
Ghost, which alone is pronounced to be unpardonable.
Its irremissible nature is evidently the reason why
prayer is forbidden for the person who is guilty of it.
It is extremely difficult to say in what it consists ; and
as Christians are divided in their sentiments on this
subject, and it is impossible to determine when a per-

* Is. Ix. 1.4.

t 1 John v. 16.

son is chargeable with it, — if it was not confined, as
some have thought, to the age of miracles, — the ex
ception stated by John -is practically no exception to
us. We may pray for the greatest sinners, since, for
aught we can tell, they are within the reach of mercy,
and God may give them repentance to the acknow
ledging of the truth.
Prayer may be distinguished into public, private,
and secret.
Public prayer is tbat wbich is offered up in the
church, or in any other place, where many are assem
bled to observe the ordinances of religion : and it ap
pears from ancient records to have made a part.of the
service in the meetings of Christians from the earliest
times. It is an acknowledgment of God by those
who are present ; an acknowledgment of their depen
dence upon him, of their expectations from him, of
their desire for his grace, by which only the institu
tions of religion will be rendered effectual. On such
occasions one necessarily speaks in tbe name of the
rest, but all are understood to join in the petitions. It
is not the minister alone who prays, it is the congre
gation which addresses God by his mouth ; and every
man should make the petitions his own by serious
attention to them, and by stirring up the sentiments
and affections of which they are expressive.
Private prayer is offered up in select associations,
and particularly in families. Our Saviour has given
an example in his prayers for his disciples ; it is
implied in the accounts of good men. which we find in
the Scriptures ; and it has been practised in all ages
by the saints. The motive which excites a man to
pray for himself, will lead him also to pray for his
family, and with them. The relations in which they
stand to one another give them a sort of individuality;
as there are benefits which they all need, so there are
mercies for -which they should be all thankful ; and in
terwoven as tbeir interests are, the good which any of
them obtains will be regarded as a common blessing.
There is no fear of God in that house, in which the
exercises of devotion are unknown; and it is worthy
of observation, while ihe fact may seem strano-e, and
is deeply to be lamented, that it is only among pro
fessed Christians that private worship is neglected,
and that Mahometans and even Heathens act more con
sistently in carrying their religion into the bosom of
their families, and the ordinary transactions of life.
Secret prayer is offered up by an individual in some
place of retirement. Withdrawing from the world,
and even from his most intimate friends, he converses
with God alone. Seclusion is necessary to the collec
tion of his thoughts, and the full unrestrained expres
sion of his desires. He has wants which God alone
can supply, and sorrows amidst which he alone can
comfort him; he needs counsel to direct him in his
personal conduct, and assistance under infirmities, the
sense of which overwhelms him. Our Saviour has
enjoined this duty upon us : " But thou, when thou
prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut
ihe door, pray to thy Father which is in secret, and
thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee
openly."* Secret prayer is so characteristic of a
Christian, that we may pronounce him to be a mere
pretender to the name who habitually neglects it, or
contents himself with the occasional and formal per
formance of the duty. When Ananias seemed to doubt
of the conversion of Paul, or at least hesitated to com
mit himself to a man of whom be had never heard be
fore but in the character of a persecutor, our Lord gave
him this sign, " Behold, he prayeth."! This will be
the constant effect of the grace of God in the soul of
man. It will awaken feelings which will irresistibly
draw him to the throne of grace ; and it will be as

* Matth. vi. 6.

t Acts ix. 11.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : PRAYER.

503

impossible for him to live without prayer, as to live
without his daily food. His. graces would decline;
bis spirits would sink ; his activity would abate : his
joy would fail, as the fruits of the earth languish and
wither in the want of rain. Prayer brings down the
Divine blessing, with all its precious attendants, light,
and peace, and strength, and hope.
I may add to these, ejaculatory prayer, or prayer not
offered up on stated occasions, and in consequence of
a previous purpose, but called forth by some unexpec
ted circumstance ; prayer prompted by some unforeseen
perplexity and danger, by something afflicting which
we see or hear, by an unlooked for deliverance, or by
the sudden incursion of temptation. So natural, in
deed, is it to have recourse to God under strong
momentary impressions, that often they call upon him
then, who at other times spend days and weeks with
out ever bowing a knee ; and in this impulse of the
mind have originated those exclamations or prayers,
— that God would bless and preserve them, — which are
so frequently in the mouths of the profane. The
ejaculations of which I speak, are the effusions of a
devout soul, which knows G°d, and loves him, and
spontaneously flees to him as its refuge in the season
of need. Assured that he is at hand, and that his ear
is always open, it implores his favour, and commits
itself to his care. Hence, we perceive of how much
importance it is to cultivate a habit of piety, and to
establish, if I may speak so, a familiar correspondence
with him who compasses our path, and is acquainted
with all our ways ; for occasions will often occur
when our own resources will prove insufficient, and
no friend will be at hand to help, or when a friend
could afford us no effectual aid. How happy, in such
a case, is he who is not confounded and driven to
despair, like the men of ihe world, but knows of an
asylum to which he may run, and, by the prayer of
faith, throws himself into the arms of almighty power
and love !
The design of one of our Saviour's parables is to
teach us, "that men should pray always, and not
faint."* And an Apostle exhorts Christians to "pray
always, with all prayer and supplication in the Spi
rit."! Such passages cannot be misunderstood. Un
interrupted prayer is impossible ; both mind and body
would fail, if they were not relieved by intervals of
repose, and a change of employment ; and when de
votion is prolonged beyond a reasonable time, vary
ing, no doubt, according to the circumstances of indi
viduals, it degenerates into bodily exercise, the mere
labour of the lips. The business allotted to man in
this world, comprehends a variety of duties which de
mand his attention, and will occupy a considerable
portion of his time. Persecution first drove Christians
into deserts, and from this accident arose the practice
which afterwards led thousands to bury themselves in
solitudes, and within the walls of a cloister, where
their days were spent in the offices of piety. But it is
superstition which has suggested the idea of superior
sanctity, in thus abandoning the active duties of life ;
and had the voice of true religion been attended to, it
would have brought them back to the world and pre
vailed upon them to enter into the common relations
of society, and conscientiously to perform the duties
arising from them. There are two tables of the law,
and he only is a perfect Christian, who makes both
the rule of his conduct. Nothing is meant by the ex
hortation to constant prayer, but that we should be fre
quently and regularly engaged in it; that we should
pray at all the stated times ; that we should comply
with every call to it from Providence and our own feel
ings ; that we should cultivate a habit of devotion, and
lift up our hearts to God, when we are walking by the

* Luke xviii. 1.

fEph. vi. 18.

way, as well as when we are sitting in our houses; in
company as well as in solitude ; in the midst of busi«
ness, as well as in the hours sacred to religion.
When Cornelius is said to have " prayed to God al-
way,"* the historian, by specifying the ninth hour,
plainly signifies his meaning to be, that the centurion
regularly engaged in prayer at the hours which were
observed by the Jews.
By these remarks, I am naturally led to inquire what
are the proper seasons of prayer. The holy Psalmist
speaks, in one place, of engaging in devotional exer
cises seven times a-day ;! in another, of morning, even
ing, and noon ;! and again he says, that it is a good
thing to show forth the loving kindness of God in the
morning, and his faithfulness every night. || Religion
ought_not to be subjected to mechanical rules. Al
though it is enjoined by authority, yet its exercises
must be spontaneous, or they will not be acceptable to
God ; and their multiplicity will not compensate for
this defect. Yet it may be subjected to regulation,
without interfering with its free and liberal spirit; and
although no attempt should be1 made to impose re
straints upon a person whose heart impels him to make
frequent approaches to the throne of God, and no man
can decide for another in a matter which his own feel
ings alone can determine; yet, we may say without
hesitation, that there are two seasons which seem to
be pointed out by the hand of nature itself as peculiar
ly suitable, — the morning and the evening. These,
however, are not mentioned as the only seasons, but
as times at which there is a particular call tothe duty;
which have been uniformly dedicated to a sacred use
by the people of God ; and which, therefore, should
not be permitted to pass without a solemn address to
Him who makes the sun know his time of rising and
going down. There would be no overstraining in con
sidering the law which commanded the Israelites to
offer sacrifices in the morning and the evening, as in
tended to admonish us that we should begin and end
the, day with our sacrifices of prayer and praise.
In the morning we have awaked from a refreshing
sleep, and life has been, as it were, restored to us with
fresh vigour after the exhaustion caused by the labours
of the preceding day. As our situation evidently calls
for praises to the Author of our mercies, so it no less
plainly points out the seasonableness of prayer, in the
view of the events of the day upon which we have
entered. There are duties to be performed, of great
importance to ourselves and others, and connected with
the glory of God, by a failure in which we shall Incur
guilt, and a train of consequences fatal to our peace'
and happiness. There are temptations to be encoun
tered, arising from our intercourse with the World,
against which our own vigilance is an insufficient de-"
fence, as they often assail us in an imperceptible man
ner, and our hearts are too prone to give them a favour
able reception. We are exposed to danger at every
step ; and the calamities which befall men in circum
stances that give no warning of evil, are a proof of our
constant insecurity while we are not under the protec
tion of Providence. These considerations show that
the morning, when we are about to plunge into the
busy perilous scene, is a season when we should
solemnly commit ourselves, and those with whom we
are connected, to the care of the Most High, who is
near to them who call upon him in truth and sincerity.
The man who, by the prayer of faith, has obtained the
protection of the Almighty, may walk forth with hum
ble confidence ; not trusting in his prayers, but in Him
to whom they were addressed, and assuring himself that
no real evil shall be permitted to befall him. "He
shall cover thee with his fef thers, and under his wings

* Acts x. 2.
II Ps. xcii. 2.

f Ps. cxix. 164.

X lb. Iv. 17.

504

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

shalt thou trust ; his truth shall be thy shield and
buckler."* When the evening comes, there is a new call, not
only to thanksgiving, but also to confession and sup
plication. If we review the transactions of the day,
we shall not fail to perceive that we have been un
grateful for mercies, and negligent of duties ; that we
have offended in deed, and word, and, above all, in
thought ; and our only refuge from guilt and its conse
quences is in the Divine mercy, through Jesus Christ.
We are about to lie down upon our beds, and to close
our eyes in sleep, from which we may never awake.
Is not this a season to implore the favour of that
Being into whose immediate presence death will intro
duce us, and earnestly to entreat that we may be so
prepared for the awful event, that we shall find our
selves in that blessed world on which the shades of
night never descend ? We are exposed to dangers by
night as well as by day. The storm may arise, and
bury us under the ruins of our houses. We may
awake amidst flames from which it is impossible to
escape. The midnight robber may break into our
dwellings, and, to make sure of his prey, may deprive
us of life. What security have we for our preserva
tion but the providence of God ? How unavailing
would our precautions be, if the Lord himself did not
keep the house ! The fearlessness with which many
lie down and rise up, is the effect of thoughtlessness
and insensibility. In calculating chances, they appear
to be in their favour, and the agency of God does
not enter into their reckoning. But rational, solid,
imperturbable peace, can be enjoyed only by the man
who commits himself to the Shepherd of Israel, who
neither slumbers nor sleeps. " I will both lay me
down in peace, and sleep : for thou, Lord, only makest
me dwell in safety."!
The question, Whether forms of prayer should be
used in the worship of God ? has given rise to much
controversy, particularly between the Church of Eng
land and Dissenters. That they may be lawfully adopt
ed by children, and others who are incapable of pray
ing without assistance, we do not deny ; but the sub
ject of our present inquiry is, Whether a liturgy should
be composed and enjoined upon the ministers of reli
gion in their public administrations, and private Chris
tians should be called upon to adhere to it in their fam
ilies and closets? It is certain that no trace of this
practice can be discovered in the Apostolical church ;
and it has been satisfactorily shown, that, although
afterwards an order was established for the adminis
tration of the sacraments, and in different places the
prayers might bear a considerable resemblance to one
another in respect of their matter, prescribed forms
were unknown for several centuries. When Justin
Martyr is describing the worship of the second centu
ry, he says, " that the president or officiating minister
offers up prayers and thanksgiving — in Swx.iA.it clvtu —
according to his ability ;"! an expression which would
be unmeaning if he had read prayers from a book, as
in this case no mental ability is required, and it is only
necessary that he should use his eyes and his voice.
Tertullian, .in the same century, says, Sine monitore
quia de pectore oramus ,- " We pray without a monitor,
because we pray from the heart."||
We object to forms of prayer, on the ground that
there is no warrant for them in Scripture, and that they
are not sanctioned by the example of the primitive
church. We object to them, because they interfere
with the office of the Holy Spirit, who is sent not
only to inspire us with devotional sentiments, but also
to suggest petitions; for this surely is implied in his
"helping our infirmities," "and making intercession

* Ps. xci. 4.
y Apolog. c. 30.

t lb. iv. 8. X Apolog. Secund.

for us with groanings which cannot be ottereo."*
And if we dispassionately reflect upon the subject, it
will appear more consonant to common sense, as well
as to religion, that a person should be allowed to ex
press the feelings and desires which spontaneously
arise in his mind, than that he should be under the
necessity of conforming them to a standard prepared
by another. Would it not be preposterous to confine
a son to a collection of written requests, from which
he was never to deviate, in his addresses to his Fath
er ? This leads me to state farther, that we object to
forms of prayer, because they cannot be adapted to the
endlessly-diversified and ever-varying circumstances
of the people of God, and must therefore prove a pain
ful and injurious restraint upon the liberty of spirit
which the divine promises . encourage us to exercise.
The minister must pray for nothing in public, nor the
private Christian in his family and closet, however
urgent is the demand for it, if he do not find it in his
books. We object, once more, to forms of prayer, on
account of their tendency to produce coldness and list-
lessness in the offices of religion. The human mind
needs to be kept awake ; and nothing is so much cal
culated to throw it into an inattentive, slumbering
state, as the dulness of uniformity. The perpetual
recurrence of the same sounds, the accustomed transi
tions from one subject to another, and the unvaried
length of the service, must create a monotonous state
of mind, if not an absence of thought, and convert
prayer into a mere bodily exercise. The careless and
unvaried manner in which prayers are often read in
the English Church, proves too well that there is
ground for this objection.
Yet the praise bestowed upon tbe liturgy of that
church exceeds all bounds. It is "an excellent lit
urgy," an "admirable liturgy," an "incomparable
liturgy," an " all but inspired liturgy." This extrav
agant language is quite in unison with the pretensions
of that arrogant church, which like the Church of
Rome, her prototype in pride, says, " I sit as a queen,
and shall never see sorrow;" looking haughtily down
upon us as hardly worthy to be accounted Christians,
pronouncing our assemblies to be conventicles, and
our ministers to be without ordination ; and sometimes
going so far as to exclude us from any interest in the
promises, and leaving us to what is called the uncov-
enanted mercy of God. " Let another praise thee,"
says the wise man, " and not thine own mouth ; a
stranger, and not thine own lips." If this wonderful
liturgy be brought to tbe test of Scripture and sound
reason, its vaunted excellence will vanish as a dream
of fancy. To say nothing of the superstitious rites
which it inculcates, and the false doctrine which it
teaches, while it assumes in the burial service the sal
vation of all but self-murderers and excommunicated
persons, and asserts the regeneration of all infants
who are baptized, it has been justly charged with de
fects and redundancies ; with omitting some important
petitions, and unnecessarily repeating others; with
dealing in generalities, without descending to particu
lars upon which the mind could fix ; confessing, for
example, sin in general, without specifying particular
sins ; with joining together petitions which have no
kind of connexion ; with prescribing prayers which
contain, perhaps, only a single petition, expressed in
two or three words, while the remaining space is filled
up with a verbose introduction and conclusion. A
serious objection is the shortness of the prayers. The
longest is ended almost before you have time to bring
your mind into a proper frame for joining in it; and
some of them, consisting only of a single sentence,
are finished almost as soon as they are begun. Be
sides the interruption which is thus given to devotional

* Rom. viii. 26.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : PRAYER.

505

feelings, there is a want of dignity, and of sense, in
a collection of what may be called*' .shreds and frag
ments of prayers. The Lord's prayer is sometimes
introduced out of place, or where no person can per
ceive any reason for using it ; and it is brought for
ward so often, four or five times in the course of one
service, as to have the appearance of vain repetition,
and to give the idea of children conning a task, rather
than of rational creatures worshipping God with the
understanding. This is that boasted liturgy which
has been extolled with bombastic praise, and, in com
parison of which, the extemporaneous prayers of other
churches are despised as vain babblings, or the inco
herent effusions of enthusiasm. I have no hesitation
in saying, that, in those churches, prayers far superior
are offered up every sabbath ; and I have frequently
heard a prayer poured out by a man of God with the
assistance of the Holy Ghost, which, in my judgment,
was of more value than the whole of the-liturgy. Let
us be thankful that we stand in no need of its proffer
ed assistance and that our devotion is not encumbered
and impeded by any such human imposition.
From the observations which have been already
made, we can be at no loss to determine what prayers
are acceptable. It is evident that they are prayers ad
dressed to God alone, and not to any created being,
however highly exalted ; that they are prayers offered
up in the name of Christ, the only Mediator between
God and man ; and that they are prayers regulated by
the Scriptures, and consisting solely in petitions for
such blessings as God has promised to bestow. I may
add, that in prayer the understanding must be exer
cised, or it will not be a rational service. If men re
peat a number of words without knowing their mean
ing, or without reflecting upon their import; if they
are ignorant or inattentive, they are guilty of mocking
God, and instead of drawing down his blessing, will
incur his displeasure. And here we may take notice
of the practice of praying in an unknown tongue,
when others are expected to join with us ; a practice
so contrary to common sense, that not the shadow of
an argument can be alleged for it; and it rests solely
upon the same authority which has instituted and cor
rupted the other ordinances of Christ, and established
iniquity and absurdity by law. Had there been no
liturgy in the Church of Rome, her ministers would
pray in the language of the countries in which they
officiate ; but the forms of an infallible church are
immutable, and her service is still performed in her
ancient language, which has ceased to be vernacular
for a thousand years. Prayers must be offered up in
sincerity ; for God regards not the words of the mouth,
but the desires of the heart, and holds in abhorrence
those who present to him hypocritical petitions. " This
people draweth near to me with their mouths, and hon
oureth me with their lips; but their hearts are far
from me."* They should be offered up with fervour
of spirit, which is the fire that should kindle our sac
rifices. We would not grant a favour to a person who
asked it in so indifferent a manner, as to show that he
was careless whether he obtained it or not. Now God,
who knows our hearts, will dismiss those without an
answer, whom he perceives to entertain no sense of
the value of his blessings, and upon whom therefore
they would be thrown away. This qualification of
prayer is connected with importunity and perseve
rance ; with importunity, which consists in pressing
our suit, and using arguments to enforce it ; with per
severance, which renews its supplications when dis
appointed, applies again and again, and does not de
sist till such an answer is obtained as was given to the
Syrophenician woman, " 0 woman, great is thy faith ;
be it unto thee even as thou wilt."!

We have already seen that there is an efficacy in
prayer, or that, in consequence of the appointment and
promise of God, it is effectual to obtain temporal and
spiritual blessings. There would be no motive lo the
duty if God were inexorable, or if such an order was
established, that the good things which we need would
come to us as a matter of course, without any effort on
our part to procure them. Where there is such an order
or constitution of things, all supplication is superseded.
We do not pray that the sun may rise the next morn
ing, because his return is secured by the ordinance of
heaven, which will not be changed till the end of time;
but we pray that we may again open our eyes to behold
his light. The one event will certainly happen ; the
other will or will not take place according to the Divine
determination. Prayer is offered up in the expectation
of an answer ; and when it is the prayer of faith, it is
not presented in vain : " The eyes of the Lord are
over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their
prayers."* On this department of the subject, let me
request your attention to the following observations.
First, God sometimes returns an immediate answer
to the prayers of his people. In proof of this, many
instances might be collected from the Scriptures.
When the Israelites, in their flight from Egypt, were
entangled by the Red Sea in front, the mountains on
either hand, and the host of Pharaoh behind them, the
Lord said to Moses, who, in this distress, was pouring
Qut his prayer before him, Why standest thou, crying
unto me ? " Speak unto the children of Israel, that they
go forward ;"! and immediately the waters were di
vided, and opened a passage to the opposite shore.
When Elijah entreated God to determine, by a visible
interposition, the controversy between himself and
Baal, fire descended from heaven and consumed not
only the sacrifice, but also the stones of the altar.!
These are the words of God concerning his people :
" They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for
trouble ; for they are the seed of the blessed of the
Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall
come to pass that before they call, I will answer, and
while they are yet speaking, I will hear."|| The idea
suggested, is the promptitude of the answer. While
the petitions are yet upon their lips, and before they
have had time to express all that was conceived in
their hearts, he will send down from heaven the bless
ing which they desire. No sooner had the Apostles
prayed that " the Lord would grant unto his servants,
that with all boldness they might speak his word,"
than " the place was shaken where they were assem
bled together, and they were all filled with the Holy
Ghost,"§ who inspired them with heavenly eloquence
and undaunted courage. God returns a speedy answer
to the prayers of his people when the case is urgent,
and delay would prove injurious; and while he thus
puts honour upon the duty of prayer, and holds out
encouragement to persevere in it, he furnishes a proof,
by which all should be convinced, that there is profit
in serving the Lord. When an audible voice had been
returned from heaven to our Lord upon a certain occa
sion, he said, " This voice came not because of me, but
for your sakes."1P
Secondly, although God has heard the prayers ofhis
people, yet he sometimes delays to answer them.
Whatever conclusion their impatient minds may draw,
their petitions are not rejected because the favour asked
is not immediately conferred. David was convinced
of this truth, as we see from his exercise recorded in
the hundred and thirtieth psalm : " Lord, hear my
voice ; let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my
supplications." Afterwards he adds, " I wait for the
Lord, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope.

* Mattb. xv. 8.
30

!Ib. 28.

* 1 Pet. iii. 12. f Exod. xiv. 15. t 1 Kings xviii. 38
H Is. Ixv. 23, 24 } Acts iv. 29. 31. IT John xii. 30.

506

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

My soul waiteth for the Lord more than they that
watch for the morning."* This is the language of
expectation. He did not receive an immediate answer;
but he did not sink into despondency. He looked for
the blessing, as the sick man or the benighted traveller
waits for the morning light, and supported himself by
the faithful promises of God, which were the founda
tion ofhis hope: "Though the vision tarry," says the
prophet, " wait for it, because it will surely come, it
will not tarry."! While God grants full liberty to his
people to address him on every occasion, and promises
that all their wants shall be supplied, he does not per
mit them to dictate to him with respect to the times and
seasons of his interposition. His own wisdom, and
not their anxiety, is the rule of his procedure. They
are incompetent judges, as they know little more than
their own feelings, and are unable to take a comprehen
sive view of the relations and consequences of the Di
vine dispensations. It is enough to be assured that God
never turns away his ear from the prayer of faith, and
that nothing truly good shall be withheld from those
who fear him. Perhaps they are not yet in a proper
state of mind for the reception of the blessings which
they ask, not duly humbled by a sense of their unwor-
thiness, and consequently not prepared to estimate them
according to their value, and to feel all that warmth of
gratitude which would lead to sincere and fervent
thanksgiving. The delay may serve the salutary pur
pose of awakening their dormant piety, or of increasing
its vigour and activity. It will teach them to live by
faith, to support themselves by dependence upon his
promises, to serve him in hope, instead of always
being impelled by the actual experience of his good
ness. It will lead their thoughts more to God, and
render their supplications more earnest and impor
tunate; and such is the constitution of human nature,
that mercies which have been long sought, and some
times despaired of, but at last obtained, acquire in our
eyes a double value, and are enjoyed with a keener
relish. For these and other reasons, there is some
times a considerable interval between the prayer and
the answer, but none of those who wait upon God
shall be ashamed. The prayer was heard when it was
presented ; it was remembered, although the saint
might have been tempted to exclaim, ' The Lord hath
forgotten me ;' and when the proper season has arrived,
a testimony of the Divine favour is given to convince
them, that blessed are they who wait upon the Lord.
Thirdly, The prayer of faith is heard even when the
blessing sought is withheld, but another more expe
dient is bestowed. When the disciples, at their last
meeting with our Saviour, said to him, "Lord, wilt
thou, at this time, restore the kingdom to Israel ?" he
did not return an answer for a reason which is assigned
in the following words : " It is not for you to know the
times and the seasons which the Father hath put in his
own power."! But, although he refused to gratify their
curiosity on this subject, yet he promised them what
was of far greater value than the information which
they were anxious to obtain : " Ye shall receive power
after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you." He
would give them the Spirit, to teach them all mysteries,
and all necessary knowledge. When the Apostle Paul
thrice entreated the Lord, that the messenger of Satan,
sent to buffet him, might be removed, he obtained only
this answer, " My grace is sufficient for thee ; for my
strength is made perfect in weakness."|| He was not
relieved from his present distress, but he was assured
of grace to support him. God reserves to himself the
power of judging what answer he shall return to the
prayers of his people ; and it is a power in which they
should cheerfully acquiesce, as it will be always exer

cised for their best interests. From their imperfect
knowledge, they may commit mistakes with respect to
the object of their requests; but their petitions are
pleasing to him, as expressions of their faith, and
hope, and humble desires ; and he therefore bestows in
return a blessing more suitable to their circumstances
and conducive to their good, which they afterwards
perceive to be preferable to that which was selected by
themselves. I observe, in the last place, that God hears the
prayers of his people, even when he does not return
any direct answer to them. A Christian may pray, as
he is bound in duty, for the recovery of a friend who
is sick, and yet his friend may die ; or he may pray
for the conversion of particular persons, who may
never come to the knowledge of the truth. In such
cases a distinction should be made, and we must say,
that, although the prayers are not heard, so far as this
implies the obtaining of an answer, yet they are ac
ceptable to God, as proceeding from a noly heart, and
being conformable to the general rule of Scripture.
The exercise of grace may be pleasing to God, al
though the occasion of its exorcise is a mistake. The
love which a saint bears to a hypocrite, whom, in
charity, he supposes to be a saint, is the fulfilment of
the law, and receives the Divine approbation as well
as any other duty. The unworthiness of the object
does not destroy its value, because his real character
is unknown, and the formal reason of it is his profes
sion of piety. Notwithstanding the error of those
members of the Church at Rome, who, not considering
that the ceremonial law was abolished, observed a
distinction of days and meats from a principle of con
science, we are assured by Paul that the Lord received
them.* We may therefore conclude that, although
the people of God should, in particular circumstances,
present their petitions for favours which his wisdom
does not judge it proper to bestow, yet he is pleased
with their prayers, because they are founded on the
general promises of Scripture. Such prayers ought
not to be considered as lost. They are among the
works of faith, and labours of love, which God will
not forget.
The prayer of faith is always heard. It brings down,
sooner or later, the specific blessing, or another of
equal value ; and although no direct answer should be
returned, it is still a sacrifice pleasing to God, through
Jesus Christ. " Let us therefore come boldly to the
throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find
grace to help us in time of need."!

* Ps. cxxx.2,5,6.
U2 Cor. xii. 9.

fHab.ii.3.

X Acts i. 6, 7.

LECTURE XCV.
ON PRAYER.
The Lord's Prayer. -Its use as a Form and as a Pattern.. — Is
it a Compilation? — Its Parts. — Commentary upon it. — Dis
pute Respecting the Genuineness of the Doxology.
In the course of his sermon on the mount, out
Saviour said to his disciples, "After this manner pray
ye. Our Father which art in heaven. Hallowed be
thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily
bread. And forgive us our debts as we forgive our
debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver
us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the
power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."! The same
prayer in substance occurs in the gospel of Luke,[|
but there are some verbal differences, and the doxo
logy is omitted. On this account, and because it was

* Rom. xiv. 3.
U Luke xi. 2—4.

t Heb. iv. 16. } Matt. vi. 9—13.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : PRAYER.

507

pronounced by tbe Lord the second time, in answer to
the request of bne of his disciples, who said, " Lord,
teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples,"
Origen, in his treatise, mpt tvx»t, thinks that they
should be considered as different prayers. This,
however, is too nice a distinction ; and it is not easy
,to see on what- it is founded, as with the alteration
of a word or two, all the petitions are exactly tbe same.
If you should inquire how this disciple came to ask
Christ to teach them to pray, although he had taught
them already, the same Father will tell you, that per
haps he was not present when it was first delivered,
or he had forgotten what was said.
It has been asked, whether this prayer was intended
to be a form, or pattern ; and the question has given
rise to various opinions, and to arguments for and
against. Those who maintain that it is only a pattern,
besides other reasons, allege the words in Matthew,
" After this manner, pray ye ;" but their criticism is
founded on the English version. The original word
IvTect, may be rendered, " after this manner," but also
more simply, "thus," and is used in Scripture, in
reference to the identical words which were spoken.
They also forget that in Luke, our Lord said without
any qualifying term, " When ye pray, say." If it
were only meant, that the Lord did not intend to con
fine them to this prayer, to enjoin the constant unal
tered use of it, to prohibit prayer in any other terms,
we should certainly concur with them ; but it is not a
little surprising to find some persons discovering an
anxiety to prove, that we should cautiously avoid the
words which were dictated by the Son of God him
self, and should apply them to no other purpose, but
as a guide in prayers of our own composition. It has
the appearance of impiety, or, to use a softer term, of
very great folly ; and it can be accounted for only on
the principle which directs the conduct of wsak-mind-
ed men, that of guarding against one extreme by run
ning into another. They imagine that they cannot
remove to too great a distance from any thing which
they conceive to be wrong, and .if their antagonist
should go to the east, they know of no better way of
testifying their disapprobation than by walking in all
haste to the west. There is no doubt that in some
churches, and particularly the Church of England, the
Lord's prayer is improperly used, being introduced
into the service unseasonably, and repeated over and
over, as if there were supposed to be some magical
virtue in the words. But this is no reason why others
should treat it, as Hezekiah did the brazen serpent,
which he broke in pieces, because it bad been made
the object of idolatrous worship. It is not profaned
by man's abuse ; it is still the best and most compre
hensive of all prayers; and when offered up with
suitable sentiments and affections, is acceptable to our
Father in heaven. Who is the presumptuous man
who dares to think, tbat he can find more proper words
to express the desires of his heart? I acknowledge,
at the same time, that it was chiefly intended to be a
patterri; that it is only a summary of the blessings
for which we should pray; and that the Scriptures
show, and our own hearts dictate, that in our ad
dresses to God, it is necessary to be more full and
particular. But this concession does not in any
degree derogate from its excellence. As a pattern,
it is unavoidably concise ; and its design was not
to enter into a minute detail, but to furnish us
with hints which we might improve, with the assist
ance of the other parts of the word of God. Thus
we unite the two contending opinions, which never
would have been disjoined had it not been for igno
rant zeal. The Lord's prayer is both a form and a
pattern. It is the opinion of many learned men, that this
prayer is not an original composition, but a coinpila-

lation. They affirm that it was not dictated by our
Saviour in the exercise of his own wisdom, and that
he only displayed judgment in selecting it from the
prayers which were then current among the Jews.
Accordingly, quotations have been given from their
different books, in which we find the same or nearly
the same expressions, which are here brought togeth
er.* It has been said, that it is contrary to all probabil
ity, that such a correspondence of words and phrases
should have happened by chance; and hence that
either of these suppositions must be made, that the
Jews have transferred those things from the gospel to
the use of the Synagogue; or that Christ borrowed
them from the Jews, and consecrated them for the use
of his disciples. Either supposition, it is added, will
redound to the honour of our Saviour. If the Jews,
the avowed enemies of the Gospel, have adopted this
prayer from it, they show their high opinion of its
wisdom and piety, which has led them to receive it
into their liturgy, notwithstanding their violent preju
dices against its Author. But it is incredible that they
would have yielded so far, and it is more reasonable
to believe that our Lord, in accommodation to thpin,
converted to his own purpose these scattered frag
ments of devotion, these golden remains of ancient
piety. There is one point, however, which it is ne
cessary previously to ascertain, whether the books in
which the component parts of this prayer are found,
are more ancient than the days of our Saviour. If, as
I presume, they are all of a posterior date, the idea
that our Saviour borrowed from the Jews, rests on
slender grounds, as we have no certainty that the ex
pressions which we now find in their books were then
known to them. In estimating probabilities, men are
often influenced by prior associations wbich have a
powerful effect upon their judgment; and hence what
seems probable to one person, may appear in a differ
ent light to another. I confess that I cannot reconcile
the supposition, that our Lord was indebted to any
human help in instructing his disciples, with the idea
which I entertain of the dignity of his character, as
the great Prophet, whose doctrine was from heaven,
and not from men ; and nothing should induce me to
assent to it, but evidence much stronger than has yet
been produced. In this as in similar cases, the claim
of originality should be decided by the question of
priority. We know when our Lord delivered this pray
er to his disciples ; but we have no certain information
respecting the time when the corresponding expres
sions were adopted by the Jews. It is a conjecture of
a learned man, that they came into use among them,
by means of such of the Judaizing Christians as
apostatized, who having been taught this prayer, com
municated it to their brethren. As it contains no re
ference to Jesus as the Messiah, and there is no part
of it which does not accord with their own Scriptures,
as understood by themselves, it would the more readi
ly meet with a favourable reception. If it should still
seem incredible, that the Jews should have ever been
persuaded to give the sanction of their approbation to
any thing, of which a person so obnoxious as Jesus of
Nazareth was the Author, I would remind you that
the case is not without a parallel, for never was man
more hated by Papists than Calvin, and the object of
more violent abuse, and yet. it is known that some of
their writers have made free use of his works in the
composition of their own.
The Lord's prayer consists of three parts, — an ad
dress to God in the character of our Father, a number
of petitions, and a doxology. I intend to give you a
short commentary upon it in the subsequent part of
this lecture.
Our Saviour directs us to begin with addressing

* Vide Witsii Exercit. in Orat. Dom. vi. { 32—38.

508

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

God in the character of our Father: "Our Father
which art in heaven." Now, God may be called our
Father on two accounts ; first, because he is the Author
of our being ; and, secondly, because by his grace he
has adopted us into his family. In the first respect,
he is the Father of the whole human race; and hence
the Prophet asks, " Have we not all one Father, and
hath not God created us?"* Creation and generation
are indeed two things totally different, and it is upon
the latter that the paternal relation is founded ; but
they agree in the general idea of the communication
of life, and hence God is called our Father, although
he did not beget, but created us. In the second respect,
he is the .Father of believers alone, or of those who
have been made his children by faith in Christ Jesus ;
and it is primarily, although not exclusively, in this re
lation that we should contemplate him when we offer
up our prayers. His greatness would overawe us, and
the reflection that he gave us existence, would not re
lieve us from our fears, conscious as we are that we
have been ungrateful for the gift, and have degraded
our nature, which was originally adorned with his
image ; but the grace, and condescension, and tender
pity, which the new character of Father implies, in
spire us with hope, and embolden us to approach to
his throne, and to present our requests. — The words,
" In heaven," do not refer to the local residence of the
Deity. If he were in heaven as created beings are in
a place, the heavens would be greater in extent than
he, and consequently he would be limited. Against
the mistake into which the sound of the words might
lead an ignorant person, it is not necessary to put
those on their guard who have read in the Scriptures
the sublime descriptions of the immensity of the Di
vine essence ; and all that is incumbent upon us is, to
inquire for what reason the infinite Creator is repre
sented as in heaven. The common answer is the just
one ; that, as there must be a region of the universe
in which he confers their full reward upon his holy
creatures, he is said to be in it, because he there gives
the highest manifestations of his goodness and glory.
As it is a natural thought that this place is elevated
above this terrestrial and the visible creation, we point
upwards when we are speaking of the habitation of
the Divinity, as our Saviour lifted up his eyes when
he prayed, acting on that occasion under the influence
of the ideas and feelings of a man. — This preliminary
address is an appropriate introduction to the prayer
which follows ; for the contemplation of God as our
Father, will give us an interest in his glory, which is
the subject of the first petition, and will encourage us
to ask the blessings which are mentioned in the other
petitions. The first petition is, " Hallowed," or sanctified,
"be thy name ;" in which the meaning of the two
words, name and sanctify, must be ascertained. A
name properly signifies the discriminative appellation
of an individual ; and in this sense our Father in
heaven has different names, as Jehovah, God, Lord,
&c. But the term is used in other significations,
and particularly, I apprehend, denotes on some oc
casions God himself. As the Jews were wont to
call ,him the Name of the heavens, and the Name,
absolutely; so, when the Scripture calls us to give
thanks to his name, it evidently calls us to -give
thanks to himself. In the present case, it is fre
quently explained to be, every thing whereby God
makes himself known ; but then the prayer, that every
thing whereby he makes himself known may be sanc
tified or glorified, is not very intelligible. I think it
therefore preferable, to consider the name of God in
this place as signifying God himself, the idea of his
being manifested to his creatures being necessarily
*Mal. ii. 10.

implied in the petition. The word ayugw, signifies
to make holy; but this cannot be its meaning here;
for we should eithpr utter words to which we attached
no idea, or express a sentiment full of impiety and
blasphemy, if we prayed that God might be made
holy. 'Ayix£eiv, signifies also to separate from a com
mon to a peculiar use, and hence, also, to treat any
thing with reverence as sacred. Now, as a person
who is honoured is distinguished or separated from
other persons, is the object of respect and homage, to
sanctify, comes to be equivalent to glorify. The true
sense, therefore, of the petition before us is, let God
be glorified. The two words evidently convey the
same meaning in the following passage : " I will be
sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all
the people I will be glorified."* The petition, there
fore, may be understood as a prayer that God would
glorify himself, and that he would enable us and oth
ers to glorify him.
God has already glorified himself in the works of
creation; and he continues to glorify himself in his
dispensations of providence and grace. He glorifies
himself when he performs such works as afford bright
and impressive manifestations of his power, wisdom,
goodness, justice, and holiness. To mention only one
instance, — he is said to honour himself by executing
vengeance upon sinners, whose daring crimes seemed
to call for bis interposition. The words lately quoted
were spoken immediately after the death of Nadab and
Abihu, who were destroyed by lightning from the ora
cle, because, in a state of intoxication as it would seem,
they had offered strange fire in the sanctuary. In refer
ence to the doom of Pharoah and his army, who were
drowned in the Red Sea, he said, "I will get me hon
our upon Pharoah, and upon all his host, upon his cha
riots, and upon his horsemen."! We therefore, pray
that God would give such manifestations of his glory
in the course of events, as shall make man know that
" he whose name alone is Jehovah, is the Most High'
God over all the earth."
If it is our duty to pray tbat God would glorify him
self, it is undoubtedly incumbent upon us to pray also
that we may be disposed and enabled to concur in this
design, which is the ultimate end of our creation and
redemption. We hallow his name, when we observe,
and admire, and acknowledge the displays of his per
fections in nature, and providence, and grace ; when we
elevate our minds and hearts to him, as the greatest,
the holiest, the wisest, the best of all beings ; when we
worship him according to his own institution ; when
we speak to the honour of his character and dispen
sations, and vindicate them from the accusations of
impiety, and when we cheerfully obey the precepts
which prescribe the objects and the extent of our
duty. " Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear
much fruit."! Tbe Greek commentator Theophylact,
thus briefly explains the petition : " Let thy name be
sanctified ; that is, make us holy, that thou mayest be
glorified on our account. For as God is blasphemed,
so he is sanctified, on my account; that is, is glorified
as holy."
" Thy kingdom come." God, who is the Creator,
is also the Lord of the universe, and his kingdom of
providence rules over all, and admits of no increase of
power and dominion. The petition has no reference
to it, because it would be absurd to pray that that may
come, wbich is come already. But there is a kingdom
which was announced in the Old Testament as future,
and concerning which we have the following prophecy
of Daniel : "In the days of these, kings," that is, be
fore the four great monarchies were ended, " the God
of heaven shall set up a kingdom, which shall never be
destroyed : and the kingdom shall not be left to othei

* Lev. x. 3.

t Exod. xiv. 17.

{ John xv. 8.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : PRAYER.

509

people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all
these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."* In the
New Testament it is called the kingdom of heaven, and
the kingdom of God ; and this, name is given to the
dispensation of grace under the Messiah, which is car
ried on by the gospel and the institutions of our Sa
viour, and by the' operations of the Holy Ghost. It
also is already come. It commenced on the day of Pen
tecost, and has continued, amidst various vicissitudes,
to the present hour ; but, in its most prosperous state,
it never was established except over a small portion of
the earth. Besides, almost from the beginning, its
strength .has been impaired by internal divisions, and its
glory obscured by manifold corruptions; and in not a
few places it subsists only in name, and what is called
the kingdom of Christ, should rather be considered as
a province of the kingdom of darkness.
At the time when our Lord taught this prayer to his
disciples, their notions of his kingdom were very im
perfect; but he called upon them to pray for the pro
pagation of his religion in the world, the conversion of
Jews and Gentiles, and the universal reign of righteous
ness and truth. There are still valid reasons for con
tinuing to present this petition. We do not yet see
all things put under Christ. A great part of the world
is subject to the dominion of his adversary, whom he
was manifested to destroy. Heathenism spreads its
deepest shades over many a wide and populous region;
Mahometanism tramples on the cross in countries
where his religion once flourished ; Popery has degrad
ed it into a profligate and contemptible superstition ;
and among those who profess a purer faith, there are
comparatively few who honour him with the hom
age of their hearts. Ought we not, then, to pray that
his kingdom may come? We are authorized by pro
phecy to look for a more glorious dispensation, when
"the Spirit shall be poured out from on high, and the
wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad, and the
desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose ;" for a
time " when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the
earth as the waters cover the sea." As the bold and mag
nificent language of prophecy may require a cautious
and sober interpretation, it is uncertain whether the true
religion will ever be strictly universal ; and some ob
scure hints render it doubtful : but if the whole human
race should, at a future period, be the faithful subjects
of Christ, it would then be their duty, not to pray for the
coming of his kingdom, but to rejoice because it had
come. It should be. remembered, that the event to
which we should look forward, is not the general preval
ence of a profession of his religion, but a cordial accept
ance of it, accompanied with subjection to his laws and
institutions ; and consequently, that we ought to pray
for the exertion of Divine power, by which only this
great spiritual revolution will be effected. The king
dom of God comes when it is established in the heart.
Some have understood the kingdom to mean the sec
ond coming of Christ. " He who has a bold or assured
conscience," says Theophylact, " will wish the resur
rection and judgment to come." It is the character of
believers, that they are looking for and hastening to the
coming of the Lord; and when their faith is strong,
they will say with the beloved disciple, " Even so,
come, Lord Jesus." I presume, however, that we have
given the true sense of the petition, when we have ex
plained it as a prayer for the enlargement and prosperi
ty of the Church.
The petition which is next in order, is closely con
nected with the coming of the kingdom of God ; for when
the gospel, by which it is advanced, is accompanied
with Divine power, men are disposed and enabled to do
the will of God. " Thy will be done on earth as it is in
heaven." Divines speak of the secret and the revealed

* Dan. ii. 44.

will of God ; but with the former we have nothing to
do, and this petition respects the latter alone. It is his
will made known to us as the rule of our conduct, by
positive precepts, and by the dispensations of Provi
dence. It is the duty of every man to submit to the
appointments of heaven, to bear trials without murmur
ing, to be content with his condition ; it is bis duty to
pay a sacred regard to all the commands of his Maker,
and to perform with fidelity the various offieps of piety,
justice, and charity. There are several important ideas
suggested by this petition : — that the will of God is the
reason of obedience, or the foundation of morality ; that
it is a law to all men without exception ; that it should
be carefully studied by us, and kept constantly in view
as the standard of our actions ; that it is only by Divine
assistance that we shall be enabled to obey it ; and,
that we should pray for grace to others as well as our
selves. The notion, that men possess a natural power
to obey, as Pelagians affirm, or that they have all re
ceived sufficient grace, is contradictory to this petition,
which manifestly supposes that we have no such power,
and must therefore ask it from God.
In presenting this petition, we are directed to have
in our eye the example of obedience exhibited by the
inhabitants of heaven, or the angels of God, concerning
whom it is said, that " they do his commandments,
hearkening to the voice of his word."* We cannot,
indeed, hope to attain to equal perfection, but it should
be our constant aim, and every endeavour should be
used to make the nearest approach to it. The utmost
which we can hope in the present state, is the perfec
tion of sincerity, consisting in integrity of heart, and
leading us to esteem the Divine precepts concerning
all things to be right. If we are sincere, our obedience
will resemble that of the angels in promptitude and
cheerfulness. Not hesitating from fear of the conse
quences, nor retarded by the love of ease, and the inter
ference of other demands, we will immediately and will
ingly comply with the calls of duty, like those blessed
spirits, who, as soon as the command is given, fly,
like the lightning, from heaven to earth, to execute his
orders. The next petition respects our temporal affairs ;
" Give us this day our daily bread." The word trans
lated bread, is used both in Greek and in Hebrew, in
its proper signification ; but it is also put, by a figure,
for the whole of our temporal provision, because bread
is called in Scripture the staff of life, and among the
eastern nations was a principal article of food. It is
altogether fanciful to say, — what you have no doubt
heard, — that the people of God should be content if
they have only bread and water, because these only
are contained in the promise, " His bread shall be giv
en him, his water shall be sure."! Undoubtedly, they
should be pleased with the scantiest poition which may
be assigned to them ; but they have better reasons for con
tentment than this or any similar promise. The inter
pretation may be called pious; but it is entitled to no
other praise, and betrays ignorance of the rules accord
ing to which Scripture should be explained. Bread
stands as a part for the whole, and denotes all the ne
cessaries of life; and our Church gives a more rational
view of the petition, when it represents it as teaching
us, to ask not a bare subsistence, but " a competent
portion." The true sense of the word translated daily, it is
more difficult to settle. The Greek term is erai/moc,
concerning which Origen observes, that it was not used
by either the learned or the vulgar, and seems to have
been formed by the Evangelists. There is, therefore,
no resource left but etymology, which has guided
Jerome in his translation, who calls it in Matthew
super-substantialis, but in Luke quolidianus. Now,

* Ps. ciii. 20.

f Is. xxxiii. 16.

510

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

super-substantialis is a very literal version of emowiot,
which is compounded of em, upon, and cverix, essence or
substance. But such versions are the result of ignor
ance, and prove that the translator understands only the
component parts of a word, but not the word itself.
Super-substantialis is as unintelligible as t-novo-iot, al
though it has been supposed to mean the bread of the
Eucharist, a supposition utterly absurd. Some have
thought that it is derived from the verb mei/Ai, signifies
to remain, to be after ; and that apres eTriovo-iot is our fu
ture bread, the bread of to-morrow. But the petition
thus understood would sound harshly, " Give us this
day," or, as in Luke, " Give us day by day the bread
of the next day ;" and seems not to be consistent with
trust in God, and with our Saviour's exhortation not to
take thought for the morrow. The word is not so ex
plained by any of the ancients ; and this sense is reject
ed by Origen who mentions it only as a sense which
might occur to some of his readers. Apnt ewicvo-io; is
explained by Chrysostom and others, who were the
most competent judges, to be bread which passes into
the essence or substance of our bodies, bread which is suffi
cient for the preservation of our bodily substance; and
they understand by it, not the luxuries and superfluities
of life, but those things which are necessary for its
support.* We are forbidden to seek high things, and if we are
duly influenced by the glorious discoveries of the Gos
pel, we will feel a great degree of indifference to the
enjoyments and splendours of the world. But daily
bread is not to be confined to those things which are
usually called the necessaries of life. Even the phrase,
the necessaries of life, does not convey a definite idea,
as the circumstances of individuals are so much diver
sified, and what is sufficient for one would be totally
inadequate to the wants of another. God, who has
placed man in different situations, has himself rendered
a larger share of worldly good things necessary to
a man of rank, for example, than to an obscure person,
to the father of a numerous family than to him who is
childless. Our Saviour has in his wisdom employed a
general expression, which admits of considerable lati
tude of application, and authorises us to pray for suffi
cient bread, for a competent portion, for all that our sta
tion requires. The prayer of Agur will serve as a mo
del, and will show us, that, although we should not pre
sume to dictate to God, yet there are two extremes from
which we may pray to be preserved, as there is danger
to be apprehended from both. " Two things have I
required of thee ; deny me them not before I die : Re
move far from me vanity and lies ; give me neither
poverty nor riches ; feed me with food convenient for
me : lest 1 be full and deny thee, and say, who is the
Lord ? or lest 1 be poor, and steal, and take the name
of my God in vain."!
It is almost unnecessary to add, that this prayer does
not supersede the use of means; for it is only in con
forming to the established order of providence, that we
ought to expect it to be answered. The prayer imports
that our temporal blessings come from God, in what
ever channel they may be communicated ; that without
his blessing our industry and foresight will prove una
vailing; and our dependence upon him is constant:
and hence we are directed to present this petition, not
at distant intervals, but from day to day. Even the
rich man who thinks that he has goods laid up for many
years, should ask his daily bread from God ; for when
it is in his hand, providence could snatch it from him,
and scatter in an hour his wealth to the winds.
In the next petition we pray for the remission of
sin : " And forgive us our debts as we forgive our
debtors." Our debts are our sins, and accordingly the
* Vide Wits, in Symbolum Exercit. xi. de Pane Quoiidiano
J 10. t J,r0T- xxi- 7 — 9-

latter word is used when the prayer is repeated in Luke.
They are called our debts, because tbey formally con
sist in the non-payment of the obedience which we
owed to God, or as some think, because the sinner has
a debt of punishment to pay to divine justice. If our
debts are our offences against God, it follows that our
debtors are not those who owe us money, but those
who have injured us in word and deed, and from whom
we might think ourselves entitled to demand satisfac
tion. It is unnecessary to inquire what is implied in the
forgiving of our debts, as this important subject was
explained in its proper place ; and remission is well
known to consist in our absolution from the sentence
of condemnation pronounced upon us for our sins.
Nor is there any occasion at present for showing that
God alone can forgive sin, and that although no men
tion is made of the atonement of Christ, it must be
understood to be referred to ; agreeably to the uniform
doctrine of Scripture, that it is solely for his sake that
God bestows this blessing upon us. Waiving these
points as not now demanding our attention, let us con
sider the subjoined condition or qualification, as it
seems to be, with which our Lord has connected this
petition: "As we forgive our debtors." And certainly
no small difficulty here presents itself to those who
hold the doctrine of justification by grace without any
conditions. It does not appear easy to reconcile with
that doctrine, this petition as expressed in Matthew,
and still more strongly in Luke : " For we also for
give every one that is indebted to us." Various at
tempts have been made to point out tbeir harmony;
but some of them have not been successful.
It has been said that our forgiving others is an evi
dence of the grace of God towards us, from which it
appears, that we are not given up to our sinful affec
tions, and his Spirit has not utterly departed from us,
and that hence we may hope for new displays of his
grace. It has also been said that our forgiving others
must precede the sense of our own forgiveness, and
that we cannot expect to experience joy and peace, if
we do not exercise charity towards our brethren. But
this reasoning shifts the state of the question, and sup
poses the person in whom this qualification is required,
to have been already forgiven. It is a better solution
of the difficulty, to represent the petition as con
taining an argument from the less to the greater, which
may be thus stated : — ' Our Father in heaven, if we
whose goodness is so limited are so affected towards
others as not unwillingly to pardon their offences,
with how much confidence can we ask the same thing
to ourselves from thee, whose benignity has neither
measure nor bounds !' Our Lord reasons in a similar
manner: " If ye then, being evil, know how to give
good gifts unto your children; how much more shall
your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them
that ask him ?"*
I have long thought that the difficulty may be more
satisfactorily removed in a different way. There are
two kinds of pardon, — legal pardon, and fatherly par
don ; of which the one consists in the repeal of the
curse of the law, or the sentence of condemnation ;
and the other, in the removal of the chastisements to
which the children of God are subjected for their
offences. The first is obtained by faith alone, without
works, but the second is suspended upon conditions,
— repentance, confession, prayer, and the performance
of duty. Our Lord taught this prayer to bis disciples,
who were already in a state of grace; and it begins
with an address to God as our Father, which supposes
us to stand in the relation of children to him. It is
the prayer of a believer, who, having been freely for
given when he was justified, has still to ask the par-

*Luke xi. 11.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : PRAYER.

511

don of bis daily offences. Now, that be may recover
a comfortable sense of the love of God, and again
enjoy the light of his countenance, it is necessary that
he should be in a proper disposition of mind, and
particularly that he should be in a state of charity to
wards bis brethren of mankind, and especially towards
those who have offended him. "If ye forgive men
their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive
you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses,
neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."*
By subjoining this qualification to the petition, our
Lord reminds his disciples of the necessity of being
placable and merciful, and encourages them, when they
are conscious of this temper, to expect mercy from
God. The petition points out the order, according to
which God dispenses favours to his people. He will
withdraw his chastening hand when they return to a
sense of their duty. When they forgive others, he
will forgive them.
If we take this view of the subject, the difficulty is
removed. It is not the condition of their original par
don which is prescribed, but of the forgiveness of
their subsequent failings and imperfections.
We cannot pray in sincerity for the pardon of sin,
without feeling an abhorrence of it, and forming a
resolution henceforth to renounce it. Our Saviour has
therefore taught us to say in the next place, " And lead
us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
Temptation signifies any thing which entices us to
sin. It would be foreign to our present design, to in
quire what are the various sources of temptation ; but
it is necessary to ascertain what is implied in not lead
ing us into it. The expression has rather a strange
sound, as it occurs in an address to God, and it seems
to import that God might be actively concerned in
tempting us, in direct contradiction to the following
words : " Let no man say when he is tempted, I am
tempted of God ; for God cannot be tempted with evil,
neither tempteth he any man."! B *s certain that
God may give permission to wicked spirits and bad
men to tempt us, for there is no doubt that he could
restrain them ; that, in the course of his providence,
he may place us in circumstances which have a ten
dency to stimulate our corrupt desires and passions;
and that he may leave us to act according to the in
clinations of our hearts. Thus far we may conceive
him to lead us into temptation ; but to suppose him to
exert any direct influence to excite us to comply with
it, would be to represent him as the author of sin. The
words before us, and all similar expressions, ought to
be explained consistently with the perfect purity of
the Divine nature; and we should avoid all those
metaphysical speculations concerning the agency of
God in the actions of his creatures, which bewilder
the mind, and lead us so far, that we can only escape
tbe impious conclusion by retracting our own reason
ings, and resting, where we should have always rested,
in the incontrovertible truth, that " God is light, and
in him there is no darkness at all." This petition,
then, is expressive of two things ; first, of a request,
founded on an humble sense of our weakness and
liability to err, that God would keep temptation at a
distance from us ; and, secondly, of a request that, if
for wise reasons he shall be pleased to expose us to it,
he would assist and strengthen us in the evil hour. It
is a direct acknowledgment of our inability to preserve
ourselves. Accordingly, we are directed farther to say,
" Deliver us from evil ;" signifying, that our own
wisdom and resolution are insufficient, and that our
only resource is the power of God. Evil is generally
understood to be sin ; but in the original, the article
is prefixed to it— fvo-au HLtxt «ro tou mvnpov ; which may
be translated, from the evil one. It was generally so

* Matth. vi. 14, 15,

f James i. 13.

explained by tbe Fathers. The character of the'evil
one is justly given to the apostate spirit who was the
first transgressor, and is continually soliciting others
to transgress ; and the description of him " as a roaring
lion, that goes about seeking whom he may devour,"*
shows the danger which we. have reason to dread from
him, and the urgent necessity of prayer that we may
be preserved from his power. When Christians are
exhorted to put on the whole armour of God,  the
breastplate of righteousness, the helmet of salvation,
the shield of faith, and the sword of the JSpirit, — it is
added, "praying always with all prayer and supplica
tion in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all
perseverance."! The prayer is concluded with this doxology : " For
thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory
for ever. Amen." It may be considered, not only as
an ascription of praise to God, but as containing rea
sons or motives to encourage us to offer up the pre
ceding petitions. The kingdom belongs to God ; who
is the Sovereign of the universe, and, having all things
at his disposal, can bestow the blessings which we ask.
The power belongs to him; and therefore no obstacle;
can prevent the accomplishment of his gracious de
signs. The glory belongs to him; and therefore we
infer that he will grant our requests, because in the
dispensations of his providence and grace his name
will be glorified. To the whole prayer, the Hebrew
word " Amen" is subjoined, which, in this connexion,
is expressive of our desire, and of our confidence that
we shall be heard.
It is proper to observe, that the genuineness of the
doxology has been called in question by many learned
men, and that it is supposed to be an interpolation trans
ferred into the text from the ancient liturgies, in which
it was used after the prayer was recited. It is remark
ed, that it is wanting in Luke, where this prayer is
repeated, only with some unimportant alterations ; but
if the doxology is interpolated in Matthew, it is not
easy to conceive why it has been left out in Luke, as
it would have been as easy to introduce it in the one
place as in the other. Its presence in the former Gos
pel, and its absence in the latter, seem rather to prove
it to be genuine. It is not found in many manuscripts,
in the writings of some of the Greek Fathers even
when they professedly explain the Lord's Prayer, in
several ancient versions, and in the Fathers of the
Latin Church. On the other hand, there are several
ancient versions in which it is found, and Greek and
Latin writers by whom it is quoted and commented
upon; and it is asserted also, that it appears in many
manuscripts some of which are of high antiquity.
Griesbach has ejected it from the text; but, although
his authority is great, the discussions of some learned
men have made some abatement from it, and shown us
that we ought not implicitly to bow to his decisions.
I do not pretend to determine a question, with respect
to which the most eminent critics are divided in senti
ment. In this formulary, we have all the constituent parts
of prayer. It begins and ends with adoration and
thanksgiving; and it contains petitions for temporal
and spiritual blessings, some of which obviously im
ply confession of our sinfulness and weakness. It is
an admirable guide to us in our devotions ; and pray
ers conformable to this pattern are acceptable to God,
when they flow from a heart purified by faith. It is
entitled to the highest respect, as a form to be occa
sionally used in public and private ; and to 1 ,y piety
out of the question, we could not say much for the
modesty of the man who should presume to think
that any prayer which he could compose would be bet
ter. Our Directory for Public Worship says, " Be-

* 1 Pet. v.

f Eph. vi. 18.

512

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

cause the prayer which Christ taught his disciples is
not only a pattern of prayer, but itself a most compre
hensive prayer, we recommend it also to be used in
the prayers of the church.

LECTURE XCVI.
ON THE CHURCH.
Different Meaning-s of the Term, Church. — Import of the Dis
tinctions into the Visible and Invisible, Militant and Tri
umphant Church. — The Design of the Church. — The Quali
fication of its Members ; Baptism, Knowledge, Faith, and
a Credible Profession. — The Unity, Universality, Perpetu
ity, and Infallibility of the True Church.
The design of God in the various dispensations
of religion, has been to establish and uphold a socie
ty of a singular character, separated from the world,
dedicated to his service, and distinguished by the
high privileges conferred upon the members. As
this society is the object of his special care, and it is
in it that revelation is preserved, the ordinances of the
true religion are administered, and the blessings of sal
vation are enjoyed, it is entitled to particular attention.
The name by which it is known among us is the
Church, and this term is used as equivalent to the
Hebrew word 'rnp, and the Greek word exxxxcrin. As
7Plp signifies a congregation, or a number of persons
gathered together, so this is the import of en.xxr.o-ix.,
which denoted, among the Greeks, an assembly of the
people convoked by lawful authority. Accordingly,
the former word is frequently translated by the latter
in the Sepluagint, and occurs likewise as its substitute
in the New Testament. In the fortieth psalm, the
Messiah says, " I have declared thy righteousness in
the great congregation ;" — 31 hT\pl — and the passage
is thus quoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Ev fteo-a
txxxito-izs vfLvso-u ere; ¦' In the midst of the church I will
sing praise to thee."* The Septuagint here employs
the word o-vvxyicy».X
The word rnxxno-ia bears a variety of senses, which
either are found in Scripture, or have been since at
tached to it in the common language of Christians.
It is not certain that it anywhere signifies, in the New
Testament, the place of meeting for the worship of
God, (see 1 Cor. xi. 22.) although it very early re
ceived this meaning by metonymy, according to which
the thing containing is called by the name of that
which it contains ; and, in imitation of the ancients,
we give the designation of churches to those houses
in which Christians hold their religious assemblies.
As it would serve no purpose to inquire whether there
were any houses so denominated in the days of the
Apostles, 1 proceed to observe, that the church some
times denotes a single family, or rather a few individ
uals associated together in observing the institutions
of the Gospel. This apppars from such passages as
the following: " Greet the church that is in the house
of Aquila and Piiscilla." " Salute the church which
is in the house of Nymphas."! B 's highly probable
that those churches consisted, not only of the children
and servants belonging to the persons named, but of
others, who, professing the faith, repaired to their
houses at stated timps to hear the word, and to unite
in the exercises of prayer and praise. There is little
reason to think that the primitive disciples had any
other houses in which they might hold their conventi
cles, as they were an infant sect, and were surrounded
with enemies, whose notice it would have been impru
dent to attract by a public display. However few in
number, they were encouraged to meet by the gracious
* Heb. ii. 12. f Synagogue. X R°m- xvi. 5. Col. iv. 15.

promise of our Saviour, that "where two or three are
met together in his name, he is in the midst of them."
Again, The Church signifies all the Christians in
a particular city, whether they assembled for religious
offices in one place, or in several places. This is
plain from the following words : " Now there was in
the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and
teachers."* All the disciples in that celebrated city
were accounted one church ; while it is beyond doubt
that they were too many to form only one congrega
tion. On this subject, indeed, there has been a di
versity of opinion ; and, in particular, Independents,
have discovered an anxious wish to prove the nega
tive, because the fact which I am stating, is at vari
ance with their notions of the constitution of a church.
But let us attend to the language in which the sacred
historian speaks of the success of the Gospel among
its inhabitants : " And the hand of the Lord was with
them ; and a great number believed, and turned to the
Lord." " And it came to pass, that a whole year
Saul and Barnabas assembled themselves with the
church, and taught much people ; and the disciples
were first called Christians at Antioch."! When we
consider that there were many converts before the ar
rival of Barnabas and Saul, and that they had labour
ed with success for a whole year prior to the time
when the church is spoken of as one, it must be strong
prejudice which leads any person to deny that the
word is used as a general term comprehending several
congregations; for it is altogether incredible that the
disciples would have been called "a great number,"
and " much people," if they could have been con
vened in one house, and for the reason given above,
probably a private house. In the same sense the word
is used in reference to Jerusalem, all the disciples in
which are repeatedly represented as one church-! But
that there were more assemblies than one in that city
is evident, not only from the number of converts speci
fied in the Acts, many of whom might be strangers,
who afterwards removed to different places ; but from
the fact that the Apostles continued a long time in it
after the day of Pentecost, not surely to minister to a
single society of believers; and that the poor were so
numerous, that not one deacon, but seven, were ap
pointed to take care of them. I have dwelt rather
long upon this point; but as this application of the
term has been contested, some discussion was neces
sary, and I have thus been led to anticipate an argu
ment which will again be brought forward in favoui
of the form of church-government which we have
adopted. There is another sense of the term which is now
common, but of which I do not find any example in
the New Testament, namely, when it is employed to
denote the inhabitants of a whole country united in
the same religious profession. There we read of the
churches of Judea, the churches of Galatia, the
churches of Macedonia, the churches of Asia. We,
in this country, speak of the Church of Scotland, the
Church of England, the Church of Holland, &c.
This phraseology has arisen from the connexion of
the church with the state, in consequence of which,
Christianity, or rather a particular modification of
Christianity, is established by law in a particular
country, and all the inhabitants are required to adopt
it in that form, unless a toleration be granted to dis
senters to worship God according to the dictates of
their consciences; This has originated in an attempt
to make Christianity a national affair, and to render
the church commensurate with the territory over which
the power of the civil government extends. It would
lead us away from our present design, to enter upon
* Acts xiii. 1. f lb. xi. 21, 26.
t lb. v. 11. viii. 1, 3. xi. 22. xii. 1, 5. &c.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE CHURCH.

513

the question cdhcerhing the lawfulness of civil estab
lishments of religion. In general, we may say, that,
so far as they blend together secular and spiritual
things, interfere with religious liberty, and consider
men as Christians, merely because they are subjects
of the state, they are unscriptural, and must prove the
source of manifold and grievous corruptions.
"Farther, The word has been supposed to denote, not
a whole religious society, but only the office-bearers in
it. It has been considered as bearing this sense in
the following words : " And if he shall neglect to hear
thee, tell it to the church ; but if he neglect to hear
the church, let. him be unto thee as a heathen man and
a publican."* It is evident that the offending brother
is to be brought before the church for judgment; and
if he prove refractory, to be excommunicated. The
power of government, Presbyterians affirm, is not vested
in the people, but in those who preside over them; and
consequently, if they are right, the church must here
mean the ministers and rulers. Independents, of course,
reject this interpretation ; and some who differ from
them in their views of church government, explain the
words in a different manner. To settle this contro
versy, would require a train of circuitous reasoning,
into which this is not the proper time to enter. I shall
therefore pass over this sense of the term, and pro
ceed to another, concerning which there is no dispute;
I observe, in the last place, that the church signifies
all the disciples of Christ throughout the world.
There are many examples of this extensive meaning
of the term: "The church of God which he hath
purchased with his own blood." " Christ loved the
church, and gave himself for it." " The church of
the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."!
In these passages, the meaning of the term is more
extensive than in any of the former instances, and
comprehends all in every country, and in every age,
who acknowledge Jesns Christ as their spiritual head.
In speaking of the church in this general view, it is
necessary to consider it under two aspects, and to at
tend to the distinction which is commonly made of it
into visible and invisible.
" The visible church," says our Confession of Faith,
"consist of all those throughout the world that pro
fess the true religion, together with their children ; and
is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, the house
and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary
possibility of salvation."! It comprehends, therefore,
various sects, differing from each other in some parti
culars, but united in acknowledging the Scriptures
of the Old and New Testament as the. rule of faith
and practice, and observing the ordinances of the
gospel. The Church, of England calls the visible
church " a congregation of faithful men, in the which
the pure word of God is preached, and the sacra
ments be duly ministered, according to Christ's or
dinance, in all those things that of necessity are
requisite to the same."|| We may acquiesce in
both definitions ; but they are general, and particu
larly the first, so that we may find some difficulty in
practically applying them, to" ascertain who are the
true members of this church. Some sects we must
exclude, because they deny the fundamental articles
cf the Christian religion, as Unitarians do ; but others
old a mixture of truth and error, and hence it may
not be easy to determine whether they should be ad
mitted for the truth or rejected for the error. Again,
if the visible church consists of those who profess the
true religion, and is an assembly of faithful men, it
follows that those who do not fail under this descrip
tion, — men who are ignorant of the doctrines of reli
gion, disregard its ordinances, and openly transgress
* Matth. xviii. 17. -f Acts xx.28. Eph. v. 25. 1 Tim. iii. 15.
) Conf. xxv. 2. || Art. xix.
3P 33

its laws, — cannot be considered as belonging to it.
However contradictory, therefore, may be the practice
of the two churches of Scotland and E no-land, the
creed of neither encourages the idea of national Chris
tianity, or of holding every person who is born in a
particular country to be a member of the church,
merely because he has been baptized by it, and is
living within its bounds. The phrase, the visible
church, is used very loosely by us all ; but, if we
would speak scripturally, and even rationally, we
would not include in it the grossly ignorant and openly
profane, any more than heathens and Mahometans;
for the former are as little connected with Jesus
Christ, even in outward appearance, as the latter.
We would comprehend in the visible church none but
those, who make a credible profession of religion; that
is, none but persons who possess a competent know
ledge of its doctrines, observe its institutions, and
regulate their conduct by its laws. Were this mode
of settling its limits adopted, they would be very much
narrowed, and a great part of what is called the Chris
tian world would be left without its pale.
This church is called visible, not only because the
persons who compose it are not angels or separate
spirits, but men dwelling in mortal flesh, but because,
as a society, it falls under the observation of our
senses. The members are known; their assemblies'
are public ; we may be present in them, and observe
the celebration of the several parts of their worship.
It is distinguishable, like any other society ; and we
can say, Here is the church of Christ ; but there is the
church of the Jews or of the Mahometans. Nothing
more is necessary to discover it than the use of our
senses. Having learned, by the perusal of the Scrip
tures, what are the discriminating characters of the
church, wherever we perceive a society whose creed
and observances are upon the whole conformable to
this pattern, we are authorized to say, This is the
church, or rather, a part of the church.
" The invisible church," I again quote the words of
our Confession, " consists of the whole number of the
elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one,
under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the
body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."* This
isr a definition of the church for which Christ gave
himself; for he died for all who were chosen in him
to salvation ; but not an accurate definition of the
invisible church as actually existing, in which not all
the elect are comprehended, but those only who have
believed. I consider the invisible church to be the
congregation of those who have been called by Divine.
grace into the fellowship of the gospel, and sanctified
by the truth ; and they are one congregation, because,
however distant in place and diversified in circum
stances, they are united by closer bonds than those of
external communion. " By one Spirit we have all
been baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or
Greeks, whether we be bond or free, and have been all
made to drink into that one Spirit."! In the visible
church there is a mixture of saints and sinners, as
there is of chaff and grain in the barn-floor, and of
wheat and tares in the field ; but this society is pure;
not that the individuals who compose it are free from
sin, but that they are all of one description, having
been born from above. This is the true church, in
which God dwells, and to which the promises are
made. This is the body of Christ, to which he com
municates spiritual influences, that it may " increase
with the increase of God."
This church is said to be invisible, because it can
not be discovered by the eye. It is not separated from
the world in respect of place, but of state. It lies
hidden in the visible church, from which it cannot be

* Conf. xxv. 1.

•f 1 Cor. xii. 13.

514

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

certainly distinguished. The qualifications of its
members are internal ; their faith and love are not the
objects of sense. Towards our fellow men we can
exercise only the judgment of charity, founded on
probable grounds ; Dut we are liable to err, and from
various causes may suppose saints to be hypocrites,
and hypocrites to be saints. It is unseen by every eye
but that which " searches the heart and tries the reins
of the children of men." " The Lord," and he only,
" knows them that are his."
Hitherto I have spoken of the Church as subsisting
exclusively upon earth ; but there is another distinc
tion which relates to it, as subsisting both on earth
and in heaven. Taken in this comprehensive sense,
it is divided into the church militant, and the church
triumphant. The former comprehends those who are
engaged in the spiritual warfare, wrestling against.
principalities and powers, struggling with the flesh
and the solicitations of the world, and, in some cases,
resisting even unto blood in their opposition to sin.
The latter is made up of the glorified saints, who have
overcome by the blood of the Lamb, and the word of
their testimony, and have obtained the crown of life
which fades not away. Let it be observed, that these
constitute only one church, one family in heaven and
on earth, being subject to the same Head, animated
by the same spirit, and, notwithstanding their dis
tance, holding holy communion, while they take an
interest in one another's joys and sorrows, and unite
in the worship of Him who sits upon the throne, and
of the Lamb.
The design of the establishment of the church will
be explained by the following particulars. First, It is
appointed to be the depository of divine truth, in
which it should be preserved, and by which it should
be published to the world. To the Jews were com
mitted the oracles of God in ancient times ; but the
custody of them is now transferred to the Christian
church. Hence it is called, in a passage formerly
quoted, " the pillar and ground of the truth." Second
ly, It is an important part of its duty, to maintain
and observe the ordinances of Christ, that the ends
of their institution may be accomplished in the salva
tion of men, and He may receive due honour, as the
exalted Lord to whom every knee should bow of
things on earth. Thirdly, It is intended to be the
asylum of sinners, who are called upon to leave the
society of the world, and to enter into it by faith, that
tney may escape the destruction which is coming up
on the wicked. It is like the cities of refuge in the
promised land, into which the man-slayer fled from
the pursuit of the avenger of blood. Lastly, It is the
nursery of the saints, in which they are trained for
tbe duties of the present life and the happiness of the
next, by spiritual instruction and watchful superin
tendence, by doctrine and discipline.
From the general remarks which have been already
made, it has appeared who- are the members of the
church considered both as visible and as invisible.
With respect to the latter, it is unnecessary to say any
thing farther, as there can be no doubt that the mem
bers are believers, regenerated persons, saints, since
the Scripture says expressly, " If any man have not
the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."* But con
cerning the qualifications of the members of the visi
ble church, it will be proper to enter into a more par
ticular discussion.
First, An indispensable qualification of the mem
bers of the visible church is baptism, which has been
called the initiatory seal of the new covenant, and is
the rite by which our admission into the society of
the faithful is declared. When Jesus Christ sent his
Apostles to establish his church upon earth, he said to

them, " Go ye therefore and teach," or ratner, make
disciples of " all nations" — pLxhrnevo-XTt ttcly, a tx. eBv» —
"baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."* They were to be
made disciples by baptism ; not that the simple ad
ministration of this rite would constitute them such,
or that it was to be administered to all who should
come in the way of the Apostles, but that when they
found persons who, having heard the Gospel, profes
sed faith in Christ, they should baptize them, and in
this manner receive them into the number of his fol
lowers. As the uncircumcised were not adm'tted into
the congregation of Israel, so the unbaptized nave no
right to enter into the church. In this respect the two
ordinances resemble each other, that both were insti
tuted as a preliminary step to the enjoyment of the
other privileges of the people of God. It does not
however follow, that baptism is necessary to salva--
tion ; for we may conceive a case, and it has actually
happened, that a man has by some means — for ex
ample, by the perusal of the Scriptures — been savingly
enlightened, who, at the same time, was in such a
situation that he could not obtain the external sign of
the righteousness of faith. There is no doubt that
such a man went to heaven at death, and that he was
a member of the invisible church, which is united to
its exalted Head by the Spirit; but of the visible
church, he was not a member, because he wanted,
yet without any fault on his part, the distinguishing
badge of Christianity. Hence you perceive the rea
son that our Confession expresses itself with some
degree of caution, when it says, that " out of the
visible church there is no ordinary possibility of sal
vation." There is a possibility of salvation without
its pale; but the cases are extraordinary, and such as
those to which I have just now referred. When men
have access to the church, they are bound by the
highest authority to enter into its communion, and
therefore to submit to baptism, which is the door of
admission. If any person, knowing baptism to be an
ordinance of Christ, should deliberately and contemp
tuously neglect it, he would no more be a disciple of
Christ than a heathen or a Mahometan, and his final
salvation would be as impossible as if he had lived
and died in the habitual violation of any moral precept.
The second qualification of the members of the
church, is knowledge; for Jesus Christ does not want
blind followers, who are attached to him merely for
his name, or in consequence of their local situation;
and the ignorant are utterly incapable of performing
the duties incumbent upon the members of this spi
ritual society. What degree of knowledge is requi
site, it is not easy to determine with accuracj'. Men
differ much in education, in talents, in opportunities,
so that it would be equally absurd to demand the same
proficiency in all the candidates, as to insist that they
should be all of the same stature. But unless a per
son know something about his own natural character
and state, something about the person and office, and
work of the Saviour, something about the promises of
God, and the duties of a Christian, he cannot make a
rational profession of faith, and consequently ought
not to be admitted. The Church of Rome requires
implicit faith in the members. This does not mean,
as you might suppose from the terms, a belief of cer
tain doctrines simply upon the authority of the church,
but something much more mysterious, and of which
the world never had an idea till it was revealed by the
Schoolmen. Implicit faith is a belief that all the doc
trines held by the church are true, although you know
nothing about them, and never so much as heard them
mentioned. It matters not to you what the chinch
believes, and you need not give yourself the trouble

* P m. viii. 9.

* Matlh. xxviii. 19.

EXTERNAL MEANS OF GRACE : THE CHURCH.

515

to inquire ; if you believe that all that she believes is
agreeable to truth,. you are an orth< dox Christian, and
are sure to go to heaven. In short, the Church of
Rome teaches men to believe by proxy, to have faith
without having one idea of the object of faith, to assent
to a creed of which they know as little as the inhabitants
of Tartary. Such a faith is very suitable to a church
which holds that ignorance is the mother of devotion;
but would ill accord with the church of Christ, which
proposes its creed to be read and studied by all, in
vites and encourages inquiry, and demands from men
a rational service. Those are commended who, like
the Bereans, search the Scriptures daily, with a view
to ascertain whether the doctrines proposed to them
are true; and every member is called upon to be
always ready to give " a reason of the hope which is
in him, to any man who asks him."
The standard by which the knowledge of those who
seek admission into the church should be tried, is the
Scriptures. But the several churches of Christendom
have adopted, besides the Scriptures, what have been
called subordinate standards, — creeds, articles, and
confessions. At first it may seem that this is an un
warrantable addition, and derogates from the perfection
and permanent authority of the word of God ; but their
conduct admits of a satisfactory explanation. In the
first place, They profess — and this is true at least of
Protestant churches — to exhibit in their creeds only
the doctrines of Scripture, and to exclude all human
dogmas. But if this is a fair representation of the
design of their creeds, it may be said that they are of
no use, as the Scriptures contain all that they tell us.
In answer to this objection, I observe, in the second
place, That they are necessary for the defence of the
truth against heresies and errors. The authors of
these profess great reverence for the Scriptures, and
are ready at any time to give an account of their faith
couched in their language, while they affix to it a sense
totally different from that which you understand it to
convey. Hence arose the necessity of employing a
test to ascertain their real sentiments ; and such a test
is a creed expressed in human words, which established
usage has rendered definite and incapable of perversion.
This is a short account of the origin of creeds ; and
those who exclaim most vehemently against them, are
the causes of the evil of which they complain.
When churches employ their subordinate standards
as a test of religious sentiments, their reason is not
that they consider them as having any authority in
themselves, but that they appear to them to be founded
on Scripture, and proper therefore to be used as a
means of discovering the real sentiments of those who
are desirous to be received into their fellowship. It is
evident, however, that if the assent of private mem
bers is to be required to them, they ought to be very
short and simple ; and some modern creeds, however
excellent, are too copious, and involve too many intri
cate points, to befit for this purpose.
I might add as a third qualification of the members
of the church, a profession of faith ; for it is not the
simple possession of knowledge which entitles any
man to be admitted into its communion, but a declara
tion, explicit or implied, that he believes the doctrines
in which he has been instructed, acknowledges Jesus
Christ as his Saviour, submits to his authority, and is
resolved to yield obedience to his laws and institu
tions. This profession is made by adults at their bap
tism, and by those who were baptized in infancy, by
their attendance upon the ordinances of religion, and
by the answers returned to the questions proposed to
them when they apply for admission to the Lord's
table. The last qualification which I shall mention, is a
character which shall give credibility to this profes
sion. If men profess to know God, but deny him in

works, their conduct neutralizes their profession, and
it is no breach of charity to consider it as insincere.
Of faith as it exists in the heart, we can have no
knowledge but by external signs, wnich are to be
sought for in the practice; because the truths of reli
gion, when believed, do not remain as an intellectual
treasure in the understanding, but exerting their power
upon the heart, give rise to a conduct becoming the
gospel. Our Lord has laid down a rule to direct us
in our private and public judgments of our brethren,
" Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather
grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every
good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit."* All Christians might
be expected to agree, that into a society founded by
Jesus Christ, and dedicated to his service, those
should not be permitted to enter, who show, by their
disregard of piety and their unholy actions, that what
ever they pretend, they are hostile to his religion ;
and that a church is criminally negligent, and guilty
of a violation of her trust, which lays open her fel
lowship to the profane and worldly. The members
of the primitive church are addressed as "saints,"
and "faithful in Christ Jesus," and were so called
perhaps, because the majority were truly entitled to
this appellation, or at least because they were saints
in appearance. There were great irregularities in that
church ; but these were unavoidable in a society, all
the members of which were imperfect, and into which
some- unworthy persons had intruded under the mask
of hypocrisy. They were not however allowed, and
discipline was employed to correct them, and to expel
those who refused to be reformed.
From the account which has been given of the neces
sary qualifications for admission into the visible church,
it follows that it is not regeneration by the Spirit
which is an indispensable, pre-requisite, but the ap
pearance of it ; and after all that can be said upon the
subject, in this the greatest zealots for purity of com
munion must virtually acquiesce. It is certain, that
God has not given the church authority to scrutinize
the hearts of candidates, because he has not furnished
the means. The gift of discerning spirits has long
since ceased, and the present rulers of the church can
judge only by profession and practice. To attempt to
penetrate into the recesses of the soul, is to erect an
inquisitorial tribunal for the trial of men's spiritual
state; and as long as there are hypocrisy and self-
deceit in the world, the sentences pronounced from it
will be often exceedingly unjust. The Apostles ap
pear to have received disciples upon such a profession
of faith as we require from our applicants ; and although
it is manifest from the New Testament, that there
were unregenerated persons in the primitive church,
we do not find that they thought of expelling them on
this ground, if they were free from scandalous crimes.
Without regeneration, however, we readily acknow
ledge external connexion with the visible church will
be of no avail, "for in Christ Jesus neither circum
cision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a
new creature."!
In the sequel of this lecture, I shall direct your at
tention to some general characters or properties of the
church. The first is its unity. It is one church, and must be
so called, whether we consider it as Invisible or visi
ble. With regard to the former there is no doubt, as
all its members are united to Jesus Christ, as their
head, animated by the Spirit of holiness, and thus com
pacted into one body. The unity may not be so obvi
ous with respect to the latter, because it is divided
into different societies, not only distinct in place, but
also disjoined by the peculiarity of their tenets and

* Matth. vii. 16,17.

t Gal. v. 6.

516

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

usages. But tbe appearance of disunion will be dimin
ished, if we attend to what was formerly hinted, that
although the designation of the visible church is em
ployed in common language with great latitude, yet
we cannot rationally and scripturally comprehend in it
any society, which does not profess the true religion in
its essential parts. We thus exclude heretical sects,
and recognize as the constituent members, those only
who acknowledge " one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
one God and Father of all." These we account one
on the ground of tbe fundamental points in which
they agree, and do not consider the unity as destroyed
by the minor point in which they disagree. Particular
churches would do well to look upon themselves only
as integral parts, and not as the whole. The. latter
idea is too much encouraged by the illiberal views and
high pretensions of some parties. In certain cases it is
avowed; and thus, while certain societies appropriate
the name and privileges of the church, to the exclusion
of all others, they prove themselves to be no part of it
at all, but are self-excommunicated, cut off by their
own act from all interest in the body of Christ.
The second character of the Church is its universality.
It is the catholic church ; and this epithet is explained
by the Fathers to mean that it extends throughout the
world, reaches from one end of the earth to another, as
a body, says Theophylact, consisting of the churches
every where, having Christ as its head. It is called
Catholic, to signify that it is not confined to a particu
lar country or sect, but comprehends all who profess
the true religion, and observe the ordinances of the gos
pel. It is not Catholic de facto,* if we mean by this
word universally diffused ,- for we know that there, are ex
tensive regions and populous nations in which it has not
been established, or claims only a very few of the in
habitants. The whole number of nominal Christians
amounts only to a fifth or a sixth part of the human race.
But it is Catholic de Jure,! because "the heathen have
been given to Christ for his inheritance, and the utter
most parts of the earth for his possession." His com
mission authorized the Apostles and their successors
to preach the gospel to every creature ; and the sense
in which we understand prophecy, encourages us to
hope that in a future age, the light of truth, like that of
the sun, will illuminate every region ; that the whole
world will be converted into a temple, and all its inhabi
tants will be worshippers of the living God. The
claims of the church of Rome to be the Catholic Church
are well known, and to every man who understands
the Scriptures, they appear equally presumptuous and
ridiculous. Their arrogant style is too much imitated
by some Protestants. In the southern part of the Isl
and, the cry of" the Church," " the Church," is rais
ed by proud, intolerant, uncharitable men, who appro
priate this name to their own society, and pronounce
all who do not submit to the government of bishops, to
be schismatics and sectarians, whohave no hope of sal
vation but through tbe uncovenanted mercy of God.
But " we have not so learned Christ." We acknowl
edge as a part of the church " every congregation of
faithful men in which the pure word of God is preached,
and the sacraments are duly administered."
The third character of the church is its perpetuity.
The declarations and promises concerning Zion, that
God would establish it, and that it should be his rest
for ever, are fulfilled in that society of which it was a
figure. We believe upon the best authority, that as the
church has subsisted from its erection to the present
hour, so it will continue through all subsequent ages,
till the second coming of Christ. "Upon this rock
will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it ;"! neither death, which is daily ma
king havock among the members, and is probably

* In fact.

t Of right.

X Matth. xvi. 18.

meant by the gates of Hades, nor the powers of dark
ness, as the words in our translation seem to import.
In the most degenerate times God has had a seed to
serve him, a remnant has been saved ; as in the days
of Elijah, who supposed himself to be the sole wor
shipper of God, while there were seven thousand in
Israel who had not bowed the knee to the image of
Baal. There has always, too, been a visible profession
of Christianity; there have been assemblies held, in
which its forms of worship have been observed; and
although many of these have been so corrupt, that they
might rather have been considered as synagogues of
Satan, yet even during the reign of Antichrist, it ap
pears that in some corner or other of Christendom,
there were men enlightened by divine grace, who escap
ed the general pollution, and maintained the truth at
the peril of their lives.
With the perpetuity of the church, is intimately con
nected the question concerning its infallibility. It is
one of the principal points of discussion between Pro
testants and Papists. The latter strenuously maintain
that tbe church cannot err; and appropriating this pre
rogative to their own church, they call upon all men,
under the pain of damnation, to submit to its authority.
In settling the point to which this infallibility extends,
they differ among themselves ; but all agree that it is
lodged somewhere in the church, in the Pope, or in a
general council, or in both united. The doctrine of
Protestants is stated in our Confession of Faith, in the
following passages. " All synods or councils since
the Apostles' time, whether general or particular, may
err, and many have erred." "The purest churches upon
earth are subject both to mixture and error, and some
have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ,
but synagogues of Satan."* These assertions it would
be easy to support, both by reasoning from Scripture,
and by an appeal to the history of religion in the ages
which are past. We believe that infallibility can be
predicated of no assembly, however learned, of no asso
ciation of professed Christians, and still less of any
individual, although dignified with the high title of the
vicegerent of Christ. Still, there is a sense in which
the church may be said to be infallible, and must be
considered as such, if we hold its perpetuity. The
true faith can never be utterly lost, because, if such a
calamity could take place, the church would be annihil
ated. The truth will be known and professed by some
society or other, greater or less, in all generations, and all
the true members of the church are under the unerring
guidance of the Spirit ; so that, although they may mis
take in some points, and be for a time seduced by temp
tation, they shall not totally and finally apostatize.
This view of the matter does not in any degree favour
the pretensions of the Church of Rome, or secure the
faith of one society more than that of another. It is
applicable to no particular church, and merely affirms
that, however widely error may be diffused, and what
ever desolation persecution may work, the power of
Jesus Christ will preserve his own religion, aifd raise
up some persons to profess it.

LECTURE XCVII.
ON THE CHURCH.
True Nature of Schism. — Separation, when Justifiable. — Gov
ernment of the Church. — Different Opinions Respecting t.
— Popish Form. — Assumptions on which it is founded, Ex
amined and Disproved. — Episcopacy. — Examination of the
Arguments in its Favour. — Proof that Presbyters and Bish
ops are of the same Order.
It is the duty of the members of the church to
dwell together as brethren in unity. Many arguments

* Conf. xxxi. 4. xxv. 5.

THE CHURCH.

517

re employed in Scripture to inculcate mutual love ;
out there is one derived, in particular, from the con^,
nexion which subsists between them as parts of "'
whole : " God," says Paul, " has tempered the human
body together, that there should be no schism in it,
but that the members should have the same care one
for another. And whether one member suffer, all the
members suffer with it ; or one member be honoured,
all the members rejoice with it. Now," he adds, " ye
are the body of Christ, and members in particular ;"*
applying this illustration to the church, and signify
ing that' the members should sympathize with each
other. Opposed to this love, wbich should characterize the
disciples" of Christ, is schism; an evil which is high
ly detrimental to the interests of religion, and of
which it is the more necessary to take notice, because
its true nature has been often misunderstood. In com
mon language, it signifies an open division among
Christians; and they are called schismatics who have
withdrawn from the communion of a church, and
formed themselves into a separate party. Dr. Camp
bell, in Hs Preliminary Dissertations, f has explained
the scriptural sense of the term. His view of it.
however, is not new, but had been adopted long before
him by many writers, who had accurately examined
its import. The Apostle Paul uses the word to denote
an internal division in the church, arising from aliena
tion of affection. Hence he says to the Corinthians,
" Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that there be no schisms among
you.":): He addressed this earnest exhortation to them,
not so much to prevent the evil, as to suppress it, for
he knew that it already existed : " When ye come to
gether in the church, I hear that there are schisms
among you, and I partly believe it."|| As he exhorts
them, at the same time, to be perfectly joined together
in the same mind, and in the same judgment, he in
timates that their schisms proceeded from a difference
of sentiment; and it is certain that, if men were
agreed in all their views, the utmost harmony would
prevail. But, whatever is the cause, schism itself
consists in the want of love among the members of
the church, and may exist in full force while there is
no visible breach in their external communion. If, in
a church, there are two parties who meet in the same
places of worship, and are subject to the same rulers,
but, at the same time, are actuated by mutual jeal
ousy, and are secretly endeavouring to counteract and
undermine each other ; in that church there is a
schism. United in their sentiments respecting articles
of faith and modes of worship, Christians may be
divided about matters of inferior moment, as we too
often see the peace of congregations disturbed, and
hostile parties formed, about the management of their
temporal affairs, or the election of a minister, or some
point much more insignificant. The schism in the
Church of Corinth originated in the preference of one
minister to another; while one said, "I am of Paul,
and another, I am of Apollos, and a third, I am of
Cephas."§ In all sueh cases a schism exists, be
cause that love is wanting, without which a society of
professed Christians is not one body, but a number of
parts in juxta-position, or a chaos of discordant ele
ments. Let us proceed to speak of separation from a church.
Now the question, whether in any case it is lawful,
relates to a particular, not to the universal church ;
for to separate from the latter would be to renounce
Christianity, and to excommunicate ourselves from
Jesus Christ himself. There have been individuals
so situated, that they could not hold fellowship with

* 1 Cor. xii. 24—27.
H 1 Cor. xi. 18.

f Diss. ix. p. 3.
J lb. i. 12.

{ 1 Cor. i. 10.

any society of Christians ; but tbey considered them
selves as still belonging to the true church, and were
ready to unite themselves visibly to it as soon as they
should enjoy an opportunity. A total separation from
it takes place in cases of apostasy, as when a person,
who had been baptized, becomes an Infidel, a Jew, a
Mahometan,-or a Heathen. It is, therefore, only con
cerning the lawfulness of separation from a particular
church, that there is any room for discussion. I begin
with observing, that no particular church has a claim,
distinct from the truth of its principles, upon any man
to enter into its communion, rather than into that of
any other church which is equally pure. He may
have been baptized by its ministers ; but as tbe sacra
ments are not badges of a party, but belong to the
whole body of Christians, he must be considered as
having been baptized into tbe communion of the
Catholic Church. His accession to a particular
church, when he has arrived at the age of maturity,
ought to be the result of a serious examination
whether its creed accords with the infallible standard.
When he has found such a church, he ought not to
withdraw from it upon light grounds ; and nothing is
more unbecoming the Christian profession, than the
conduct of those who run from one society to another,
from restlessness of temper, or In resentment of some
occasional offence which has arisen, not from the
fault of the church, but from the imprudence of some
individual. There is not, however, a greater absur
dity, than to suppose tbat, when a man has connected
himself with a church, he should remain in it, what
ever may be its errors in doctrine, and corruption in
practice. Many reason in this manner, and none are
more apt to do so than the members of an established
church, in whose eyes its connexion with the state
gives it a sacredness and an authority which do not
seem to belong to other denominations. But this is
merely an adventitious circumstance, and prejudice
being laid aside, an established church, considered
simply as a religious society, will appear to every
person, who judges according to sound reason, to be
exactly on a level in respect of its spiritual claims
with the sects which exist in its vicinity. That man
has a very faint idea of his duty to Jesus Christ, who
imagines that he is bound to continue in a church
which is corrupt in doctrine, superstitious in worship,
tyrannical in government, and, by the relaxation, or
total neglect of discipline, profanes its privileges by
extending them to the unholy, and converts itself in
to a worldly society. It is not, however, every thing
exceptionable in the order and proceedings of a church
which will justify us in forsaking it. Those who ac
knowledge that men are imperfect, are not very con
sistent in expecting perfection in any association made
up of sucb fallible materials. Even great corruptions
will not authorize us to separate, till means have been
used to remedy them ; but, when every endeavour has
failed, and the prevailing party are determined to per
sist, no enlightened Christian can be at a loss with
respect to his duty. He must listen to the voice of
conscience ; he must obey God rather than men. He
may be stigmatized as a separatist and a schismatic;
hut he is guiltless in the sight of God, and those alone
are responsible for the consequences, who have laid
him under the necessity of maintaining, in this man
ner, his fidelity to Christ. It is a consolation to
know that he is still in the church of the living God,
which is not circumscribed by legal boundaries, and is
independent of acts of the legislature, and the pat
ronage of the great.
To the constitution of any society, laws are neces
sary, and persons appointed to execute them; a num
ber of individuals without government are a disorderly
crowd. As Jesus Christ has founded his church to be
the seat of love, and peace, and holy order, it may be

518

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

presumed that he has given direction concerning the
manner in which its affairs should be conducted. As
we learn from the Scriptures, what office-bearers he
has instituted, and what laws he has given to regulate
the conduct of individuals, it is natural to expect that
we shall receive some information from them with re
gard to the form which this spiritual society should
sustain, and the power which should be exercised for
the settlement of its concerns. Some have supposed
that the government of the church is ambulatory ; by
which they mean, that no precise form has been pre
scribed, and that it is left to the wisdom of men to
vary the form according to circumstances ; to adapt it
to the genius, and habits, and civil constitution of dif
ferent nations. This is a summary mode of termina
ting all disputes about the subject. Nothing more is
necessary than the exercise of political wisdom, ac
companied with due care that the arrangements which
are made may be Christian in their general character,
and may not interfere with any of the acknowledged
purposes which a church is intended to serve. Epis
copacy will be the proper form in one country, Pres
bytery in another, and Independency in a third. The
first will accord best with a monarchical government
in the state, and the two latter with a republic.
Although this opinion has found many patrons, yet
most Christians are disposed to think that a particular
form of government was appointed by Christ and his
Apostles ; which consequently is of Divine right,
ought to be adopted in all countries, and preserved
inviolate to the end of the world. Hence Episcopa
lians, Presbyterians, and Independents, advance a
claim of preference in favour of their respective
models ; and the controversy has been carried on with
great warmth, and not always with a Christian tem
per. It is argued that, if no human society can sub
sist without government, it is incredible that Jesus
Christ, to whom the care of the church is committed,
should have left it without this necessary provision
for its welfare ; that human wisdom was not compe
tent to supply this defect, because it is apt to err
even in temporal affairs, and still more in those of a
spiritual nature, and experience shows what horrible
corruptions it has introduced under various pretexts ;
that, when the ends of church government are con
sidered, it was evidently of the utmost importance
that specific directions should be given, as the credit
of religion, the advancement of piety and holiness, the
encouragement of the good, and the restraint of the
bad, so much depend upon the due administration of
it; that a form of government was as necessary to the
Christian, as it was to the Jewish Church : and we
cannot reasonably suppose that, while the government
of the latter was so exactly delineated, that of the
former has been totally neglected.
It is hazardous and presumptuous to reason a priori
concerning what God ought to have done, and hence
to infer what he has actually done. This is a specu
lation too high for us ; it is arrogant in short-sighted
mortals, to point out the line of conduct which it be
hoved an infinite Being to pursue. Yet some have
ventured to introduce a priori argument on the subject
of church government, and to say, that certainly the
wisdom of our Saviour would lead him to do what
seemed proper to them. At the same time, it cannot
be denied that there is considerable force in the argu
ments mentioned above,. particularly in that taken from
the constitution of the Jewish Church ; and on these
grounds, most Christians believe that there may be
found in the Scriptures the outlines of a plan for the
government of that spiritual society, over which Jesus
Christ presides as Lord and King.
There is no point, however, about which Christians
are more divided in sentiment; and this diversity may
be owing partly to prejudices of various kinds, and

partly to the fact, which none but furious zealots will
deny, that the form of government is not so fully and
Explicitly taught in Scripture, as the fundamental ar
ticles of faith, and the great duties of morality. The
three forms of government which it is necessary to
discuss, are the Episcopalian, the Independent, and the
Presbyterian ; but before we enter upon these, we must
turn our attention for a little to the Church of Rome.
Papists affirm that there is a visible head of the
Church upon earth, and that thi? dignity is assigned
to the bishop of Rome; thai he is properly the only
bishop by Divine right, the whole Episcopate being
vested in him, and from him all other bishops derive
their authority ; that he has dominion over the whole
Christian world ; that all Christians are bound to sub
mit to him, and that those who refuse to do so are
heretics, and are exposed to eternal damnation ; and
that he possesses this supreme and uncontrolled power
as the successor of Peter, who was bishop of Rome,
and at his death left all his authority and prerogatives
to his successors in that See. There are disputes
among Roman Catholics, whether infallibility is lodg
ed in the Pope or in a general council? and whether
the Pope is superior to a council, or a council to the
Pope? but they all acknowledge him to be the uni
versal bishop, and the vicegerent of Christ.
Three points are assumed as the foundation of these
extravagant claims ; the supremacy of Peter, his resi
dence in Rome in the character of its bishop, and the
transmission of his power to those who occupy the
same station.
With respect to the supremacy of Peter, it is found
ed, as Papists allege, upon the pre-eminence which is
given to him in the evangelical history, and upon some
things which our Lord said to him in particular. I shall
take notice only of the principal passage : " I say unto
thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it;"* which is applied without hesitation to
tbe person of Peter. There is indeed an allusion to
his name, which, both in Syriac and in Greek, signifies
a stone ,- but it is questionable whether any thing more
was intended. You will observe that there is a slight
change in the original — Iv ei Tlerpot, xxi em t«l/t» t»
TreTpx oixoScLLUcra juov tuv exxxacrtxv.f Had he said, tffl trot
oixecPcLtHcrUiX or, stti TouTa> Ta Trtrptc oixo Sollhctic, |] the infer
ence which Papists draw would have seemed to be
more legitimate; but as the words are studiously
varied — the one, Trerpot, being in the masculine, and
the other, mrpx, in the feminine gender, — there is rea
son to believe that our Lord merely alluded to his
name ; and tbat the Rock is either Christ himself, or the
confession which Peter had made, that he is the Mes
siah, and the Son of the living God; for those are the
truths upon which the Christian religion and the faith
of the church are founded. In this sense the words
have been understood by some learned and distin
guished members of the Church of Rome, bishops,
archbishops, and cardinals; who have honestly ac
knowledged that Christ alone is the Rock, and that it
is absurd to interpret it of a man who, like Peter, was
subject to infirmity. It is indeed added, " And I will
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven." But the same words were
used on another occasion, when our Lord was speak
ing to all the Apostles,§ and consequently they do
not imply any thing peculiar to Peter ; and after his
resurrection he gave them all equal authority, when he
breathed on them, and said, " Receive ye the Holy

* IVfatt. xvi. 18.
t Thou art A stone, and on this rock will I build my church
X On thee will 1 build. || On this stone will I build.
j Matt, xviii. 18.

GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH: POPISH FORM.

519

Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remit
ted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they
are retained."* As, however, the words were ad
dressed in the first instance to Peter, and to him alone,
some Protestants are disposed to admit that they
import something peculiar, — not a superiority to his
brethren, but a priority in the order of ministration ;
and think that the keys of the kingdom of heaven
were said to be given to him in particular, because
Jesus Christ had destined him to be the person who
should open the kingdom, to the Jews by preaching to
them on the day of Pentecost, and to the Gentiles by
preaching to Cornelius.
We do not find that the supremacy of Peter was
acknowledged by his contemporaries. It rather ap
pears that it was utterly unknown to them, and that
he is indebted for his exaltation above the other
Apostles to the ignorant and superstitious veneration
of posterity. He is indeed mentioned first on the day
of Pentecost, when we are informed that he stood up
with the eleven; but as the ardour of his temper had
already impelled him frequently to come forward, and
sometimes not much to his honour, so now, when it
was under better direction, it would still lead him to
take the precedence of his brethren in the performance
of his duty. Besides, it is probable that he was the
oldest of the company, and would on this account be
the spokesman of the rest. Paul seems to have been
ignorant of the pretended supremacy of Peter, when
he says, that he himself was " not a whit behind the
very chiefest Apostles ;"f for if he had ever heard of
it, he would not have presumed to place himself upon
a level with Peter; and, when comparing himself
with the other Apostles, would have excepted him.
He did not acknowledge his superiority at Antioch,
where he " withstood him to the face, because he was
to be blamed":): for symbolizing with the Jews, from
an unmanly fear of certain persons who had come from
Jerusalem. And the brethren of Jerusalem were far
from submitting to him implicitly as the sovereign
pontiff of the church, whose decisions should be re
ceived by all Christians with profound respect, when
they contended with him after he had preached to
Cornelius, and demanded an account of his conduct.!
Having seen that the supremacy of Peter has no
foundation in Scripture, let us inquire, Whether there
is any proof that he was bishop of Rome ? Some of
the ancients asserted, and Papists firmly believe, that
he was first bishop of Antioch, and afterwards re
moved to Rome, where he continued till his martyr
dom, during the space of five-and-twenty years. Few
of his pretended successors have equalled him in the
length of his reign ; and as those who are elected are
commonly advanced in life, it is customary to say at
the installation of a Pope, Sancie pater, non videbis an
nas Petri.% I remark, in the first place, That it is ab
surd to suppose an'Apostle to have been a bishop, be
cause constant residence in any particular place was
contrary to the nature and design of his office. The
Apostles were appointed " to be witnesses to Christ in
Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto
the uttermost part of the earth."1f They were given
to the church at large; and would have been guilty of
a violation of duty if they had appropriated their la
bours to a particular part of it. Peter is degraded by
the supposition, that from being an Apostle he became
bishop of Rome, unless he was also constituted the
visible head of the church ; but we have seen that the
Scripture gives no countenance to his pretended su
premacy. I remark, in the second place, That there is

f 2 Cor. xi. 5.

* John xx. 22, 23,
|| Acts xi. 2.
i Holy father, thou shalt not see the years of Peter,
1 Acts i. 8.

X Gal. ii. 11.

no satisfactory evidence that he was ,bishop of Rome;
He is indeed called so by Eusebius, who wrote in the
fourth century ; and the oldest writer who is said to
have asserted it, lived a hundred years after the death
of the Apostle. But in a case of so much importance,
it is not human testimony, however explicit, which
would suffice, and far less uncertain traditions and
doubtful arguments. If Jesus Christ did appoint him
bishop of Rome and head of his church upon earth,
and if it was his intention that all the subsequent bish
ops of that city should succeed him in his high prero
gatives, and Christians should look up to them as
their guides and governors, we might reasonably ex
pect that the fact upon which the mighty superstruc
ture is reared, would be clearly delivered in Scripture.
On this subject, however, it preserves profound silence.
Papists appeal to a verse in the first Epistle of Peter,
which says, "The church that is at Babylon saluteth
you ;"* and affirm that this is Rome, because it is so
called in the Revelation of John, and, consequently,
that Peter was there when he wrote. But this is a
miserable shift. In a prophetical work where sym
bolical language is used, Rome might be called Baby
lon, on account of its moral resemblance to that
ancient city ; but the change of the name would have
been altogether improper in a plain epistle, in which
there was no reason for concealment. There is no
doubt that he means the Babylon so often mentioned
in the Old Testament. It is decisive against the
notion of Peter's residence in Rome, that in the Epistle
which he addressed to the Corinthians there, Paul sent
no salutation to him, although he saluted several
others ; and that, although he lived in Rome for at
least two years, and wrote several epistles from it, he
never once mentions his name. How could this have
been if he had been bishop of that city ? Not to mul
tiply arguments, I shall only add, that Clement, who
is so honourably mentioned in the New Testament, in
an epistle written from Rome to the Church of Cor
inth, says that Paul suffered martyrdom in the west,
but takes no notice of the martyrdom of Peter. His
silence is absolutely unaccountable, if, as Papists tell
us, Peter had been bishop of Rome, and had been
crucified there before the eyes of Clement. The sum
of all that has been said is, that we have no evidence
that Peter was ever in Rome, and still less that he
was its bishop.
Thus we see that the claims of the Pope are the
baseless fabric of a vision. But although we should
grant the premises, the conclusion would by no means
necessarily follow. It is not a legitimate inference,
that because Peter was universal bishop and resided
in Rome, the bishops of Rome must be acknowledged
the heads of the church, unless it could be shown
that he had authority to transmit, and did actually
leave, all his power and prerogatives to them. But at
this point the proof totally fails. We have only asser
tion instead of argument ; and it must be so, because
Papists would have it so. How does it appear to have
been the will of Christ that there should always be a
visible head of his Church upon earth ? How does it
appear that the bishop of Antioch, where Peter is said
to have first had his throne, has not as good a claim as
the bishop of Rome ? How comes it to pass that the
ancient church knew nothing of this supremacy, and
rejected all approaches to it ? and that even a bishop
of Rome thundered out anathemas 'against the bishop
of Constantinople for assuming the very title in which
his successors now glory If And is it credible that
Jesus Christ intended that they should be his representa
tives and vicegerents, whose ignorance, and profligacy,
and cruelty, and falsehood, have stamped tbeir names
with infamy ? that the gift of infallibility should be

* 1 Pet. v. 13.

f Gregory the Great, in A. D. 595

520

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

conferred upon adulterers, and robbers, and murderers ?
and the salvation of men should be suspended upon
submission to devils in human shape, as many of the
Popes well deserve to be called ? To these questions
we leave the votaries of Antichrist to return such
answers as they can.
It is not necessary to proceed farther in the consi
deration of the form of government established in the
Church of Rome, and to speak of its cardinals and its
different ecclesiastical orders. When stript of some
adventitious circumstances, it resolves itself into sim
ple Episcopacy; and our reasoning respecting this
form of government will apply to every church, whether
Greek, Papist, or Protestant, in which it is adopted.
I shall now, therefore, call your attention to the
Episcopal form of government, and in the following
remarks, shall refer to it as established in the southern
part of the island.
In the Church of England, there are three eccle
siastical orders, — deacons, priests, and bishops. The
lowest is the order of deacons, whose office it is to
baptize, to read the Scriptures, homilies, and prayers
to the people, to assist the priests in the distribution
of the Eucharist, and if it seem good to the bishop,
also to preach. It is the business of the priests, or
presbyters, to preach, to read prayers, to administer
both sacraments, and to pronounce the sentence of
absolution upon penitents. To the bishop it belongs
to ordain priests and deacons, to confirm those who
have been baptized, and to rule over their dioceses, of
which all the clergy are subject to their authority. In
the government of the Church, neither deacons nor
priests have any share ; it is vested solely in the
bishops. The latter may preach if they please, but
this is a matter of choice. To preach the gospel is
not an essential duty of their office, they are appointed
merely to rule ; and hence it appears that, although
they receive double honour, they are not worthy of it,
according to the judgment of Paul, who assigned it
only to those who both rule well and labour in word
and doctrine.*
Hence you will perceive what is the specific differ
ence between Episcopacy and Presbytery. Episco
pacy holds a distinction of ranks among the ministers
of religion; and its fundamental article is that a bishop
is superior to a presbyter. According to Presbytery,
all the ministers of the word are on a level in respect
of office and authority, whatever differences may be
among them, in age, and talents, and learning. A
gradation of ranks is indeed allowed even by Presby
terians, who admit elders to rule, and deacons to serve
the poor; but they assert the parity of those whose
office it is to preach and administer the sacraments.
The arguments of Episcopalians, in favour of their
form of government, are derived from the Scriptures,
as well as from the practice of antiquity.
In the first place, They have sometimes founded an
argument upon the constitution of the Jewish Church,
in which there was a gradation of ranks ; the Levites
being appointed to perform various inferior services in
the tabernacle and temple, the priests to offer sacrifices
upon the altar, and the High Priest to preside over
them all, and to enter into the holy of holies. It has
hence been inferred that the wisdom of Jesus Christ
would undoubtedly lead him to give a similar constitu
tion to his church. This, however, is only a presump
tive argument, which is of no weight unless it be
found to be supported by facts ; and may be pro
nounced also to be a presumptuous one, as it prescribes
the law of conduct, which he who is wiser than all
men was bound to pursue. The Christian dispensation
is so different from the Jewish, that no conclusion with
respect to the former can be drawn from the mode of

*lThn.v. 1?

administering the latter. The ceremonial system was
totally abolished at the death of Christ ; and it is to no
purpose to presume that any part of it was renewed,
unless it can be proved that it actually was so from
Scripture. It is not necessary to proceed farther in the
refutation of this argument, as it is abandoned and
rejected as invalid by some of the best writers of the
Episcopal communion.
In the second place, They affirm tbat there was a
distinction of ranks among the office-bearers of the
church, instituted by our Lord himself during his
ministry upon earth ; and tbey appeal for proof to the
Apostles, who were of the first degree, and to the
Evangelists, who were of the second. The Apostles
represented the bishops of the church, and the seventy
disciples the presbyters. But " this comparison," says
Dr. Whitby, "will not hold, for the seventy received
not their mission, as Presbyters do, from bishops, but
immediately from the Lord Christ as well as the Apos
tles, and in their first mission were plainly sent on the
same mission, and with the same power."* According
to him, they were not dependent upon the Apostles, and
were equal to them in authority ; and consequently, this
is no warrant for Episcopalian subordination. Other
writers of the same principles agree with him. The
truth is, that the commission of the seventy seems to
have been temporary, and probably ceased as soon as
it was executed. But the argument is completely
overthrown by a consideration which has been insisted
upon even by an Episcopalian author. " It is obviously
observable in the evangelical records, that the church
was hot and could not be founded till our Lord was
risen from the dead, seeing it was to be founded on his
resurrection." The truth of this remark is indisputa
ble, and so likewise is the following reasoning from it.
" If the Christian church had no being before Christ's
resurrection, then certainly there was no government;
and if no government, then certainly not prelatical
government; and consequently, the argument is lost to
all intents and purposes. It is clear as light, that the
followers of Christ in the days ofhis flesh, were under
no distinct government but that of the Jewish Church,
with which they were still incorporated, and- from
which, as we have already proved, no consequence can
be drawn for the nature of the Christian government."
In the third place, They reason in favour of Episco
pacy from the cases of Timothy and Titus, whom they
suppose to have been bishops, the one of Ephesus, and
the other of Crete. They are indeed so called in the
postscripts to the Epistles, which Paul addressed to
them ; but he who should reason from these would make
himself ridiculous, because it is acknowledged by all
learned men, that they are of a later age, and of no
authority. Presbyterians affirm that there is not only
no evidence that Timothy and Titus were bishops, but
that the contrary is absolutely certain. Timothy was
of a higher order even than a bishop, being expressly
called an Evangelist, who was next in rank to an
Apostle, and, like the Apostles, had a general care of
the churches. Titus is commonly supposed to have
held the same office. It is evident that Ephesus was
not the stated charge of Timothy, because he would
have left it when Paul went into Macedonia,! had not
the Apostle entreated him to remain, on account of
certain false teachers who were endeavouring to dis
seminate error in that church. Such intreaties would
not have been necessary, if Timothy had been bishop
of Ephesus, for such a man would not have thought
of abandoning his station ; nor would Paul have after
wards requested him to come to him at Rome, as he
does in the second Epistle,:): to be his companion and
assistant there, in the absence of certain other persons

* Whitby's Commentary, note on Luke x. 1.
{2 Tim. iv. 9.

TlTim.i.3.

GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH: EPISCOPACY.

521

who had withdrawn for different reasons. Hence it is
evident that his residence in Ephesus was merely
temporary, for the accomplishment of a particular pur
pose; and it happens most unfortunately for the pre
tended bishopric of Timothy, that when Paul sometime
before had an interview with the ministers of that church,
as we read in the twentieth chapter of the Acts, he found
that they had no need of a bishop, because they had
not only one but many; for he addresses all the elders,
as we shall afterwards see, by this appellation."*
It is evident that the argument equally fails with
respect to Titus. He was left in Crete to ordain elders,
to -reprove sharply unruly and vain talkers and de
ceivers, to admonish heretics, and excommunicate such
as were obstinate.f But, according to the principles of
Episcopalians themselves, his office was extraordinary.
The elders whom he was appointed to ordain, are ex
pressly called bishops, as we shall afterwards show.
But to ordain bishops is not the work of a bishop, but
of an archbishop.; and none will contend that there
was any such person in the Apostolic church. Titus
therefore could not be a bishop, but must have held a
superior rank. The case seems to have been this, that
the affairs of the church in Crete were not yet properly
settled, and Titus, with the power of an Evangelist,
was left by Paul on that island, to set in order the
things which were wanting, and particularly to ap
point ministers to labour in word and doctrine. That
he was not the bishop of Crete may be inferred from the
request or order of the Apostle, that he should come
to him at Nicopolis, where he had determined to win
ter.:): Paul surely would not have called him away
from Crete, if it had been his stated charge ; for, how
ever common it has since been for bishops not to reside
in their dioceses, no such practice was then known ;
and had there been any attempt to introduce it, the
Apostle would have opposed himself to it as a criminal
desertion of duty.
In the fourth place, They reason from the Epistles
of Jesus Christ to the seven churches of Asia, which
were addressed to the angels of those churches, by
whom none can be meant but the bishops. I lay no
stress upon an argument which has been used by
Presbyterians, that the angels are the churches them
selves, because it appears from the contents of the
Epistles, and from the occasional use of the plural
number, that they are addressed to the whole body of
Christians. It is inconceivable that a whole society
should be called an angel, and what is still more
strange, the angel of itself ; and there is certainly no
reason for resorting to this supposition, as the Epistles,
although intended for the respective churches, would
naturally be sent to the persons who presided over
them. I have therefore no doubt tbat the angel sig
nifies an individual, but it does not follow that it sig
nifies a bishop in the Episcopalian sense. It is a name
not of order, but of office, which was given by the
Jews to the president of their synagogues, and chiefly
for this reason, that he offered up prayers to God in
the name of the assembly. This being known to be
the sense in which the word was understood by the
Jews, John, who was himself a Jew, naturally applied
it to the president of a Christian Church, or the min
ister who officiated in holy things, and acted as inter
cessor with God for the people. The utmost which can
be fairly inferred, is, that in each of the Asiatic
churches, there was a person who held the first place ;
but Episcopalians can derive no advantage to their cause
from this circumstance, because Presbyterians hold,
that in every cougregation there is, or ought to be, one
person at least who is superior to the rest, arid to whom
it pertains to conduct the public offices of religion.
Episcopacy is founded on the assumption, that

* Acts xx. 28.
3 Q.

f Tit. i. 5, &c.

t lb. iii. 12,

bishops are of a different order from presbyters. If
we can show that, in the style of Scripture, they are
of the same order, the whole fabric falls to the ground.
Now, when we look into the New Testament, we find
that bishop and presbyter are convertible ternis, and
are indiscriminately applied to the same individuals.
When Paul was oil his way to Jerusalem, he stopped
at Miletus, from which he sent to Ephesus, and called
the elders or presbyters of the church. No mention,
you will observe, is made of the bishop ; but we are
at no loss to find the reason. It had several bishops,
and these were the very presbyters whom the Apostle
had summoned to meet him, for he says to them,
"Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers."*
Perhaps prejudice or party-zeal had some influence in
rendering the word overseers, in this instance, because
the term, in the original, if rendered in the usual way,
would not accord with the Episcopalian scheme. The
Greek word is emo-xomvt, which, indeed, literally sig
nifies overseers, but should have been translated bishopa
here, as it is in other places ; but, then, it would have
been evident to all, that Paul knew of no distinction
between a bishop and a presbyter, because those who
were first called presbyters, are now called bishops.
In his Epistle to Titus, he says to him, "For this
cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in
order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in
every city, as I had appointed thee. If any be blame
less, the husband of one wife, having faithful children,
not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be
blameless, as the steward of God."f It would be a
waste of time to show, tbat here the bishop and the
presbyter are the same person, and no man can resist
the evidence, however much he may be disposed.
The presbyter must be blameless, for the bishop must
be blameless. There would be no force in this con
clusion if a bishop and a presbyter were different per
sons. And'hence you perceive the reason why, in his
First Epistle to Timothy, he makes no mention at
all of presbyters, but speaks only of bishops and dea
cons. It is, that be did not consider the two former as
different; and consequently, in describing the qualifi
cations of the one class, he describes those of the
other. For the same reason he takes no notice of pres
byters, in his Epistle to the Philippians, but addresses
himself to the bishops and deacons.:): He thus fur
nishes us with a new argument against Episcopacy.
There were several bishops in the Church of Philippi ;
but how could this be, according to the scheme of
our antagonists 1 More bishops than one in a church
seem lo them as monstrous as more heads than one
upon a human body. It follows that the bishops of
Philippi were plain presbyters, and that such were the
only bishops in the Apostolic age. Wherever Epis
copacy may be found, it is vain to seek for it in tho
Scriptures. Of this, its advocates are in some degree
sensible, and therefore appeal to antiquity ; but upon
this part of the argument we cannot at present enter.

LECTURE XCVIII.
ON THE CHURCH.
Examination of the Arguments for Episcopacy, Drawn from
Christian Antiquity. — Just Import of its Testimony. — Ex
planation of the Renunciation of Episcopacy in the Solemn
League and Covenant. — Independent and Presbyterian
Forms of Government.— Examination of the Arguments for
Independency. — Proof that the Term " Church" in the New
Testament Includes more than One Congregation.
I concluded the last lecture by observing, that
Episcopalians appeal to antiquity in favour of their

* Acts. xx. 28,

f Tit. i. 5—7.

} Phil. i. 1.

522

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

scheme of ecclesiastical government. Many of them
have too much wisdom to think that any decisive
argument can be drawn from the Scriptures, and they
therefore have recourse to the practice of the primitive
church; contending that, as Episcopacy is the most
ancient form of government, it should be universally
adopted. If it could be proved that there were such
bishops as they plead for, ever since the death of the
Apostles, and that it was universally affirmed by the
earlier Fathers that they were instituted by the
Apostles, we might be perplexed, but still should not
be convinced, while we could find no vestige of them
in the genuine apostolical writings. It is a Protestant
principle, that nothing is an article of faith which is
not delivered in the Scriptures in express terms, or by
necessary consequence ; and the moment we deviate
from this principle, and admit any thing upon the
authority of tradition, we begin to build upon the
foundation of popery, and cannot foresee the extent of
the superstructure which we may be led step by step
to raise upon it. It has been observed, that Episco
palians, in managing the plea for their church from the
testimony of antiquity, have been compelled to use the
same sort of reasoning in defence of it, against the
employment of which by papists, they protest in their
controversy with them; that is, they will not allow
them to argue from tradition in favour of their usages
and dogmas. Such is the unhappy effect of adopting
a principle for a particular purpose, while we. find it
inconvenient to follow it out into all its consequences.
We are entangled in our own reasonings : we are un
der the necessity of retracting, at one time, what we
had asserted at another ; we give our antagonist an ad
vantage which he will not fail to improve, and of
which we cannot deprive him without totally shifting
our ground.
It is not denied that the Fathers speak of bishops in
the primitive church, and that lists are given of the
succession of them in the principal Sees. With re
spect to these, there is a good deal of uncertainty ;
and it happens unfortunately for the high claims of the
Church of Rome, that it is not easy to tell who came
in the room of Peter, who, they pretend, was the first
bishop. Clements, Clitus, Lenius, and Anaelitus,
have been mentioned; but it is doubted whether Clitus
and Anaelitus were not the same individual, and in
what order the persons now named succeeded each
other ; while some have suspected that they are all
cotemporary, and especially Bishops of Rome, as
there were several bishops at the same time in Philip
pi. But although it were granted that the catalogues
are correct, it remains to be proved that they were
bishops in the Episcopalian, and not merely in the
Scriptural sense ; and Dr. Stillingfleet, himself a bish
op, has candidly acknowledged, " that mere succes
sion of single persons named above the rest in the suc
cessions in apostolical churches, cannot enforce any
superiority of power in the persons so named, above
others supposed to be joint governors of the churches
with them."* We have seen that the titles of bishops
and presbyters were indiscriminately given to all the
ministers who conducted the religious service in the
apostolic churches. It seems, however, that it was not
long till the title of bishop was appropriated to one of
them for the following reason. When there were
more presbyters than one in a church, it was neces
sary, for the sake of order, that one should preside in
the meetings which were held for the management of
the public affairs. This honour was naturally assign
ed to the presbyter who was oldest, or who had most
experience and the greatest talents ; and he was known
by the different names of president, pastor, governor,

* Works, vol. ii. p. 344, Diversities of forms of Church
Gov. Part ii. ch. iv.

priest, and bishop. As it is not improbable that there
were several presbyters in the seven churches, and
this is certain with respect to Ephesus, when Paul
had an interview with them ; some have supposed
that it is this president who is called the angel, in the
epistles addressed to them. But he was only primus
inter pares, the first among his equals, and first by
their choice and consent. Sir Peter King, in his In
quiry into the Constitution of the primitive Church,
considers bishops and presbyters as exactly of the
same order, and invested with the same powers ; and
defines a presbyter to be " a person in holy orders,
having thereby an inherent right to perform the whole
office of a bishop, but being possessed of no place or
parish, nor actually discharging it, without the per
mission and consent of the bishop of a place or par
ish."* This definition differs a little, but not mate
rially, from the view which we have taken of bishops
and presbyters ; for it makes only this distinction be
tween them, that bishops had a charge, and presbyters
had not, and consequently, that presbyters must have
leave from the bishop before they could perform any
part of their function within the limits of his jurisdic
tion. Presbyterians make a similar distinction, and
considering every minister as bishop in his own parish
or congregation, forbid any other minister to preach
and baptize in it without permission asked and obtain
ed. Sir Peter proceeds to show, at considerable length,
that the distinction, in the primitive church, was little
more than nominal, because the powers of bishops
and presbyters were the same. He proves, from the
writings of the Fathers, that presbyters had a right
to preach, that they baptized ; that they administered
the Eucharist; that they presided in the consistories
together with the bishop ; that they had power to ex
communicate, to restore penitents, and to confirm,!
and lastly, that they had the power of ordination. He
was therefore fully justified in saying, that " they
were of the very same specific order with bishops,
having the same inherent right to perform all ecclesi
astical offices."! Thus far it appears that antiquity
gives no countenance to modern Episcopacy, which
affirms bishops to be of a different order from pres
byters, and appropriates to them the power of ordina
tion, and the whole government of the church.
Episcopalians appeal with much confidence to the
epistles of Ignatius, as furnishing clear proof that,
in his time, the church was governed by bishops ; and
they lay the greater stress upon his authority, because
he flourished in the first, and ended his course by a
glorious martyrdom early in the second cetitury, was
contemporary at least with some of the Apostles, and
from an expression which he uses, but which is am
biguous, is supposed to have seen Christ in the flesh.
There has, however, been much controversy respect
ing his epistles, and it is not yet terminated. When
they were first published, they were full of gross cor
ruptions, and contained heretical sentiments, which
such a man as Ignatius, must have held in abhorrence ;
and as it thus appears that unprincipled men had alter
ed them to serve their own purposes, it is impossible
to determine to what extent they had carried their
wicked design. In the more correct form which they
have since assumed, it is impossible to ascertain with
precision, what is genuine and what is interpolated, as
some of the most learned writers of the Church of
England have acknowledged ; and this being the case,
an appeal to them cannot decide the controversy, be
cause it remains doubtful whether it is Ignatius him
self who speaks, or some other person in his name.
The style of the epistles concerning the dignity, the
authority, and the prerogatives of a bishop, and the
demand of little less than implicit submission to him,

* Chap. iv. { 1.

fib. 5 3.

GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH: EPISCOPACY.

irf accords with the simplicity of the primitive times,
and with the humility which may be conceived to have
characterized a man who had lived with the Apostles,
and had imbibed their spirit. Would the genuine
Ignatius have said without qualification, thatwhat the
bishop approves is acceptable to God ?
After all, from these epistles as they stand, it is the
opinion even of some Episcopalians, that little can be
drawn in favour of their scheme. " In all those thirty-
five testimonies," says Bishop Stillingfleet, " pro
duced out of Ignatius' epistles for Episcopacy, I can
meet but with one which is brought to prove the least
semblance of an institution of Christ for Episcopacy;
and if I be not deceived, the sense of that place is
clearly mistaken too."* From the impossibility of
determining what is genuine and what is interpolated
in those epistles, the utmost which we can safely in
fer from them is, that there were bishops in the days
of Ignatius, but this concession will not at all serve
the cause of our antagonists, because there were bish
ops in the days of the Apostles, who, we have seen,
were only presbyters, and because the person to whom
this name was afterwards given by way of distinc
tion, was merely the president in an assembly of his
equals. We have already seen, that the bishops of the primi
tive church were very different from the persons to
whom this title is given in modern times ; that they
possessed no peculiar powers, and could do nothing
which a presbyter was not competent to perform.
They differed from them also in the extent of their
dioceses. A modern bishop has the superintendence
of many churches or congregations scattered over the
face of the country ; but an ancient bishop presided
over a single congregation only, or at most, over the
Christians of a single city. The original meaning of
the word has not been less changed in this respect,
than by making it denote a person of a different order
from a presbyter. There were bishops not only in
large cities, but in small villages^ as has been shown
in many instances. The diocese of a bishop was ex
actly the parish of a Presbyterian minister; and many
bishoprics were much smaller than the parishes in this
country. The number of bishops shows that their
jurisdiction was circumscribed within very narrow
limits. In that part of Africa which was subject to
the Romans, there were in the days of Augustine,
about five hundred orthodox bishops, and four hundred
of the sect of the Donatists; and in Ireland, which we
have no reason to believe to have been nearly as popu
lous as at present, St. Patrick is said to have founded
three hundred and sixty-five churches, each of which
was governed by a bishop. It would require a perspi
cacious eye to perceive any distinction between such
bishops and those whom we call pastors of particular
congregations. There is certainly no resemblance be
tween them and the prelates of the English Church;
and with whatever respect the latter may speak of
them, I suspect that if they were still officiating in
their humble charges, the bishops of the present age
would not acknowledge them as their equals. It may
be thought that, however diminutive the ancient dio
ceses were, the bishops truly deserved the title, because
they had at least some clergy under them. There is
no doubt that sometimes this was the case ; and we
have shown that this supposition is of little use to
establish the claims of modern Episcopacy, because
the bishop was at first only primus inter pares ;t but it
is probable that many of them laboured alone, without
presbyters to assist them and execute their orders. It
is not likely, for example, that those Irish bishops had
inferior clergy, whose churches were so poor that they

* Works, vol.ii. p. 349. Divine Right of Forms of Church
Government, Part ii. c. vi. j First among his equals.

523
could afford them no better endowment than as much
ground as would pasture two cows. This, we are in
formed, was the whole income of some of them.
The epistle of Clemens, "whose name," says' Paul,
" is in the book of life," is supposed to have been
written between the years sixty-four and seventy of the
first century, and consequently before the destruction
of Jerusalem. It was addressed to the Church of
Corinth, and had the same object with the epistles of
Paul, to compose the contentions and divisions which
existed in it. He says that "the Apostles, preaching
through the countries and cities, appointed such of the
first-fruits of their ministry as they had proved by the
Spirit, to be bishops and deacons ;" plainly referring
to two orders only, whereas Episcopalians affirm that
there are three in the church. He goes on to say that
" the Apostles, having known by our Lord Jesus
Christ that there would be great strife about the name
of Episcopacy, appointed the foresaid persons, namely,
bishops and deacons, and ordained that there should be
a succession of them." Then, referring to the insubor
dination which prevailed at Corinth, he adds, " It will
be no small sin if we expel from the episcopate those
who have blamelessly and holily offered the gifts.
Blessed are the presbyters who have gone before, and
who have had a fruitful and perfect dissolution, for
they do not fear lest any person should remove theni
from their settled place." It is manifest that he here
speaks of bishops and presbyters, as the same persons;
and he does so in other parts of the Epistle, where,
omitting the mention of bishops, he speaks only of
presbyters. " It is base, very base, and unworthy of
the conduct of Christians, that the ancient church of
the Corinthians should, by means of one or two per
sons, make an insurrection against the presbyters."*
And he tenders this exhortation : " Be ye who have
made this insurrection subject to the presbyters." It
is obvious that Clement knew of no bishops in the
Corinthian Church, but presbyters ; and it is remark
able that he never speaks of any persons in that church
under the name of bishops, and still less of one to
whom the title exclusively belonged.
Episcopalians appeal also to Irenseus, who presided
over the Church of Lyons in the second century, and
imagine that he bears testimony to their cause, when
he says, " We can reckon those who were appointed
bishops by the Apostles in the churches, and their suc
cessors, to our days, whom they left as their succes
sors, delivering to them the same dignity of power," as
his words have been rendered, but literally " delivering
to them their own place of mastership ;" evidently
meaning nothing more than that they constituted them
the supreme office-bearers in the church, as we acknow
ledge a preaching presbyter to be. Irenaeus shows that
these were the bishops to whom he referred, by saying
farther : " It behoves us to hear the presbyters who are
in the church, those who have their succession from
the Apostles, and with the succession of the episcopate,
have received the gift of troth according to the good
pleasure of the Father."
Jerome, who in learning and judgment was equal to
any of the Fathers, is decidedly against the divine
origin of Episcopacy. A deacon in the Church of
Rome had broached the opinion that deacons were
superior to presbyters; Jerome confutes it in one ofhis
epistles by this argument, that presbyters and bishops
were the same in the days of the Apostles, and that
no man could be so foolish as to maintain that deacons
are superior to bishops. The proposition which is the
foundation of his argument, he proves from those pas
sages of Scripture which are usually produced by us
to show the identity of apostolical bishops and presby
ters. According to this Father, bishops and presbyters

* Vid. Epist. 1. ad Corinth.

524

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

were not originally different, either in order or in de
gree; but the titles were given to the same individuals,
and the distinction between them which subsisted in his
time, was merely an arrangement of human prudence
for the preservation of peace. This is not a deduction
from his argument, but it is explicitly stated by him
self. " A presbyter is the same with a bishop. Be
fore, by the instigation of the devil, there were parties
in religion, and it was said I am of Paul, I of Apollos,
and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the
common consent of presbyters. But afterwards it was
decreed throughout the whole world that one chosen
from the presbyters should be set over the rest, to whom
the whole care of the church should pertain, that the
seeds of schism might be plucked up." If Jerome is
right, the plea of apostolical authority in favour of
Episcopacy is unfounded ; its jus divinum* is a dream ;
and its authors, more modest than their successors,
rested it solely upon the principle of expedience.
It appears, then, that in the controversy with the
advocates of Episcopacy, we have to encounter strong
assertions, but feeble proofs ; lofty claims, but a very
questionable title ; and in short that their cause has
nothing to support it but the sound of words in opposi
tion to the sense.
You may think it unnecessary to have dwelt so long
upon this subject, as with a few exceptions, we in this
country are all agreed in rejecting the Episcopalian
government as unscriptural. But in the other part of
the island it is established by law, and with the arro
gance which has so remarkably characterized it, pro
nounces those who have adopted a different form to be
schismatics, and hardly entitled to tbe appellation of
Christians. Dissenters, we have been told, have "a
Teligion without a church," because what they call
their church is not governed by bishops.
You are aware of the violent struggle between
Episcopacy and Presbytery in the days of our fathers,
in the course of which they displayed exemplary zeal,
and were subjected to severe sufferings, resisting even
to blood. The reign of Episcopacy in Scotland was
marked by cruelty and murder. It was publicly and
solemnly renounced at the renewal of the National
Covenant, and afterwards in the Solemn League and
Covenant of the three kingdoms, and was finally abol
ished at the Revolution. There is a fact relative to
this business which is not generally known, and de
serves to be mentioned ; and I shall give it in the
words of Mr. Baxter : " The covenant was proposed
by the Parliament to the consideration of the Synod
at Westminster. The synod stumbled at some things
in it, and especially at the word Prelacy. Mr. Burges,
the Prolocutor, Mr. Gataker, and abundance more, de
clared their judgments to be for Episcopacy, even for
the ancient moderate Episcopacy, in which one stated
president with his Presbytery governed every church ;
though not for the English diocesan frame, in which
one bishop without his presbytery did, by a lay chan
cellor's court, govern all the presbyters and churches
of a diocese being many hundreds ; and that in a sec
ular manner, by abundance of upstart secular officers,
unknown to the primitive church. Hereupon grew
some debate in the assembly, some being against eve
ry degree of bishops, (especially the Scottish divines,)
and others being for a moderate Episcopacy. But
these English divines would not subscribe the cove
nant, till there were an alteration suited to their judg
ments, and so a parenthesis was yielded to, as de
scribing that sort of prelacy which they opposed," —
which follows the words, ' We shall endeavour the
extirpation of prelacy,' — " [that is, church govern
ment by archbishops, bishops, deans; and chapters,
archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers, de-

* Divine right.

pending on that hierarchy.] All which conjoined are
mentioned as the description of church government
which they meant by prelacy, as not extending to the
ancient Episcopacy. When the covenant was agreed
on, the Lords and Commons first took it themselves;
and Mr. Thomas Coleman preached in the House of
Lords, and gave it them with this public explication,
that by prelacy, we mean not all Episcopacy, but only
the form which is here described."* Hence you learn
that the Solemn League was not such a security of
presbytery as is commonly supposed, having been so
framed that the friends of moderate Episcopacy could
enter into it; but this is a matter of little moment,
since we renounce Episcopacy, not because our fathers
renounced it, but because we deem it to be contrary to
Scripture. I proceed to speak of Independency ; but it is im
possible to examine its claims, without at the same
time attending to those of Presbytery. These are the
only forms of government which appear to receive any
countenance from Scripture, so that, if we overthrow
the one, we virtually establish the other; and hence,
it is necessary to view them in connexion. I begin
with stating the principles of Independency, which
are the following: that every particular society of visi
ble professors, agreeing to walk together in the faith
and order of the gospel, is a complete church ; that
the whole power of government is vested in the cactus
fidelium, the assembly of the faithful ,- and that all cen
sures and acts of government are administered in sin
gle congregations. The principles of Presbytery are,
that particular congregations are only a part of the
church, which is composed of many congregations ;
that the power of government is lodged in certain
office-bearers, appointed by Jesus Christ; and that
there is a subordination of courts, in which the sen
tences of inferior courts may be reviewed, and either
affirmed or reversed. Hence you perceive the reason
of the names by which these two forms of government
are distinguished. The former is called Independency,
because each congregation is a church distinct fromx
and independent upon all other churches in the world,
possessing all power in itself, and accountable only to
Jesus Christ for its proceedings. The latter is called
Presbytery, because it is governed by presbyters, or »
teaching and ruling elders, who, although chosen by
the people, do not derive their power from them, but
from Christ, and meet in presbyteries, — for this is
truly the name of all our ecclesiastical courts, although
for the sake of distinction, they are denominated ses
sions, presbyteries, and synods, — meet in presbyteries,
I say, to regulate the affairs of particular congrega
tions, of several congregations connected by vicinity,
or of all the congregations in a province or a nation.
You will observe, however, that these names do not
mark, with perfect accuracy, the difference between
the two forms of government; for it is not only pos
sible, but it has actually happened, that a church has
been independent of all other churches, and yet has
been governed by presbyters, to the exclusion of the
people; but use has affixed a definite sense to the
words, and they immediately suggest the particular
constitution of the churches to which they are re
spectively applied.
With a view to establish the principle upon which
their system rests as its foundation, Independents la
bour to prove, that the churches mentioned in the New
Testament were all single congregations. It is grant
ed that this is sometimes the meaning of the word, as
when the church in the house of a certain individual
is spoken of; but I had occasion, in a former lecture,
to remark, that there are cases in which it will not
admit of so limited a signification. This is a point of
* Baxter's Narrative of bis own Life and Times, Part i. p. 43.

GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH: INDEPENDENCY AND PRESBYTERY. 525
have been all of this description ; for, was it ever
heard that an extraordinary event brought together
only the sojourners in a city ? Does not every rational
ground of calculation suggest the idea that sojourners
were only a minority, and that the assembly consisted
chiefly of the inhabitants of Jerusalem ? It has been
remarked that they are called "dwellers in Jerusa
lem,"* and that the word xxTomm, which the sacred
historian uses, signifies to have a permanent abode in
a place. When a temporary residence, is expressed,
the verb vxpoixeii is employed, which imports simply
to sojourn, or to be in a place for a short time. Many
of the converts, on the day of Pentecost, had lived in
foreign countries ; but they had now removed to Jeru
salem, from secular or religious motives, or perhaps,
as has been supposed, in expectation of the Messiah,
whose advent was looked for about this period. At
any rate, although they were present in Jerusalem
only for a time, there is no reason to think that the
assembly on Pentecost was composed wholly of them ;
and if it should be admitted, that, of the three thou
sand, one thousand, or even five hundred, were for
eigners, we should make an ample allowance.
To the eight thousand who, at the lowest computa
tion, already belonged to the church of Jerusalem, we
must add many more; for we read that "believers
were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of
men and women ;" that " the number of the disciples
was multiplied ;" and again, that " the word of God
increased ; and the number of the disciples multiplied
in Jerusalem greatly ; and a great company of the
priests were obedient to the faith."f These passages
import a very abundant increase, and justify us in un
derstanding the following words, not of the disciples
in Judea, or among the Jewish nation at large, but of
those in Jerusalem alone : " Thou seest, brother, how
many thousands of Jews there are which believe ;"X in
the original, menu ftvpixSet — how many myriads, or tena
of thousands.
Independents are compelled by their system to reduce
to the lowest possible number the disciples in a parti
cular city. It is necessary for them to prove, not that
the success of the gospel was great, but that it was
small. They surely cannot feel any complacency in
thus weakening the argument in favour of Christian
ity, from its rapid and extensive success ; but we may
justly suspect the cause which is forced to resort to
such an expedient for support. It is certain that the
argument completely fails in the case of Jerusalem, in
which there was only one church, but the members
amounted to thousands and myriads.
It is objected by Independents, that " all that be
lieved were together, and had all things common. "||
It has been answered, that although the disciples,
whose number was at this time about three thousand,
had met together in one place, it will not follow that
they could do so when they had increased to ten or
twenty thousand : and yet even then they were only
one church. It has been remarked too, that although
the phrase em to «uto, translated together, may signify
in one place, yet this is not necessarily its meaning,
and that it occurs where it can import only unity of
purpose: "The kings of the earth stood up, and the
rulers were gathered together — em to «utc — against the
Lord, and against his Christ."§ These words are
applied to the conspiracy of Pilate, the Sanhedrim,
and Herod, against our Saviour; but we know that,
although they concurred in one design, they did not
assemble in the same place.
It is objected again, that they are said " to have con
tinued daily with one accord in the temple."^ As
this immediately follows the other passage, the same

great importance in the present controversy ; and if it
can be proved that the word church is used, when it
must be understood to comprehend several congrega
tions, we shall be authorized to conclude that the plan
of independency is unscriptural. It will be necessary
to enter into some detail, and I shall select as an ex
ample, the church of Jerusalem.
Let it be observed that, although we read of the
" churches of Judea," we never read of the " churches
of Jerusalem ;" but the " church" of that city is al
ways mentioned in the singular number. It is impos
sible to account for this fact upon the principles of
Independents, except by supposing, that there were
no more believers in Jerusalem than might be collected
in one assembly ; and accordingly, they affirm that
such was the case, and endeavour to explain the pas
sages of Scripture, from which their antagonists draw
a contrary conclusion, so as to favour this hypothesis.
I think, however, that, to an impartial judge, it will
appear that the laws of just criticism require a differ
ent interpretation, and that their comments do violence
to the sacred text.
Let us attend to the narrative of the success of the
Gospel in Jerusalem. On the day of Pentecost, when
Peter preached to the Jews, " they that gladly receiv
ed his word were baptized ; and the same day, there
were added unto them about three thousand souls."
The chapter closes with this remark, "And the Lord
added to the church daily such as should be saved ;"*
which is, indeed, very general, but conveys to us this
information, that the society was constantly receiving
an accession of new converts. Not long after, Peter
again addressed the people, and what was the effect?
"Many of them who heard the woTd believed; and
the number of the men was about five thousand ."]
The historian speaks of men — r» avfpm, — and as this
word denotes males, as distinguished from females, it
may be fairly inferred that many women, although-not
mentioned, were converted at the same time, so that
the whole number was probably much greater than
five thousand. But whether we suppose females, as
well as males, to have believed on this occasion or
not, it is perfectly plain that the five thousand were
additional to the three thousand who were formerly
mentioned. One or two commentators, of great name,
having unluckily adopted the notion that the three
thousand are included in the five, Independents have
eagerly laid hold of it to help them out of a difficulty.
But I would ask, whether this idea would present
itself to any person, whose mind was not prepossessed
with a -particular system ; and whether it would not
naturally occur to such a person, that Luke, who had
stated the effect of the first sermon of Peter, here
states the effect of the second, without referring to
any thing which is past. Were another historian to
tell us that, on a certain day, three thousand men join
ed an army, and that some days after, if was joined by
five thousand, there is not a reader in the world who
would suppose that he included the first number in the
6econd. It is impossible to conceive any reason why
a reader of the Acts should form a different opinion
with respefit to these two distinct numbers of converts.
Thus we have eight thousand disciples in Jerusalem,
besides those who were believers before' the day of
Pentecost, and those who, without being specified,
were daily added to the church. It has been said with
respect to those converts, and particularly such of
them as embraced the Gospel on the day of Pentecost,
that they were strangers, whose usual residence was
in the countries enumerated, but who had come to Je
rusalem to worship at the feast. It would be too much
to deny that any of them were strangers ; but there
would be a manifest absurdity in supposing them to

*Actiii. 41,47.

t lb. iv. 4.

* Acts ii. 5.
II lb. ii. 44.

t lb. v. 14. vi. 1,7.
{lb. iv.26.

f lb. xxi. 20,
7 lb. ii. 46.

526

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

answer may be returned, that, if three thousand might
assemble in the templo, a meeting of all the disciples
in it was impossible when the number had become
much greater. Besides, as the meetings were daily,
a little reflection will convince us that a multitude of
people, chiefly in the lower ranks of life, could no
more have found time every day to attend the minis
trations of the Apostles than they could find it now ;
and, consequently, that the historian can only mean
that the Apostles daily frequented the temple, and that
the disciples met them there as they had opportunity.
But there was no occasion always to repair to it for the
purpose of hearing them, because the Apostles did not
confine their labours to the temple, but " in every
house ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus Christ."*
An argument for one congregation in Jerusalem is
founded on these words : "And when they had prayed,
the place was shaken where they were assembled to
gether. And the multitude of them that believed,
were of one heart and of one soul."-)- But these two
verses, although they stand in the order now quoted,
have no connexion with each other ; and it is altogether
unfair to quote them as a proof that the multitude were
assembled in the place which was shaken, as any per
son will see by reading the passage. The persons
assembled in that place, are called the Apostles' own
company; and probably were a select number of the
disciples, met together to pray for the deliverance of
Peter and John from the hands of their enemies.
The last argument is drawn from these words :
" And they were all with one accord in Solomon's
porch, and of the rest durst no man join himself to
them; but the people magnified them.":)' But here the
question occurs, W'ho were the persons that were
assembled in this porch ? It is said in the begin
ning of the verse, that " by the hands of the Apostles
were many signs and wonders wrought among the
people;" and it is then added, that "they were all
with one accord in Solomon's porch." The most
natural idea is, that tbe persons referred to were the
Apostles ; and as no others are mentioned but the
people, or the Jews, who resorted to the temple, it is
a mere fancy to suppose that the church was assembled
in it.
It has appeared that there is no reason to suppose
that all the Jews from foreign countries who were
converted at Pentecost were merely sojourners in Jeru
salem, and that the historian makes use of a term
which imports that they had taken up their abode in
it. This is confirmed by an event which took place
some time after, and is thus related : " In those days,
when the number of the disciples was multiplied,
there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the
Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the
daily ministration. "|| The Grecians, or Hellenists,
as every person knows, were Jews, who, living without
the bounds of Judea, and scattered over what was once
the Macedonian empire, spoke the Greek language,
and used the Greek translation of the Scriptures in
their synagogues. Of these there were some in the
Church of Jerusalem ; and it is highly probable that
there were also others, who, having come from differ
ent regions, understood neither Hebrew nor Greek,
and were acquainted only with the language of the
country in which they were born. Hence arises a
new argument for a plurality of congregations in Jeru
salem. Although all the members of the church
might have been convened in one place, they could
not all have joined in the service, because what was
understood by one part of them, would have been un
intelligible to the other. It would be absurd to im
agine that different speakers addressed the audience at
the same time, or that the same speaker delivered a
* Arts v. 42. fib. iv. 31, 32. } lb. v. 12, 13: || lb. vi. 1.

discourse first in one language and then in another.
There is no reason, except the interests of a party,
for making any supposition but the natural one, that
as the first disciples in Jerusalem — the place of resort
to Jews from every region of the earth — spoke differ
ent languages, they were divided into different assem
blies, in which every man heard in his own tongue the
wonderful works of God. As some time elapsed after
the day of Pentecost before the Apostles went forth to
preach the Gospel to the nations of the world, unless
there were in Jerusalem believers who spoke different
languages, the gift of tongues which the Apostles had
received would have been useless during this interval.
We have seen that, from their number, the primitive
disciples must have been divided into several congre
gations, and we now see that, if the number had been
smaller, the formation of distinct societies was neces
sary for the purpose of edification. We have there
fore one church, made up of several congregations,
according to the Presbyterial plan, not a number of in
dependent assemblies, possessing each the powers of
a church in itself.
To strengthen our argument, let us observe that, in
the Church of Jerusalem, many persons were employ
ed in performing the ordinary ministrations. It is cer
tain that all the Apostles continued in it for a consid
erable time after it was founded. It appears that with
them were associated prophets, or inspired men, who
foretold future events, or explained by supernatural
assistance the predictions of the Old Testament; and
we read of the elders or presbyters of that church, or
ordinary ministers of the word, as this title usually
imports, and as Independents will grant; for they de
ny that there is any such office-bearer by divine ap
pointment as a ruling, distinct from approaching, elder.
Now, I should wish to be informed by them, how all
these persons were employed ? What were twelve
Apostles, several prophets, and a competent number of
ministers, doing ? Independents tell us that they had
only one congregation ; but if so, how could they find
scope for the exercise of their gifts ? The Christians
in Jerusalem could not be always hearing sermons,
because tbey had their worldly affairs to attend to ;
but unless the Apostles and their assistants, were en
gaged in preaching from morning to night, on every
day of the week, the turn of each must have come at
distant intervals, and during a considerable part of
their time they must have been idle, in respect of this
most important duty of their office. We find, how
ever, that this was not the case. The Apostles were
so much occupied with preaching, that they found it
impossible to pay attention to the affairs of the poor ;
and hence, when complaints arose that some were neg
lected, they instituted the order of deacons: "It is
not reason that we should leave the word of God, and
serve tables : wherefore, brethren, look ye out seven
men whom we may appoint over this business. But
we will give ourselves continually to, prayer, and to
the ministry of the word."* It is a downright absurdity
to suppose that so many preachers could have been kept
in constant employment by a single congregation ; and
every man who lays aside prejudice, and judges dis
passionately, will be of this opinion. No rational ac
count can be given of so many office-bearers, not sine-
curists, but active labourers in the work of the gospel,
remaining in Jerusalem, except by admitting that the
disciples were divided into many congregations.
The last argument for the existence of more congre
gations than one in Jerusalem, is founded on the want
of a place in which all the disciples could assemble.
To this argument Independents have a ready answer,
that they could be contained in the temple, and that it
appears that the Apostles preached in it daily. It i3
* Acts vi. 2 — 4.

„ JVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH: INDEPENDENCY AND PRESBYTERY.' 527

easy for some men to get rid of a difficulty by a few
general assertions, especially when they are talking
of something very remote, into all the particulars of
which we cannot enter ; but capacious as the temple
was, it is not certain that ten or twelve thousand could
have frequently gone into it, without incommoding
the multitudes of unconverted Jews who went up to
it to worship. It is not certain that the priests and
rulers would have permitted acknowledged assemblies
of the disciples, whom they accounted heretics and
apostates, to be held within its precincts. The con
trary is, I think, highly probable ; and we may be
sure that an attempt to commemorate the death of
Christ, by the celebration of the Eucharist, would
have been immediately resisted. The Apostles, in
deed, preached daily in the temple; not, however, to
the whole church of Jerusalem, but to the Jews whom
they accidentally found in it; and this is evident from
the words of the sacred historian, who says, that they
preached " daily in the temple, and in every house ;"*
that is, while they preached to the Jews, in the tem
ple, they preached in private bouses to the Christians,
and consequently, had many congregations* These
observations are obvious to the plainest understand
ing; and nothing but the blinding power of prejudice
can prevent any man from perceiving their truth.

LECTURE XCIX.
ON THE CHURCH.
Independent and Presbyterian forms of Church Government
Examined. — Proof that the Power of the Church Rulers does
not flow from the People. — Opinions of Dr. Owen. — Argu
ment against Independency from the Council of Jerusalem. —
Superiority of the Presbyterian Plan.
In the preceding lecture, I entered upon the consid
eration of the two forms of ecclesiastical government,
which alone seem to receive any countenance from
Scripture, Presbytery and Independency ; and proposed
to discuss them together, because the establishment of
the one necessarily involves the overthrow of the other.
We have examined the first principle of Indepen
dency, from which it derives its name, that each con
gregation of Christians is a complete church, possess
ing in itself all the powers and privileges which Jesus
Christ has conferred upon the church, and unconnected
with all other churches in the world, except by a
common profession of the faith. We have seen that this
principle does not apply to the Church of Jerusalem,
which has appeared, from several arguments, to have
consisted of more congregations than one. We might
draw the same conclusion with respect to some other
churches mentioned in the New Testament ; but your
attention has been confined to that of Jerusalem, be
cause its history is more fully detailed.
The obvious inference from the fact, tbat in Jerusa
lem there were several congregations, which are never
theless represented as one church, is, that those
congregations were incorporated, or so united by some
common tie, as to compose only one body. Now,
this could be no other than the same government,
io which these congregations were subject; as the in
habitants of different cities and provinces constitute
one nation, not simply by living in the same country,
but by obeying the same laws, and acknowledging the
authority of the same civil rulers. Independents could
not, consistently with their principles, have spoken of
the Church of Jerusalem, but must have adopted a dif
ferent phraseology, if they had composed the narrative
in the Acts, and have said, the churches of Jerusalem.
It follows, therefore, that there was a presbytery in

* Acts v. 42.

Jerusalem, composed of the Apostles and ejders, who
came together, as we see from the fifteenth chapter, to
manage the affairs of all the congregations in the city,
and to whose decrees they were bound to submit.
This is the most rational account of the matter ; and it
is so natural, that it follows from the particulars mention
ed in the history, without any effort ; whereas Indepen
dents are compelled to have recourse to a variety of
awkward expedients, to make out their favourite point,
that there was only one congregation ; and in particu
lar, to reduce the believers in that city to the lowest
possible number. And thus, what is gained to their
cause, is lost to Christianity ; which, if they are right
in their calculations with respect to Jerusalem and
other cities, had very little success in the primitive
ages, and could boast of only handfuls of converts in
the most populous places.
I now proceed to consider the second principle of
Independency, which is, That all power is vested"
in the church collective, or in the body of the faithful ;
that to them the keys of the kingdom of heaven are
committed ; and that those who exercise any authority
in the church, in the character of rulers, derive it from
the people. In opposition to this principle, Presbyte
rians maintain, That the power of governing the church
belongs exclusively to certain office-bearers, who derive
their authority from Jesus Christ, and are accountable
to him alone for the exercise of it. They are not,
indeed, lords over God's heritage, but helpers of the
faith and joy of the saints ; and are their servants, but
only in this sense, that the object of all their ministra
tions should be, the spiritual good of those who are
committed to their care.
The constitution of the church differs from that of
a civil society. A voluntary society is formed by the
free consent of the members. Each of them has
certain rights which he is desirous to secure, and to
enlarge by the co-operation of others ; and he there
fore unites with them upon such terms as seem best
calculated to promote the common design. They pro
ceed in concert to compose a code of laws, and to
appoint certain persons who shall have authority to
execute the laws, and to manage the affairs of the
society. In such cases, power necessarily emanates
from the people. The society is created by them for
their own benefit ; and the rulers owe their official
existence solely to the deed of their constituents,
which is the source of their power, and prescribes its
limits. Here, the society is before the rulers ; but
with respect to the church, the rulers were before the
society; and no reasoning, therefore, from the one
case,, is fairly applicable to the other. There was no
church when our Lord gave the Apostles their commis
sion ; when he committed to Peter, and to them all,
the keys of the kingdom of heaven; when he invested
them with authority to preach the gospel, to administer
the ordinances, and to exersise discipline over his
professed disciples. They were appointed immediate
ly by him ; and they were appointed as the first in a
long succession, which was to continue to the end of
time, as we learn from his promise to them ; " Lo, I
am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."*
The office of the Apostles was extraordinary, and ceased
at their death ; but, besides the gifts of inspiration and
of miracles, they were possessed of ordinary powers,
for the edification and government of the church, which
did not expire with them, but passed into other hands.
The pastors, and teachers, and rulers, who existed in
the primitive times, and can never be wanting, without
the dissolution of the church as an organized body,
were appointed by the Apostles. They were set apart
to their office, and through them, as the channel in
which power was conveyed to them from Christ, the
source of all spiritual gifts and privileges.
* Matth. xxviii. ?0

528

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

This is the channel of transmission which was es
tablished in the beginning. As we are reasoning with
Independents, who pretend to pay a more sacred regard
to Scripture than other denominations of Christians,
we confidently appeal to it, and ask, whether they can
deny the statement now made, or show that the ori
ginal order has been changed ? Is it not true, that the
Apostles derived their power immediately from Jesus
Christ ? Is it not true, that tbe first ministers and
rulers of the church derived their authority from the
Apostles ? And can any passage be produced reversing
this order, and ordaining that in the subsequent ages,
official power should flow from tbe people? The first
governors of the church were not created by it, but
received their official character before its erection.
They did not, as in other voluntary societies, exercise
a portion of power which the society had delegated to
them. Their power came directly from heaven, and
was given to them, that they might organize the so
ciety, and govern the members; not by laws of their
own making, but by a code stamped with the author
ity of the King of Zion. In the New Testament, the
people are known, not as rulers, but as subjects. It is
acknowledged, that it recognizes a right in the people
to interfere in the appointment of their office-bearers,
to a certain extent. In many churches, they have been
deprived of that right ; but in the days of the Apos
tles, and for a long time after, they possessed and
exercised the privilege of electing the persons who
were to preside over them in the Lord. But the limits
of this right are defined with the greatest exactness ;
so as to show that it does not recognize any portion of
authority as vested in the people, and far less repre
sents them as the depositaries of all ecclesiastical pow
er. The account which Luke gives of the election
of deacons, is so expressed, as if it had been intended
to guard against the principles of Independents :
" Look ye out among you seven men of honest report,
full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may
appoint over this business."* The people were called
upon to choose persons whom they judged to be quali
fied, and in whom they could confide ; and it was the
more necessary that they should be consulted in the
election, because there had been dissatisfaction in
consequence of the former management of the poor.
This, however, was a simple nomination, and here their
power terminated. They could not invest the persons
with the office, and give them authority to discharge its
duties. This was the prerogative of the Apostles; it
was their province to " appoint them over this busi
ness." In other words, it appears from this account,
that official power is not derived from the people, but
from those who are already in office.
I shall here quote a passage from the writing of tbe
celebrated Dr. Owen, who was an Independent, but
has admitted principles on the subject of church gov
ernment, which are more congenial to the views of a
professed Presbyterian. In his True Nature of a Gos
pel Church, after having shown that Christ has insti
tuted offices in his church ; that he qualifies persons for
them; that he communicates power to them by their
call and ordination, and commands the church to be
subject to them ; he adds, " By these ways and means
doth the Lord Christ communicate office-power unto
them that are called thereunto; whereon they become,
not the officers or ministers of men, no, not of the
church, as unto the actings and exercise of their au
thority, but only as the good and edification of the
church is the end of it; but the officers and ministers
of Christ himself. It is hence evident that, in the
communication of church power in office, unto any
persons called thereunto, the work and duty of the
church consists formally in acts of obedience unto the
commands of Christ. Hence, it doth not give unto
* Acts vi. 3.

such officers a power or authority which was formally
and actually in the body of the community, by virtue
of any grant or law of Christ, so as that they should
receive and act the power of the church, by virtue of a
delegation from them ; but only they design, choose,
and set apart the individual persons, who are thereon
intrusted with office-power by Christ himself, accord
ing as was before declared. This is the power and
right given unto the church, essentially considered,
with respect unto their officers, namely, to design, call,
choose, and set apart the persons, by the ways of
Christ's appointment, unto those offices, whereunto,
by bis laws, he hath annexed church power and au
thority."* He says again, in another part of the same
work, speaking of the election of the pastors and rulers
by the people, " This choice or election doth nol com
municate a power from them that choose, unto them
that are chosen, as though such a power as that where
unto they are called should be formally inherent in the
choosers, antecedent unto such a choice. For this
would make those that are chosen to be their ministers
only, and to act all things in their name, and by virtue
of authority derived from them. It is only an instru
mental, ministerial means, to instate them in that power
and authority which is given unto such officers by the
constitution and laws of Christ, whose ministers they
thereon are. These gifts, offices, and officers, being
granted by Christ unto the churches, wherever there
is a church called according to his mind, they do, in
and by their choice of them, submit themselves unto
them in the Lord, according to all the powers and
duties wherewith they are by him intrusted, and where
unto they are called."! These quotations are long,
but they are important; and have the greater weight,
as coming from an avowed Independent, who, in learn
ing, piety, and profound knowledge of the Scriptures,
was never surpassed by any of his brethren. They
contain the essential principles of Presbytery, and
show that, when such a man dispassionately examined
the Scriptures, he found in them the elements of that
system of government which our church has adopted.
There are other arguments by which we prove that
power is not lodged in the members of the church, and
by them imparted to its office-bearers ; but that the
latter derive it immediately from Christ. When Paul
says, that Christ has given to his church " pastors and
teachers, for the work of the ministry, and the edify
ing of his body,"^: it certainly would not occur to a
person whose mind was not biassed by previous no
tions, that his meaning is, that Christ has given power
to the church to create such ministers by its own deed.
The words would naturally suggest, that the church
and the ministers are distinct from each other ; that the
church is merely the society for whose benefit provi
sion was to be made ; that the Head of the church has
manifested his attention to its interests, by appointing
persons to instruct and govern it; and that the right3
and prerogatives of its office-bearers emanate directly
from himself. No man, when he was told that a king
had appointed the governor of the province, would con
clude that the governor was appointed by the people,"
and possessed no power but what they had conferred
upon him. " God hath set some in the church, first,
Apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers;
after that, miracles; then gifs of healing, helps, gov
ernments, diversities of tongues."|| While this pas
sage suggests that teachers are set in the church, not
by the people, but by God, and the word government,
which is the abstract for the concrete, imports, that
there is authority to be exercised, as well as know
ledge to be communicated, it is worthy of observation,
that God is said to have " set some in the church ;" not
all, but a certain number of persons, for the various

* Owen's True Nature of a Gospel Church, chap. iii. p.
t lb. chap. iv. p. 77. } Eph. iv. 11, 12. || I Cor.xii.

39 28

GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH : INDEPENDENCY AND PRESBYTERY.

purposes mentioned. But how does this comport with
the principles of Independents, according to whom all
possess ah original right to govern ; all do actually
govern, as no cause can be decided but by the suffrages
of the church; and those who bear official names are,
in fact, as subject to its authority as others ; for as it
made, so it can unmake them at its pleasure ? In an
Independent church all are governors, and there are
none to be governed but the individuals who have done
something which has brought them under the cogni
zance of their brethren, and exposed them to censure.
I shall only add, that the Scripture speaks of persons
in the church, whom it calls pastors, overseers, leaders,
elders who rule; and. that it calls upon the members to
"know" or acknowledge them, to "submit" to them,
to " obey them," to " esteem them very highly in love,
for their work's sake," andto "count them worthy of
double honour."* The titles of the office-bearers im
port authority ; but they would be merely titles of
honour and empty sounds, if all power were vested in
the people, and the nominal rulers were their servants,
whom they had a right to control. The duty of the
people would be confined to sentiments of affection,
and an external show of respect. According to the
Independent system, they owe no obedience to their
rulers, who are, in fact, such only in name, as the
people retain the rule in their own hands. How shall
they obey those who can issue no command, and sub
mit to those who have no authority to exercise? The
language of Scripture is absolutely unmeaning, if all
power resides in the people; but is perfectly intelligi
ble upon the Presbyterian plan, which clearly distin
guishes between the governors and the governed.
To this reasoning, Independents oppose some pas
sages of Scripture which seem to them to recognize a
power of government and discipline in the body of the
people. Thus, our Lord says, " If thy brother shall
trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between
thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast
gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then
take with thee one or two more; that in the mouth of
two or three witnesses every word may be established.
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the
church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him
be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."]"
The ultimate appeal, say Independents, is to the
church, and by the assembled church the offender is
judged and excommunicated. Let it be observed, that
when these words were spoken, the Christian church
was not founded ; and that, consequently, they would
have been unintelligible to tbe disciples, unless they
had alluded to some mode of proceeding with which
they were acquainted. Now, I think that no dispas
sionate person can doubt that the allusion is to the
Jewish synagogue, the constitution of which bore a
close resemblance to that of a Presbyterian congrega
tion. It was composed of two classes of persons, —
the people, who met together to hear the law read and
expounded, and the rulers, who presided over this
assembly. The latter are frequently mentioned in the
New Testament; and we learn from the writings of
the Jews, that their office consisted in teaching and
governing, and that the government comprehended the
regulation of all the ordinary proceedings of the syna
gogue, the care of the poor, and the judging and ex
communicating of offenders. "Tell it," says Christ,
" to the ohurch," in the same way in which such cases
are told to the synagogue ; that is, ' bring it before the
rulers of the church, that they may deal with the obsti
nate brother, and expel him if he will not submit.' If
our Lord intended to give a rule for the future conduct
ofhis disciples when his church should be established,
he plainly signified that the mode of treating offenders

* 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. Heb. xiii. 17. 1 Tim. v. 17.
t Matth. xviii. 15—17.
3R 34

529
should be taken from the model of the synagogue ; and
his words, instead of favouring the Independent notion,
that the people are the depositories of power, import
that it is vested in the rulers alone, and that to them
exclusively the government belongs. Thus tbe pas
sage is in unison with those from which it has appear
ed , that the key s of the kingdom of heaven were granted
to the Apostles, and their successors in the care of the
church.* The other passage which seems to recognize the
power of the people, is in the first Epistle to the
Corinthians, when, speaking of the incestuous person,
the Apostle commands them, " in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, when they were gathered together, and
his spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to
deliver him unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh. "f
And in the second Epistle, he speaks of this punish
ment as "having been inflicted by many.":): It is
worthy of attention, that from this case, which was
evidently peculiar, no legitimate inference can be
drawn respecting the ordinary procedure of the church.
The Corinthians had neglected to do their duty, and
Paul, interposing by his apostolical authority, pro
nounced a sentence, and called upon them to execute
it. It was Paul, and not the Corinthians, who excom
municated the incestuous man ; and their office con
sisted in publishing the sentence in their assembly,
and acting conformably to it, by excluding him from
their fellowship. There is no recognition of power in
that church to judge and censure ; their business was
merely ministerial. This I consider as the proper ex
planation of the passage, which, thus viewed, gives no
countenance to Independents. The common answer,
however, is satisfactory; that, on the supposition that
the sentence was pronounced by the Corinthians, the
address to the whole church does not necessarily imply
that they were all judicially concerned, because there
are many examples of addresses to a whole society or
people, when only a part is intended, or only the rulers.
The congregation of Israel is said to have done what
was certainly done only by persons in authority, and
the people are spoken lo as chargeable with sins which
their rulers alone had committed. In such cases, we
must ascertain from circumstances what persons are
meant; and the case before us must be explained con
sistently with other passages which appropriate power
to the governors of the church. At the same time, it
should be remembered that all the members of the
church had a part to act in the excommunication of the
offender, not however as judges; but they were all
bound to concur in the sentence, and to testify their
approbation of it by refusing to associate with him.
Thus the punishment was, in the most emphatic sense,
inflicted by many.
I proceed to consider the last principle of Indepen
dency, That all acts of government are performed in a
single congregation, ultimately, and without appeal to
a superior assembly. Presbyterians maintain that
there is a subordination of courts, and a right of appeal
from an inferior to a superior court. This seems to be
a fair deduction from what we have already established
concerning the union of several congregations in one
church. Being separate assemblies, each of which
possesses its own rulers, they can be considered as
one only, because they are united under one general
government ; and there are two ways in which their
union may be effected, namely, by their being placed
under a bishop, or under a presbytery. We have
proved that, in the Apostolic age, there were no
bishops, in the modern sense of the word ; and it fol
lows that the Church of Jerusalem, in which there
were many assemblies, was governed by the common
council of its presbyters. Each assembly regulated

* Vitringa de Synagogo Vetere, 96, 734.
X 2 Cor. ii. 6.

t 1 Cor v. 4.

530

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

its own ordinary affairs; but when any extraordinary
case arose, or any difficulty occurred, it was referred
to that council, and decided by its authority. No rea
sonable objection can be made to this view of the sub
ject; and if it be admitted to be just, the principle
must be given up that a single congregation possesses
in itself all the powers of government, and is indepen
dent of all other congregations in the world.
This argument would hold good although we should
not be able to produce from Scripture, proof of an ap
peal from an inferior to a superior court. But Presby
terians think that they are furnished with an example
in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, and that, by the
transaction there recorded, the lawfulness of courts of
review is clearly established. I shall examine that
passage of Scripture; and show you what countenance
it gives to the plan of ecclesiastical government which
we have adopted.
Some persons from Judea had taught tbe brethren in
Antioch, that " unless they were circumcised after the
manner of Moses, they could not be saved."* As this
doctrine was subversive of the Gospel, Paul and Bar
nabas opposed them, and much contention ensued. It
was found impossible to settle the controversy, even
by the authority of Paul, to whom the false teachers
refused to submit; and it was therefore determined to
refer it to the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Be
sides, it was not a local controversy, arising from the
peculiar circumstances of the place, but might be agi
tated in any other city or district where the Jews re
sided ; and for this reason, prudence required that it
should be finally decided in a higher assembly than
that of the rulers of Antioch, an assembly which would
command tbe respect and obedience of all the churches
in the world. There is no doubt that it might have
been determined in Antioch, in which, besides Paul
and Barnabas, both men of high rank in the church,
there were prophets and teachers competent to manage
such affairs; but the opposing party was refractory,
and there was no hope of reducing them to silence ex
cept by the sentence of a court from which there was
no appeal.
It was resolved that " Paul and Barnabas and cer
tain others of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the
Apostles and elders about this question. "f Whether
these were delegates from the other churches of Syria,
and from those of Cilicia, in which this controversy
was agitated, does not appear. If it should be denied
that any such were present, because no specific men
tion is made of them, those who are most concerned to
prove their absence, lest the meeting in Jerusalem
should turn out to be a representative assembly, will
be involved in an inextricable difficulty. It is evident,
that in the present case, there was not merely a refer
ence for advice, but submission to a sentence : and
how the elders of Jerusalem could have a right to
legislate for the church of Antioch, it is impossible for
Independents upon their own principles to explain.
One Independent church may apply to another for ad
vice, but it still retains the power to receive or reject
it. The church to which the application is made, may
give counsel to the other, but has no authority to en
force it. We shall find that something very different
took place on the occasion now before us.
It has been said that the reason for referring this
cause to the Church of Jerusalem, was that the Apos
tles were there, who were inspired men, and could
decide this question by infallible authority, and that
this was the^ground of the submission of other churches
to their sentence. But this supposition is of no avail
to the cause of Independency, because it appears not
to be founded in truth. First, if it had been the wish
of the Church of Antioch, that the dispute should be
terminated by the authority of inspiration, there was

* Acts xv. 1.

t lb. 2.

no reason for sending to Jerusalem, as Paul was among
them, who was not behind the chief of the Apostles,
and Barnabas, who was endowed with supernatural
gifts; and there were also prophets, as we are informed
in the fourteenth chapter, who enjoyed the miraculous
assistance of the Spirit. Their decision would have
been infallible, and it would have been the duty of all
parties to acquiesce in it. Secondly, if it should be
said, that although there were inspired men in Antioch,
yet parties had run so high, and such prejudices had
been conceived, that a decision there would not have
had the effect to settle the peace of the church, and
that this was the cause of the reference to Jerusalem ;
1 observe, that while this is probably a true statement
of the case, there is no evidence that the reference was
made to the Apostles as infallible judges. The reason
of this allegation is, that it was made at the same time
to the elders who were not inspired. If the Apostles
were consulted as oracles, why were the elders also
consulted who were not oracles ? What right bad they
to interfere in a sentence proceeding from the inspira
tion of the Holy Ghost? Were the Christians in An
tioch so ignorant, as to confound two classes of persons
totally dissimilar, and to assign to both equal autho
rity ? If the Apostles spoke by inspiration, the elders
must have been silent, and they had only to submit,
like the parties who had made the appeal. Nothing
however is more evident than that the elders were con
sidered as judges, as well as the Apostles. Thirdly,
when th* question came to be discussed, the assembly
proceeded not in the way of authority, but by reason
ing. No person rose and pronounced an oracular sen
tence ; but first one Apostle stood up, and then another,
and drew from passages of Scripture a conclusion in
which all present acquiesced. The business was con
ducted in the same manner as in other assemblies.
Every member had liberty to give his opinion, and
that which was supported by solid arguments was
adopted. But although the Christians of Antioch did not send
to Jerusalem, to obtain a decision of the question by
inspiration, they sought something more than an ad
vice. They submitted the controversy to an authority
in which they were bound to acquiesce ; and, accord
ingly, the assembly did not give them a counsel, but
issued a decree; so their sentence is called in the next
chapter, and the word thus translated is the same
which is used to express the authoritative mandates
of superiors. The decree of Caesar Augustus that all
the world should be taxed, is called by the same name,
fcyiLx; and it is twice employed to denote the ordinan
ces of the Mosaic law. The matters contained in the
decree are termed necessary things, things which the
churches were not simply advised, but commanded to
observe. The obligation of the decree upon the Chris
tians of Antioch, and not upon them alone, but upon
all the churches of Syria and Cilicia, and throughout
the world, could not arise from the authority of the
elders of Jerusalem, even although it had been strength
ened by the suffrages of the people, according to the
principles of either Independents or Presbyterians.
Neither will acknowledge the right of one church to
dictate to another, its equal in power and privileges.
And the eagerness of Independents to make us believe,
that the question was determined in a church meeting,
in their sense of the term, only serves to embarrass
them the more ; for how could the members of one
church issue a decree, which should be binding upon
all Christian churches? The fact, however, presents
no difficulty to us. There were present on this occa
sion, not only the elders of Jerusalem, but probably
deputies from the other churches, which were interest
ed in tbe controversy ; and some suppose these to be
meant by the brethren, mentioned in the superscription
of the decree. As this point is doubtful, I shall not
insist upon it, nor is it necessary to the argument.

GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH: INDEPENDENCY AND PRESBYTERY. 531
the office of judges, and then abruptly admits them at
the close.
If any of you should be of opinion that the assem
bly in Jerusalem has not been proved to be conforma
ble in every point to a Presbyterian synod, we would
say to bim, that we do not pretend to trace a perfect
similarity, but that we have established the principle
upon which such synods are founded. There was in this
case, a reference from an inferior to a superior assem
bly, and the design was to obtain, not a simple advice,
but an authoritative decision. We have, therefore,
apostolical example for courts of review. The trans
action clearly recognizes the system of subordination,
and justifies the transference of a cause from the con
sistory, or session of a particular congregation to
presbytery, and from a presbytery to an assembly of
presbyteries, which the Greeks call a synod, and the
Latins a council. And thus we have disproved the last
principle of Independency, that all acts of government
are performed in a single congregation, ultimately, and
without appeal.
The advantage, and even the necessity of courts of
review have been acknowledged by some enlightened
Independents; and Dr. Owen, the brightest ornament
of the party, has not hesitated to declare, that a church,
meaning a single congregation, cannot always perform
its duty to Christ and the Catholic Church by its
intrinsic powers ; that, in attempting to do so, it cuts
itself off from the communion of the church universal,
and that it would not be safe for any man to commit
himself to its care.* When this passage was, some
time ago, brought under the notice of the public,! '*
gave great offence to Independents, who were not
aware that it was to be found in his writings, and would
willingly, if they could, have disputed its genuine
ness, because it aims a mortal blow at their scheme.
But so he thought, and so every man who takes a dis
passionate view of the subject will think. Modern
Independents partially acknowledge its truth in their
practice, for the associations which are generally estab
lished among them, are an imitation of our presbyte
ries and synods. They profess, indeed, to have no
authority over the churches, of the delegates from
which they are composed, and to meet solely to con
sult about their affairs, and. to give them an advice ;
but the power which they disclaim in words, they
exercise in fact; for, if any church does not consent to
what has been agreed upon, it is, I understand, cut off
from their communion.
There are some weighty objections which may be
urged against the Independent system. First, It de
stroys the visible unity of the church, by frittering it
away into a multitude of little societies, separate and
unconnected. It is a matter of lamentation to good
men, that Christians are divided into so many parties,
which have no intercourse with each other ; but this
state of things is the consequence of imperfect views
of the truth, of prejudice, passion, and secular inter
ests ; and all acknowledge that it is not as it ought to
be. But Independency upon principle parcels out the
followers of Christ into distinct portions, and pronoun
ces their incorporation into one body to be contrary to
Scripture. Instead of exhibiting the church as the
one kingdom of Christ, it distributes it into an endless
variety of little republics. Secondly, It lodges the
power of managing the affairs of the church in in
competent hands. Men may be qualified to be mem
bers of a Christian society, who are altogether unfit to
be rulers. The grace of God may exist in a mind
which has received no culture from education, and is
very scantily endowed with natural gifts. A person
may know the truth by Divine illumination, so as to
believe and love it, and may know the wickedness and

Besides the elders, the Apostles were members of the
council, and their presence was sufficient to constitute
it an Ecumenical one, and to render its decrees univer
sally binding. We have, indeed, said that they did
not act by inspiration in pronouncing the sentence ; but
they did not therefore sink down to a level with the
other members. Although they reasoned in concert
with them, and on other occasions assumed the desig
nation of presbyters or elders, and joined with the
ordinary pastors and rulers in administering the affairs
of the church, they never did nor could divest them
selves of their apostolical character. They had at all
times the care of all the churches, and on every public
occasion, acted in behalf of them all. In this council
they were considered as Apostles ; and consequently,
if deputies from other churches were not present, the
Apostles supplied their place, being the representatives
of the Catholic Church. Thus the meeting in Jerusa
lem became a general council, which had a right to
give law to the disciples of Christ in every region of
the earth.
It is objected by Independents, that, this meeting did
not resemble a Presbyterian synod, in which only
ministers and elders have a right to deliberate and
judge; for that the people also took a part in the
business. " The Apostles and elders with the whole
church, were pleased to send chosen men of their own
company to Antioch ;" the letter is superscribed by
"the Apostles, elders, and brethren," and "all the
multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas
and Paul." But " the multitude" can mean only the
people who had convened to witness the proceedings,
and who listened to the narrative with profound atten
tion. The " whole church," or the whole assembly,
must signify only the persons present, who could be
but a part of the church properly so called, which we
have seen consisted of many thousands ; and conse
quently, even upon the principles of Independents,
they have no judicial authority. The " brethren"
have been understood to be other ministers of the
word ; but, admitting that they were the people, we
can rationally conceive nothing more to be intended,
than that they concurred in the decree, and signified
their consent to tbe foreign churches as a means of ob
taining their acquiescence ; in the same manner as the
laity were sometimes permitted, in ancient times, to
subscribe the decrees of councils, in order to testify
their approbation of them.* This is the conclusion
to which we must come, if we attentively and candidly
consider the whole history of this meeting, and would
Tender one part consistent with another. The refer
ence from Antioch was not made to the whole body
of believers in Jerusalem, but to the Apostles and
elders ; it is expressly stated that "the Apostles and
-elders came together to consider the matter," and the
multitude are only incidentally mentioned as present ;
and, although the brethren are conjoined with them in
the beginning of the letter sent to the churches, yet
when delivered to them, it is called the decree, exclu
sively of the Apostles and elders. It is worthy of at
tention, too, that we do not find a single member of
the church taking part in the discussion. From these
particulars, it seems to be a necessary conclusion, that
the people had no concern in the discussion and deter
mination of the question ; and that, although the church
and the brethren are afterwards brought forward to
view, their appearance being posterior to the sentence,
can reasonably be understood to import only their ap
probation of it. This explanation will recommend
itself to a candid inquirer, because it harmonizes the
different parts of the narrative ; whereas, the opposite
opinion represents Luke as writing in a careless and
inaccurate manner, while, in the successive steps of
the process, he studiously excludes the people from
»— —  — — — — 
* Grotii Annotat. ad Acta Apostol. xv. 22.

* Owen's True Nature of a Gospel Church, chap. xi.
t Lectures on the Acts, lect. xvi.

532

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

deceitfulness ot his own heart, who is very imper
fectly acquainted with the characters, and tempers, and
ways of men. There is an absurdity in supposing that
day-labourers, who perhaps can hardly read ; domestic
servants, who are so much engaged from morning to
night, that they can, with difficulty, find time to look
into Ihe Bible ; and women, living in a state of seclu
sion, or holding intercourse only with persons as ill-
informed as themselves, are proper persons to discuss
and determine the intricate cases which may come
before a church. The Presbyterian plan is evidently
more rational, which commits the government to the
ministers of Christ, and elders chosen for their supe
rior knowledge, and prudence, and experience. Lastly,
It provides no means for determining controversies.
If the members of an Independent congregation differ
in opinion, they must wrangle on without the prospect
of an end, or must withdraw from each other, and set
up separate churches. In this way their disputes fre
quently terminate, and not seldom they have kept
their churches in an agitated state for many weeks and
months. In our church courts, unanimity is more
likely to be obtained ; if the decision of one court
does not give satisfaction, a cause can be brought
under the review of another. There is, besides, a
greater probability of candid investigation and impar
tial decision, as the judges are not immediately inter
ested ; and while all questions are submitted to the
rulers,, the minds of the members are left in peace.

LECTURE C.
ON THE CHURCH.
Rulers of the Church. — Extraordinary Office-Bearers: Apostles,
Prophets, and Evangelists. — Ordinary Office-Bearers: Pas
tor; His Duties: — Teacher or Doctor; His Duties: — Dea
cons: — Ruling Elders; Warrant for them; Their Duties.
I have endeavoured to show you, from the Scrip
tures, what form of government Jesus Christ has
prescribed to his church, and it ha3 appeared, I trust,
that we find in them the outlines of the Presbyterian
plan. It is acknowledged that it is not so fully detail
ed as the plan given to the Jewish Church, which
contains a minute account of the tabernacle, of its
services, of the persons who alone had a right to min
ister in it, and, in short, of every thing which related
to religion : " See that thou make all things according
to the pattern showed to thee in the mount."* This
is the reason that there have been so many disputes
upon the subject. As only general principles are laid
down, they have been viewed in different lights, and
men have reared upon them different superstructures.
But if the principles are clear, they furnish a rule to
guide us in the development of the system ; and the
scheme which we have adopted, is, I think, fairly
deduced from them, in all its ramifications.
I now proceed to lay before you a short account of
the persons whom Christ has appointed to administer
this government. The Apostle Paul has given an
enumeration of them in the Epistle to the Ephesians;
which, however, is not complete, because there are
two orders which he has omitted, but which are men
tioned in other passages of the New Testament : " And
he gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; and
some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers ;
for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the
ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."|
They are divided into two classes, the extraordinary
and the ordinary office-bearers of the church. In the
first class are included apostles, prophets, and evangel
ists ; and we call them extraordinary, not only because

* Heb. viii. 5.

t Eph. iv. 11, 12.

they were endowed with supernatural gifts, but because
they were instituted only for a time. They were or
dained to serve a particular purpose, namely, the
establishment of the Christian church; and when this
design was accomplished, their offices ceased. The
ordinary office-bearers of the church are pastors and
teachers, and to these must be added ruling elders and
deacons. The apostles stand first in tbe catalogue, and they
hold the highest rank among the ministers of the"
church. The word signifies a messenger, a person
sent to execute a commission. In this sense it was
used by the Greeks, and it occurs also in some places
of the New Testament : " The servant is not greater
than his lord, neither he that is sent— cemo-Texot — greater
than he that sent him."* Paul speaking to the Cor
inthians, of certain brethren wbo had been deputed to
receive the collections for the saints, calls them xttoo-toxoi
exxxwim, " the messengers" or " apostles of the
churches."j- The same title is given to Jesus Christ
himself, who is called " the Apostle of our profes
sion,":): because he was sent by the Father to publish
the religion which we profess ; and hence he said,
" My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."|| In
the same general sense the term is applied to the
twelve disciples, who are known by the designation
of Apostles ; but it is, at the same time, expressive of
something peculiar respecting them.
We may remark, in the first place, tbat tbey received
their commission immediately from Jesus Christ him
self, first during his personal ministry, when he sent
them to publish the good news of the kingdom
throughout the land of Judea ;§ and again after his
ascension, when he commanded them to " go into all
the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."1T
With respect to Paul, who was afterwards added to the
number, he is careful to inform us, that his commis
sion was of the same nature with that of his brethren :
" Paul, an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by
Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from
the dead."** The case of Matthias, who was nomina
ted by the Apostles to fill up the place of Judas, is not
an exception ; for a direct appeal was made to Christ;
and after prayer, the lot fell upon him.ff Secondly,
it was an indispensable qualification of an Apostle
that he should have been an eye and an ear witness of
the actions and sayings of Christ, and that he should
have seen him after his resurrection, as we learn from
the words of Peter, when they were deliberating about
a successor to Judas.:)::): Paul, indeed, was not in all
respects so qualified ; but what was essential was
supplied by the personal appearance of our Saviour to
him, and the revelation with which he was favoured .
" Have not I seen Jesus Christ our Lord ?"|j|| Thirdly,
They were endowed with supernatural gifts, with a
complete and infallible knowledge of the gospel ; a
power to speak languages which they had not learned;
to work miracles ; to discern spirits ; and in all these
ways, to give full proof of their commission. They
were authorized to preach to Jews and to Gentiles ; to
found the Christian Church ; to instruct and govern it;
to order all its affairs, independently of any human
controul ; and to provide for its well-being and contin
uance, by appointing office-bearers to administer the
ordinances, -and to perform all the services which
would conduce to its peace and spiritual prosperity.
Their doctrine and commands were the rule to the
church during their life, and their writings are the
standard of faith and practice to all succeeding ages.
They left no successors in their extraordinary prerog
atives, and their office expired with them.
The next in order were the prophets. The word

* John xiii. 16.
|| John vii. 16.
** Gal.i. 1.
IHI 1 Cot. ix. 1.

+ 2 Cor. viii. 23.
I Matth. x. 5.
ft Acts i. 24, 26.

J Heb. iii. 1.
11 Mark xvi. 15
XX lb. i. 21, 22/

GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH: OFFICE-BEARERS.

prophet bears various senses in the Scriptures. It
sometimes signifies merely a person who speaks in
the name of another, as Aaron is called the prophet of
Moses,* because he delivered to the people the
messages which Moses had received from God. At
other times, it denotes a person who, by the assistance
of the Spirit, explained the prophecies of the Old Tes
tament ; and there is reason to believe that there are
several instances of this use of it in the New Testa
ment. The prophets there mentioned, did not always
foretell future events, but edified the church by inter
preting the ancient predictions. They are not, how
ever, to be viewed as exactly on a level with the
commentators of modern times. They were supernat
urally assisted, and were infallible guides in the
application of the Scriptures to Jesus Christ, and the
new dispensation. Their office must have been pro
ductive of great benefit to the primitive church, when
the Messiahship of Christ was the grand subject of
controversy between the Jews and the Christians, and
tbe faith of the latter so much depended upon the
proof, that all the circumstances descriptive of the
promised Redeemer, were realized in the person and
history of Jesus of Nazareth. Our Lord opened the
understandings of his disciples to understand the
Scriptures, and he imparted the same knowledge to
those inspired expounders of prophecy. In strict lan
guage, a prophet signifies a person who, by the Holy
Spirit, foretells future events. Such, unquestionably,
were some of the prophets in the primitive church.
This is evident from the eleventh chapter of the Acts,
where we read, that "in those days came prophets
from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up
one of them, named Agabus, and signified by the
Spirit that there should be a great dearth throughout
all the world ; which came to pass in the days of
Claudius Cscsar."r Here an event was predicted
which could not have been foreseen by human sagacity,
because the natural causes of it were not then in ope
ration. The other prophets from Jerusalem were of
the same class ; for Agabus is said to be one of them,
and, therefore, to have exercised no power which was
not possessed by them in common. The gift of prophe
cy might be subservient to the immediate advantage
of the church, as in the case before us it gave warning
to the disciples to make provision for their poor
brethren against the approaching calamity ; and it
contributed with other supernatural endowments, to
establish their faith, as an evidence of the presence of
God with his servants.
Y The last extraordinary office-bearers in the primitive
church were evangelists. There is an application of
this word which is not authorized by Scripture, but
is in common use, and has been inadvertently supposed
to be one of its original meanings. It is the well
known designation of the writers of the four gospels.
It acquired this sense at a period posterior to the
Apostolic age, and points out, not the official character
of the persons to whom it is given, but the subject of
their books. Mark calls his narrative, to ivxyyexiov Imrov
XptcTTov.] The Evangelists of whom we now speak,
were persons holding a high rank in the primitive
church. Besides the passage in the Epistle to the
Ephesians, already quoted, the word occurs in some
other places. In the twenty-first chapter of the Acts,
mention is made of Philip the Evangelist, and Tim
othy is exhorted to "do the work of an Evangel
ist."! Titus appears to have been invested with the
same office, and so were probably Silas and Mark,
who were companions of Paul in his journeys and
labours, and Barnabas, who is also called an apostle,
in the general sense of a messenger or missionary, and
seems to have been more than an ordinary minister of
* Exod. vii. 1. T Acts xi. 27, 28.
\ Mark i. 1. The Gospel of Jesus Christ. || 2 Tim. iv. S.

533
the word. The peculiar duties of an Evangelist are
not defined in the New Testament; but they are gen
erally understood to have been materially the same
with those of an Apostle. The Evangelist was not
confined to a particular congregation, like the pastor
afterwards mentioned ; but had a general commission
to preach the gospel wherever an opportunity presented
itself. He had power to ordain elders in any city, and
to set in order the affairs of the churches which he
visited ; to correct what was amiss, and to supply
what was wanting. We do not know that he enjoyed
the general gift of inspiration, as the Apostles did ;
and it is probable he did not, from the cases of Timo
thy and Titus, to whom Pauldeemed it necessary to
give instructions concerning their conduct. It may be
presumed, that the honour of revealing the doctrines
of the gospel, and delivering the commands and insti
tutions of Christ to the church, was reserved to the
Apostles ; and that, by this prerogative, they were
elevated above all the extraordinary office-bearers.
We may suppose, however, that certain supernatural
endowments were conferred upon an Evangelist, as
the gift of tongues, and the power of working mira
cles, to authenticate his commission, and to enable
him to discharge his duty among different nations.
Evangelists were assistants of the Apostles, inferior
to them in rank, and subject to their authority. Paul
speaks to Timothy and Titus as their superior, and
lays injunctions upon them, with which they were
bound to comply. The Apostles were in number twelve,
or rather thirteen, after Paul was added to them.
Although they separated from one another, and chose
different countries as the scene of their labours, and
although they were unweariedly diligent in the work
of their office ; yet, when we consider how extensive
was the range of their ministrations, we are sensible
that, in most cases, they could do little more than
found churches in particular places. If circumstances
sometimes required that they should continue longer
in a place, as we find Paul doing in Corinth and in
Ephesus, other churches were deprived of the benefit
of their presence. Infant societies, the members of
which had been recently converted from Judaism and
heathenism, were but imperfectly acquainted with the
religion which they had embraced ; and, being exposed
to many difficulties and temptations, stood in need of
more frequent and lasting visits than the numerous
demands upon the attention of the Apostles would
afford. Hence arose the order of Evangelists. They
followed the Apostles, to carry on what the latter had
begun. They went to those places where their pre
sence was most wanted, and probably regulated their
movements according to the direction of the Apostles.
Paul, when he departed from Ephesus, besought
Timothy to remain behind, that he might oppose cer
tain false teachers ; and he left Titus in Crete, " that
he might set in order the things which were wanting."*
The extraordinary office-bearers of the church were
apostles, prophets, and evangelists. We now proceed
to consider the second class, which comprehends those
who are to continue in the church to the end of the
world. When the church had been founded by the
preaching of the Apostles, regulated by the wisdom
given to them, and established by their care, and the
ministrations of prophets and evangelists; persons of
an inferior character, possessed only of the common
gifts of the Spirit, and guided by the instructions and
rules which the Apostles have left, were sufficient to
carry on the work of converting sinners, and building
up saints in faith and holiness.
I shall speak of the ordinary office-bearers of the
church. The first are called Pastors. The word literally
signifies a shepherd who has the care of a flock. It is

* 1 Tim. i. 3. Tit. i. 5.

534

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

here used in a metaphorical sense, and such use is not
uncommon in profane writers. Homer, for example,
calls kings TroiLixvet xxat, shepherds of the people. It is
applied to our Lord Jesus Christ, who is denominated
" the chief Shepherd," and " the great Shepherd of the
sheep ;"* and to men who minister in holy things, ]
because he has delegated to them a portion of his
authority, and they are employed in the same work.
They are also styled ministers of Christ,:): and the two
titles may be used indiscriminately. It is therefore
affectation in some sects to adhere rigidly to the for
mer designation, always speaking of the pastors of
their churches, as if the latter were not equally scrip
tural, especially as there is still another term sanction
ed by the Apostles, namely bishops or overseers.
Two ideas are suggested by the designation of Pas
tors. It is the duty of those to whom it belongs, to
feed and to govern the church. With respect to the
first, we hear Paul saying to the elders of Ephesus,
"Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased
with his own blood. "|| As it is the office of a shep
herd to provide proper pasture for his flock, and to
lead them to it, so it is incumbent upon the minister
of Christ to make provision for the nourishment of the
souls of bis people; and as it is only the truth which
will sustain and strengthen spiritual life, he ought to
" feed them with wholesome words, even the words
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is
according to godliness." He is not appointed to in
struct them in the arts and sciences, in agriculture and
commerce, or in mere morality, as it is exhibited inde
pendently of religion in the systems of philosophers ;
but to preach the gospel in the most extensive sense
of the term, to explain its doctrines, to propound its
promises, to inculcate its precepts, to bring its motives
to bear upon the consciences and hearts ofhis hearers.
With careful attention to their different characters, and
circumstances, and feelings, he must rightly divide the
word of truth, not publishing it at random, but having
a regard to the varieties among men in respect of their
moral state, their duties, their temptations, and their
difficulties, that each individual may receive his por
tion of food in due season. The general design ofhis
office is also promoted by the administration of the
sacraments, and particularly of the Lord's supper,
the very name of which is significant of its fitness to
impart nourishment to the soul. Thus, through the
divine blessing, the people upon whom he bestows his
labour will grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ; and the faithful minis
ter will be indeed the pastor of his flock.
It belongs to the office of the pastor, not only to feed,
but to govern the flock, as the shepherd regulates the
movements of the sheep. " The good shepherd," says
our Lord, " goeth before the sheep, and they follow
him, for they know his voice."§ The Christian pastor
should lead his flock in the right way, by instruction
and by example; but this is not the whole of his office.
He is invested with authority over them, to keep them
in the right way, and to bring them back when they
have wandered from it. He has power to reprove, and
rebuke, and exhort, and to suffer no man to despise
him. The church being an organized body, the peace
and prosperity of which cannot be maintained without
an observance of its laws, it pertains to those who are
set over it, not only to inculcate the duty of the mem
bers, but to enforce it by all means corresponding
with the voluntary and spiritual nature of the society.
While the ministers of religion ought to watch over
the people with affectionate solicitude, they have a
commission from Jesus Christ to call upon them to
walk according to the gospel, to censure them when
they deviate from this rule, and to exclude those who

* 1 Pet. v. 4. Heb. xiii. 20.
, X 1 Cor. iv. 1. 2 Cer. xi. 23.

t Eph. iv. 11.
Acts xx. 28. } John x. 4.

will not be reclaimed. This power, however, is not
vested exclusively in them, but in other governors of
whom we shall afterwards speak; and it is evidently a
power given to them, not for destruction, but for edifi
cation. Its object is to maintain the respect which is
due to the institutions of Christ, to secure the consis
tent and seemly conduct of his professed disciples, to
guard the privileges of the church against abuse, and
to make an open distinction between the pure and the
impure. It is evident that the duties of the pastoral office may
be performed, without the supernatural endowments
which were bestowed upon apostles, prophets, and
evangelists. The qualifications of a bishop, which
are enumerated in the First Epistle to Timothy, are
such as may be found in a person who possesses only
the gifts of nature, improved by education and experi
ence, and sanctified by grace. But it is not on this
account alone that we rank pastors among the ordinary
office-bearers in the church. Besides that no new effu
sion of the Holy Spirit, like that on the day of Pente
cost, is necessary, and a sufficient number of able min
isters will be regularly furnished in the common course
of things, the circumstances of the church evidently
require that their office should be continued throughout
successive generations. As in the beginning Christi
anity was new both to Jews and to Gentiles, converts
could not be supposed at once to acquire a perfect ac
quaintance with it; and many years elapsed before all
the books of the New Testament were written, and
came into general use. On these accounts it may seem
lhat there was then a peculiar reason for the institution
of the ministry. But its utility, or 1 may rather say its
necessity, is manifest even in the present times, when
the system of divine truth is accessible to private study,
and is in some degree rendered familiar by early in
struction. Still greater ignorance prevails from various
causes, and however plain are those parts of the Scrip
tures, the knowledge of which is essential to salvation,
preparatory education is requisite, to the full exposition
of it; and to many even its simplest truths would be
unknown, if they never heard them in the church. Be
sides, the ministry of the word is not designed solely
to tell what is new, but to bring old truths into view,
and to impress them upon the heart; to give line upon
line and precept upon precept; and it is one of the
means which Jesus Christ has appointed for communi
cating his Spirit to illuminate and sanctify the soul.
It is therefore a permanent institution ; it will continue
" till we all come, in the unity of the faith, and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the
measure of tbe stature of the fulness of Christ."*
With pastors, Paul joins teachers in his enumeration
of the office-bearers of the church. That these are not
the same persons, as some might suppose, is evident
from this consideration, that we have no reason to think
that two words would have been employed to describe
them, especially as the word, pastors, implies teach
ing, or the feeding of the flock by instruction. It is
probable that a distinct class is pointed out, as many
commentators think, and our church affirms. In the
form of church government, there is a chapter entitled
the Teacher or Doctor, which begins with these words :
"The Scripture doth hold out the name and title of
teacher, as well as of the pastor;" and after giving an
account ofhis office, it concludes thus : "A teacher or
doctor is of most excellent use in schools and univer
sities, as of old in the schools of the prophets, and at
Jerusalem, where Gamaliel and others taught as doc
tors." In the description of the office, it was too much
confounded with that of the pastor, while the power
of administering the sacrament is assigned to the
teacher ; and he is represented as differing from the
pastor, not properly in office, but in tbe nature of his

Eph. iv. 13.

GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH: OFFICE-BEARERS.

gifts, being one " who doth more excel in exposition
of the Scriptures, in teaching sound doctrine, and in
convincing gainsayers, than he doth in application,
and is accordingly employed therein." With all defer
ence to the compilers of this part of our standards,
I would say that this account is not very accurate.
While it distinguishes between the pastor and doctor,
it makes them virtually the same. In fact, the doctor
has all the powers of a pastor, and differs from him
only in his aptness for a particular part of the pastoral
office. The distinction is not of office, but of qualifi
cations. The doctor, I apprehend, was different from
the pastor, and had a different province assigned to
him. His business was not to preach the gospel and
administer the' sacraments, but to instruct the young,
and candidates for baptism, and those who, having
been lately received into the church, were not yet fully
initiated into the knowledge of religion. We know
that, in the first ages, there were schools attached to
certain churches, in which such persons were placed
under the care of a teacher appointed by proper autho
rity. There was a school of this nature in Alexandria,
in which the celebrated Origen presided for a time.
Similar schools were established in other places, as
Rome, Antioch, Caesarea, &c. There is probably a
reference to the doctor in the following passage : " Let
him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him
that teacheth in all good things;"* or, "let the cate
chumen," — so those were called who were in a course
of religious instruction, — "let the catechumen commu
nicate to the catechist." We have no such person
now in the church. Our schoolmasters, although they
were under the superintendence of the rulers of a con
gregation, do not answer to the title ; first, because
they are not exclusively engaged in teaching the prin
ciples of religion ; and, secondly, because they are not
ecclesiastical officers, but belong to the laity. Doctors
are not so necessary at present as they were in the
primitive times, when Christianity was new, and the
church was daily receiving accessions of converts from
heathenism and Judaism, who needed to be prepared
for admission by private instruction. Religious edu
cation may now be intrusted to parents and common
teachers, aided by the personal diligence of young per
sons, and the attention which pastors are able to pay
to them.
I proceed to speak of Deacons, of whose institution
we have an account in the sixth chapter of the Acts :
" When the number of the disciples was multiplied,
there arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against tbe
Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the
daily ministration."j- A complaint was made to the
Apostles, who, in order to remedy the evil, commanded
the disciples to look out among them seven men, duly
qualified, whom they might appoint over this business.
This was the origin of deacons, of whom mention is
made in other places of the New Testament, and their
qualifications are described. They were chosen to
manage the affairs of the poor, to receive the contribu
tions made for their use, to distribute them to the
proper persons, and, no doubt, to accompany their acts
of charity with exhortations and prayers. Their duty
is expressed by the Apostles, when they say, " It is
not meet that we should leave the word of God and
serve tables.":): These words have been understood to
mean, that they were to serve the table of the poor,
and the table of the Lord ; and this commentary occurs
in many books; but it is inaccurate, as it is evident
from the whole transaction that only the table of the
poor is intended. It is true, indeed, that, as the desicn
of the institution was not to divert the attention of the
Apostles from the ministry of the word, the care of all
temporal matters in which the church is concerned,
may be considered as belonging to deacons ; but they

* Gal. vi. 6.

t Acts vi. 1-

t lb- 2.

535
were specially appointed solely for the poor. In some
parts of the church, the office of deacon is retained, but
in others it is not; and the want of it has been repre
sented as a criminal omission. But the institution
arose out of particular circumstances, and may there
fore be dispensed with where these do not exist. In
some congregations, there are no poor ; in others, they
are very few in number; and where they most abound,
they can be attended to by the elders, whom we ac
knowledge as office-bearers in the church, as we shall
afterwards see; and who, on the principle that an
inferior office is comprehended in a superior, possess
the powers of deacons, as ministers possess the powers
of elders. This is our apology for not having deacons
in all our congregations, and it seems to be satisfac
tory. They are not appointed, because all that they
could do can be done by the elders, without encroach
ing upon their other duties.
The deacons of an Independent church, seem to
have a general care of the members, and resemble our
elders, as far as is consistent with the principle that
all are rulers. But when they assign to them any
other power than that of taking care of the poor, they
deviate from the original institution; and while they
deny that there is any warrant in Scripture for our
elders, we may confidently reply, that, at any rate,
deacons as constituted by them are equally unscrip-
tural. Apostolic deacons had no inspection of the
church ; their business was with the poor, and with
the poor atone.
The last class of office-bearers in the church, con
sists of Ruling Elders ; in speaking of whom it will
be necessary to enter into greater detail, as the divine
institution of such persons is controverted, by Episco
palians, who deem it incongruous that laymen, as they
call them, should be admitted to any share in the
government of the church; and by Independents, who
maintain that the Scriptures make mention of no other
officers besides pastors except deacons. It is ac
knowledged, that our information respecting the latter
is more explicit and ample, as we have not only an
account of their institution, but a description, in anoth
er place, of their qualifications. Still, however, we
believe that there is a warrant for ruling elders, be
cause there are some passages in which they appear to
be distinctly recognized.
The first passage which I shall quote, is in the twelfth
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans ; " Having then
gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us ;
whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the
proportion of faith ; or ministry, let us wait on our
ministering ; or he that teacheth, on teaching ; or he
that exhorteth, on exhortation : he that giveth, let him
do it with simplicity ; be that ruleth, with diligence ;
he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness."* It is
the opinion of many commentators, that prophesying,
which sometimes signifies public teaching by the
asistance of the Holy Spirit, and ministry, are general
divisions under which the different offices of the church
are arranged : that prophesying comprehends teaching
and exhorting ; and ministry, giving, ruling, and show
ing mercy. At any rate, it is plain that ruling is dis
tinguished from teaching, exhorting, and giving, or
from the peculiar work of the pastor, the doctor, and
the deacon. The original term, moio-TXL<eyot, is proper
ly translated, he that ruleth, because it evidently de-.
notes one who presides over others with authority.
This presidency is attributed to one as bis proper
business. It is his duty to preside or to rule, as it is
the duty of another to teach, and of another to give.
The Apostle is not enumerating the various duties of
one individual, but different duties belonging to differT
ent individuals. Who, then, is i mo'itrTx/Levotl He is
not the deacon, for the deacon does not rule, but gives to

* Rom. xii. 6—8.

536

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the poor ; he is not the pastor, for, although the pastor
rules, he is here characterized by teaching or exhort
ing, which is peculiar to him. 'O Trpoio-Txuevot must
therefore be a person whose whole duty consists in
ruling, or, in other words, an elder, according to the
views of Presbyterians. Some tell us, that his rule is
over his family; but this is nothing to the purpose,
and is a shift to get rid of a difficulty, because the
Apostle is obviously speaking of the church. Others
say, that he rules over the church stock ; but they
confound him with the deacon, who gives ; and, be
sides, in this sense the expression would be indefinite
and improper, there being nothing to determine the kind
of rule to which the Apostle refers ; and surely it will not
be supposed that a deacon was held in such estimation
in the primitive times, as to be called i Tpoio-TULtevot by
way of eminence. There is another mode of evading
the argument, by saying that the apostle is not speak
ing of offices and office-bearers but of gifts. Some
pains have been taken to obviate this opinion, but
without any necessity, because it is manifestly un
founded ; and, at any rate, it does not answer the
design of those who have adopted it. Paul does in
deed make mention of gifts ; but he immediately pro
ceeds to consider them as bestowed upon particular
persons, and speaks of those persons as plainly as one
man can speak of another. Besides, although he were
speaking of gifts, the argument is of the same force as
if he were speaking of persons, for gifts are bestowed
upon persons for particular purposes; and if there are
gifts which qualify for ruling, as there are gifts which
qualify for teaching, it follows, that to rule or govern
is the exclusive duty of those upon whom the former
are conferred. Every unprejudiced man must perceive
the truth of this reasoning, and consequently must
think that the evasion mentioned above is not worthy
of notice.
The next passage to which I shall direct your atten
tion, is in the twelfth chapter of the First Epistle to
the Corinthians : " God haih set some in the church,
first, apostles; secondarily, prophets ; thirdly, teach
ers ; after that miracles ; then gifts of healing, helps,
governments, diversities of tongues."* It does not
follow, because some of the offices and ministrations
enumerated in this place were miraculous and extraor
dinary, that they were all of that description ; for we
have already found apostles and prophets in the same
catalogue with pastors and teachers ; and we cannot
be justly charged with wresting the passage from its
design, when we consider it as specifying, in part, the
ordinary office-bearers of the church. There are no
persons who may be so reasonably supposed to be
meant by helps, as deacons ; and thus the word has
been often explained. They were instituted for the
express purpose of helping the Apostles, for the pur
pose of relieving them from the care of the poor, that
they might devote themselves exclusively to the min
istry of the word. If helps signify helpers, govern
ments must signify governors, the abstract being in
both cases put for the concrete. The question then is,
Who were the governors to whom the Apostle refer
red ? They were not the apostles, nor the prophets,
nor the teachers, because they are mentioned as dis
tinct classes. They were not helpers, because they
are distinguished from them also; and besides, if dea
cons were intended, they could with no propriety be
called governors, for deacons have no rule over the
church. There is no other class of persons to whom
this title, used as it is in contra-distinction to other
office-bearers, will apply, but the ruling elder of Pres
byterians ; and it is with obvious propriety that they
are designated governors, as the sole business of their
office is to govern the congregation over which they
are appointed. God has set some governors in the

* 1 Cor. xii. 28.

church. He has not lodged the power, as Independ
ents suppose, in the people at large, but has ordained
that a few should be invested with authority to take
order that the members should walk in the ordinances
and commandments of Ihe Lord.
The last passage which I shall quote, is in the fifth
chapter of the First Epistle to Timothy: "Let the
elders that rule well be counted worthy of double
honour, especially they who labour in word and doc
trine."* Many attempts have been made to evade the
evidence of this passage in favour of the point which
we are endeavouring to establish. It has been ex
plained in various ways ; and learned men have em
ployed their ingenuity to prove one thing at least, that
it ought not to be understood of ruling elders ; but who
are meant by the elders who rule well, as distinguished
from those who labour in word and doctrine, they are
not agreed. Their different opinions can be viewed in
no other light than as conjectures. Some say that the
elders who rule well are diocesan bishops, and that
those who labour in word and doctrine are preaching
presbyters ; but besides that, contrary to their own
system, they thus assign greater honour to presbyters
than to bishops, we have seen that there were no such
bishops in the apostolic church; and this hypothesis
must be abandoned. Others tell us that the former are
ordinary bishops and presbyters, and the latter evan
gelists ; as if it had been the business of bishops and
presbyters in the primitive church to rule, and of evan
gelists to preach, without having any concern in the
government of the church. Again, it has been sup
posed that the rulers here mentioned are deacons ; and
the labourers in word and doctrine, the ministers of the
word ; but we have seen that deacons have nothing to
do wilh the government of the church. Some have
fancied two kinds of elders, of whom some preached
the word, and administered the sacraments ; while
others were employed in reading the Scriptures to the
people, and performing other inferior offices. But this
is a gratuitous assumption, unworthy of further atten
tion. The most extravagant idea of all, is that of the
learned Mr. Mede, who contends that the elders who
rule well are civil magistrates, and those who labour
in word and doctrine are ministers of the Gospel. ]
These evasions being quite unsatisfactory, some
have recourse to criticism, in order to wrest the passage
out of our hands. First, They affirm that the adverb
llxxio-tx, translated especially, is not here distinctive,
but descriptive; that is, it does not point out a differ
ent class, but describes with greater particularity the
class mentioned in the beginning of the verse, " Let the
elders that role well be counted worthy of double
honour, particularly because they labour in word and
doctrine." But the word, both in sacred and profane
writers as it would be easy to show, uniformly serves
to distinguish, and maybe rendered, most of all, chiefly,
especially. There is no reason why it should be trans
lated differently7in this verse, but one, which every
honest critic will reject, — the interest of a party. Sec
ondly, It has been said that the Apostle does not dis
tinguish two classes, but refers, in the end of the verse,
to those of the same class, who distinguish themselves
by their diligence; and this is signified by the use of
the word xmrnvTet, which they affirm implies labouring
with our utmost strength. It happens unfortunately for
this criticism, that the word is employed in the New
Testament to express simply the duty'of the servants
of Christ, and not the degree of it; and, on one occa
sion, when Paul intended to express greater activity,
he did not consider the verb xomxcc as sufficient to con
vey this idea, but joined another with it, representing
Tryphena and Tryphosa as xomuo-xt, labouring, but say
ing of Perses, that she "laboured much in the Lord,"^

* 1 Tim. v. 17.
X Rom . xvi. 12.

t Mede's Works, Disc. xix. p. 71.

GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH: CHURCH POWER.

537

itis mxxa txomam tv xvpm. As no word is added to the
verse under consideration to xmmvTtt, it is plain that
the Apostle is not speaking of uncommon diligence;
and besides, it is somewhat strange to suppose that he
would command the members of the church to give
equal honour to all the ministers of the Gospel, al
though some of them were more, and others less- dili
gent in performing their duty. Degrees of diligence
certainly call for degrees of honour.
I have endeavoured to clear this passage from the
attempts which have been made to pervert its mean
ing, and from the exceptions against our application
of it. The result is, that it ought to be understood in
its plain and natural meaning ; and that thus viewed,
it points out two classes of office-bearers who have
distinct functions. It belongs to one class to rule, and
in ruling their whole duty consists. They are required
to do nothing more than to administer the laws of
Christ for the regulation of the conduct of his follow
ers. Those of the other class are joined with them in
the rule of the church; but there is an additional duty
incumbent upon them, in which the former have no
concern, namely, to labour in word and doctrine, to
preach the gospel, and administer the sacraments.
The argument may be stated in the following manner :
— There are elders, who, although they rule well, are
not worthy of double honour, unless they labour in
word and doctrine. But there are elders who are
counted worthy of double honour, because they rule
well, although they do not labour in the word and doc
trine. Therefore, there are elders who are not teach
ing or preaching elders, that is, they are ruling elders
only. The premises are clearly laid down in the pas
sage, and the conclusion is therefore legitimate.
If there were any office in the church manifestly use
less, we might confidently affirm that it is not of Di
vine institution. We could not, with equal confidence,
pronounce an office, which appeared to us to be useful,
to be divinely instituted, because we may err in our
notions of utility. But the advantages resulting from
the office of ruling elders are a subsidiary argument in
its favour. As there can usually be only one preach
ing elder in a congregation, he could not perform his
peculiar duties, and at the same time undertake the
superintendence of the conduct of the members. Elders
are his assistants in this work. Living among the
people, and associating familiarly with them, they
have opportunities of knowing their conduct, and can
personally interpose with their counsels and admoni
tions; and under the joint care of the pastor and the
rulers, the people grow in faith and holiness, and walk
in all the ordinances and commandments of the Lord.

LECTURE CI.
ON THE CHURCH.
Church Power. — Nature of II — Independence of the Church.
— Its relation to the State.. — Church Power distinguished
into POTESTAS j.yA,.T.«,, POTESTAS j.«t»«t.k„ and
POTESTAS S,x*f,Ti**.*— The Extent and Limits of these
Several Kinds.
We have seen that Jesus has established a particular
form of government in the church, and has appointed
certain persons to administer it. They have been dis
tinguished into two classes; the first comprehending
the extraordinary office-bearers, who ceased when the
purpose of their institution was accomplished ; and the
second comprehending pastors and elders, who are to
continue to the end of the world. I proceed to inquire
with what power they are invested, and to finish what
I have to say on the subject of the church.

* Doctrinal, legislative, and judicial POWER.
3S

Some have maintained tbat the church possesses no
power, and that the office of her rulers consists solely
in instructing and persuading the people. They mere
ly propose to them truths to be believed, and duties to
be practised, which they may enforce by motives cal
culated to impress their consciences and hearts ; but
they have no authority to call them to account for their
conduct, and to deprive such as they deem unworthy,
of their privileges. If any power of this kind is exer
cised in a particular church, it is conferred, according
to them, by the civil magistrate, who may appoint
censures to be inflicted in particular cases for the main
tenance of good order, and the advancement of the in
terests of morality. The author of this opinion was
Erastus, a physician of the sixteenth century ; from
whom the doctrine, which makes the church subject
to the state, and places the civil magistrate at its head,
has received the name of Erastianism. It found friends
and advocates.; and, to a certain extent, is acted upon
in the Church of England, which acknowledges the
supremacy of the king in causes ecclesiastical as well
as civil. It was brought forward by Erastus, and de
fended by his followers, as the only effectual method
of putting an end to the extravagant and tyrannical
power which had been claimed by the Church of Rome.
This was a clumsy expedient for remedying the evil,
requiring no wisdom or ingenuity ; and upon the same
principle, many a good thing should be destroyed be
cause it has been abused. But, in such cases, enlight
ened zeal will content itself with reform ; and leaving
the power in existence, will employ itself in so defin
ing it, and placing sucb checks upon it, as shall hence
forth prevent the excesses which are the subject of
complaint. It is unnecessary to engage in the refutation of an
opinion, which no person will adopt who entertains
just notions of the nature and design of the church,
and does not consider it merely as an appendage of
the state, and a political engine. As we have already
shown that a form of ecclesiastical government is
appointed in the Scriptures, and that certain offices have
been instituted for the management of the affairs of the
church, we have virtually proved that power is com
mitted to it; and nothing is now necessary but to
ascertain what it is, and how far it extends.
Let it be observed, tbat it is a spiritual power,total-
ly distinct from the civil power which is exercised in
the government of cities and nations. The rule ac
cording to which it is exercised is the word of God,
and not the laws of the state. The law of Jesus
Christ supersedes every other law ; and when these
happen to interfere, the members are bound to obey
God rather than men. Its object is the conscience ;
and its end is not gained, as in human governments,
by the external obedience of the subjects, unless it
proceed from a sense of the Divine authority. The
means which it employs to secure obedience are, com
mands, entreaties, promises, threatenings, and cen
sures ; which, however, are all calculated to affect the
mind only, and not the outward state. The church
does not resort to confiscation of goods, imprisonment,
banishment, stripes, and death, to enforce its decrees ;
it leaves men in full possession of their temporal
privileges. The matters about which civil govern
ment is concerned, are property, liberty, personal secu
rity ; the power of the church relates to instruction in
heavenly mysteries, excitement to the cultivation of
holiness, and preparation for the world to come. The
end of civil government is to promote the peace and
happiness of the present life ; the end of ecclesiastic
al government is the edification of the body of Christ,
the building up of the Saints in faith and holiness to
life everlasting. Civil governments can compel their
subjects to obey the laws, but the church uses no
compulsion, and employs only moral means to work
upon the heart.

538

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

Hence you perceive that the church is a society
totally distinct from and independent of the state. Its
constitution, its laws, its administration, and its ob
jects, are different ; and, although its members and
the subjects of the state are the same individuals, yet
they are considered as sustaining different characters,
in relation to the state, as rational beings who have
certain duties to perform to society ; in relation to
the church, as the worshipers and servants of God.
The alliance of church and state, of which so much
has been said, and which has been represented as
necessary to the welfare of both, is always injurious
to the former, when tbe state encroaches upon the
prerogatives of the church, or the church barters any
portion of her power to secure the patronage of the
state. The separate provinces of both are clearly
defined ; and each may exercise its peculiar functions
without interfering with the other. The state can
accomplish all the ends of civil government, without
any other aid from the church than the influence of the
doctrine which it teaches, upon the tempers and man
ners of the people ; and the church is so far from
needing the assistance of the state, that its interference
would defeat the design of its institution, which is to
prevail upon men by persuasion, and not by force ; to
inspire them with a sincere attachment to religion, not
to extort a hypocritical profession of it.
When we affirm that the power of the church is not
derived from the state, or dependent upon it, we do
not plead for the exemption either of the members,
or of the rulers, from civil authority. The Church of
Rome, indeed, contended for this privilege in behalf
of the clergy, and succeeded in establishing it. They
were not amenable to the magistrate, even when they
had committed crimes, and were accountable only to
the ecclesiastical tribunals. Protestants advance no
Such claim ; and acknowledge that church-men, as
well as lay-men, are subject to the civil jurisdiction.
The objection, therefore, which has been raised against
tbe intrinsic power of the church, — that it establishes
imperium in imperio,* — is not applicable to our prin
ciples ; although it bears with all its force against
those of papists, by which the clergy, in all the na
tions of Europe, were incorporated into a body, inde
pendent of the states which protected them, and owing
obedience solely to bishops and archbishops, and the
pope at their head. Thus two rival powers were
erected, with opposite interests ; and we learn from
history what fatal conflicts sometimes ensued, involv
ing nations in destructive wars, and terminating in
the degradation and dethronement of monarchs. The
church, indeed, even upon our principles, may be
called imperium in imperio ; because it is a society
subsisting in the bosom of a state, distinct from it
with respect to its internal jurisdiction, and governed
by its own laws ; but it threatens no danger to the
state, and gives it no disturbance in carrying on its
proper functions, because it does not intermeddle with
civil and political affairs, and confines itself to claims
and operations purely spiritual.
The power of the church is commonly divided ac
cording to the nature of the objects about wbich it is
employed, into three parts. The first is called potes-
tas ioyfLXTixn, or its power respecting articles of faith ;
and under this head some comprehend the preaching of
the word, the administration of the sacraments,"ihe
ordination of ministers, &c. The second is poteslas
hcLTaxTixY, or the power of the church to make laws and
constitutions. The third is poteslas itxxpnixu, or the
power of the church to censure and excommunicate
offenders, and to restore the penitent to communion.
The first in order is the poteslas ioy/LXTixti, or the
power of the church in reference to dogmas or articles
* A government within a government — an independent ju
risdiction in the bosom of the state.

of faith. That the church has power to make such
articles, Protestants deny, upon this ground, that the
Scriptures contain all the truths which it is necessary
to know and believe; and they justly condemn the
Church of Rome, which, admitting another rule of
faith called tradition, has introduced into her creed
human dogmas and grossly erroneous tenets, and
anathematised all who do not implicitly receive them.
In order to determine how far this part of the power of
the church extends, I shall lay before you the follow-
in^ observations.
First, The church is the depository of the Scriptures.
Under the former dispensation, the sacred oracles
were committed to the Jews ; but the honour of being
their guardians is now transferred to the disciples of
Christ. The church having received them as contain
ing the whole revelation of the will of God, she is
bound to keep them as a precious treasure, and lo
transmit them from age to age, in order to enlighten,
and sanctify, and comfort the souls of men, " till
we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,
unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of
Christ."* But although the Scriptures are deposited
in the hands of the church, we must beware of think
ing that their authority depends in any degree upon
her judgment, or that her sanction was necessary to
give them validity. This doctrine is maintained in
the church of Rome. The Scriptures, it has been
said, have no authority without the authority of the
church ; and without the church, Matthew is entitled
to no more credit than Livy. But, besides the impiety
of such sentiments, papists involve themselves in
palpable absurdity. If you ask them how we shall
know the church, whose authority is so great, they
must answer that we know it from the Scriptures,, and
thus they reason in a circle, proving first the authority
of the church from the Scriptures, and then the author
ity of the Scriptures from the church. We acknowl
edge that it is by testimony that we ascertain the
genuineness and authenticity of the Scriptures. By
the testimony of those who lived at the time when
they were published, and were deeply interested in
the matter, we are assured that they are the writings
of the persons to whom they are ascribed. Thus far
their testimony goes, but no farther. We do not
receive the Scriptures simply because they received
them ; but because we are sure, from their circum
stances, that they would not have received them,
unless they had been fully satisfied of the Divine
commission of those who gave them to the world. If
the church has any thing to do in this business, its
office is merely to point out the books in which revela
tion is contained. Our belief of their divinity is found
ed on the internal and external evidences of theil
heavenly origin. We do not ascribe a power to the
church to admit books into the canon, or to exclude
them from it, at her pleasure. In admitting and
excluding, she was bound to proceed upon evidence;
and we acquiesce in her decision, not because it is
hers, but because the evidence upon which it was
founded appears satisfactory to ourselves. But this
is very different from the Romish doctrine, which
resolves all the evidence of the inspiration of the
Scriptures, and all their authority, into the decrees of
the church.
Secondly, It belongs to the church to explain the
Scriptures, and to call upon men to study, and believe,
and obey them. The ministers of the church are the
expounders of the law ; and to them may be applied
the words of the prophet, " The priest's lips should
keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his
mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord ofhosts."|
But the expositions of the church are authoritative only

* Eph. iv. 13.

f Mai. ii. 7.

GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH: CHURCH POWER.

539

in a limited sense. Her ministers are not self-created
teachers, but have received their commission from
Jesus Christ, and in executing it are bound to take his
word as their rule ; but as they may misapprehend
its meaning, or intentionally deviate from it, and ob
trude their own notions as the'dictates of revelation, it
is a duty which Christians owe to themselves and to
their Divine Master, to exalt no human being to the
chair of infallibility, to take nothing upon trust, and to
bring the doctrine of their teachers " to the law and to
the testimony, because, if they speak not according to
this word, there is no light in them."* The church,
we have said, has no power to make new articles of
faith, and ought therefore to adhere strictly to the
Scriptures in all her instructions. By the Romanists
another standard has been introduced, to which they
assign an equal degree of authority with the Scriptures,
or rather a greater, as they do not hesitate to affirm
that without its aid the Scriptures cannot be under
stood. This is tradition ; by which they mean a sum
mary of doctrine which was in the church before the
Scriptures were published, and is the only sure inter
preter of them, has come down by oral communication
or in the- writings of the Fathers, and would suffice for
the direction of Christians in all things necessary to
be believed and practised, although the Scriptures were
annihilated. It is unnecessary to say how derogatory
all this is to the honour of the Scriptures, and how
contrary to their own testimony concerning themselves,
that they are " a light to our feet and a lamp to our
path ;-j- and that they " are able to make us wise unto
salvation," and to " furnish us for every good work.":):
This witness is not true, if tradition is necessary.
What the church of Rome says concerning tradition is
a mere assumption without the shadow of proof, and
rests upon the same ground with the oral law of the
Jews. It is equally uncertain, no man being able to
tell what it is ; it changes with the fancies of men, that
which is a truth of tradition in one age, being pro
nounced to be an error in another ; it is anything which
they choose to make it, to serve their own purposes.
It is the inexhaustible storehouse from which papists
haye drawn the enormous mass of error, superstition,
and idolatry, which has made the word of God of no
effect, and almost overwhelmed the Christian religion.
Lastly, The church has power to draw up and enact
summaries of Christian doctrine, in order to exhibit to
the world her views of the Scriptures, to oppose pre
vailing heresies and errors, to furnish the people with
a concise statement of the great principles of religion,
and to provide an effectual means of ascertaining the
sentiments of candidates for admission, especially into
the ministry, and thus to secure harmony and uniform
ity in the public ministrations. These are called sym
bols, confessions, articles, formularies, and they were
introduced at an early period. We have the Nicene
creed, the Constantinopolitan creed, and others com
posed by synods and councils. There is also the cele
brated Athanasian creed, which is called by the name
of Athanasius, because it contains a summary of his
doctrine. The real author is unknown, but its ortho
doxy has procured its reception by several churches.
.Besides these, there is the Apostles' creed, which also
owes its name to the conformity of its doctrines to that
of the Apostles. It is certain that it was not drawn up
by them; and a story which has been told, that at its
original formation all the Apostles were present and
each contributed a part, is absurd and ridiculous.
Modern churches have imitated the example of those
in former times, and have given to the public their
confessions of faith, from which we learn how far they
agree with the Scriptures, and in what respects they
differ from each other.
If you ask what authority these summaries possess,
* Is. viii. 20. f Ps. cxix. 105. { 2 Tim. iii. IS, 17.

I answer, that they have none in themselves, any more
than other human compositions. The only difference
between them and the creeds of individuals is this,
that there is a greater probability that they are right ;
as it is less likely that so many who were engaged in
drawing them up should have erred, than a single per
son, who gives the result of his insulated studies. At
the same time, I must say that this probability does
not amount to much, because we sometimes find that
there is an Athanasius contra lotum mundum,* or that
one man discovers the truth, and a council misses it;
and, at any rate, it is not a ground on which any Chris
tian could safely and rationally proceed in choosing his
creed. The authority of such summaries is derived
solely from the Scriptures ; if they are agreeable to
them, they are binding, because they exhibit the truth,
if not agreeable to them, they ought to be rejected, with
as little ceremony as we should use towards a private
attempt to impose upon conscience. There has been
much misapprehension upon this subject, which has
been too much encouraged by the vague, injudicious
language of the public teachers of religion ; and the
standards of a church have been regarded as sacred
things, which it would be profaneness to touch. So
far as these sentiments prevail among Protestants, they
adopt one of the most absurd and dangerous errors of
Popery. When the church speaks, we have a right to
try what she says by the supreme standard ; and her
dictates have no control over our consciences, unless
she can satisfactorily show that they are conformable
to it.
The sum, then, of what has been said concerning
the poteslas dogmatica of the church is, that she is the
depository of the Scriptures ; that she is appointed
to interpret them, and performs this duty by public
and private instruction, oral and written, but has no
power to make articles of faith ; and that, as she is
not infallible, every man retains the right of private
judgment, or the right to examine the Scriptures for
himself, and to follow them, either by joining in the
profession of the church, or by dissenting from it.
This view of the power of the church accords with
the sentiments stated in our Confession of Faith : "It
belongeth to synods and councils ministerially to de
termine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience ;"
and their " decrees and determinatibns, if consonant
to the word of God, are to be received with reverence
and submission." " All synods and councils since the
Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may
err, and many have erred ; therefore they are not to be
made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an
help in both."f The church of England expresses
the same sentiments in the article concerning general
councils : " When they be gathered together, (forasmuch
as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not
governed with the Spirit and word of God,) they may
err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertain
ing unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them,
as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor
authority unless it may be declared that they be taken
out of holy Scripture.":):
Let us now proceed to consider the second part of
the power of the church, which is called potestaa
Soltxxtixh, or poteslas ordinans ,- that is, the power to
enact canons, or rules for government and order.
In the first place, The church has not power to es
tablish any form of government which shall appear
most eligible to hor rulers, judging in this matter as
if they were at liberty to pursue their own views of
propriety and expedience. Were the form of govern
ment ambulatory, as some suppose, it would undoubt
edly belong to them to accommodate it to circumstan
ces, so far as this might-be done without injury to the

* Against the whole world.
f Art. xxi.

__ -f Chap. xxxi. { 3, 4.

540

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

interests of religion. But we have proved that a
particular form is prescribed, from which they cannot
deviate, without usurping an authority which cannot
be derived from Jesus Christ, as it is employed in
setting aside his institutions. The command to Moses
is addressed also to them ; " See that thou make all
things according to the pattern shown unto thee in the
mount."* It may be objected, that the form of gov
ernment for the Christian church is not delineated
with as much particularity as the tabernacle was, with
its various services. But the general principles are
laid down ; the outlines are given ; and the church has
nothing to do but to develope the principles, and to
fill up the outlines, in exact conformity to the spirit of
the original sketch.
In the second place, The church has not power to
make laws to regulate the moral conduct of the mem
bers ; she has no legislative authority ; and her office'
consists solely in publishing and enjoining the laws
which the Head of the church has already enacted.
Moral laws can emanate only from the Sovereign of
heaven and earth. Ecclesiastical rulers are in the same
situation with the subordinate magistrates in a king
dom. There are laws which bind them as well as the
subjects ; and the only purpose for which they are
appointed, is to superintend the execution of them.
The decalogue which was published from Sinai, is
the standard of duty to Christians as well as to Jews ;
and of its perfection no doubt can be entertained,
whether we reflect upon its Author, or upon the two
grand principles upon which it is founded, and into
which all its precepts are resolved, — supreme love to
God, and sincere love to our neighbour. The details
of duty in the Scripture, whether in the didactic, the
exhortatory, or the admonitory form, serve to explain
it; and the text, with the commentary, constitutes a
rule so full and so particular, that it stands in need of
no addition, and is sufficient to direct the Christian in
the whole course of his life. The Church of Rome is
guilty of great presumption and impiety in assuming
the right of legislation. Not content to enforce the
commandments of Christ, she has enlarged his law
by new precepts, originating in her own authority, or,
what is the same thing, in tradition, — the name which
she uses to justify her corruptions and usurpations ;
she has instituted holidays which God has not ap
pointed ; prescribed modes and objects of worship
which are condemned in his word ; prohibited certain
kinds of food at some times to all, and at all times to
some; forbidden the marriage of the clergy ; enjoined
confession to a priest, fasts, penances, and pilgrimages ;
and has introduced these innovations, not as matters
of order and expedience ; but as laws binding upon
conscience, and requiring obedience under pain of
censure and mortal sin. Thus the prediction has been
fulfilled, that " the man of sin should, as God, sit in
the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."+
And every church which dares to make laws which
shall directly affect conscience, blasphemously arro
gates the prerogative of the Most High. " God alone,"
says our Confession, " is Lord of the conscience, and
hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments
of men which are in any thing contrary to his word,
or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that,
to believe such doctrines, or to obey such command
ments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of
conscience.":): In the third place, The church has not power to
decree rites and ceremonies. Here we encounter the
Church of Rome, and the Church of England; which
last affirms in her articles that the church has such
power ;|| and to both, the claim is necessary to justify
their practice. We demand Scriptural proof, but can
find none. It is in vain to quote the words of Paul to
» Heb. viii. 5. f 2 Thess. ii. 4. J Chap. xx. 2. || Art xx.

the Corinthians, " Let all things be done decently and
in order ;"* because they do not refer to rites and
ceremonies, but to certain abuses in the public exercise
of extraordinary gifts. They have not the most remote
relation to a supposed power to render the ordinan
ces and ministrations of religion more becoming and
impressive by human additions to them. There is a
vague kind of talk among persons who seem to know
little of the nature of genuine religion, about the
necessity of adapting it to the nature of man, who is
so much influenced by his senses as to be incapable
of pure spiritual contemplations, and needs their aid
to fix his attention, and excite devout sentiments and
affections. But while we deny that there is any such
necessity, and can prove the falsity of the assumption
by experience, we say that, if it had existed, we may
presume that the Author of religion, who knows our
frame, would have provided for it by appointing suita
ble rites, and not have left the invention ef them to
men themselves, who discovered such a propensity in
all ages to corrupt religion, and to turn it into a vain
show. It is supposed that the ordinances of the gospel
are defective from their simplicity, and that unless
they be new-modelled, they will not produce the in
tended effect, at least upon the generality of mankind.
Is not this plainly to impeach the wisdom of Christ,
as if he had not rightly apprehended the proper means
of making religious impressions upon the human mind,
or had delivered his institutions to the church in an
unfinished state, and committed the supply of what
was wanting to persons who have proved themselves
incompetent, by the nature of the ceremonies which
they have devised, and by the multiplication of them
to such a degree as to convert religion into a bodily
service ? The advocates for ceremonies forget the
words of our Lord, " God is a Spirit, and they that
worship him must worship him in spirit and in
truth ;"] and would turn religion into a mechanical
process, the effect of impressions on the senses and the
imagination. They forget that it is spiritual ; that it is
produced by the contemplation of spiritual objects ;
that the medium by which these affect the mind is
faith, which " is the evidence of things not seen, and
the substance of things hoped for;":): and that the ex
citement of the natural passions has nothing of the
nature of piety, in the estimation of Him who dwells
with the humble and the contrite that tremble at his
word. The church assumes a poweT which does not belong
to her, when she makes any addition to the institutions
of Christ ; and still more when she exacts the observ
ance of these on pain of censure and excommunica
tion. In this case, she claims an authority co-ordinate
with that of our exalted Redeemer. Were the church
simply to recpmmend certain ceremonies, leaving it
free to every man to observe them or not, according to
the dictates ofhis conscience, her conduct, although it
could not be justified, would be less reprehensible.
But when she issues her mandate, that all should con
form, she assumes the tone of an usurper and a tyrant ;
and it is a duty which every man owes to the Head of
the church, to resist her impositions. Besides other
instances of will-worship in the Church of England,
she has appended two human rites to the sacraments,-—
the sign of the cross in baptism, and kneeling at the
Lord's Supper. For the first, there is not a shadow
of authority in the practice of the Apostles ; and the
reason which she gives for it is imaginary ; that " it is
a token that the baptized person shall not be ashamed
to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully
to fight under his banners against sin, the world, and
the devil ; and to continue Christ's faithful soldier
and servant unto his life's end." Men are the authors
both of the sign and of the interpretation of it. Faith,

1 Cor. xiv. 40. -j- John iv. 24. X Heb- xi- 1-

GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH: CHURCH POWER.

541

which rests solely upon revelation, sees nothing in it
but an idle motion of the hand. Kneeling at the
Lord's table is enjoined as expressive of reverence ;
but by what authority is this posture required ? Not
surely by that of Jesus Christ, who administered the
ordinance to his disciples placed at table in the same
manner as when they received their ordinary meals.
How then comes it to pass that the symbols of his
body and blood must be received with a sign of exter
nal reverence, which was not given when he himself
was corporeally present? This is rather a puzzling
question even to Papists, who believe transubstantia
tion ; and still more so to Protestants, who do not be
lieve it: but the truth is, that the right is derived from
Papists, who maintain that the elements are changed
into the body, blood, and divinity of Christ ; and is
therefore, among Protestants, a childish and absurd
imitation of a practice founded on a doctrine which
they hold in abhorrence. There is not much encour
agement to recognize in the church this power of or
daining ceremonies, when we see that one of its fruits
is symbolizing with idolaters. The ordinances were
given by Jesus Christ in a perfect state, and are as
sufficient to promote all tbe ends of their institution
now, as they were in the primitive times, when they
subsisted in their original simplicity.
Lastly, There are several matters respecting external
order, to which the power of the church does extend.
These do not relate to the essence or form of the ordi
nances of religion, or to the moral conduct of the
members; but to circumstances which are connected
with the regular proceedings of any society, and which
human prudence is competent to settle. Thus, it be
longs to the church to appoint the times of public
worship; not to make holidays, but to determine at
what hours Christians shall assemble on the Sabbath,
and on what other occasions they shall come together
to join in the solemn exercises of religion, according
to the calls of Providence. It is also her province, to
point out the order in which the public ministrations
should be conducted, that uniformity maybe establish
ed within her pale ; to fix the bounds of congregations,
presbyteries, and synods, that there may be no inter
ference of interests and claims, and that each may
confine itself to its own jurisdiction ; to make regula
tions respecting their intercourse, and the transference
of members from one place to another ; to lay down
rules for conducting judicial processes, that nothing
may be done rashly or unfairly, but the ends of justice
may be attained ; to prescribe the education of candi
dates for the ministry, and the steps which are to be
taken with a view to ascertain their qualifications, and
to introduce them into office. With regard to such
matters, it is evident that they imply no legislative
authority, but merely the power of arrangement ; that
uniformity is not necessary throughout the whole
Christian church, but only in particular divisions of it ;
and that the order may be varied, without impeding
the general purpose of edification, according to the
judgment of the church, founded upon the customs
and circumstances of different nations and times.
Let us proceed to consider the last part of ecclesi
astical power, which is called poteslas Sixxpmxn, or
potestas judicialis vel disciplinaris, and consists in the
exercise of discipline. Erastus and his followers,
who denied the power of the church in toto, necessari
ly controverted the power of discipline, and maintained,
that she had no right to exclude any from her com
munion ; and that, in doing so, she encroached upon
the prerogative of the civil magistrate, to whom alone
it belongs to punish the guilty.
The abettors of this opinion place the church in
more disadvantageous circumstances than any other
society. A state has power to protect itself from dis
order and dishonour, by the restraint and expulsion of
the lawless and unruly. Every other assoeiation lays

down rules to be observed by the members, the infrac
tion of which subjects them to censure, and it may be,
to the loss of their privileges. It would be strange to
suppose that the church alone is exposed, without de
fence, to have her peace disturbed, her laws violated,
her reputation injured, by conduct inconsistent with
her holy profession. To say that the civil magistrate
ought to interpose to remedy such disorders, is to an
nihilate the church, or to make it exist only in name.
In this case, the church and the state are the same ;
the privileges of the church belong to men as mem
bers of the state ; and the state punishes them, not
as unworthy disciples of Christ, but as disobedient
subjects. To every one who has read and understood the
Scriptures, it will appear that the church is a society
specifically different from the state, and instituted
solely for spiritual purposes. A person has a right of
admission into it, not because he was born in the
country where it is established, nor simply because he
was baptized in his infancy, but because he makes a
credible profession of faith. On this ground only can
he claim the enjoyment of its privileges, which from
their nature appear not to be intended for all promis
cuously, but for those who in the judgment of charity
are disciples of Christ. It is evident, that it is only
on the same ground that he can retain them ; and that,
if he has forfeited his title by conduct which im
peaches the sincerity of his profession, they may be
justly suspended or withdrawn. If this be granted to
be true,-^-and it is not conceivable that it can be dis
puted by any man of common sense, — the inference is
obvious, that there must be a power lodged in the
church to enforce the observance of her laws by cen
sures and excommunication.
When our Lord gave Peter " tbe keys of tbe king
dom of heaven," we do hot conceive that he conferred
upon him a peculiar privilege, unless the words refer
simply to the fact, thai he was the person who opened
the new dispensation to the Jews, by preaching to thera
on the day of Pentecost, and to the Gentiles by preach
ing to Cornelius. Whatever power is implied in these
words, " Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall
be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thotr shalt loose
on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,"* was common to
him and the other Apostles, to whom the same words
were addressed on another oceasion>| Binding and
loosing are expressive of authority, not only to declare
doctrinally what are the obligations of Christians, and
in what respects they are free, but lo inflict and re
move censures. The offender is" bound when the
church pronounces sentence upon him, and is loosed
when be is restored to privileges upon repentance ;
and the proceedings are ratified in heaven, when they
are conducted in conformity to Scripture.
It appears that discipline was exercised in the pri
mitive church. The case of the incestuous man is an
example. He had committed a sin aggravated in
itself, and highly discreditable to the Christian profes
sion ; and Paul commanded the Corinthians, "when
they were gathered together, in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ, to deliver him unto Satan for the destruc
tion of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the
day of the Lord.":): He told them at the same time,
that although they could not avoid all intercourse with
the wicked men of the world ; yet, " if any man that
was called a brother was a fornicator, or covetous, or
an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortion
er," they were not to keep company, nor even to eat
with him ;|| and as we might have expected, he
plainly signified that they were not to sit down with
him at the table of the Lord. He directs a heretic to
be rejected after the first and second admonition ;§ and

* Matth. xvi. 19
|| 1 Cor. v. 11.

t lb. xviii. 18.
j Titus iii. 10.

X 1 Cor. v. 4, S.

542

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

he calls upon Christians to withdraw from every
brother that walked disorderly, and not after the tradi
tion which they had received.* Some of the Asiatic
churches are reproved, because they had neglected the
exercise of discipline. The charge brought against
them is, that " they had them that held the doctrine
of the Nicolaitans," and " that held tbe doctrine of
Balaam;" "that they suffered that woman Jezebel,
who called herself a prophetess ;"f and the obvious
meaning is, that, instead of employing the authority
which they had received from Jesus Christ against
such persons, they permitted them to remain in the
church. The rulers of the church have authority over the
members. As it is their province to judge who should
be admitted, and to inspect their conduct when they
have been received into fellowship, so they have power
to censure and to expel such as prove themselves to
be unworthy. This is the natural right of every
society, and it is given to the church by the special
appointment of her Sovereign : " Reprove, rebuke,
exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine." " Ex
hort and rebuke with all authority ; let no man despise
thee."!: The objects of the censures of the church are of
fences or scandals ; by which are meant, parts of con
duct which are contrary to the law of Christ, and are
calculated to lead others into sin by the force of exam
ple, as well as to expose religion to reproach. They
are public offences known to the church, or to some
part of the members ; for, with respect to those of a
private nature, they ought not to be brought to light,
unless the guilty person persist in them after private
admonition ; and to tell them in the first instance to
the church, is to create a scandal, under the pretext of
removing it.
Offences are to be treated differently, according to
tbe difference of their degrees. When they are of a
lighter kind, and discover rather inadvertence than bad
intention, a simple admonition will suffice : " Brethren,
if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye wbich are spiritual
restore such an one in the spirit of meekness ; con
sidering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. "|| A
greater degree of guilt will call for a more severe ex
pression of disapprobation, or a rebuke solemnly ad
ministered in the name of Jesus Christ, of which it is
the design to affect more deeply the conscience of the
offender, and to excite him to prayer for pardon and
sanctifying grace. -There are cases which require that
the church should^proceed still farther. Individuals
sometimes commit flagrant and aggravated sins, which,
although they do not necessarily infer the total want
of religious principle, bring the sincerity of their pro
fession into doubt. Such offenders are suspended from
sealing ordinances, as they are called, till they have
given evidence of repentance, and then they are re
stored to their privileges. This sentence is called the
lesser excommunication, and the removal of it is termed
absolution. They are not absolved from their sin, —
for it is the prerogative of God alone to forgive it, —
but from the sentence of excommunication. The
highest censure which the chnrch has power to inflict,
is called the greater excommunication, and consists in
expelling the person from the communion of the faith
ful. The grounds of it are contumacy or the obstinate
refusal to submit to admonition and rebuke, and perse
verance in sin in defiance of all endeavours to reclaim
him. We have an example in the case of the incestu
ous man, who was delivered " unto Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved
in the day of the Lord."§ Commentators generally
suppose that these words imply something miraculous,
and that the man was smitten with some bodily dis-
* 2 Thess. iii. 6. t Rev. ii. 14, 15. 20.
J 2 Tim. iv. 2. Tit. ii.15. j] Gal. vi- 1. $ fCor. v. 5,

ease, through the agency of Satan, in consequence ot
which his health and strength declined. His spirit
would be saved in the day of the Lord, if, through
the Divine blessing, his experience of the painful ef
fects of sin in this life, proved the means of leading
him to repentance. But even in the present times, this
highest censure may be still considered as the deliver-
ing of the excommunicated person to Satan. The
world is the kingdom of Satan, and the church is the
kingdom of Christ. Excommunication is the return
ing of a professed subject of Christ, who has proved
himself to be a traitor and a rebel, to the kingdom to
which he originally belonged. It declares that Christ
is not his Lord, for he has refused to obey him, and
that he is under the dominion of the prince of this
world. He is sent back to him as an alien, who has
no right to remain in the kingdom of Christ ; because
he has violated its laws, and is determined not to sub
mit to them. Hence it appears that this sentence is
very awful ; since, when pronounced upon just grounds,
it involves the eternal perdition of tbe person, if he
continue impenitent.
But the effects of the censures of the church extend
only to the soul. It is a gross perversion of their de
sign, to accompany them with civil pains, confiscation
of goods, imprisonment, exile, or death ; to deliver up
the excommunicated person to the secular arm, as the
Church of Rome does, with a hypocritical prayer that
he may be mercifully treated, while it is her secret
intention that he should expire at a stake. " The
weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual."
Power is given to the church, not for destruction, but
for edification ; and its object is the good even of those
who fall under the severest censures. Like him whom
she acknowledges as her Head, she has no pleasure in
the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked
should turn from their ways and live ; and her arms
are opened to receive the penitent, and to restore them
to a place among her children.

LECTURE CII.
ON THE LAW OF GOD.
Connexion of the Practical and Doctrinal Parts of Theology. —
The Moral Law.— Remarks on the Ground of Moral Obliga
tion; and the Source of Morality. — The Decalogue. — Rules
for Interpreting It.
The system of Theology consists of two parts, the
doctrinal and the practical. The former is the founda
tion of the latter. The natural order of things, there
fore, requires that we should first consider the doctrines
and then proceed to explain the duties which spring
out of them. It is because God is our Creator, that
he has a right to give law to us ; and the relation in
which he stands to us as creatures and as sinners, the
dispensations of which we are the objects, and the pri
vileges and blessings which he has bestowed upon us,
supply the motives by which we should be excited to
obey. In a course of ministerial instructions, these
two parts are usually blended together. It may, some
times, indeed, be deemed expedient to go over the sys
tem in regular order, and, in this case, a separate illus
tration will be given of doctrines and precepts; but
even then they ought not to be kept entirely distinct.
No doctrine of religion should be expounded, without
some statement of tbe duties to which it leads, and the
motives which it furnishes; for all our discourses
should be of a practical tendency. On the other hand,
no duty should be inculcated, without a reference more
or less explicit, to the doctrine or doctrines with which
it is connected, and by the belief of which the heart is
purified, and its powers are engaged in the service of
God. The gospel is represented to be the doctrine

THE LAW OF GOD.

543

according to godliness, or, the doctrine which inspires
piety towards God, and respect for his authority.
In the Scriptures, doctrines and precepts are often
mixed ; but sometimes they are exhibited separately.
In the Old Testament, besides the precepts of the law
of Moses which are delivered at great length in the
Pentateuch, we have the Book of Proverbs, which is
almost wholly composed of moral maxims and rules of
life. In the New Testament, we have our Saviour's
Sermon on the Mount, besides parables and discourses
of the same nature in the Gospels ; and of the Epistles,
those of which the first part is devoted to doctrinal dis
cussions, commonly conclude with a detail of duties
which believers are bound to maintain. Some of the
Epistles are the models upon which our systems are
formed ; and the similarity of arrangement is particu
larly observable in the Epistle to the Romans.
The law of God, which is binding upon Christians,
is contained in the Decalogue, or the Ten Words, as
the Jews call it, because it consists of ten precepts,
which were originally written on two tables of stone ;
the first, comprehending the four precepts which enjoin
our duty to God ; and the second, the six which pre
scribe our duty to men. It is called the Moral Law,
because the subject of its injunctions is not ceremonial
observances, but moral actions ; and to distinguish it
from the positive laws, which were only of temporary
obligation. Of this description was the ceremonial
law, which prescribed the ritual of worship under the
former economy, and the judicial law, which regulated
the civil and political affairs of the Jews. The cere
monial law was abrogated when its typical institutions
were fulfilled in Jesus Christ ; and the judicial law
was repealed when the Jews ceased to exist in a na
tional capacity. The moral law, however, has no rela
tion to times and places, or to one nation more than
another ; but being founded in the relations of men to
their Creator, and to one another, it retains its authority
under all dispensations.
It is commonly said that this law was originally
written upon the heart of man ; but the language is
figurative, and, unless it be explained, conveys no idea
to the mind. We understand by it, then, not only that
man was endowed with intellectual and moral powers,
or was created with a capacity to perceive his duty and
feel its obligation, but that the knowledge of it was
immediately communicated to him by his Maker. He
was not left to find it out by reflection and reasoning,
but was at once made acquainted with his relations,
and the moral obligations resulting from them. In
consequence of sin, this light became dim, so that the
full extent of the region which it once illuminated was
no longer perceived, and the objects which still fell
within the sphere of vision, were not seen in their
exact shape and dimensions. Accordingly, the moral
code of heathen nations is imperfect, leaving out some
duties, and exhibiting others in a mutilated form ; but
the notion of a moral law has been widely diffused,
and some traces of it may be discovered among all
nations. The Gentiles who have not the written law,
do by nature the things enjoined by it, and show thai
the work of the law is written upon their hearts, by
the operations of conscience, which sometimes accuses,
and at other times excuses them.* The morality of
heathens may be accounted for in two ways. It may
be conceived to have been handed down to them by
tradition, to be the voice of the law, which was given
to our first parents, and revived by subsequent revela
tions, still speaking to men by the lips_of their progen
itors and teachers, who have inculcated from age to
age the precepts which had been delivered to them
selves by a preceding race. It may be supposed,
again, to be the result of reasoning; a discovery made
by the mental faculties employed in contemplating the

* Rom. ii. 14.

principles, feelings, and instincts of human nature, and
the circumstances in which it is placed, and in deduc
ing inferences from them. This, however, is the work
only of a few superior minds, and will not account for
the existence of moral sentiments among all classes
of men. I am disposed to think that heathen nations
are chiefly indebted for their knowledge to tradition,
although it cannot be questioned that the human mind
is so constituted as to perceive the propriety or impro
priety of certain actions, and to make them the objects
of approbation or disapprobation.
How insufficient reason is to discover a system of
morality, we could not determine with precision, un
less we had an opportunity to observe its success in a
nation which was left solely to the light of nature.
But where shall we meet with such a nation, since all
mankind are derived from the same stock, and the ori
ginal family was illuminated by revelation ? Few of
its rays may now shine in some regions of the earth;
but we are not certain that they are any-where com
pletely extinguished ; that is, we cannot ascertain that
any nation owes all its knowledge on this subject to
its own insulated discoveries. But the general insuffi
ciency of reason is evident, not only from' the errors
and defects in the codes of morality which have been
drawn up with the aid of tradition by the most learned
and civilized heathens, but from the difficulty which
professed Christians have experienced in settling the
foundation of their system, when they had resolved to
be guided in the inquiry by reason alone.
The first question which demands our attention, is
the ground of moral obligation ; and here we encounter
many different opinions. If I ask why I should pursue
one course of action rather than the opposite ; one says,
Because it is right; another, Because it is conformable
to reason and nature ; a third, Because it is conform
able to truth ; a fourth, Because it is agreeable to the
fitness of things : and a fifth, Because it contributes to
the general good. The fitness of things has been much
insisted upon by some metaphysical writers, as the
ground of moral obligation. "The necessary and
eternal different relations that different things bear to
one another, and the consequent fitness or unfitness of
the application of different things or different relations
to one another, ought constantly to determine the wills
of all rational beings, to govern all their actions by the
rules of justice, equity, goodness, and truth, for the
good of the public, in their respective stations ; that is,
these eternal and necessary differences of things make
it fit and reasonable so to act; they cause it to be their
duty, or lay an obligation upon them so to do, even
separate from the consideration of these rules being
the positive will or command of God." It is pretty
plain that this abstruse speculation, which some of you
may find it difficult to comprehend, could never be in
tended to be the ground of moral obligation to mankind
at large ; and that we must seek for it in something
more simple and level to their capacity. It is equally
evident, that it properly constitutes no moral obliga
tion at all. The fitness of things is said, indeed, to
oblige us independently of the will of God ; but how
can this be? Is there any obligation but from a law ;
and any law without the will of a superior? If a man
act contrary to the fitness of things, you may pro
nounce him to be unreasonable, but you canmt call
him criminal. He may subject himself to inconve
nience or suffering ; but he is only foolish. The truth
is, that the fitness of things as a rule of duty is a word
without meaning ; and is only used in an intelligible
sense, when it expresses the institution of things by
the will of the Creator, from which the duties ofhis
creatures naturallv flow. But when thus explained,
the fitness of things and the will of God signify the
same thing ; the fitness, the relation, or the order of
things, being the medium by which he has intimated
his will.— Another ground of obligation is utility, or

544

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the tendency of actions, to promote the general good.
"Actions are to be estimated," says Dr. Paley, "by
their tendency. Whatever is expedient is right. It is
the utility of any moral rule alone which constitutes
the obligation of it."* But hear Bishop Butler. "As
we are not competent judges what is upon the whole
for the good of the world, there may be other imme
diate ends appointed us to pursue, besides that one
of doing good or producing happiness. Though the
good of the creation be the only end of the Author of
it, yet he may have laid us under particular obligations,
which we may discern and feel ourselves under, quite
distinct from a perception, that the observance or vio
lation of them is for the happiness or misery of our
fellow-creatures. And this is in fact the case. For
there are certain dispositions of mind, and certain ac
tions, which are in themselves approved or disapproved
by mankind, abstracted from the consideration of their
tendency to the happiness or misery of the world; ap
proved or disapproved by reflection, by that principle
which is the guide of life, the judge of right and
wrong."-)- I may add, that to hold utility to be the
foundation of morals, is to ascribe to men more com
prehensive views than they actually possess ; and it is
well said in the above quotation, that we are not com
petent judges what is upon the whole for the good of
the world. It is a principle too unwieldy for our
grasp, and extremely apt to be abused by the substi
tution of particular for general good. Besides, all our
knowledge of what is good is derived from experience,
and is posterior to moral obligation, unless we suppose
that the laws founded upon it did not become binding,
till men had discovered them in the progress of time.
I apprehend that, in this theory, the effects of a law
are confounded with the reason of it; and this is an
error; for it by no means follows, because moral laws
are productive of happiness, that they had no other
cause, and were intended to accomplish no other de
sign. They may result from the nature of things, or
the relations which subsist in the universe; and the
good resulting from them, may not be their ultimate
end, but a consequence of the benevolence which gave
existence to the system of creation.
The details of morality will evidently be affected by
the principle which is assumed as its foundation, or by
the rule of action which is established. It is not cer
tain that the same conclusions would be drawn by
the person who founded it in the fitness of things, and
by him who founded it on utility. Hence we see the,
insufficiency of reason to be tbe guide of life, and
should be thankful that we enjoy a clearer and more
steady light.
A question has been agitated among Theologians
with respect to the rule of moral action, whether it
originated in the will of God, or is founded in the na
ture of things ; and this is in fact to inquire whether
morality is mutable or immutable. Some have main
tained that the whole moral law originated in the
will of God ; that the duties enjoined in it are right,
solely because he has commanded them ; and that, if
he had so pleased, our duty might have been made to
consist in actions different, or contrary. A similar
notion was entertained by some ancient philosophers,
who pronounced virtue and vice to be arbitrary dis
tinctions ; and is imputed by the Fathers to Simon
Magus, as one of the erroneous tenets which he incul
cated. It has been adopted by some Divines of the
Roman Church, with a design to uphold the dispens
ing power which they ascribe to the Pope. It would
be sufficient, I should think, to silence them, were we
simply to ask, whether God could have exempted us
from the duty of loving himself, or have made it our
duty to hate him ; and whether the same change might

* Moral Philosophy, book i. chap. 6.
f Sermon on the Love of our Neighbour— Note.

have taken place with respect to tbe love of oui
neighbour ? Others run into the opposite Extreme,
and affirm, that the whole moral law is founded in the
nature of things ; and consequently that no part of it
could be altered. It is exactly what it must always
be, while God and man continue the same. Some of
them, however, have found it necessary to qualify this
opinion, and have given such an explanation of it as
virtually amounts to the third opinion, which I am
going to state, and which holds an intermediate place
between the two former ; namely, that although the
moral law in general is founded on the nature of
things, or on the relations of man to his Maker and to
his fellow-creatures, yet some particulars are the sub
ject of positive institution. I refer, as an example, to
the fourth commandment, which is acknowledged to
be partly moral, and partly positive ; moral, as it
requires the consecration of a part of our time to the
immediate service of God ; positive, as it appropriates
a seventh part of it. God might have demanded a
greater or a less portion, a fifth, or a tenth ; or, instead
of setting apart a whole day, he might have been
satisfied with a part of each day. There was a
reason for the selection of the seventh rather than of
any other day, namely, because upon it God rested
from the work of creation ; but it has given place, as
we Christians believe, to a new and stronger reason,
and the Sabbath is changed from the seventh day to
the first. I refer, as another example, to the law
respecting marriage, by which the relation is forbid
den to persons standing in certain degrees of consan
guinity and affinity. According to the latitude in
which the precepts of the Decalogue are to be inter
preted, the prohibition is included in the seventh com
mandment. Whatever reason may be assigned for
the prohibition, we cannot consider it as of the same
immutable obligation with the precept, not to steal,
or not to lie. It may be dispensed with, not by human
authority, but by that of the Supreme Lawgiver ; and
accordingly, marriages within the forbidden degrees
have been contracted with his express approbation.
In the beginning of the world, the sons of Adam
married their sisters ; and, by the Mosaic law, if a
man died without issue, his brother was required to
marry his widow. Such marriages are now held to be
incestuous. We may therefore say, that there is a
mixture of moral and positive in the Decalogue ; and
there is truth in the old observation, that some things
are commanded because they are just, and some are
just because they are commanded. Those wbich are
just because they are commanded, may be altered by
the same will which enacted them ; but those which
are commanded because they are just, are of perpetual
obligation. We have no example of the suspension
or abrogation of a moral precept, unless we should
view, as an instance of suspension, the permission
to work on the Sabbath in cases of necessity and
mercy ; which, however, is not a deviation from the
original design of the Law, because the Sabbath was
made for man, that is, for his good, not man for the
Sabbath. But we cannot regard in this light, the
command to the Israelites to destroy the seven nations
of Canaan. Thjs was not a violation of the sixth
precept; which, indeed, forbids one man to imbrue
his hands in the blood of another, but reserves to God
the right to dispose of his creatures ; and in taking
away their life, he may employ some of themselves,
as the civil magistrate does not himself execute, the
law, but delegates another. Neither can we regard in
this light, the command to the Israelites to borrow
from the Egyptians. It seems to imply an authorized
breach of morality ; for borrowing involves a promise
to restore, which the Israelites had certainly no inten
tion to perform. But they received no such command.
Our translation is unhappy ; the original word signifies
simply to ask, God directed the Israelites to ask

THE LAW OF GOD.

545

jeweis of gold and silver, and at the same time he
disposed the Egyptians to grant their request. Thus
he spoiled the oppressors of his people, and recom
pensed the latter for the hard service which they had
bo long performed : " The Lord gave the people favour
in the sight of the Egyptians. Moreover, the man
Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the
sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of all
the people."*
On whatever ground the precepts of the moral law-
are supposed to rest, the reason that we are bound to
obey them is the will of God. This makes them law
to us, and not our perception of fitness or utility.
That only is a law which proceeds from the will of a
superior; obedience and authority are correlates, the
one supposes the other. To us who enjoy revelation,
questions concerning the abstract foundation of moral
ity are unnecessary ; and the best thing which can be
said of them is, that they are idle speculators, because
our morality will not constitute a part of religion,
unless it proceed from love to God, or, in other words,
from respect to his will. The man who belives that
his duty is enjoined by the authority of God, possess
es all the requisite knowledge for practical purposes,
and, I may add, the true knowledge of the subject ;
for when we attempt to derive our obligations from
any other source, we turn morality into a matter of
calculation. The question with us is, not what is
conformable to the nature of things, for in many cases
this is a point about which we are incompetent to
judge; or what is conducive to the general good, for
here our views are too limited to decide ; but what is
agreeable to the will of our Maker ; and this is easily
ascertained by referring to his own authoritative de
clarations. Thus the knowledge of morality is brought
within the reach of all who can read the word of God,
or hear it read ; and it is owing to this simple method
of teaching it, that the illiterate in Christian countries
have more comprehensive and accurate ideas than the
most enlightened moralists of the heathen world.
Our Lord delivered a summary of duty on the fol
lowing occasion, which is thus related by Matthew :
"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him
a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which
is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said
unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment. And the
second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the
law and the prophets."! Love to our Maker and to
our fellow-men is the principle of obedience. Our
various duties are merely the development of it. It is
the root, and they are the branches growing out of it,
or the fruit which it yields. " On these two com
mandments hang all the law and the prophets ;" that
is, the precepts delivered in the pentateuch, and in the
prophetical writings, are the different modes in which
love to God and to man is expressed, and they will
be obeyed by every man in whom this love exists.
" If there be any other commandment," says an Apos
tle, when speaking of the precepts of the second
table, "it is briefly comprehended in this saying,
namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour ; therefore love
is the fulfilling of the law."t
But love is only the principle of obedience, the
state of mind which leads to it ; the mode in which it
should be manifested, is the subject of positive pre
scription. The Decalogue is founded upon it, and
points out the various ways in which we should express
our love to God and to men ; it was written upon two
tables, the one containing the duties of which God is
the immediate object, and the other the duties which
* Exod. xi. 3. f Matth. xxii. 35—40. X R°m- *>». 9- 10-
3T 35

we owe to our fellow-men. Yet these tables must be
considered as exhibiting only a summary of duty.
They do not enter into detail, but are general heads,
from which particulars are to be deduced by ourselves,
or are to be collected from the commentaries upon*
them, which are scattered up and down in the Scrip
tures. Certain rules have been laid down for the right
interpretation of the law.
First, It should always be remembered that "the
law is spiritual," as it is called by an Apostle ;* and,
consequently, that it requires something more than
external conformity to its precepts. Most of the pre
cepts, when literally understood, relate only to the
outward conduct; as, "Thou shalt not kill ;" " Thou
shalt not steal," &c. ; but the last, which says, " Thou
shalt not covet," regulates the movements of the heart ;
and this instance clearly shows the spirit which per
vades all the other precepts. It is an admonition in
the close by the Lawgiver, that he ultimately regards
the state of the mind. A human legislator aims at
nothing more than the compliance of his subjects with
the letter of the law. If they abstain from murder,
theft, perjury, and other crimes, he does not concern
himself with the motives ; and, in fact, the heart lies
beyond his jurisdiction. He cannot know the thoughts
of other men, and observe what is passingrin the inte
rior of their souls. It is the same thing to him wheth
er the laws are obeyed from conscience, from fear, or
from a regard to self-interest; he has gained his end,
when the peace of society is maintained. But the
moral law has emanated from Him who is the Former
of our spirits as well as of our bodies, has a right to
the homage of both, and pays no regard to an action or a
course of actions, unless the disposition from which
it proceeds be such as he can approve. If a human
governor could discover that the man who bows to
him despises him in his heart, and that, amidst the
most imposing appearances of respect, he harbours
the feelings and the purpose of a traitor, he would set
no value upon his hollow professions. The moral
Governor of the universe sees the secret operations of
the mind, and demands that we should serve him
with our spirits as well as with our bodies. His law
must therefore be-understood to regulate tbe internal
sentiments and desires, as well as the actions to which
they give rise, and to extend its authority in the first
place to the former, as constituting what is most
valuable in obedience. When it enjoins any duty, it
enjoins the corresponding state of mind ; when it
forbids any sin, it forbids the appetite, or propensity
which leads to it. In the Scriptures men are exhorted
to " keep their hearts with all diligence, because out
of them are the issues of life;"]- that is, from them
their actions receive their moral character or. denomin
ation. The spirituality of the law is implied in the
principle upon which it is founded. It is the affection
of love which is the source of all acceptable obedience.
Secondly, One species is used to denote all the dif
ferent species of the same sin or duty ; that is, when
one form of a particular sin is forbidden, all the forms
of that sin are forbidden ; and when one form of a par
ticular duty is enjoined, all the forms of that duty are
also enjoined. The law says, "Thou shalt not kill ;"
but we must not limit this precept to the prohibition of
actual murder alone. It forbids, at the same time, all
injuries offered to the person of another, all malice and
revenge, and all the expressions of malignant feeling.
Our Saviour has authorized this explanation : " Ye
have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou
shalt not kill; and, whosoever shall kill shall be in
danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That
whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause
shall be in danger of the judgment ; and whosoever
shall say unto his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of

* Rom. vii. 14.

f Prov. v. 23.

546

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the council ; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall
be in danger of hell-fire."* The law says, " Thou
shalt not commit adultery ;" but besides the sin speci
fied, it forbids incest, fornication, unnatural lusts, and
not these alone, but all sensual desires. " Ye have
heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt
not commit adultery : But I say unto you, That who
soever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath com
mitted adultery with her already in his hear.t."f On
the other hand, when we are commanded to have no
other gods before God, we are commanded not only to
acknowledge that he alone is the living and true God,
but to make him the object of all the love, and reverence,
and confidence, to which his infinite excellencies give
him an unquestionable title. When he commands us
to love our neighbour as ourselves, he commands us to
esteem him for his virtues, to be grateful to him for
his kindness, to sympathize with him in his infirmities,
to comfort him in his sorrows, to assist him in difficul
ties ; in a word, to perform all the good offices which
love naturally suggests, and by which its sincerity is
expressed. In the third place, Negative precepts are contained
in affirmative, and affirmative precepts in negative.
When any duty is enjoined, the contrary sin is forbid
den ; and when any sin is forbidden, the contrary duty
is enjoined. It has been said, that as in the Scriptures
there are more things than words, so in the precepts
and prohibitions there is more than the words express.
The law is not to be subjected to that kind of inter
pretation which brings any thing out of any thing ;
but its sense is to be diligently explored. As the good
prescribed by the law cannot be performed unless the
opposite evil be guarded against, nor the evil prohibit
ed be avoided unless the opposite good be performed,
it follows, thai negative precepts include tbe affirmative,
and affirmative precepts the negative. When the law
forbids us to steal, or to take away unjustly the property
of our neighbour, it requires us to promote his temporal
interests, as far as we have ability and opportunity.
When it forbids us to kill, or unjustly to deprive him
of life, it commands us to use the means of preserving
his life, to give him the counsel, the warnings, and the
assistance which are necessary for his safety. In these
cases, affirmative precepts are included in the negative.
When the law commands us to honour our parents, it
forbids neglect of them, contempt for them, or the
doing of any thing which may be injurious or offensive
to them. When it commands us to sanctify the Sab
bath, it forbids all worldly employments and recrea
tions, and every thing, in a word, which is inconsistent
with the sacred rest and holiness of the day. In these
instances, the negative precepts are included in the
affirmative. It appears from the precepts of both
kinds, that the duty of men consists not simply in
abstinence from evil, but also in the practice of good ;
and we may farther infer, that the law of God is ex
ceedingly broad, extending its authority in every di
rection, and subjecting the whole of human life to its
control. In the fourth place, When the law forbids a sin, it
forbids all the causes of it ; and when it enjoins a
duty, it enjoins also the means by which we shall be
enabled to perform it. Thus, when it prohibits un-
cleanness, it prohibits drunkenness and gluttony, and
all the provocatives of the sensual appetites ; when it
prohibits theft, it prohibits covetous desires and idle
ness, which may prompt us to steal, by reducing us to
want; when it enjoins justice, it enjoins diligence in
business, prudence in conducting our affairs, and
economy, that we may be able to satisfy every lawful
demand upon us. And hence it follows, that if a man
has brought himself by indolence, folly, and extrava
gance, into such a situation that he cannot pay his

Matth. v. 21, 22.

f lb. 27, 28.

debts, he is not so much to be pitied as condemned,
and instead of calling him unfortunate, we should say
that he is criminal.
In the fifth place, Negative precepts are always
binding, but positive precepts oblige only in certain
circumstances. It is never lawful to murder, to steal,
to commit adultery, to bear false witness against our
neighbour. No situation can occur in which a man
shall be permitted to do any of these things. The
strongest temptations will not exculpate him. These
precepts never bend to circumstances ; a man is bound
to refrain, although he should expose himself to the
loss of his life. Positive precepts bind us always
when the duties which they enjoin may be performed ;
but certain -conditions are supposed, which may be
wanting, and there are fit seasons, which do not al
ways occur. We are required to honour our parents ;
but as the obligation ceases when they die, so, during
their life, we cannot give them the usual tokens of
honour, when we are removed to a distance from them.
We ought to minister to the wants of the indigent ;
but to do so is not our duty, if we are ourselves so
poor that we have nothing to spare. We ought to
worship God, but we cannot be constantly engaged in
acts of devotion. We must spend much of our time
in prosecuting our business, and in conversing with
our fellow-men about necessary affairs. The command
requires us to worship him only at the stated times,
and on such other occasions as are suggested by the
state of our own minds, and the circumstances in
which we are placed. It has been justly remarked,
that the positive precept concerning love to God must
be excepted, which is obligatory at all times; there
being no season, place, or state, in which it is not our
duty to love him with all our heart. We may make
the same remark concerning love to our neighbour,
which is also binding at all times ; and the observa
tion which has been made respecting positive precepts,
relates only to the particular modes of expressing our
love to both.
In the sixth place, There is another rule mentioned
by Divines, which, however, is not directly to the pur
pose, as it does not help to interpret the law, but is in
tended to point out the relative importance of its duties.
The rule is, that the precepts of the second table of the
law must give place to those of the first, when both
cannot be obeyed. The following instances have been
given to illustrate the rule. The love of our relations
must be subordinate to the love of God ; and our Lord
has said that we must hate father and mother, when
fidelity to him requires us to do so.* Again, when the
commands of our earthly superiors interfere with the
commands of God, we must prefer the latter to the
former. But these are rather apparent than real illus
trations, because it will appear, on reflection, that in
such cases there is no interference of duties. The
authority of men over others is limited, and ceases the
moment that it is exercised in requiring any thing un
lawful. When the commands of parents and magis
trates are opposed to the commands of God, there is no
choice of duties ; the will of God is the sole obliga
tion which an enlightened conscience will acknow
ledge. Our duty to God and our duty to man must
always be consistent, because the one is the measure
of the other ; and instead of talking loosely of a pos
sible opposition between them, it is more accurate to
say that, whatever human laws and customs may re
quire from us, whatever natural affection or self-interest
may prompt us to do, whatever our superiors may ex
pect from us, their claims are unjust, and ought to be
disregarded, when offence would be given to God by
our compliance. As he is the First and the Last, so
great that all other beings are as nothing when com
pared with him, we are always bound to sacrifice for
* Luke xiv. 26.

THE LAW OF GOD: THE DECALOGUE,

547

his glory, all that is most tender and valuable in our
connexion with our fellow-creatures. There can be
no jarring moral obligations ; and it is ignorance or in
attention which makes them appear incompatible.
We can never owe that to man which God claims for
himself. Love to God is the first and great command
ment; and the second, or love to our neighbour, is
subordinate, but not contrary to it. It is remarkable
that a case mentioned in Scripture, in which one duty
is made to yield to another, relates to the first table.
What is positive in it, gives place to what is moral in
the second, according to these words, "I will have
mercy, and not sacrifice," or, "rather than sacrifice."*
We are permitted to violate tbe rest of the Sabbath
by works of mercy, for the relief and preservation of
men and animals, and by works of necessity, as the
preparation of our food, the extinguishing of fire, the
carrying away of property exposed to an inundation,
&c. Let it be observed, that the law of the Sabbath
is not repealed in such cases, but admits these excep
tions, that other duties which cannot be deferred may
be performed. The exceptions, if I may speak so,
are a part of the law.
Lastly, I shall briefly mention one other rule, — that
whatever the law requires us to do, we are bound to
endeavour, in our several stations, to make others do.
It is their duty to glorify God as well as ours ; and
zeal for his glory will excite us to use all lawful
means that it may be promoted by them. This end is
to be gained not only by our example, but by our in
structions, and counsels, and entreaties, and reproofs,
and by the proper exercise of our authority over those
whom Providence has placed in subjection to us. Every
man, for example, is bound to see the Sabbath sanc
tified by all under his roof; for thus says the law,
" The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy
God ; in it thou shalt , not do any work, thou, nor thy
son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid
servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within
thy gates."
These rules have been laid down for the interpreta
tion of the law ; and by the judicious application of
them, with the assistance afforded by other passages
of Scripture, we may deduce from the ten precepts of
the decalogue all the duties which we owe to God
and to man. It is a complete code of morality. As
no man can attempt without impiety to take any thing
from it, so there is no need that any thing should be
added to it. When Socinians affirm that Christ has
corrected and enlarged the law, they unjustly accuse
it of imperfection in its original form ; and they to
tally misapprehend the design of his commentaries
upon it in the Gospels, which was not to new-model
the law, but to free it from the corrupt interpretations
which the Scribes had given of it, on the authority of
tradition. He evidently recognized its perfection in
his answer, formerly quoted, to the question, " Which
is the first and great commandment?" and the Apostle
Paul, who was enlightened by his Spirit, pronounced
it to be " holy, just, and good."f
The obligation of the moral law is universal. All
men, in every region of the earth, are subject to its
authority. It was the law given to man at his crea
tion, from which his subsequent apostasy could not
release him ; it is founded in relations which subsist
wherever there are human beings endowed with reason
and volition. The other laws given to the Jews were
national and local. The ceremonial law could not be
practised in all its parts but within narrow limits. The
temple could not be resorted to on all necessary oc
casions, nor the three annual festivals be observed in
Jerusalem by persons whose usual residence was in
the remote countries of Asia, Africa, and Europe. It
does not appear that circumcision was incumbent upon

* Matth. ix. 13.

t lb. xxii. 57. Rom. vii. 12.

any but tbe descendants of the twelve patriarchs, with
whose father, Abraham, the covenant was made ; nor
is it to be supposed that if a heathen, at a great dis
tance from Jerusalem, had attained to the knowledge of
the true God, and became a devout worshipper of him,
he was bound to conform to the Mosaic ritual, and
that his sacrifices would not have been accepted it
they were offered upon any other altar than that of
Jerusalem. There, is no doubt that then, as well as
now, in every nation, he who feared God and wrought
righteousness was accepted of him.* The peculiarity
of the judicial law is still more unquestionable. It
was the civil law of the Jews, intended solely for the
government of their nation ; to which, therefore, other
nations were not more subject than men living in one
country are at present subject to the laws of another.
Nay, some things are enjoined upon the Jews, which
by other nations are considered as unlawful ; for ex
ample, the marriage of a widow to the brother of ner
deceased husband who had died without children.
The ceremonial law is therefore abolished, as is also
the judicial law, so far as it did not embody the moral
precepts, which are of perpetual obligation. But
while the authority of certain ordinances, religious
and civil, extended only to the Jews, the decalogue is
ihe law of all nations. Morality is not the subject of
positive institution, and of human regulation. It is
not determined by geographical boundaries, so that
what is right on one side of a river or mountain is
wrong on the other, and virtue and vice exchange
characters according to changes of climate. Piety
towards God, truth, justice, and charity towards men,
and the exercise of temperance, or self-government,
are duties in every country under heaven. The moral
law is the rule of our present conduct, and will be the
rule of our future judgment.
From what has been said, it is evident that the obli
gation of this law is perpetual. As it binds all men
who at present exist, it will for the same reason bind
all succeeding generations. It has constituted an essen
tial part of all the divine dispensations. It was the rule
of duty to man in his primeval state, and obedience to
it was the condition of the covenant into which his
Maker entered with him in the name of his posterity.
It was solemnly promulgated to the Israelites from
Sinai, and a curse was denounced upon every man who
should not continue in all the things which were writ
ten in it to do them. Jesus Christ has adopted it into
his religion, re-enacted it, if I may speak so, by his
authority, and commanded all his disciples to conform
to it. He came not to destroy, but to fulfil it ; and as
he himself obeyed its precepts, and submitted to its
sanction, by dying in the room of his people, so he
declared it to be his own law, and admonishes us that
he will disown every man who neglects or violates its
precepts, whatever respect he may profess for him.
" Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things
which 1 say 1"] There cannot be a more erroneous
view of his religion than to suppose, that it sets men
free from the obligations of morality. The error first
made its appearance in the apostolic age, as we learn
from the epistle of James, which was written to refute
those who expected to he saved by a faith not accom
panied with works ; and it has been adopted in suc
ceeding ages, because it accords so well with the
natural wish to enjoy impunity in sin. We pronounce
the man to be a heretic who denies the Trinity, or the
atonement, or original sin, or justification by faith, or
the necessity of the influences of the Spirit; but be
assured that there is not a greater heresy than to teach
that by the gospel we are exempted from the authority
of the law. It transforms the holy religion of Christ
into a system of impurity ; it turns the grace of God
into licentiousness.

* Ac is x. 35.

t Luke vi. 46.

548

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

The moral law is an emanation from the holiness of
God ; and when it is imprinted upon our hearts by the
Spirit, we are changed into the image of God. To
produce this effect is the design of the death of Christ,
of his ministrations in heaven, of the operations of
grace, the institutions of the Gospel, and the dispensa
tions of Providence. Only the half of the work of
redemption is performed, when men are delivered
from the punishment of sin : to emancipate them from
its dominion, to eradicate the love of it, to render them
obedient to God, to inspire them with a ? icred respect
to his will, this is the other half, and is surely of equal
importance. And the whole design will be accom
plished when grace shall triumph in the pardon of
their sins, and the complete sanctification of their
souls ; and the love which the law requires shall reign
without a rival in every heart, and shine in every
action.

LECTURE CIII.
ON THE LAW OF GOD.
Division of the Decalogue into two Tables. — Statement of tbe
Sins Forbidden and Duties Enjoined in the First, the Second,
and the Third Commandments.
Having made some general observations upon the law,
and laid down general rules to be observed in explaining
it, I proceed to consider its precepts in their order.
It was originally written upon two tables, in order,
it should seem, to distinguish the two classes of pre
cepts which the decalogue contains. This is the only
reason which we can conceive why it was engraven
upon two tables rather than upon one. There have
been different opinions, however, respecting the divis
ion of the precepts. Josephus assigns five to each
table, and has been followed in this arrangement by
one or two authors ; but their mistake is evident.
The precepts naturally fall under the two general
heads of love to God and love to man ; and to ihe first
none properly belong but four, which immediately
respect our Maker ; the other six being tbe modes in
which our love to man should be expressed. Besides,
when the Apostle calls the fifth precept, " the first
commandment with promise,"* we are sure that he
does not mean that it is the first in the decalogue ; and
we must understand his words to import, that it held
the first place in the second table delivered to Moses.
Some assign to the first only three precepts, not by
transferring the fourth to the second table, but by
joining together the first and the second, because they
consider the latter as a continuation of the former.
This was the idea of some of the FatheTs, and it has
been adopted by the Church of Rome, for an obvious
reason. Standing separately, it forbids the use of
images in the worship of God, and plainly condemns
the practice of that church ; but viewed as an appen
dix to the first precept, it only forbids, as they pre
tend, the worship of the images of false gods ; and,
consequently, leaves them at liberty to worship the
images which they have consecrated to the honour of
the true God and his saints. They seem, however, to
be sensible of the weakness of this argument, and for
this reason have been accustomed to leave it out of
their books which were intended for the inspection of
the people, lest, being incapable of entering into their
subtile distinctions, and interpreting the law according
to its obvious sense, they should begin to suspect that
the service in which they are daily engaged is idola
try. The surest way to prevent a discovery is to
dismiss the witness, without allowing him to speak.
Two precepts being turned into one, there remain only

Eph. vi. ii.

nine ; and the question therefore occurs, Where are
the ten ? To solve this difficulty, Papists split the
tenth precept into two, making " Thou shalt not covet
thy neighbour's house," one; and the words which
follow, another. We cannot give this division the
praise of ingenuity ; we must call it barefaced impu
dence. There never was a precept delivered by any
lawgiver, which was more clearly one and indivisible.
The whole of it relates to one subject, covetousness,
or unlawful desire ; and the words, " Thou shalt not
covet," are repeated merely to enforce the prohibition,
by prefixing it to the different classes of objects which
ought not to excite our cupidity. The Apostle Paul
speaks plainly of it as one precept, when he says,
" I had not known lust, except the law had said,
Thou shalt not covet."*
The four precepts of the first table of the law relate
immediately to God. The first points out the object
of worship ; while it forbids us to have any other
God before him, it calls upon us to acknowledge
and worship him alone. The second prescribes the
means of worship, not by images or any other plan of
human invention, but by the rites and ordinances
which are divinely appointed. The third declares the
manner in which the service of God should be per
formed, namely, with reverence, as opposed to pro-
faneness and every abuse of religious institutions.
The fourth specifies the time of worship, to-w-it, one
day in seven, which is to be wholly devoted to God ;
not however to th» exclusion of other seasons which
the events of providence may point out, and the regu
lar devotional exercises of every day.
We shall begin with the first commandment. " Thou
shalt have no other gods before me." In explaining
the precepts, whether negative or positive, our church-
catechism lays down first what is required, and. second
ly, what is forbidden. It is not material what order
is observed, provided that the import of the precepts
is unfolded ; but the most natural mode, I apprehend,
of expounding a negative precept, is first, to show
what it forbids, and then, according to the rule for
merly mentioned, to give an account of the opposite
duties which it enjoins.
This precept forbids, in the first place, atheism,
which may be divided into explicit and constructive.
Explicit atheism consists in the formal denial of the
existence of God. He is an atheist who excludes
from the universe any other intelligence than that of
the human mind ; says that it is eternal ; that there is
nothing in it but matter and motion, and talks of na
ture, and chance, and fate, — words which have no
meaning, but serve as a substitute in discourse for the
name of * living, designing Agent, by whom all
things were created and are governed. Atheism is so
contrary, not only to the general sentiments of man
kind, but to the clearest deductions of reason, that
some have supposed it to be impossible that any man
could be an atheist, and have thought that those who
were reputed atheists in ancient times were falsely
charged with this crime, because they treated the
gods, who were commonly worshipped, with contempt.
It is not necessary to examine whether this opinion is
true or false, because, whatever judgment may be
pronounced upon certain old philosophers, some of the
moderns have put the matter out of doubt by an un
disguised avowal of their unbelief. Atheists have
appeared in our own age, and in our own country. —
By constructive atheism, I mean sentiments which
amount to the denial of God, or lead to this conclu
sion, although they do not formally express it. Such
atheism was charged upon Epicurus and his follow
ers, who, as Cicero says, granted in words that there
were gods, but in reality took them away, because
they represented them as removed to a distance from
* Rom. vii. 7.

THE LAW OF GOD : THE FIRST COMMANDMENT.

mortals, and taking no interest in their affairs. The
charge may be brought, with equal justice, against
those who deny the providence of God ; who consider
him as limited in essence and knowledge, as did the
elder Socinians ; or divest him of any of his attri
butes, and substitute in the room of the transcendently
just and all-perfect Being of the Scriptures, a God
fashioned according to their own likeness, an idol of
their own brain. Under this head, we may include
what is called practical atheism, by which is meant
such conduct as virtually contradicts the profession of
the lips ; and accordingly, an Apostle speaks of some,
" who profess to know God, but in works deny him,
being abominable and disobedient, and to every good
work reprobate."* And certainly the man, whose
profane and lawless conduct indicates that he has
renounced the authority of God, or calls in question
his omnipotence and his justice, is guilty of viola
ting the precept, — which requires a practical, and not
merely a verbal, acknowledgment of him, — as well
as the man who ventures to impugn his existence.
In the second place, this precept forbids polytheism.
Idolatry was introduced long before the time when the
law was published from Sinai. It existed in Chaldea
while Abraham sojourned there ; and it seems that this
patriarch was a worshipper of false gods before he was
called lo leave his country and his kindred. By the
time of the Exodus, the evil had spread far and wide;
and we have reason to believe that polytheism prevail
ed among all nations, although there might still be
some individuals who continued exclusively to adore
the Creator of heaven and earth. The design of the
call of Abraham was to separate his descendants from
the apostate race, and to constitute them a peculiar
people, among whom the knowledge and worship of
Jehovah should be preserved till the fulness of time,
when he would again reveal himself to the nations of
the world, and destroy the gods of the Gentiles. We
see, therefore, a peculiar reason for this command, and
for the solemn words with which it is introduced : " I
am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of
the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou
shalt have no other gods before me." He had mani
fested himself as the God of the Israelites by their re
cent redemption, in accomplishing which he had shown
himself to be greater than the deities of their oppres
sors, according to bis words to Moses, "Against all
the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment;" and they
who had witnessed the displays ofhis power were bound
to worship him alone. By this precept, the religions
of all heathen nations are condemned. They are di
rectly opposed to the fundamental doctrine of the unity
of the Divine essence; and they either exclude the true
God, or they associate others with him as sharers in
the honours to which he alone is entitled.
If the polytheism of the Gentiles is condemned by
this precept, there can be no doubt that the worship
given to saints and angels in the Church of Rome is
equally forbidden. Churches are dedicated to them as
well as to God; the most solemn services of religion
are performed in honour of them ; pilgrimages are
undertaken to the places which they are understood to
favour, and in wbich their pretended relics are deposit
ed ;,they are invoked' in the most humble postures, and
in the usual forms of supplication ; their assistance is
implored, and thanks are returned to them for benefits
which they are supposed to have conferred; and, in
short, they receive all the honours which the heathens
pay to their male and female deities, and all the honours
which are paid to God himself. Papists pretend that
they make a distinction in the kind or degree of wor
ship, and call that which is given to God latria, and
that which is given to the saints dulia.* This is an
* Tit. i. 16.
+ According to classical usage, latreia is the service of a
hireling; loutreia, that of a slave. In the N. T. the former

549
arbitrary use of the terms, which, in the Greek lan
guage, are promiscuously employed to express services
performed to God, or to men. When they tell us,
therefore, that they worship God with latria, and the
saints with dulia, they tell us nothing but what any
other two words in the Greek language would have
expressed equally well, namely, that they do not give
precisely the same" kind of worship to both. But
however much they may distinguish in theory, the
greater part make no distinction in practice. The
saints are honoured as highly as God, and in some
cases more. Their churches are more frequented ;
more vows and offerings are made to them ; and when
it is supposed that, for the sake of the respect which
has been punctually shown to them, a whole life of sin
will be forgiven, is not the creature exalted above the
Creator ?
It is quite unnecessary to enter into the controversy
on this subject between Protestants and Papists, and
to examine the distinctions by which the latter endea
vour to evade the charge of idolatry. If the Gentiles
were condemned by an Apostle because they did ser
vice to them who by nature were not Gods, we cannot
see how pretended Christians should be excused who
address their worship to similar objects. It will not
be denied that the latter are not Gods by nature ; and
if there was a reason why the heathen deities should
not be worshipped, it holds equally good with respect
to angels and saints, who are as really creatures as
those who adore them. Their physical and moral
qualities, the rank to which they are elevated, and the
happiness which they enjoy, make no difference; still
they want what is tho sole foundation of religious
homage, a divine nature and divine perfections, infinite
knowledge, almighty power, and inexhaustible good
ness. It would make no difference, although, as Pa
pists suppose, they were invested with authority over
men ; because it would be infinitely inferior to that of
the Supreme Lord, and could entitle them to nothing
more than a degree, proportioned to their dignity, of the
respect which we owe to our earthly superiors. But
their authority is taken for granted, and cannot be
proved from Scripture. With regard to any intercourse
between the glorified saints and men in the present
state, it maintains profound silence ; and the angels it
represents, not as rulers, but as servants : " Are they
not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for
them who shall be the heirs of salvation ?"*
The practice of the Church of Rome is directly in
the face of the first commandment : " Thou shalt have
no other gods before me." They do not expressly
call the saints gods, although they distinguish them
by the title of divi, which the heathens gave to their
deified heroes and princes ; but he is acknowledged as
a God, to whom we pray, and on whom we depend for
temporal and spiritual blessings, whatever name we
appropriate to him. Their practice is contrary to the
words of the law quoted by our Saviour, " Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
serve."f It is vain to pretend that this command is
obeyed by giving supreme worship to him, and sub
ordinate to others ; for the manifest design of it is to
appropriate all religious worship to him ; and besides,
two kinds of worship are a mere human figment, of
which not a trace is found in the Scriptures. There is
not a precept for the worship or religious invocation
of creatures; nor an example, except among the hea
thens, and some obscure heretics in the apostolic age,
who first introduced the idolatry which the Church of
Rome has since patronized, and who were condemned
for worshipping angels by Paul in the Epistle to the
Colossians. In a word, it is certain that the mvoca-

expresses service of any kind, more especially religious ser
vice, or worship; the latter is used only with reference to the
servile condition, or relation of slaves. .,,.,,- ,„'
* Heb. i. 14. t Matth. iv. 10.

550

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

tion of the saints was unknown in the primitive church,
as some popish writers of great eminence have acknow
ledged. It rests solely upon the authority of the church,
which, in matters of religion, is not worth a rush.
Negative precepts virtually enjoin the duties opposed
to the sins which they forbid. The first command
ment requires us to have our mind fully established in
the doctrine of the existence of Go'd ; and to acknow
ledge him only, to the exclusion of every rival, whe
ther set up by Heathens or by idolatrous Christians.
It requires us to entertain worthy sentiments of his
character and perfections; and with this view to attend
to the discoveries which he has made of himself in his
works, and particularly in his word. It requires us to
be duly affected by those discoveries, to cherish and
exercise the affections of which he is the proper object,
as reverence for his majesty, profound humility, trust
in his promises, desires for his favour, dependence
upon his care, and submission to his will ; and in a
word, to love him with all our strength, preferring him
to all creatures in heaven and on earth, cultivating
communion with him, and deriving our satisfaction
from the uncreated source of felicity. It requires us
to render to him the honour to which he is entitled, not
only by those affections of our hearts, but by such
outward expressions of homage as he himself has pre
scribed, — to pray to him, to praise him, and devoutly
to observe all his institutions. It requires us to make
him our last end ; and as he has created all things for
his glory, to have this as our predominant wish and
constant aim, that we may glorify him with our bodies
and our spirits, which are his.
This is a summary of the duties enjoined by the
first precept, upon which it would be easy to enlarge ;
but an enumeration and illustration of them will be
found in any exposition of the Decalogue. It is evi
dent that an acknowledgment of God, does not com
plete the design of the precept, unless it be accom
panied with those feelings and actions which are in
cluded in the idea of piety. A man may be a Theist,
and yet a transgressor of this law, because he does
not fear, and love, and serve, that great and glorious
Being in whose existence he professes to believe.
Let us proceed to the second precept, " Thou shalt
not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness
of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is on
the earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the
earth ; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them,
nor serve them." I have already hinted what is the
difference between this and the first commandment.
The first declares the object of worship, and the
second prescribes the means, forbidding the use of
images, and consequently of every other form which
has not been appointed by himself. It is unnecessary
to enter into a critical examination of the words trans
lated " graven image," and "likeness ;" because it is
plain to every person who is willing to understand,
that they signify every external representation of visible
or invisible objects employed for religious purposes.
It is obvious that the making of images is not
absolutely forbidden, as some persons have supposed.
It is no transgression of this precept to form represen
tations of terrestrial or celestial objects for amusement
and ornament, or to recall the memory of the dead,
and to do honour to those who have deserved well of
their country, or of mankind. It is an over-straining
of the law to expound it as being hostile to the fine
arts of statuary and painting. If the design of the
precept be considered, which is manifest from its con
nexion", it will be found to relate solely to religion, and
lo condemn images and likenesses, whether engraven
or drawn with the pencil, only when they are made
the objects or the means of worship. The admission
of images of the saints into churches, where the adora
tion of them is not permitted, cannot be justly consid
ered as a violation of this precept ; for you may make a

statue or a picture of a saint as well as of any other
man, and may place it in a church as well as in a
palace, provided that no abuse is likely to ensue ; and
the practice is chiefly condemnable, because it seems to
symbolize with idolatry, and because it may tend to it
by an undue impression upon the imaginations and
feelings of the ignorant.
This precept absolutely condemns all representa
tions of God, which it is astonishing that any person
should have attempted, who believed that his essence
is spiritual and immense : " The Lord spake unto you
out of the midst of the fire : ye heard the voice of the
words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice."*
What madness is it to imagine that any configuration
of matter bears a resemblance to a Being who has no
bodily parts ! or, that a puny statue can convey an
idea of him whom the heaven and the earth cannot
contain ! " To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be
equal ? saith the Holy One." It is true that the Al
mighty is described as the " Ancient of days, whose
garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head
like the pure wool ;"] but does it follow that Papists
may exhibit him in the form of an old man? Do
they not know that this was an emblematic vision ;
and that, in whatever manner God might reveal him
self to the eyes or to the imagination of a prophet, we
are expressly prohibited to portray him in any visible
shape ? By every attempt of this kind, he is highly
dishonoured ; he is degraded to a level with his crea
tures, and the glory of the incorruptible God is changed
into the image of corruptible man. It is equally im
proper to represent the Holy Ghost under the figure
of a dove ; first, because it is not certain that he
appeared in this figure at the baptism of Christ, — the
words of the Evangelist perhaps signifying only the
apparent motion of the sign which indicated his de
scent, — and, secondly, because if the visible shape
was that of a dove, it was an emblem ; the design of
which is perverted when it is changed into an image
of that Divine Person, who has no corporeal form and .
lineaments. It may seem that it is more justifiable to
make an image of our Saviour, because he was and is
a man. But the vanity of such images is evidentj
because they are not true representations of the object,
and have their origin solely in the imagination of the
statuary or the painter. The only account which anti
quity has transmitted to us of the personal appearance
of our Saviour, is apocryphal. But although the ac
count were true, and an image were modelled in exact
conformity to it, it might be asked, Does it resemble
him now in his glorified state ? And, besides, it is not
the human nature of Christ which our minds should
contemplate, but the incarnate Redeemer, God and
man in one person ; and his persou can be represented
by no material form. Images of him as a man, with
a glory encircling his head, and images of him hang
ing on the cross, are teachers of lies.
Farther, This precept forbids images, although they
do not profess to be similitudes of any of the persons
of the God-head, but are only intended to be emblem
atical representations. Every visible form which ia
designed to recall God to our thoughts, and to excite
our devotions, and before which we perform our reli
gious offices, is prohibited. The precept is delivered
in the most comprehensive terms: "Thou shalt not
make unto thee any likeness of any thing which is in
the heavens above, or on the earth beneath, or in the
waters under the earth." There is a reference to the
images used by the Gentiles, which were of various
forms, and were representations of objects in all the
departments of nature; and they are all without ex
ception condemned. They may be distinguished into
two classes; some of them represented the false gods
whom they worshipped, as Baal and Ashtaroth among

Dent. iv. 12.

f Dan. vii. 9,

THE LAW OF GOD: THE SECOND COMMANDMENT.

551

the eastern nations, and in tbe west, Jupiter, Apollo,
and Minerva. The worshipping of such images was
properly a transgression of the first commandment,
which requires us to give religious honours to Jehovah
alone. Others again represented by emblems the
Creator of heaven and earth, as the golden calf which
the Israelites made in the wilderness, after the exam
ple of the Egyptians, who worshipped a sacred bull as
the representative of Apis, one of their gods. It is
remarkable that the feast which they proclaimed is
called a feast to Jehovah. It is against the use of
such images that the second commandment is directed.
The error which it condemns relates, not to the object
of worship, but to the manner of worshipping him ;
and the use of images is specified as the grossest and
most palpable violation of the precept.
The advocates of image worship endeavour to evade
the precept by subtile distinctions. They tell us that
there are two kinds of adoration, the one absolute and
the other relative, and that the image is the object only
of relative worship ; that is, the worship does not ter
minate upon the image itself, but passes from it to the
original. Again they tell us, that in an image two
things are to be considered, — the matter of which it is
composed, gold, silver, wood, or stone, and its repre
sentative character. Considered as a material sub
stance, it ought not to be adored ; but as an image or
representation it-is entitled to respect. These however
were the identical distinctions by which the heathens
attempted to vindicate themselves, when they were
accused of idolatry by the Christians. It was only
relative worship which they offered to their idols ; the
ultimate objects of their adoration were the invisible
beings whom they believed to be divine. They were
not so stupid as to think, that any kind of matter was
in itself tbe proper object of worship ; the image did
not begin to be honoured, till having been finished by
the hand of the artist, it was consecrated to the service
of the god for whom it was designed. As Papists find
it necessary to defend themselves with the arguments
of the heathens, it is plain that they are guilty of the
same crime and involved in the same condemnation.
All their subtilties vanish before the plain words of
the precept, " Thou shalt not bow down thyself to
them, and serve them."
Our church says, that " the second commandment
forbids the worshipping of God by images, or in any
other way not appointed in his word ;"* or more fully
in the larger Catechism, that it forbids " all devising,
counselling, commending, using, and any wise approv
ing any religious worship not instituted by God him
self; corrupting the worship of God, adding to it or
taking from it, whether invented and taken up of our
selves or received by tradition from others, though
under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good
intent, or any other pretence whatsoever."j- This ex
position is founded on the principle already laid down,
that when one species of a sin is forbidden, all the
other species of the same sin are also forbidden. There
is no doubt a particular reason why images are forbid
den, because they are in themselves dishonourable to
God, by investing Him, who is a pure and infinite
Spirit, with a corporeal form, and degrading him to a
level with the lowest ofhis creatures. But the design
of the precept was to establish this principle, that as
God is the sole object of religious worship, so it is
his prerogative to dictate the mode of it. This matter
is of too much importance to be subjected to the regu
lations of human wisdom. To the mind of man, blind
ed as it is by sin, and misled by the imagination and
the passions, observances might recommend them
selves by the pretext of fitness and decency, which
the Supreme Being would reject as incongruous to his
nature and character. We see the childishness, the

* Short. Cat. Q. 51.

f Larg. Cat. Q. 109.

absurdity, and tbe impiety of its devices in the nume
rous rites of Heathenism, and in the multiplied ser
vices of those Christians, who have deformed the
worshipof God under the pretext of adorning it, and
robbed it of its native purity by arraying it in the
meretricious garb of superstition. The precept which
we are now explaining condemns all will-worship,
that is, all human inventions in the service of God.
He has declared to us in his word what form is accep
table to him ; and it is a high offence to add to it or
take from it. We have an example of both crimes in
the Church of Rome, which has mutilated some of the
ordinances of Christ, and corrupted others by foreign
mixtures and appendages. It has also introduced new
ordinances, of which not a word is spoken in the Scrip
tures, as the use of images, prayer to the saints, five
spurious sacraments, pilgrimages and penances, and a
multitude of observances, which it would be tedious to
mention. Nor are those protestants free from the
charge who have retained some of the usages of po
pery, and enjoin the wearing of particular vestments
by the ministers of religion, the sign of the cross in
baptism, bowing at the name of Jesus, and kneeling
at the Lord's Supper. These practices we justly call
superstitious, because there is no scriptural warrant
for them, and they are the devices of men. The ques
tion, " Who hath required this at your hands ?" the
abettors and advocates of will-worship cannot answer;
and it were well if they would consider the words of
God concerning the Jews, " In vain do they worship
me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of
men."* This precept requires us to entertain worthy ideas
of God, as a spiritual Being, of whom no representa
tion should be formed, either with the hand or by the
imagination, and to honour him with spiritual worship.,
In particular, it requires us to adhere to his own insti
tutions in opposition to all human devices, to receive
them with due submission to his authority, to observe
them with outward reverence and inward sentiments
of devotion, to maintain them in their purity and in
tegrity, exactly as he has delivered them to us, neither
adding to them, as those do who make use of the sign
of the cross in baptism, nor taking from them, as
Papists do, who in the Lord's Supper withhold the
cup from the laity. The ordinances of religion are
prayer, praise, the preaching of the word, and the
celebration of the sacraments ; to which may be added
church government, the exercise of discipline, and
other particulars which it is unnecessary to mention.
It is evident, as I have already hinted, that while the
prescribed forms of worship should be punctually
observed, the precept calls for those dispositions and
exercises of mind of whieh they are significant, and
which only can give them value, and render them ac-
ceptable to the omniscient God, who looks not upon
the countenance, but upon the heart.
This precept is enforced by the following words :
" For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the
third and fourth generations of them that hate me, and
showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me,
and keep my commandments." Here a difficulty oc
curs relating to the denunciation upon the posterity of
transgressors. Some consider it as peculiar to the
Jews, who were placed under a dispensation of tern-,
poral rewards and punishments, and understand it to
import, that under sucb a dispensation, by the over
ruling providence of God, a man's family would be
placed in such circumstances as should accord with
his conduct, or that their degradation and suffering
would be the effect of his sin ; just as under human
governments the children of traitors are deprived of
their honours, and the family estate is confiscate, or

* Matth. xv. 9.

552

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

as in the common course of things, a person of profli
gate manners entails disease, and poverty, and disgrace
upon his offspring. Others have thought that the de
nunciation relates to those who should imitate the con
duct of their parents ; and consequently, that it was
for their own sin, and not properly for that of their
parents, that they should be punished. But besides
that the words thus understood constitute no sanction
or enforcement of the precept, and do not serve the
purpose for which they are manifestly introduced, it is
impossible to assign a reason why the third and fourth
generation only are mentioned, since it is certain that
God will visit to the thousandth generation those who
tread in the steps of their idolatrous ancestors. Others
again are of opinion, that not only temporal but
spiritual judgments are denounced ; that for the sins
of the parents God withholds his grace from their
children ; and that being left to themselves, they follow
the example of their parents, and are finally punished
for their own sins. There is a degree of confusion
in this statement, which first admits that they are
punished for the sin of their parents, and then brings
forward their own sin to account for the justice of their
final allotment. It is exceedingly difficult to deter
mine the precise import of the words. If we could
satisfactorily show that the threatening related to the
Jews alone, and was founded on their peculiar dispen
sation, and that what was threatened was merely a
temporal penalty upon tbe families of idolaters, con
sidered as members of the state, it would be more
easy to reconcile it to our ideas of the equity of the
divine administration. There seems to be a contradic
tion between it and the words of God by Ezekiel :
" The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall
not bear the iniquity of the father."* We might re
concile them by supposing the original law, which
was merely a positive one, to be revoked ; or we may
consider the words of Ezekiel as referring to a parti
cular case. The Israelites had adopted this proverb :
" The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's
teeth are set on edge,"f intimating that their present
Sufferings were owing not to their own sins, but to
those of their ancestors. To repel this accusation
against his procedure, God declares that the case was
not as they supposed, that he was punishing them for
their own sins ; that it was far from him to confound
the righteous with the wicked, and that every man
among them should be rewarded according to his
works. The Third precept of the law is in these words,
"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God
in vain ; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that
taketh his name in vain."
By the name of God, we understand the name or
names by which he has made himself known, or is
distinguished from other beings ; as God, Lord, Jeho
vah, the Almighty, &c. To take this name, is to use
it in discourse ; and one form of using it, which claims
our attention in the first place, is swearing by it. As
a simple declaration may not be deemed sufficient,
when the character of the speaker is unknown, his
motives are suspected, or the matter is of too much
importance to be lightly determined, men have been
accustomed to demand the confirmation of it with an
oath, or an appeal to God as the witness of our vera
city, and the Judge who will punish us if we are guilty
of deceit. Some ancient sects, and some modern, have
denied the lawfulness of an oath, and have affirmed
that it is sinful to swear upon any occasion. Their
opinion is refuted by a variety of arguments. We
have examples of oaths in the Old Testament, with
directions how to swear, namely, in truth, judgment,
and righteousness ; and lest any should think that what
was formerly tolerated is now prohibited, we have

* Ezek. xviii. 20.

t lb- 2,

examples also in the New. When Paul says, " I call
God for a record upon my soul" — " God is my wit
ness" — "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my con
science also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost;"*
his language in all these instances, and particularly in
the two first, amounts to an oath. Our Saviour recog
nized the lawfulness of an oath, when one having been
administered to him, according to the form of his coun
try, he broke the silence which he hitherto observed,
and answered the question of the High Priest, f It is
impossible to understand the words of the Apostle in
any other way than as a sanction of the practice, when
he says, " Men verily swear by the greater, and an
oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. "X
It is a misapprehension of our Saviour's words, " Swear
not at all, "|| to consider them as an absolute prohibi
tion of an oalh ; because it is plain from his own illus
tration, that he meant only to forbid the practice of
swearing in common conversation, and particularly
of swearing by creatures.
An oath should be sworn only on such occasions as
call for this solemnity, about matters of importance,
and with respect to which satisfaction cannot be other
wise obtained. God is too great and awful a Being to
be appealed to as a witness for every trifling purpose.
It should be taken with external and internal reverence,
and be regarded not as a mere ceremony, but as a reli
gious institution, which places us in the immediate
presence of the Judge of men and angels. We should
be fully acquainted with the subject of an oath; for, to
swear to any thing of which we are ignorant, or about
which we are in doubt, is at once to deceive men, and
to set at nought the divine omniscience. We should
take an oath according to the obvious meaning of it, in
the sense in which it is understood by those who ad
minister it, to the exclusion of all private interpreta
tions, and all mental reservations. We ought to be
sincere in giving a promissory oath, having a fixed
intention to perform what we pledge ourselves to do,
and never thinking ourselves released from the obliga
tion except by such a change of circumstances as ren
ders it physically impossible to redeem our pledge, or
would make it sinful to do so, because some other duty
of paramount authority has intervened. It is plain,
therefore, that we should never bind ourselves by oath
to do any thing which we know to be impossible, any
thing which we know to be morally wrong, any thing
which would impede our duty to God, or to sucb of our
fellow-men as have a prior claim to our service and
obedience. The name of God is taken in vain when we swear
unnecessary oaths; when we swear implicitly, without
knowing beforehand the nature and extent of the obli
gation, when we swear lightly and irreverently, using
the name of God with as little respect as we would
show to that of a man; when we swear falsely, attest
ing that to be true, which we do not know to be true,
or which we know to be false ; when we do not regard
the animus imponentis,§ but substitute a meaning of
our own as a subterfuge, under which we may escape
from the understood obligation ; when we swear to
what we know to be impossible, or what we know to
be sinful; when we swear in doubt with respect to the
practicability or the lawfulness of the action to which
we bind ourselves ; when we swear to release ourselves
from a prior obligation, as the Jews devoted their pro
perty to God, that they might be relieved from the duty
of supporting their parents.
These are not ihe only ways in which the name of
God is profaned. It is taken in vain when it is lightly
introduced in common conversation ; when men swear
by it in anger or in sport, or in the ordinary train of

* 2 Cor. i. 23. Rom. i. 9. ix. 1. f Matth. xxvi. 63
t Heb. vi. 16. || Matth. v. 34.
\ Tbe intention or meaning of bim who imposes the oath.

THE LAW OF GOD : THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.

their discourse; when they utter impious imprecations
upon themselves or others ; or when, without the slight
est feeling of devotion, they call upon him to bless,
preserve, or help them. There is not a name in the
universe with which so much freedom is used ; it is
treated as with studied contempt; and it is almost im
possible to walk the streets, or to go into a mixed com
pany, without hearing language which is always offen
sive to a pious ear, and which, were it heard for the
first time, would awaken horror and alarm in every
man who retained any sense of religion. In the com
mission of this gratuitous and heaven-daring sin, our
own country has attained an infamous pre-eminence.
This precept is transgressed not only when men
swear falsely, or profanely by the name of God, but
also when they make use of any other oath in conver
sation ; for in this, as in other precepts, all sins of the
same kind are forbidden. Our Saviour says, " Swear
not at all," — that is, in common discourse, — " neither
by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for
it is his footstool ; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the
city of the great King ; neither shalt thou swear by thy
head, because thou canst not make one hair white or
black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea;
nay, nay ; for whatsoever is more than these cometh
of evil."* It appears that such oaths as are here spe
cified were frequent among the Jews ; and our Lord, in
forbidding these, condemns all similar oaths, such as
those which are current among Christians, who swear
by their faith, their truth, their conscience, and in
Popish countries, by the saints.
This precept forbids all kinds of blasphemy, all ac
cusations of Providence, all reflections against Scrip
ture, all dishonourable thoughts of God. It forbids the
profanation or abuse of any thing by which he has
Blade himself known. As it relates to the manner of
worshipping him, it condemns irreverence, careless
ness, formality, hypocrisy, and unbelief, in the per
formance of religious duties. We profane his word
when we read or hear it with indifference ; we profane
the ordinance of prayer when we honour God with our
lips but our hearts are far from him ; when those sen
timents of faith, and penitence, and holy desire are
wanting, of which our words are expressive ; we pro
fane the ordinance of praise when we feel no admira
tion of his excellencies, and no gratitude for his fa
vours, and when we appropriate to ourselves any share
.of the glory to which he has an exclusive title ; we
profane the Lord's Supper, not merely when we use it
as a qualification for civil offices, but when we partake
of it in a state of sin, in the absence of spiritual affec
tions, without a cordial reliance upon the atonement
which it commemorates, and an unreserved dedication
of ourselves to him who died for us and rose again.
We' profane the ordinance of fasting, when our profes
sions of repentance are not accompanied with humilia
tion of soul, when we use it as a means of obtaining
the remission of our sins, or when we are careful to
enumerate and condemn the sins of others, but slightly
pass over our own. We profane Providence when we
turn it to superstitious purposes, looking for signs from
it to direct us where Scripture or even reason is suffi
cient to guide us ; when we rashly and uncharitably
interpret its proceedings; when we plaee an unwarrant
ed dependence upon it, expecting the end without the
means, venturing without a call upon danger in the hope
of its protection, and trusting to it for the supply of our
wants, when we are indulging ourselves in idleness.
From the sins forbidden in this commandment, it is
easy to infer the duties required. They consist in
general in a holy and reverent use of his name, of all
his rtvelations, and all his institutions ; and a more
particular detail of them is unnecessary. It will be
your business to trace them at your leisure, while you

553
are meditating upon the subject. "The third com
mandment," says our Church, " requires that the
name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the
word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works,
and whatsoever else there is whereby he makes him
self known, be holily and reverently used in thought,
meditation, word, and writing, by an holy profession,
and answerable conversation, to the glory of God, and
the good of ourselves and others."*

3D

* Matth. v. 34—37.

LECTURE CIV.
ON THE LAW OF GOD.
Commentary on the Fourth, the Fifth, and the Sixth Com
mandments.
Having considered the object, the means, and the
manner of religious worship, let us now attend to the
time which is consecrated to it. It is determined in
the Fourth precept of the Decalogue, which is ex
pressed in these words : " Remember the Sabbath-day,
to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour and do all
thy work : but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the
Lord thy God ; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou,
nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor
thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that
is within thy gates : For in six days the Lord made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and
rested the seventh day : wherefore the Lord blessed
the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it."
After reciting this precept, which was delivered to
the Israelites in the wilderness, we are to inquire,
Whether it was then given for the first time, or was
only promulgated anew ? To most persons, an answer
to this question seems to be supplied by the words ofj
Moses, in the second chapter of Genesis, " And on
the seventh day, God ended his work which he had
made, and he rested on the seventh day from all his
work which he had made. And God blessed the
seventh day and sanctified it ; because that in it he
had rested from all his work which God created and
made."j- These words have been commonly under
stood to signify, that the Sabbath was instituted at
the creation. Some writers, however, are of a different
opinion, and maintain that Moses speaks of it by an
ticipation ; or that, as the reason why the Sabbath
was given to men took place on the seventh day of the
creation, he was led to make mention of it in this part
of his narrative, although the observance did not com
mence till the Israelites were in the wilderness. In
confirmation of this opinion, it is alleged that there is
not a word said about the Sabbath during the long
preceding period of two thousand and five hundred
years'; and that this silence is unaccountable, if it was
regularly observed by the people of God. This, how
ever, is merely a negative argument, from which no
positive conclusion can be safely drawn; and, besides,
it would disprove the practice of circumeision among
the Jews from their entrance into Canaan to the cir
cumcision of the Baptist, not one instance of it being
recorded during that long interval. Another argument
is founded on such expressions as these : God gave
the Israelites a Sabbath, and he gave it for " a sign
between him and them.'f^ But his giving them the
Sabbath, no more implies that it was a new institution,
than his giving them the other precepts supposes that
they were not previously binding,— nothing more being-
meant in both cases, than that they were published
anew to them, with peculiar circumstances of solem
nity. The Sabbath may be said to be a sign, because

* Larger Catechism, Q. 112. t Gen. ii. 2, 3.
X Exod. xxxi. 13, 17. Ezek. xx. 12, 20.

554

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

the celebration of it would henceforth serve, with their
other religions rites, to distinguish them from the
nations of the world, and it was enforced by a new
reason taken from their recent redemption. Hence, in
the repetition of the precept, these words are added :
" And remember that thou wast a servant in the land
of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out
thence, through a mighty hand, and by a stretched
out arm ; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee
to keep the Sabbath-day."* There does not appear to
be any reason for supposing that in Genesis Moses
speaks proleptically, or by anticipation. The manner
of the narrative would naturally lead any reader to
suppose that he is relating what took place at the
beginning of the world. It is a second thought, and
a thought which could occur only to a mind in search
of ingenious discoveries, that the present tense is here
significant of the future. This seems to be a strong
objection against the opinion which we are consider
ing ; it is inconsistent with the perfect simplicity of
the Mosaic history, and with the accuracy which is
expected from any historian, to record as a fact which
took place at the period of which he is writing, what
did not take place for five-and-twenty centuries. It
has been observed, that the division of time into
weeks, which subsisted in the age of the patriarchs,
cannot be satisfactorily accounted for, but by the pre
vious institution of the Sabbath ; for the creation was
finished in six days, and if the seventh was not then
sanctified, we cannot conceive how the ancients came
to divide time by seven days, rather than by six, or
eight, or ten. It has been observed, too, that a pecu
liar respect was paid to the seventh day by the Greeks.
Some may suppose that they derived their idea of its
sacredness from the Jews, but it is more probable that
it was founded on tradition. Not only the Hebrews,
but the Greeks, says Clemens Alexandrinus, acknow
ledge the seventh day. Hesiod calls the seventh day
xcLLnrpov <psuc Siexioio, " the splendid light of the sun ;" and
Homer characterized it as itpov »/Lxp, " the sacred day."
I neglected to remark in the proper place, tbat the " end
of the days" when Cain and Abel offered sacrifices,}-
has been supposed to be the Sabbath ; and that this
also was the day, in the book of Job, when the sons
of God came together.
It has been further observed, that the Sabbath is
spoken of in Exodus before the publication of the
decalogue, and is then mentioned, not as new, but as
an institution already known : " To-morrow is the rest
of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.":): Some, indeed,
draw an opposite conclusion, and consider these words
as the first intimation of the Sabbath ; but I think they
are mistaken, because Moses appears only to remind
them of it, as the reason of the injunction to gather a
double quantity of manna on the preceding day, since
none would fall on the next. If the Sabbath had been
a new institution, he would have naturally informed
?hem of its duties, whereas he confines himself to the
single subject of the manna, forewarning them not to
expect it on that day, and therefore to collect and pre
pare on the day before as much as would suffice till
the Sabbath was past. It has also been thought, that
the word with which the precept begins supposes a
prior knowledge of the law. " Remember the Sabbath-
day, to keep it holy." It was an institution with
which they were already acquainted ; and they are
called upon to keep in mind the sacred nature of the
day, and to sanctify it with the greatest care, especially
after this solemn republication of the precept. It is
probable that it. had been much neglected in Egypt;
and as the Israelites were in a state of slavery, it is
not likely that they would be permitted by their cruel
task-masters to desist from work one day in seven.

* Deut. v. 15.
X Exod. xvi. 23.

\ Gen. iv. 3, marginal reading.

Through the necessity of their circumstances, and their
own indifference, the observance of it might have been
in a great measure suspended, and this may be the
reason why it was inculcated anew, and their attention
was so particularly called to it: "Remember the Sab
bath-day, to keep it holy."
The question respecting the date of the Sabbath is
of the greater importance, because it is understood to
affect the question respecting its morality. If it was
given in the beginning, it is a law to mankind, binding
in all ages and nations ; if it was first given in the wil
derness, it was a law to the Jews, which was abrogated
with their other peculiar institutions ; and some new
evidence is necessary to prove that a day of rest should
be observed by Christians.
There has been much discussion concerning the
morality of the Sabbath, some affirming and others
denying it; and several distinctions have been made
with a view to ascertain what is moral, and what is
positive, in the precept. In a former lecture, some
thing was said upon this subject, when I was explain
ing the difference between moral and positive precepts.*
It is a moral duty, that men should devote a portion
of their time to the service of God, but the portion is '
the subject of positive command. Some express them
selves as if they thought that the only thing which is
positive in this precept is the prescription of the parti
cular day ; but if they use the term, moral, in its com
mon acceptation when distinguished from positive, a3
signifying that which is founded in the nature of things,
they will be at a loss to show that the nature of things,
or the relation in which man stands to his Creator, re
quires that he should devote one day in seven to his
immediate service. They will be at a loss to show
that to have required more or less, would have been
contrary to what is right and fit. It is acknowledged
that the choice of the seventh day in preference to any
other was positive ; or that, although there was a rea
son for this choice, it was not permanent and immuta
ble, so that no new reason could authorize a change to
another day. It should also be acknowledged, in my
apprehension, that the time allotted for the suspension
of our worldly affairs, and undivided attention to the
exercises of religion, might have been lengthened or
shortened according to the good pleasure of God. It
would have been more accurate in some of our Divines
to have stated, that since a seventh part of our time
has been required, the law is of perpetual obligation,
instead of expressing themselves loosely, as if we were
as much bound in the nature of things to set apart one
day in seven, as it is acknowledged that we are to con
secrate some portion of our time.
There is scarcely any difference of opinion among
Christians with respect to the change of the day.
Some learned men have thought tbat the original Sab
bath was different from the Jewish, that the latter was
put back from the first to the seventh day of the week ;
and they endeavour to prove this point by some facts
in the history of the_ Israelites in the wilderness, and
by the declaration that the Sabbath was given as a
sign to them, and was intended to be a memorial of
their deliverance from Egypt; to accomplish which
purposes, it seems necessary that the day should have
been altered. If this supposition could be satisfacto
rily proved, it might convince the Jews that the change,
which Christians allege has now taken place in the
day, is not unprecedented, and by no means involves
an abrogation of the fourth precept of the Decalogue.
It is not easy to see how it can be reconciled with the
account in Genesis, which makes the seventh day the
Sabbath ; or how that day could be the first in a heb
domadal series, when it was preceded only by six.
For the change of the day from the seventh to the
first, we cannot produce any positive precept ; but we

* Lect. cii.

THE LAW OF GOD: THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT.

consider the example of tbe Apostles and of the primi
tive church under their direction as of equal authority,
because they were infallibly guided by the spirit in all
things relative to doctrine and worship. Immediately
after the resurrection of Christ, the disciples began to
assemble on the first day of the week ; and by meeting
Tepeatedly with them on that day, he gave countenance
to the practice. It was continued after his ascension,
and the mission of the Holy Ghost to lead them into
all the truth. Thus at Troas, " when the disciples
came together on the first day to break bread, Paul
preached to them ;* and the time of meeting is mani
festly mentioned as the usual one. On that day the
Corinthians were commanded to " lay by them in store,
as the Lord had prospered them ;"f and it is reason
able to think that the first day was specified as the
proper time to make collections for the poor, because
it was consecrated to religious duties. It is undoubt
edly the same day to which the beloved disciple refers,
when he says, " I was in the Spirit on the Lord's
day ;"X the day which Jesus Christ peculiarly claimed
as his own, or the first day of tbe week, which is con
secrated to his honour. It has been supposed that the
change of the day is predicted in the following words
of Ezekiel, when he is giving a description of the mys
tical temple, which may be considered as a figure of
the Christian Church : " Seven days shall they purge
the altar and purify it ; and they shall consecrate them
selves. And when these days are expired, it shall be,
that upon the eighth day, 'and so forward, the priests
shall make you burnt-offerings upon the altar, and your
peace-offerings ; and I will accept you, saith the Lord
God. "|| This language is symbolical; the allusions
are to the ceremonial services of the temple. Some
thing is manifestly predicted which was never literally
fulfilled ; but, as the whole refers to a new state of
things, the mention of the eighth day as the day
of solemn sacrifices may well be considered as an in
timation that the eighth day in order from the begin
ning of the Jewish week, or the Christian Sabbath,
was henceforth to be holy to the Lord.
If the finishing of the works of creation was a rea
son why the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hal
lowed it, there is a reason at least equally strong for
the consecration of the first day, on which our Saviour
rose from the grave. Then the work of redemption
was finished ; and on account of its greatness and
glory, and the unspeakable benefits which it has pro
cured to mankind, it is worthy to be held in remem
brance in all generations. The first day of the week
is dedicated to the memory of the resurrection, by
which God publicly testified that his incarnate Son
had finished transgression, and made an end of sin,
and brought in an everlasting righteousness. And as
there will be no new work of the Almighty of superior
or equal importance, the day will not be altered, but
will be kept sacred to the end of the world.
The Jews were enjoined to observe the Sabbath with
the utmost strictness. They were not to go out of
their houses, or to take journeys, except to a place of
worship ; and the distance to which, according to the
Rabbies, they might lawfully go, was two thousand
cubits, or about two-thirds of an English mile, which
is called in the new Testament a Sabbath-day's jour
ney. They were not to kindle a fire in their dwellings,
that is, I presume, for the purpose of dressing victuals ;
for surely they were not' forbidden to kindle a fire to
warm themselves. They once deemed it unlawful to
defend themselves on the Sabbath ; but experience made
them change their opinion, although they continued to
think it a sin to attack their enemies on that day.
Amongst Christians, there has been a difference of
sentiment respecting the degree of strictness with

* Acts xx. 7.
1 Rev. i. 10.

1 Cor. xvi. 2.
Eiek. xliii. 26. 27.

555
which the Sabbath should be observed. Some are for
retaining all the rigour of the Jewish law, while
others insist that now its severity is relaxed ; and this
view has been adopted by some of the most eminent
among the foreign Protestant Divines. It is possible
soto overstrain the duties of the day, as to make men
think that they can hardly speak, or move, or look
around them without violating its sanctity ; and thus
to give the Sabbath a gloomy and forbidding aspect.
It is possible to grant such liberty, that it shall resem
ble a human festival rather than a season of devotion,
a day of idleness, gossiping, and amusement, mixed
up with some religious offices. We know how loosely
it is observed in Roman Catholic and many Protestant
countries, in the southern division of our island, and
even in the northern, although our notions of the sanc
tification of the Sabbath have been carried as high as
by any denomination of Christians.
This precept requires us to set apart for the service
of God, one whole day in seven, reckoned like other
days, according to our mode of computing time, from
twelve o'clock at midnight to twelve next night.
The Jews reckoned from sunset to sunset. It requires
us to abstain from our worldly employments, manual
and mental, from the labours of the body and the
labours of the mind about secular studies, and from all
unnecessary words and thoughts respecting such sub
jects. It requires us to spend the whole time, when
we are awake, in devotional exercises, in prayer,
religious reading, and meditation, in the instruction of
our families, and pious conversation with them and
our friends, and in attendance upon the public ordinan
ces of grace. It requires us to abstain from those inno
cent recreations and amusements by which the body
and the mind are refreshed and gratified, because we
can very well dispense with them for one day, since
we are at liberty to use them on the other six : they
would engross a portion of the time which is sacred to
other purposes, and would dissipate our thoughts, and
indispose us for the proper duties of the Sabbath.
" The Sabbath," our Confession says, " is then kept
holy to the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of
their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs
beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the
day from their own works, words, and thoughts about
their worldly employments and recreations; but also
are taken up the whole time in the public and private
exercises of worship, and in the duties of necessity and
mercy."* He who understands in what the sanctification of the
Sabbath consists, has no need that the sins forbidden
in the fourth commandment should be pointed out to
him. A detail of them is at least unnecessary at
present, when I am addressing those who are capable
of tracing the particulars I have mentioned into all
their ramifications and consequences.
You would observe that in the quotation from our
Confession of Faith, works of necessity and mercy
are not considered as a violation of the sanctity of the
Sabbath. By the former, are meant works which
could not have been done on the preceding day, and
cannot be deferred till the next. We must kindle fires
in our houses ; we must travel to and from the house
of God ; we must look after some parts of our prop
erty, as our flocks and herds ; we must guard it when
it is exposed to danger ; we must use means to extin
guish a conflagration, and carry away goods which
would be destroyed by it, or by a sudden inundation.
These duties arise from circumstances over which we
have no controul. They will not wait till we find
time to attend to them, but must either be done now,
or not done at all ; and as the Sabbath was made.for
man, they were permitted, although literally they
break in upon its rest.

* Chap. xxi. 8

556

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

Works of mercy are those which are performed
I from compassion to our fellow-creatures. The care
of cattle may be placed under this head, as well as
under the former. No man is required, under the pre
text of resting from his works on the Sabbath, to leave
them to suffer from hunger and thirst. On the same
principle, we may carry food and raiment lo the poor,
when their demands are urgent and we had not a
previous opportunity of attending to them. We may
visit the sick, administer cordials and medicines to
them, dress their wounds, and perform other offices by
which they will be soothed and relieved. It is on this
ground that we deem it lawful for physicians to prac
tice upon the Sabbath. It is a gracious institution,
designed for tbe good of man in this world, as well
as for bis salvation in the nexl; and it does not inter
fere with any service immediately called for, which will
contribute to either.
The time appropriated to the service of God is one
day in seven, and, under the Christian dispensation,
the first day of the week. I need not repeat, that
there ought also to be a daily worship of God, and
that the duties of the Sabbath do not release us from
devotion during the week. But this is the only day
which God claims as his own in a peculiar sense ; he
has given us the other six days to pursue our secular
employments. It follows, that men have no right to
institute holidays, which return as regularly at cer
tain intervals as the Sabbath does in the beginning of
the week. This is an assumption of authority which
God has not delegated to them. Holidays are an
.encroachment upon the time of which he has made a
free gift to men for their worldly affairs ; and although
enforced by civil and ecclesiastical laws, they are not
binding upon conscience. No man sins in not observ
ing them ; but he does sin, if he observes them from
an opinion of their holiness. Men may set apart par
ticular days for fasting and thanksgiving; but those
are only occasional, and not the days, but the services,
are holy. As for all stated days of worship besides
the Sabbath, they are human enactments ; and there
is no obligation upon any man to observe them but the
general one, which requires us to conform to the
practice of the church, when it is not sinful or super
stitious. The Second table of the law prescribes our duty to
man, which is in fact our duty to God, because he
enjoins it; but it is called our duty to man, because he
is the immediate object of it. The First precept of
the second table, which is the Fifth of the Decalogue,
is in these words ; " Honour thy father and thy mother,
that thy days may be long upon the land which the
Lord thy God giveth thee." The general design of it
is to inculcate relative duties; and in the usual manner,
it gives a specimen in the duties of children to their
parents. There are various relations subsisting among
mankind, which are founded partly in nature and
partly in convention. They are naturally related to
one another; more generally, as they are sprung from
one common stock, for " God has made of one blood
all nations of men to dwell on the face of the earth;"*
and more particularly, as they are descended from the
same immediate or remote ancestors. There are other
relations which, although agreeable to nature, or to
the constitution and circumstances and wants of men,
are yet founded in convention or mutual compact. Of
this description are the relations of husbands and
wives, masters and servants, magistrates and subjects.
The duties resulting from them are comprehended in
the precept; and they are made the subject of posi
tive prescriptions, because they are of great importance,
intimately connected with the order and happiness of
society, and more effectually to secure the performance
of them by the authority of religion.

* Acts xvii. 26.

The duty of children to their parents is expressed
by honouring them, a general term under which many
particulars are comprehended. They ought to love
their parents, to reverence them in their hearts, and
treat them with outward respect ; to obey their lawful
commands ; to conform to the regulations which they
establish in their families ; to entertain a grateful
sense of all the care and kindness which they have
experienced from them ; to acknowledge them in any
important step which they take; to assist and support
them according to their ability, if they are in such
circumstances as to be dependent upon them; and to
continue their good offices during the joint lives of
themselves and their parents. In the early part of
life, when children are living with their parents, and
are not yet qualified to think and act for themselves,
or, although arrived at the years of discretion, are
still lodging under their roof, their subjection to their
parents is morecomplete than after they have separated
from them, and have houses and families of their own ;
but at no period are they released from the obligation to
treat them with deference and affection, to comply with
their reasonable wishes, and to perform such services
as the comfort of their parents may require. We
have an example in Joseph, who behaved with the
utmost respect to his father, and the most solicitous
attention to his happiness, after he was exalted to be
next in rank to the king. Nature itself dictates the
submission of children to their parents; it is enjoined
by the laws of all civilized nations, some of which
have carried it to excess, as the Romans unquestiona
bly did, by making children as much the property of
their father as his cattle, and giving him power to sell
them as slaves, and to put them to death ; and such
was the severity of the Jewish law, that a froward
rebellious son was capitally punished.*
The duties of children to their parents draw along
with them the duties of parents to their children.
There is required a reciprocity of good offices. Pa
rents are bound to take care of their children in early
life; to provide food and clothing for them; to give
ihem an education which will prepare them both for
this world and for the next, to watch over their morals,
encourage them in good, and restrain them from evil ;
to exercise their authority reasonably and mildly, but
firmly; to endeavour to settle them in life ; to admin
ister lo them the counsels of experience ; and, in a word,
to consider them as a trust from God, which they
ought to manage with incessant vigilance. I will not
say, with some moralists, that the rights of parents
result from their duties, because they originate in the
Divine institution ; but I will say, that a parent who
neglects his duty to his offspring, ought not to be
surprised if they fail in their duty to him, and has no
right to complain either to God or to men.
JThe duties of husbands and wives are understood to
be comprehended in this precept, and a detail of them
usually constitutes one part of a commentary upon it.
I do not say that this is wrong ; but I should think
that they occur more regularly under the seventh com
mandment, which according to the rules of interpreta
tion formerly laid down, by forbidding the violation of
the marriage vow, inculcates the duties arising from
the conjugal relation.
I proceed therefore to speak of the duties of servants
to tbeir masters. These consist in respect for their
masters as their superiors, suWmission to their authori
ty, attention to their interests, honesty, diligence, and
fidelity. The extent of their obedience is limited by
their previous stipulation, whether expressed in words
or established by custom. A general servant is bound
to execute all the orders of his master ; but a servant
engaged for a particular purpose, is bound only to it, and
is guilty of no breach of contract when he declines to
* Deut. xxxii. 18—21.

THE LAW OF GOD: THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT.

interfere with another department. There is, however,
another limitation of the duty of both a general and a
particular servant. A master has no right to command
him to do any thing contrary to the laws of tbe land,
and still less to do any thing which the law of God
has forbidden ; for example, to tell lies, to assist him
in injustice or debauchery, to perform any unnecessary
work on the Sabbath. With these exceptions, the
subjection of a servant to his master is absolute,
during the time of their connexion. The Apostle
Paul makes use of strong language upon this subject,
and it is worthy of attention, that, in his days, servants
among the Greeks and Romans were slaves : " Ser
vants, obey in all things your masters according to
the flesh ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but
in singleness of heart, fearing God : And whatsoever
ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not unto
men."* Masters are bound to fulfil their part of the stipula
tion, by requiring nothing from their servants but
what is just; by exercising their authority with mild
ness, avoiding every thing harsh in the matter or man
ner of their commands ; by paying their wages, and
bestowing the commendation which they have merit
ed by their fidelity ; by protecting them from injury
and caring for them in sickness ; by guarding against
entertaining uncharitable suspicions of them, listening
to calumnious reports of them, speaking hastily to
their disadvantage, and showing an unrelenting, un
forgiving spirit when they have committed a fault ;
and, in a word, by treating them as inferiors who at
the same time are their fellow-creatures and Christians.
To these may be added the religious duties of mas
ters, who are bound to instruct their servants as well
as their children, to excite them to observe the or
dinances of grace, to reprove them when they are guilty
pf sin, and to encourage them in piety and virtue.
In the next place, The duty of subjects to their
civil rulers claims our attention. It is evident that
the duties of this class, like those of servants, are
founded on convention or compact ; because, with the
exception of parents and children, between whom
nature itself has established an inequality, all men
possessed of reason are naturally equal iii respect of
personal rights, and become subject to others, either
by violence, which establishes no moral obligation to
submission, or by their own consent virtually or ex
plicitly given. It is worthy of attention, that although
the Scripture gives its general sanction to civil gov
ernment, as necessary to the existence and good order
of society, it still calls it an ordinate of man ;f sig
nifying that it is a human instituti ™ and consequent
ly, that as in the government of masters, its claim to
obedience is not established by force but by law. The
jus divinumX of governments, when rationally explain
ed, can only mean that lawful governments have a right
to demand the obedience of the subjects, and that it is
the will of God that Ihe subjects should submit to their
authority. "The divine right of kings," says Paley,
"like the divine right of constables, is founded on the
law of the land."
There is a considerable difficulty in determining how
far the moral obligation of submission extends, because
cases may be supposod and questions may be put, with
respect to which it is not easy to come to a satisfactory
and consistent conclusion. In general it may be said,
that no government is lawful which does not exist with
the formal or virtual consent of the people. The world
has been so long accustomed to look upon civil gov
ernment as independent of the people, and the notion
of legitimacy, as attached to a particular form and a
particular family, has been so carefully instilled into
their minds, that they are slowly brought to assent to
what appears one of the plainest propositions, that a
L * Col. iii. 22, 23. f 1 Pet- "¦ 13- t Divine right. '

5©7
despotic government is an usurpation. Farther, the
obedience of subjects is defined by the laws of the
land. No man is morally bound to submit to the arbi
trary will of an individual, because be is called a king
any more than because he is called a master, or to the
will of a lawful magistrate when he orders any thing
contrary to the law of the land. The moment he steps
beyond the boundary of law, he loses his official cha
racter, and becomes a private man or a tyrant. Lastly,
the obedience of subjects, like that of servants, is re
strained by the law of God. When civil rulers pre
sume to command what he has forbidden, or to forbid
what he has commanded, they beeome rebels against
the King of kings, and have no claim to our homage.
" Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers;
for there is no power but of God : the powers that be
are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth
the power, resisteth the ordinance of God ; and they
that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."*
These words have been understood to favour passive
obedience, but in my opinion they have been grossly
perverted. How could any man in his senses suppose,
that a messenger of truth would teach us to submit
tamely to be plundered, and tormented, and destroyed,
by persons who, with the titles of royally, were worse
than common robbers and murderers; to surrender to
them all that is dear to us as men, all that renders life
worth preserving; to abstain from making a single
effort to seeure to ourselves, and our friends, and our
country, the blessings of liberty and equal laws ? Is
it to be supposed that the God of justice and benefi
cence has commissioned a few ruffians to pillage and
oppress their fellow creatures, and called upon the
latter, under pain of his displeasure, lo submit like
lambs to the butcher's knife? No; we will make no
such supposition, any more than we will suppose that
he has forbidden us to use means to stop the ravages
of fire, pestilence, or flood, or to employ force to re
strain and punish the private ruffians, who with a title
equally good, attempt to rob us of our property or our
lives. In the passage quoted, the Apostle, without
referring to any existing government, or any form in
preference to another, lays down the general duty of
Christians to their superiors m the state. They are
bound to submit; but that it is not blind submission is
evident from the reason assigned : " For rulers are not
a terror to the good, but te the evil." Again, " he-is the
minister of God to thee for good."f So far, then, as
a government patronizes good works, and punishes
such as are evil, so far as it answers the end of its
institution by maintaining order and peace in civil
society, it is entitled to submission ; but when, instead
of protecting, it oppresses the people, we can be no
more bound in conscience to recognize it as lawful,
than we are to acknowledge as a minister of Christ,
the man who teaches error in doctrine, and licentious
ness in practice.
The duty of subjects is to obey "every ordinance of
man for the Lord's sake," to "render to all their dues,
tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom cus
tom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour.":):
The duty of civil rulers is to enact just laws, and to
execute them impartially; to be the guardian of the
rights of their subjects, to maintain order and peace,
to patronize arts and sciences, to encourage virtue and
discourage vice, so far as their lawful influence ex
tends ; to be the fathers of their people, and thus merit
their respect and willing obedience.
The duties of the members of the church to those
who are over them in the Lord, and the duties which
the latter should perform, might be here introduced ;
but they are so well known, as to render a detail of
them unnecessary.
The precept now before us, is called " the first com

* Rom. xiii. 1,2. f lb. 3, 4. 1 1 P<*. "¦ ". Rom. xiii 7.

558

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

mandment with promise ;"* that is, the first in the
second table of the law. The promise is contained in
these words : " That thy days may be long in the land
which the Lord thy God giveth thee." It is better, I
think, to consider this promise as peculiar to the Jew
ish dispensation, than to attempt to transfer it to the
Christian. The law promulgated from Sinai was en
forced by temporal rewards, among which long life in
Canaan is here held out as the recompense of those
who should duly honour their father and mother. It
does not appear from the present history of Providence,
that the promise is applicable to other countries and
nations. Of this our Church seems to have been sen
sible, when it called it " a promise of long life and
prosperity, as far as it shall serve for God's glory and
their own good, to all such as keep this command
ment."-)- This is, in other words, to say, that the
keepers of it will live long or not as God shall deter
mine, and, consequently, to acknowledge that the pro
mise is not now attached to the precept. The attempts
which have been made to show that the promise is still
in force, are unsatisfactory, and usually sum up the mat-
terinthe same indeterminate manner with our catechism.
The Sixth commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill."
Its design is to guard human life against violence, to
render it a sacred thing, which is not to be touched
but by Him whose gift it is, and who has a right to
resume it at his pleasure. A distinction is made be
tween it and the life of the lower animals, in one of
the precepts delivered to Noah. Man holds a higher
rank in the scale of being; his life is therefore of much
greater value, and to take it unjustly away is a crime
which ought not to pass with impunity. " Whoso
sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed,
for in the image of God made he man."}:
It is plain from the words now quoted, and from
other passages of Scripture, that, although the precept
is absolute, it is subject to certain limitations. It does
not forbid the taking away of the life of a man who
has forfeited it by his crimes. The murderer may be
put to death ; and, by the law of Moses, the same
punishment was inflicted upon other transgressors. It
is generally agreed that murder should be subjected to
a capital punishment; but many doubts have been ex
pressed whether it should be extended to any other
offence. The reasoning, indeed, which some employ,
goes to abolish all capital punishments; for if the
power of civil rulers consists in the surrender which
their subjects have made of a portion of their rights
for the preservation of the rest, and if no man has such
power over his own life as to commit it to the dispo
sal of another, it follows that the jurisdiction of magis
trates does not reach the life of their subjects, and is
confined to what may affect their personal liberty, their
property, and, in general, their state in society. This
question is not now before us ; nor the question, what
end human governments propose by the infliction of
punishment, whether they are intended as retributions,
or merely as examples in terrorem.
The precept does not forbid the taking away of life
in self-defence. When a man is attacked, he is at
liberty to defend himself; and if in the conflict the
intended murderer shall fall, no moralist would say
the defender was guilty of murder, provided that no
means of saving himself were left but the taking away
of the life of the aggressor. Surely he was not bound
to be more careful of the life of his enemy than of his
own. In such a case, the law can afford him no pro
tection ; he must use the power which God has given
him, to preserve the most valuable of all his possess
ions, to ward off an injury which can never be repair
ed. Human laws accord the same right in defence of
our property, when an attempt is made to take it from
us by violence.

Eph. vi. 2.

+ Short. Cat. Q. 66. X GeB- '*• 6-

It may be inquired, how far wars, in the course of
which there is a loss of many lives, are consistent with
this precept? The plain answer is, that they are justi
fiable only on the plea of self-defence ; that we may
make war and destroy our enemies when we are un
justly attacked, for we are acting the same part, on a
more extended scale, with the individual who resists
the house-breaker, the highway-man, and the assassin ;
but that wars of aggressiop, wars which have no just
cause in the conduct of our antagonist, are unlawful ;
and that, in the sight of God, every life which is taken
away in the prosecution of them is a murder. How
much guilt is accumulated upon all the nations of the
world ! and how dreadful will be the reckoning with
the rulers of the earth, when God shall make inquiry
after blood !
The precept is justly understood to forbid suicide ;
and for this reason, that we have not absolute power
over our own life, but are bound to retain and employ
it to the ends for which it was bestowed, till the gift
is resumed by the Giver. Disgust at life will not jus
tify self-murder, because it can exist only in an un
grateful and vicious mind ; nor severe affliction, which
coming from the hand of God, it is our duty to bear
with patience; nor the apprehension of evil, which
may not befall us, and to which, if it did come, we
should be bound to submit without a murmur. Life
is an appointed time, measured out to us by the wis
dom of God; it is a race which we must run till we
arrive at the goal ; it is a conflict which we must sus
tain till we have obtained the victory.
The prohibition of murder implies a prohibition of
all the causes which lead to it; as, envy, malice, re
venge, secret wishes of evil to others, and imprecations
of it, unjust and excessive anger, duels, and fighting
of every kind between man and man. " Ye have
heard that it was said, Thou shalt not kill : But 1 say
unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother
without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment;
and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be
in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say,
Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire."* An Apos
tle, speaking in the spirit ofhis Master, declares, that
he who "hateth his brother is a murderer.")- The
command, not to take away our own life, binds us to
avoid not only direct suicide, but every thing which
has a tendency to bring it to an untimely end ; as,
peevishness, and fretfulness, and discontent; immode
rate grief; anxious care about our wordly affairs, and
labour unnecessarily submitted to beyond our strength ;
neglect of our bo&es, by withholding due nourishment
and clothing, ancRarelessness about our health ; in
temperance in eating and drinking, and exposing our
selves to danger without a lawful call.
The positive duties are implied in the negative. We
ought to use all proper means of preserving our life,
for our own sakes, and for the good of those who are
dependent upon us, and to whom we may be usefulin
temporal and spiritual things. We are bound also to
endeavour to preserve the lives of others, by warning
them of dangers, by rescuing them from perilous cir
cumstances, by ministering to their necessities, by
doing what will contribute to render life desirable and
comfortable to them.
As there is a life of far greater importance than that
of the body, the precept may be understood to compre
hend the duties which relate to the salvation of our
own souls, and those of our brethren : "He that find-
eth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul ;
all they that hate me love death. "X In these words
our duty to ourselves is pointed out; and with respect
to others who are connected with us, it is only when
we endeavour, by our instructions, our example, and

Mattb. v. 21, 22. f 1 John iii 15. X Pr°*- vi;'- 36-

THE LAW OF GOD: THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT.

our prayers, to turn them from the path of destruction,
that we may say with Paul, that " we are free from
the blood of all men."

LECTURE CV.
ON THE LAW OF GOD.
Commentary on tbe Seventh, the Eighth, tbe Ninth, and tbe
Tenth Commandments. — Conclusion from a Review of tbe
Law. The Seventh precept is, "Thou shalt not commit
adultery." As it forbids a sin which can be committed
only by married persons, and according to the rules
laid down for the interpretation of the law, not only
forbids all the sins comprehended under this general
term, but enjoins the opposite duties; a detail of the
duties of the conjugal relation is more properly intro
duced in this place, than under the fifth commandment,
to which they are commonly referred.
Marriage is an ordinance of God for the increase of
the human race, and for other important purposes con
nected with the comfort and moral improvement of the
species. It was instituted in Paradise, where our first
parents were united as husband and wife by their Creator
himself, and an example was given to be imitated by
their descendants. As such it was considered by Adam,
who, instructed no doubt by a divine revelation, said
on that occasion, " Therefore shall a man leave his
father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and
they shall be one flesh."*
As only a single pair was created, it appears to have
been the intention of their Maker that a man should
have only one wife, and a wife only one husband. In
this manner Malachi explains tbe fact, when he says,
" And did not he make one ?" namely, one woman ;
"yet had he the residue of the Spirit. And wherefore
one? that he might seek a godly seed." j- Yet we
know that polygamy was introduced at an early period,
that it was practised by the patriarchs and other pious
men, and that it was recognized by the law of Moses,
and subjected to regulation. If it was not properly
approved, it was tolerated ; and we must conclude, that
at that period there was not such moral evil in it, if it
was at all sinful, as was inconsistent with a state of
salvation. The case is finally decided by our Saviour,
who has forbidden polygamy. It now admits of no
apology; and if a man, professing to be a Christian,
should take to himself more wives than one, he would
not only incur the penalty of human laws, but expose
himself to the displeasure of heaven.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman as
husband and wife. It is founded on mutual consent,
and binds the parties to each other for life. As the
relation is of great importance, not only to the indivi
duals, but to society at large, the civil laws have taken
it under their cognizance, and prescribed the forms
which are necessary to legalize the transaction. This
precaution has not been neglected in our own country ;
but the matter is still left too loose, as consent^ ex
pressed before witnesses, or even, I believe, in writing,
is sufficient to constitute marriage. When the laws
have settled the forms, the observance of them becomes
indispensable ; and as marriage, although a divine in
stitution, is at the same time a civil transaction, a mar
riage, in contracting which they have been neglected,
is not legal and cannot be considered as valid.
Marriage is not a temporary contract, like that be
tween master and servant, but a union of a man and
woman for life. They cannot separate at their pleas
ure or at the expiration of a definite period. They are
bound to adhere to each other during the term of

Gen. ii. 24.

* Mai. ii. 15.

559
their natural lives, and neither of them is at liberty to
enter into a new engagement, without an offence
against the law both of God and man. There is one
cause, however, which may terminate the relation
during their lifetime, namely, the sin forbidden in this
commandment. Adultery, whether committed by the
husband or by the wife, is a just ground of divorce.
It is a direct violation of the marriage vow, giving the
aggrieved party a right to demand the dissolution of
an engagement which the other has broken, by retract
ing the pledge solemnly given at its commencement.
You will observe, however, that adultery does not
ipso facto dissolve the conjugal relation ; it only invests
the sufferer with a right to demand the dissolution of
it from the competent authority ; if the wife or the
husband does not choose to exercise the right, things
remain as they were. Another cause which, in this
country but not in England, is considered as sufficient
to procure the dissolution of the conjugal tie, is the
wilful desertion of one of the parties, which means as
our law has defined it, the absence of one of the par
ties for a specified time without any lawful cause. If
a man should be absent from his wife for many years
on business, or because he was forcibly detained, or
rendered incapable of returning, the wife would have
no plea for a divorce. Our Saviour has taken no notice
of this cause when speaking of the subject ; but it is
supposed to be countenanced by these words of Paul :
" If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and
she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her
away. And the woman which hath an husband that
believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her,
let her not leave him. But if the unbelieving depart,
let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under
bondage in such cases."* As wilful desertion not
only implies alienation of affection, but defeats all the
designs of marriage, it seems to entitle the injured
parly to be released from an obligation which the
other has violated, and which now serves only as a
restraint upon the natural liberty of the innocent.
This precept addresses married persons in the first
instance, and forbids the violation of the fidelity which
they pledged to each other when they entered into the
conjugal relation. It requires mutual affection, cohab
itation, the faithful performance of their duty, the
avoidance of all temptations to sin, and of all means
leading to it, and such care of one another as shall
prove effectual, through the blessing of God, to pre
serve them pure and blameless.
Under the head of adultery, all the kindred sins
are forbidden. I may specify, in the first place, forni
cation, or the illicit intercourse of two unmarried per
sons of different sexes. The enormity of this crime
might be shown from the state of the mind which it
implies, and from its consequences ; but it is enough
in this rapid sketch to remark, that it is expressly for
bidden as inconsistent with moral purity, and offensive
to God. Among the heathens, it was looked upon as
a venial sin, or rather as no sin at all, and it was
countenanced by the doctrine and practice of their
greatest philosophers. This is probably the reason that,
in the decree of the council of Jerusalem, it is mentioned
along with some other things of less importance, from
which the Gentiles were commanded to abstain. ]
This precept also forbids incest or sexual intercourse
between persons within the forbidden degrees, as be
tween brothers and sisters, uncles and nieces, &c.
According to the laws of our country, the prohibition
is extended to the corresponding degrees of affinity.
It forbids unnatural lusts, which were practised by
the heathens without shame, and defended, or at least
not condemned, by such a man as Socrates, but which
are now of rare occurrence, and always excite unqual
ified abhorrence.

* 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13., 15.

f Acts xv. 29.

560

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

It forbids, in a word, all impure actions, all impure
words, and all impure thoughts, as sinful in them
selves, and as leading to sin. This is our Lord's
commentary upon the law : " Whosoever looketh upon
a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery
with her already in his heart."*
The precept requires us to maintain our own and
our neighbour's chastity in heart, speech and behav
iour ; to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the
flesh and spirit, and to perfect holiness in the fear of
God. With this view, we should cultivate an habitual
sense of the Divine presence, which enabled Joseph
to preserve his innocence, when he was exposed to
very powerful solicitations : " How can I do this great
wickedness, and sin against God ?"f It will be well
to remember that his eye is upon us in the most secret
place : that the fear of offending him may counteract
the most urgent temptation, and check the irregular
movements of our hearts. This leads me to say, in the
next place, that we should guard against the entrance
of evil thoughts into our minds, and immediately expel
them if they have entered, and should labour to sup
press the risings of unhallowed appetite. He who
rolls iniquity like a sweet morsel under his tongue, is
prepared to commit it if a fit opportunity shall occur,
and Providence shall withdraw its restraints. The
man who sports with temptation, and quietly permits
or encourages its first advances, is in danger of ulti
mately yielding to it. The most effectual method lo
prevent tbe growth of poisonous fruit, is to destroy the
root which bears it  Again, we should guard against
all incentives to those indulgences which are forbidden
by this precept, all spectacles which are calculated to
excite the irregular movements of appetite, all read
ing and conversation which may produce the same
effect. We should avoid loose and profligate compa
ny, whose words and example might taint our minds ;
we should avoid idleness, which, leaving tbe mind
vacant, exposes it to the inroads of unhallowed sen
timents and passions ; we should avoid intemperance
in eating and drinking, than which nothing is more
likely to give appetite the mastery over reason. In
a word, we should live in the contemplation of death
and the future judgment, and the awful realities of
eternity, a just apprehension of which will divest the
pleasures of sense of their attractions ; and continually
offer up our prayers to God for his restraining and sanc
tifying grace, without which our precautions and res
olutions will be unavailing. " Wherewithal shall a
young man purify his way ? By taking heed thereto,
according to thy word ;"X by making the word his
guide, and depending upon the assistance which it
promises. " My son, be strong in the grace which is
in Christ Jesus. "|| " Once," says Paul to the Cor
inthians, "ye were adulterers, fornicators, and abusers
of yourselves with mankind ; but ye are washed, but
ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of
the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."§
The Eighth commandment is, "Thou shalt not
steal ;" and the design of it is lo guard property
against fraud and open violence. It places a sacred
inclosure around it, into which no person must enter
without the consent of the proprietor.
It is unnecessary to engage in an inquiry respecting
the manner in which property is acquired. The sub
ject has been discussed by philosophers, and different
theories have been proposed and defended. It has
been said to have originated in the right of occupancy,
or, that he who first took possession of a part of the
common field of nature, became its rightful proprietor.
It has been founded on the right of labour, that is, it
has been supposed that a man, by cultivating a part of
the soil, was entitled to claim not only the produce

* Matth v. 28.
|] 2 Tim. ii. 1.

f Gen. xxxix. 9.
j 1 Cor. vi. 9, 11.

X Ps. cxix. 9,

but the soil, as his own. It has been referred to the
will of God, who, having created all things for the
use of man, gave liberty to every individual to appro
priate to himself what was necessary for the supply of
his wants. Without troubling ourselves to discuss
these theories we may remark that, in a state of society,
property is ascertained by the law of the land. As it
points out the various ways in which it may be acquired,
and secures it to the rightful possessor, so it determines
in all controversies which arise between two or more
individuals, who is the rightful owner of a field,
a house, money, &c. The sin which the precept for
bids is the appropriation to ourselves, by our own act,
of that which we know belongs to another.. A man
would not be chargeable with transgressing it, who
should seize another man's property, believing it to be
his own, and should endeavour to establish his claim
to it at law ; although his right was not good, his
intentions would not be dishonest. But he is a trans
gressor, who takes what he knows to belong to another
man ; and although he have attained the sanction of
law by such acts as the unprincipled too often employ,
he is a thief or a robber in the estimation of God.
Theft is distinguished into different kinds. There is
peculation, or theft of the public money, a crime often
committed, and by persons who pass in the world for
honourable men, and look down with ineffable con
tempt upon the obscure culprit, who practises his
depredations upon a confined scale. There is sacri
lege, or theft of the property of the church or of any
thing devoted to the service of God. This crime is
comparatively rare, partly because the temptations to it
are neither frequent nor great, partly because men are
restrained by a sense of religion, and partly because
it would cover Ihe guilty with indelible infamy. There
is common theft which is practised daily ; and at
present abounds to sueh a degree as to render property
extremely insecure. Robbery differs from theft in the
manner of committing it. The one is secret and the
other open ; and robbery is accompanied with violence
threatened, or actually employed, lo compel a surren
der, or to overcome resistance. — All those crimes are
forbidden, and they are violations of the laws of God
and man. The precept condemns the man of office
who fills his purse out of the public treasury, and
places him on a level in respect of moral guilt, if it do
not degrade him still lower, with the contemptible
wretch who goes from house to house pilfering what
ever he can find. It condemns neighbours who steal
from one another, servants who purloin the goods of
their masters, and children who secrete for their own
use the property of their parents.
Besides what is commonly reputed theft, there are
various other ways in which men may be guilty of
transgressing this commandment. It is broken when
a man borrows and does not repay. His dishonesty is
manifest if he denies the debt, or refuses to make
restoration, or takes advantage of some legal quirk
to evade payment, or to remove to a place where he is
beyond the reach of his creditors. But he is also
dishonest if he borrows without any reasonable pros
pect of being able to pay ; if he render himself unable
by idleness, by extravagant living, by rash specula
tions, in which he has embarked the property of others
as well as his own ; or if, having obtained a discharge
after partial payment, he does not make full restitution
when Providence has placed him in prosperous cir
cumstances. The commandment is broken by the de
ceitful arts which are practised in trade ; when a man
takes advantage of the necessity of another to buy
from him or sell to him, at a price which would have
been different in different circumstances, or when he
takes advantage of his ignorance with the same design ;
when the buyer depreciates the article of sale contrary
to his knowledge, and the seller labours to raise it
above its real value ; when goods are adulterated, and

THE LAW OF GOD: THE NINTH COMMANDMENT.

consequently sold at a price wbich they would not
have brought if their state had been known ; when
false weights and measures are used, and less is given
in exchange than was expected and promised ; when
bargains are not fulfilled, because there is a prospect
of greater gain, and so what really belongs to the pur
chaser, although he had not obtained actual possession
of it, is withheld from hiin ; when payments are made
in counterfeit or debased instead of current coin; in all
these cases, the precept is as certainly violated, as
when direct theft is committed. It is broken, too,
when men waste the property of others which is com
mitted to their care, or permit it to be wasted by
others ; when they suffer it to go to decay, and do not use
the means of improving it which are in their power,
and whieh they were bound by their engagements to
employ. In this way many are guilty of a breach of
the eighth commandment, who do not suspect their
own honesty, and would consider themselves insulted,
if it were called in question by others. There are
many other ways of transgressing this commandment,
which it would be tedious to mention.
The duty of those who are guilty, in any form, is
to cease to do evil, and to learn to do well. " Let him
that stole, steal no more ;"* let him make restitution
as far as he has ability and opportunity ; and let him
guard against temptation to a repetition of the crime,
and against all the causes which might lead to it.
Besides entertaining an habitual sense of the omnis
cience and authority of God, which would be an
effectual restraint from all sin, let him study to be
content with his condition ; and if it is attended with
inconveniences and privations, let him consider that
these are allotted to him by the Supreme Disposer,
that it is his duty to suffer with patience, and that he
will not be an ultimate gainer by resorting to unlawful
expedients for relief. Instead of appropriating to him
self any portion ofhis neighbour's wealth, he ought to
regard it as placed within the fence of the Divine law,
and feel that he is bound to promote his neighbour's
interest by all means in his power, for this is the con
verse of the negative precept. There are different
ways in which this work of love may be performed,
as by assisting others in their labours, when attention
to our own business will permit ; by giving them les
sons of prudence and economy ; by pointing out to
them the best methods of managing their affairs ; by
warning them of dangers which they do not foresee ;
and if we are precluded from using any of these
means, we always have it in our power to wish them
well, and to pray for their prosperity.
" Let him that stole, steal no more ; but rather let
liim labour, working with his hands the thing which
is good."] If a man has not resources of his own,
he must endeavour to provide them by lawful indus
try, and thus cut off one strong temptation to theft.
The crime is most frequently committed by the poor,
who cannot work for their daily bread ; or by the idle,
who will not work, and take this easier method, of
supplying their wants. Hence it follows that dili
gence in business is enjoined by this precept. The
calling in which we engage must be lawful, because
the gain which is acquired by an illicit occupation, is
the fruit of a violation either of this or some other
commandment, and cannot be sought with a good con
science. It must be carried on by lawful means, by
fair and honest industry, to the exclusion of falsehood
and fraud, and any encroachment upon the rights and
privileges of others. It should be managed with at
tention, and prudence, and perseverance, because it is
only by the use of these means that we can reasonably
calculate upon success ; but moderation should be
observed, not only lest our strength be impaired, and
life abridged, but that we may not contract an undue

Enh. iv. 28.
3 V

+ Eph. iv. 28.

36

581
attachment to the world, and, by fostering the princi
ple of avarice, create a new temptation" to dishonesty.
The cultivation of spirituality and heavenliness of
mind will be an effectual means of subduing covet-
ousness, and preventing the evils which spring from
it ; for, if we are seeking the true riches, and are fully
aware of the vanity of earthly things, we shall be in
little danger of going out of the path of duty to obtain
them. Even upon those who cannot work, and are destitute
of daily bread, this precept is binding. In an extreme
case, moralists have allowed that a man may take as
much of a neighbour's property as is necessary to
preserve him from perishing of hunger or cold,~and
assign this reason, that " when property was first
established, the institution was not intended to operate
to the destruction of any ; and therefore, when such
consequence would follow, all regard to it is supersed
ed." Be this as it may, the source to which the poor
are to look is the charily of others, which they may
solicit, but cannot compel, for this is one of those
rights which moralists call imperfect, because they
cannot be enforced in the course of law. I am speak
ing of voluntary charity, and not of legal assess
ments. Their right to charity, however, is perfect by
the law of God, who peremptorily enjoins alms, and
will punish those who, from inhumanity or selfishness,
withhold them. Besides a sense of duty, which should
excite us to relieve our indigent brethren, and in aid
of which comes the sentiment of compassion towards
the sufferers, every man should consider that this is
one of the ways in which we may expect our temporal
affairs to prosper ; for " he that hath pity upon the
poor, lendeth unto the Lord, and that which he hath
given will he pay him again." "There is that scat-
tereth, and yet increaseth ; and there is that withhold-
eth more than is meet, but it lendeth to poverty."*
I now proceed to the Ninth commandment. "Thou
shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
The sin which is expressly forbidden is, the giving of
false testimony concerning a person when we are sum
moned as witnesses in his cause by proper authority.
This is done when we affirm that to be true, which we
know to be false; when we assert as certain what is
doubtful ; when we give a higher colouring or a deeper
shade to a transaction, than is consistent with fact ;
when we deliberately conceal any thing which would
serve to' establish the innocence or the guilt of our
neighbour. In these and other ways, witnesses may
swerve from the truth ; and as their evidence, in a
judicial trial, is given upon oath, they farther incur
the guilt of perjury: "These are the things that ye
shall do, Speak ye every man the truth to his neigh
bour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your
gates."! But, although the violation of truth in the solemn
proceedings of courts is the only sin specified, yet all
other sins allied to it, and contrary to the general prin
ciple inculcated, are forbidden. We must not bear
false witness against our neighbour in common con
versation. We must not charge him with a crime of
which we know bim to be innocent, or pronounce him
to be guilty upon reports which we have not verified ;
we must not form rash judgments of conduct which,
upon inquiry, may be found to be right, although ap
pearances at first were unfavourable; we must not
impute bad motives to him without sufficient evidence,
when there is room for a more charitable interpretation.
By this precept, all those are condemned who are
called calumniators, slanderers, backbiters, whisperers,
evil surmisers ; the authors and propagators of injuri
ous reports ; those whose business it is to detract from
merit, to throw a shade upon excellence, and to make
virtue suspected ; who, as the thief goes from place

* Prov. xix. 17. xi. 24.

f Zecb. viii. 16.

562

DICK'S LECTURES ON THEOLOGY.

to place in search of prey, roam about with the nefari
ous design to commit depredations upon the characters
of others. We may violate litis precept even when
we speak the truth, if we speak it unseasonably, un
necessarily, and from improper motives. We injure
the character of our neighbour when we retail his real
faults without any call to divulge them ; when we
relate them to those who have no right to know them ;
and when we tell them, not to promote any good end,
but to make him lose his estimation in society. Many
think that they are perfectly blameless if they adhere
strictly to truth, not considering that, to a complete
moral action, more is necessary than its external con
formity to the rule, and that the principle in which it
originated may be so vitiated as to convert the action
into a sin. Nay, we may transgress this precept when
we do not speak at all ; for, by holding our peace when
something injurious is said of another, we tacitly give
our assent, and, by concealing what we know to the
contrary, by not bringing forward what would rebut
the charge, we become guilty not in a much inferior
degree to the first contriver of the calumny. We cer
tainly do not fulfil the law, which says, " Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself."
The design of this precept is to " maintain and pro
mote truth between man and man." Our organs of
speech were given for the purpose of expressing it. It
is evident thai this must have been the design of our
Creator, whose ultimate object in subordination to his
own glory, was good, to be accomplished by the struc
ture of our bodies, and the constitution of our minds.-
Without truth there could be no society among men,"
no friendships, no mutual co-operation, no transactions
of any kind ; they would be filled with jealousy and
distrust, and be reduced to a helpless individuality of
existence, destitute of all comfort, and harassed with
perpetual suspicion and alarm. To guard against these
consequences, God has planted two principles in
human nature, — an instinctive propensity to speak
truth, and an instinctive disposition to believe testimo
ny. The former may seem to be inconsistent with the
declaration of Scripture, that " the wicked are estrang
ed- from the womb, they go astray as soon as they^be
born, speaking lies."* These words do, indeed, im
port that there is a proneness to duplicity and deceit
in human nature, of which there are indications at a
very early period ; but it is called into action only by
particular circumstances, and in general children and
fools are proverbial for speaking truth. Truth comes
spontaneously from our lips, when there is no motive
to utter falsehood ; and so strong is the natural con
nexion between our sentiments and our words, that it
frequently escapes from us when it would be our in
terest to conceal it. Men commonly speak truth, and
lie ,only occasionally. The dispssition to give credit
to testimony presupposes the former propensity; it
assumes that truth is generally spoken ; it is strongest
prior to experience of deceit, and becomes suspicious
and cautious in proportion as that experience is
acquired. (*"
But although there is a natural propensity to speak
truth, when it is not counteracted by any improper in
fluence, men in their degenerate state do not feel so
sacred a regard to it as is sufficient to secure them
against temptation. There are frequent violations of
it from various causes, against which this precept is
directed. Truth may be defined^to be the conformity
of our sentiments to the nature of things, and the con
formity of our words to our sentiments. The precept
immediately regards the latter, but not to the exclusion
of the former. If it is our duty not to deceive others, it is
our duty to take care that we be not ourselves deceived ;
and consequently, to make ourselves thoroughly ac
quainted with a subject before we venture to speak of

* Ps. lviii. 3.

it. But when a man speaks as he thinks, he speaks
moral truth ; and although he should be mistaken, he
is not guilty of a lie.
Lies are commonly distinguished into three kinds
First, There are malicious or pernicious lies, or lies
the design of which is to do mischief. These are uni
versally condemned. Secondly, There are jocose lies,
or lies told for the purpose of amusement and merri
ment. However common these are, and however light
ly they are-thought of, a strict moralist will condemn
them also, because truth is too sacred to be trifled with.
Thirdly, There are officious lies, which are so called,
because they are intended to promote the benefit of
others. It has been pleaded as an apology for these,
that they do no harm, but on the contrary do good ; a
conscience duly informed, however, does not judge of
the morality of an action by its consequences, but by
the law; and to do evil that good may come, is a prin
ciple which the Scripture has proscribed. Under the
same censure are included pious frauds, as they are
called, and which began to be practised at an early
period ; lies told, miracles feigned, books forged, and
sophistical reasoning deliberately employed, to advance
the cause of religion. Equivocation is another species
of falsehood, and consists in the studied use of terms
which bear two different senses, in one of which the
speaker understands them, while he means them to be
understood in the other by the person addressed. Ha
violates truth, because he intends to deceive. It is
violated also by mental reservation, which has been
justified by Popish casuists, but deserves universal
execration, because it subverts all faith and confidence
between man and man. It consists in uttering so
many words aloud, and then muttering or mentally re
peating some more which totally alter their meaning,
than which it is impossible to conceive a more deliber
ate and baser attempt to deceive.
Every man has not a right to hear the truth when he
chooses to demand it. We are not bound to answer
every question which may be proposed to us. In such
cases we may be silent, or we may give as much in
formation as we please, and suppress the rest. If the
person afterwards discover that the information was
partial, he has no title to complain, because he had not
a right even to what he obtained ; and we are not guilty
of a falsehood, unless we made him believe, by some
thing which we said, that the information was com
plete. We are at liberty to put off with an evasive
answer the man who attempts to draw from us what
we ought to conceal. On the ground of the want of a
right to truth, some justify false information given to
an assassin who is in quest of his intended victim, and
false promises made to a robber or a tyrant who has
extorted them by violence. It does not serve much
purpose to discuss extreme cases, which rarely occur;
and it is hazardous to lay down a rule which may in
any degree lessen our reverence for truth. We have
a choice, when we are exposed to danger, either to sin
or to suffer; and if there be any doubt with respect to
the lawfulness of an expedient, every man of a tender
conscience will take the safer side, by doing what ap
pears to be his duty, and will leave the consequences
to Providence.
There can be no doubt that promises voluntarily
made and properly qualified are binding. They are
binding, according to the sense in which they were
understood by Ihe parties at the time when they were
made, — binding, in the plain and natural meaning of
the terms. But promises are not binding when the
performance of them is impossible. This is so obvi
ous as to require no illustration; but it is proper to
observe, that tbe impossibility must have arisen or
been discovered after the promise was made ; and if
the promiser was aware of it at the time, he excited
false expectations, and is clearly guilty of a lie. Pro
mises are not binding when the performance would bo

THE LAW OF GOD: THE TENTH COMMANDMENT.

unlawful. A -prior cannot be set aside by a subsequent
obligation ; and the law of God undoubtedly does not
require us to fulfil an engagement by which any of its
precepts would be transgressed. A promise is not
binding unless it has been accepled. It is the accept
ance which constitutes the obligation, and not the
simple promise, which is merely a declaration on the
part of the promiser of his willingness to be bound.
If I promised to give another a certain sum of money,
but he declared that he would not accept of it, I am
released. A promise is not binding which was sus
pended upon a condition, if the condition is not per
formed. The promiser has lost his right, or rather had
no right till his part of the stipulation was fulfilled.
In a word, a promise ceases to be binding, when the
person to whom it was made releases the promiser
from his bond.
The duty enjoined in this precept is, to adhere to
truth on all occasions. There are some cases, indeed,
in which, although our words, literally understood, do
not agree with our sentiments, we do not incur the
guilt of falsehood, as in irony, parables, and fictitious
narratives ; and the reason is, that as we do not intend
to deceive, so no person is deceived. The design of
the speaker or writer is understood. No man mistakes
a romance or a parable for a true history, or supposes
irony to be any other thing than a mode of conveying
censure under the semblance of praise. But in testi
mony, in common conversation, and in more formal
declarations, our words should be the exact image of
our thoughts. It is the character of the man who shall
abide in the tabernacle of God, that " he speaketh the
truth in his heart."*
It remains that we should briefly consider the Tenth
commandment : " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's
house ; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,
nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his
ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neigh
bour's." The direct object of this precept is not our
external actions, but the movements of the heart ; and
hence it appears to be supplementary and auxiliary to
the other commandments. They also must be under
stood to regard our feelings and affections, because
they proceeded from him who will not be satisfied with
outward obedience ; but lest men should not have per
ceived their extent, and should have pleaded that, in
conforming to the letter of the law, they had fulfilled
its demands, this precept is added to show its spiritu
ality. The seventh command forbids adultery; but
here we find that something more is required than ab
stinence from the forbidden act, and that the command
ment may be transgressed in the heart : " Thou shalt
not covet or desire tby neighbour's wife." The eighth
commandment forbids us to steal ; but this precept
shows that the man who would scorn to purloin the
property of another, may become criminal in the sight
of God by desiring it: "Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour's house, nor his ox, nor his ass." By for
bidding us to desire any thing that belongs to him, it
forbids every improper sentiment and feeling excited
by the state of his affairs, as envy, rivalship, contests
for superiority'; and thus aims at eradicating the prin
ciple which might lead us to injure him in his person,
his character, or any of his rights. It is the safe-guard
of all the precepts of the second table; and it comes in
at the close, to remind us that the heart must be pure
as well as the life.
It is a celebrated and important question in theology,
whether what is called in Greek tiriBvLux, in Latin con-
cupiscenlia, and in English concupiscence, or desire, has
the nature of sin. Concupiscence is used in different
senses. In the first place, It signifies that proneness
to evil which is natural to man, and is found even in

* Ps. xv. 2.

563
the regenerated. This the Church of Rome acknow
ledges to be the matter of sin, or that in which sin ori
ginates ; but denies it to be sin, and says, that although
the Apostle Paul calls it sin, it is not so in itself, but
is so denominated, because it inclines lo sin. I think,
however, that we are much safer in following Paul
than the Council of Trent. We cannot conceive any
proneness, or tendency, or inclination to evil, in a per
fectly innocent being; or such to have been the con
stitution of human nature, when it was first impressed
with the image of its Maker. Although capable of
evil, it was inclined only to good. An inclination to
evil must be itself evil, as an inclination to virtue is a
virtuous tendency; and the rule of our Saviour certain
ly holds in the present case, that the tree is corrupt
which bears corrupt fruit. In the second place, Con
cupiscence signifies the involuntary movements of this
habitual disposition; and they are called involuntary,
because they are not accompanied with any deliberate
act of the mind approving of them and consenting to
them, but arise suddenly, in consequence of the pre
sence of a suitable object. These also have been de
nied to be sinful ; but although they do not imply a
formal deliberate volition, yet, as they proceed from an
evil habit, they must themselves be evil. It will be
acknowledged, I presume, that it is our duty to check
them; hut how could this be, if they were innocent?
We can conceive no such thing in our Lord; and every
motion of this kind is excluded by his own declaration,
that "the prince of this world was coming, but would
find nothing in him;"* no tendency towards sin, no
movement of the affections, of which he could take ad
vantage to seduce him. Lastly, Concupiscence signi
fies fixed, voluntary desire of what is forbidden, which
all admit to be sinful.
The latter, therefore, is forbidden in this precept,
"Thou shalt not covet, or desire." But it extends far
ther, and forbids the incipient desire, even before it
has obtained the consent of the mind, and consequently
the previous state of mind in which it originated ; for
if the tendency in act be condemned, the tendency in
habit is also condemned. The Apostle Paul says, "I
had not known sin but by the law ; for I had not known
lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." j-
We cannot suppose him to mean, that he did not know
that the deliberate desire of a sinful object was sinful,
although there is reason to think that some of the
Jewish Doctors of that age made obedience to consist
merely in external conformity to the law ; yet it is
hardly credible that a man who had studied the law
so diligently, had entirely over-looked all the notices
of its spirituality, and particularly the principle upon
which it is founded — love to God and to man. It is
probable, that in the passage before us, he refers to
the first motions of sin, those involuntary acts of con
cupiscence of which we have spoken, and declares
that it was only by this precept tbat he came to know
them to be sinful. It was when the precept was
brought home to his conscience by the Spirit of God,
that he made this discovery. Till then, he had be
lieved that all was right as long as he was free from
outward sin, or, at least, from the settled and deliber
ate desire of what was evil.
This precept teaches us how we ought to be affected
towards our neighbour. As we should abstain from an
open invasion ofhis rights, so we should harbour no
uncharitable disposition towards him, no wish which
is at variance with his happiness, and would lead us
to encroach upon his honour, and property, and peace.
It condemns all dissatisfaction with our lot; and all
intentions, as well as endeavours, to change it by any
means inconsistent with justice and love to our neigh
bour, and with entire submission to the will of God. ,

* John xiv. 30.

1 Rom. vii. 7.

564

CONCLUSION.

Contentment with our own condition, is obviously a
duty which it enjoins. The reason that we covet the
things which belong to our neighbour, is, that we are
not fully pleased with the portion, which God has as
signed to us. A contented state of mind would remove
the cause of these irregular affections, which it is the
design of this precept to restrain. We see that vanity
sometimes produces the effect which should flow solely
from religion. Some persons are highly pleased with
themselves, and every thing which pertains to them.
Their houses, their wives, their children, their proper
ty, are so much better than those of others, that they
have no wish to make an exchange ; and, wrapt up in
the dream of superiority, they allow the world to go
on in its course, without envying any one, or disturbing
any one, except by an ostentatious display of their ad
vantages. This example shows how true contentment,
founded on submission to the will of God, would pre
serve us from transgressing this commandment. If we
believed that our condition is such as it ought to be,
that it has been arranged by Divine wisdom, and is
over-ruled by Divine goodness for our best interests,
we should not be grieved at the greater prosperity of
others, nor wish to appropriate to our own use any
thing which they possess. We should even be pleased
with what was our own, and leave others to enjoy un
disturbed what God had given to them. The tendency
of this precept is to promote the happiness of mankind,
as well as the glory of God. If it were engraven
upon our hearts, if our thoughts and affections were
under its control, there would be an end to the com
plaints and murmurs, the cares and anxieties, which
agitate our minds; and the world would no longer
present the disgusting spectacle of a field of battle,
where emulation, wrath, strife, deceit, and violence,
act tbeir part, men prey upon one another, and all con

tend who shall be conquerors in the struggle fot
honour' and wealth.
Upon the whole, we see that the moral law is in
every respect worthy of its Author. It bears upon it
an impression of his holiness : it is adapted to the
nature of man ; it holds all his faculties in subjection
to his Maker, and its aim is to promote piety, and
purity, and love.
When we reflect upon the extensive nature of its
demands, the spirituality of its precepts, its condem
nation of even an irregular thought, its requisition of
entire and constant submission to God, of an habitual
reference to his will as our rule, and his glory as our
end ; when we reflect upon the height and depth, the
length and breadth of the law, we cannot but be
sensible that it is impossible for any man in the present
life perfectly to fulfil it. The obedience of the saints
is attended with many defects, as they are always
ready to acknowledge. " There is not a just man
upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."*
The knowledge of the law is sufficient to convince
any person, whatever his former notions may have
been, that he cannot be justified by it. Hence there
is need of a better righteousness than we can sup
ply ; and we have all reason to be thankful that the
law has been fulfilled and magnified by our Divine
Redeemer, and a foundation has thus been laid for the
acceptance and eternal salvation of those who had
fallen under the curse. " He is the end of the jaw
for righteousness to every one that believeth." "As
by the disobedience of one man many were made sin
ners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made
righteous."|

Eccles. vii. 20.

t Rom. i. 4. v. 19.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

X.KCTCRE 1 On Theology,
2 Sources of Theology: Reason,
3  . Revelation,

Page 5
9
13

4 Evidences of Christianity: Genuineness of the Scrip
tures, - - - - - 18
5  The same subject, - - - - 23
6  The same subject, - - - 28
7  Authenticity of the Scriptures: Miracles, - 33
8  Prophecy: Success of the Gospels, - 39
9  Internal Evidences, - - - 45
10  Objections, - - - - 51
11  Inspiration of the Sacred Writers, - - 57
12 State of the Sacred Text, - - - 63
13 The Study and interpretation of the Scriptures, - 66
14 The Dispensation of Religion : Under the Old Testa
ment, - - - - - 71
15  Under the New Testament, - - 76
Introduction to the Doctrines of Theology, 81
16 On God: His Existence, - - 82
17  His Existence: His Eternity: His Spirituality, 86
18  His Unity, - - - - - 92
19  His Immensity, - - - - 97
20  His Immutability, - - - 102
21  His Knowledge, - - - - 108
22  His Wisdom, - - - - 114
23  His Power, - - - - 119
24  His Goodness, - - - - 125
25  His Justice, .... 131
26  His Truth and Faithfulness, - 137
27  His Holiness: Reflections, - - 142
28  The Trinity, - - - - 148
29  The same subject, ... 153
30  The Divinity of Christ, - - - 159
31  The same subject, ... 165
32  The same subject, - 171

The

Divinity of the Holy Spirit,
; of God,

3334 The Decrees
35  Predestination,
36  The same subject,
37 On Creation, ...
38 On Angels: Holy Angels,
39  Fallen Angels,
40 Man in his State of Innocence,
41 On Providence,
42 The same subject,
43 The same subject, ...
44 The Fall of Man and its Consequences,
45 The same subject, ...
46 The same subject, ...
47 The same subject, -
48 The Covenant of Grace,
49 The same subject, ...
50 The same subject, ...
51 The Mediatorial Office of Christ, -
52 The Messiah,
53 The Person of Christ,

- 177
- 182
- 187
- 191
- 195
- 201
- 206
- 211
- 216
- 221
- 226
- 232
- 236
- 242
- 249
- 254
• 259
- 265
- 271
- 277
- 283

Lectdbb 54 The Prophetical Office of Christ,
55 The same subject,
56 The Priestly Office of Christ,
57  His Sacrifice,
58  The same subject,
59  His Intercession

Pag*
- 288
- 293
- 299
- 304
- 310
- 318
60 Christ's State of Humiliation, - - 323
61 Christ's State of Exaltation: His Resurrection, - 328
62  His Ascension to Heaven: His Seat in Heaven, 333
63  His Judging the World, - - - 338
64 The Kingdom of Christ, - - 343
65 The Application of Redemption: Effectual Calling, 350
66  Effectual Calling: Regeneration, - - 355
67  Union to Christ, - - - - 860
68  Faith,  365
69 The Privileges of Believers: Justification, - 370
70  The same subject, - - - 376
71  The same subject, - - - - 381
72  The same subject, .... 386
73  Adoption,  391
74  Sanctification, - - - - 396
75  The same subject, .... 400
76 On Good Works, - - - - - 405
77 On Conscience, - -- - - 411
78  Peace of Conscience : Spiritual Joy, - 416
79 The Perseverance of the Saints, ... 421
80 The Death of the Saints, and its Consequences, - 426
81 The same subject, ----- 431
82 The Resurrection of the Dead, ... 436
83 The Final State of the Righteous, - - 442
84 The ExTernal Means of Grace: The Word of God, 447
85  The same subject, .... 453
86  The Sacraments, .... 458
87  The same subject, - 463
88  The Sacrament of Baptism, - - 469
89  The same subject, ... - 474
90  The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, - 479
91  The same subject, .... 485
92  The same subject, .... 490
93  Prayer, - - - 496
94  The same subject, .... 501
95  The same subject, .... 506
96 The Church,  518
97 The Government of the Church: Popish form; Epis
copacy, - .... 516
98  Episcopacy; Independency and Presbytery, 521
93  Independency ana Presbytery, - ^ - 527
100  Office-bearers, - ' - - - 532
101  Church Power, .... 537
102 The Law of God: The Decalogue, - - 542
103  The First, Second, and Third Commandments, 548
104  The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Commandments, 553
105  The Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Com
mandments; Conclusion, - - - 559
Index, - - . - - 567

565

INDEX OF MATTER.

Abraham, state of religion in his days, 73;
sacraments of the covenant made with
him. 460.
Absolute, decrees of God are, 185.
Actions, concern of providence in good and
bad, 223. See Providence.
Adah, viewed us the federal head of the hu
man race, 2;;8; effects of his full on his pos
terity, 249.
Adoption, 391. Meaning of the phrase
* Sons of God,' 391 ; practice and nature
of it among men, 391 ; scriptural sense of
the term, 392 : the mediation of Christ, the
meritorious cause, 393; means Uy which
this privileae is obtained, 393; difference
between spiritual and human, 393; bles
sings enjoyed by, 394 ; signified l.y baptism,
477.
Adoration, a part of prayer, 495.
Adulteky, 559; whether it entitles the in
jured party to divorce, 559.
Alms, duty of iiiving, 5C1.
Anoels, signification of the term, 201 ; time
of creation, 2U1 ; their nature, 201.
 Holy, are intelligent, 202; their ac
tivity and strength, 203; their happiness,
£03; are there ranks and decrees among
them? 203; their offices in the affairs of
Providence, 20-) ; their ministry to the
saints, 205; are there guardian anjiels 7 205.
 Fallen, were originally created
pure, 206 ; how long tl ey continued so, 206 ;
their sin, 206 ; not placed under a federal
head, 207; their number, 207; effects of
their fall, 207 ;o'jections to their existence,
207; their subordination to Satan, 208; their
employment, 2fl9 ; their power over the bo
dies of men, 209; over the minds of men,
209; to work miracles, 37; to foretell the
future, 41,
Animal creation, marks of design in, 66; of
unity of design, 92.
Anointing, practice of, 288.
Antinomianism, 410.
AntipjEdobaptists, doctrine of, considered,
472.
Apocryphal hooks, notice of, 22. 27.
Afollinaris, his opinions respecting the hu
man nature of Christ, 283.
Apostles, their apparent want of.qualifica-
tlon for publishing the gospel, 44; tbey
were extraordinary rulers in the church,
532.
Apostles' Creed, 327.
Application of redemption. See Redemp
tion.
Arian heresy, 158.
Arminian doctrine of divine decrees, 188; as
to Adam being the federal head of his pos
terity, 239; as to the penalty in the cove
nant of works. 242, 244 ; of a pplication of
redemption, 353; of the perseverance of
the saints, 422.
Ascension of Christ. 333. See Christ.
Assurance, whether it is of the essence of
faith, 369. 382; attainable in the present
life, ,370.
Atheism, forbidden by the first command
ment, 54H.
Atonement, adoctrine of revelation, 48;idea
of sacrificial, prevalent among the heathen,
308; sacrifices for, part of the Jewish wor
ship, 308; atonement of Christ. See Christ,
death of.
Attributes of Cod, division into rommnni-
rahle and incommunicable, 108. See God.
Authentic, when a book is said to be, 19.
Authenticity of the Scriptures. See Scrip
tures.
Autographs of the sacred writings lost, 63.
Balaam's Ass. objections to the story of, 5-1.
Baptism, sacrament of, the rite of admis
sion into the church, 469; difference he-
tween baptism of John and of Christ, 469;

application of wafer necessary, 469; popish
additions, 470; mode of applying the sym
bol, 470; who may le I aptized, 472; infant
baptism vindicated, 472; I Clients resulting
from it, 479; administered in the mime of
tbe Trinity, 474; meaning and import of
the words used, 474 ; who may administer,
475 ; baptism by laymen, 476 ; by heretics,
476; does not confer regeneration, 475— 6 ;
place for administering, 476; sponsors, 477;
blessings signified, 477; duties of the bap
tized, 47K; only administered once, 479;
an indispensable qualification for church
membership, 514.
Baknabas, quotations from the gospels in
tie epistles of, 29; notices of the other
books, 29.
Believers, privileges of, 370; the law a rule
of life to them, 454: they only have a right
to tiie sacraments, 462. See Sa.nts.
Beza. bis edition of tbe New Testament, 65.
Bishop, duty of, in episcopal form of govern
ment, 520; bishop and presbj ter converti
ble terms, 521 ; office in primitive times,
522. ^
Bir-ih of our Saviour, 324.
Blasphemy, forbidden, 553.
Body, heathen philosophers had no idea of
tbe resurrection of, 49; marks of design in
tbe human body. 86 ; stale of it after death,
4:6; resurrection of it, 437; identity of it
in the resurrection, 439 ; nature of the glo
rified body 441.
Bucer, his opinions respecting the eucharist,
489. .
Calvin, his opinions respecting the eucha
rist, 490.
Catalogues, ancient, of books of New Tes
tament, 30.
Canon of Scripture. See Scriptures.
Cause, final, what it is. 114.
Ceremonial law. objections to it considered,
55; its design. 74.
Ceremonies, "decreed by human authority,
not binding, 414-5; power of tbe church to
enact, 540.
Cekinthus, his heresy, and evidence by him
of tbe genuineness of the Scriptures, 30.
Chastity enjoined by the seventh command
ment, 560.
Children, early depravity of, a proofof orig
inal sin, 252; their duties to parents, 556.
See Infants.
Christ, appearance of, why delayed for
four thousand years, 77; duration of his
ministry, 77; nature of his sonship, 156;
considered as a party to the covenant of
grace, 257; dispensation of crace commit
ted to him, 267; his qualification for the
office of Mediator. See Mediator, Proof
that he is the Messiah, 280. See Messiah.
Meaning and allusion of the term CJirisf,
or the anointed one,_288; when was he
anointed, 2£-8; office to which be was
anointed, 289; necessity for his being pro
phet, priest, and king, 289; their respective
provinces, and mutual relations, 289; bis
righteousness the ground of the sinners1
justification, 37-1 — ?S6 ; his mediation the
meritorious cause of adoption, : 93 ; did he
purchase temporal blessings for I. i< people 1
395; in what sense sanctification is his
work, 400; his is the pattern of sanctifica
tion, 403; spiritual joy arises from an in
terest in him, -118—9 ; bis mediation secures
the perseverance of the saints, 424.
 ¦  Ascension of, nature in which he
ascended, 334; place to which, 334; the
witnesses, 335 ; other circumstances, 335.
 Death, of, was a propitiatory sac
rifice, 304 ; Socinian view of it, 305 ; middle
scheme. 306; proofof the catholic doctrine
of, "07 — 8; import of the language of Scrip- j
ture respecting it, 309; correspondence |

with the atoning sacrifices of the Lcvitical
law. 310; it is a part of his humiliation,
T27 ; extent of its benefits, 315.
Christ, Divinity of, 159; importance of tho
doctrine, and ground of it, 159; languago
of scripture respecting it, 160; his pre-ex-
istenre, 162 ; various proofs and arguments
for his divinity, 163—175; objections to it
considered, 175 — 177.

- Exaltation of, hit* resurrection, 328 ;
his ascension, 333 ; his sitting down at the
right hand of God, and what this implies,
335 ; his judging the world, 338; the king
dom conferred on him, 343.

¦ Humiliation of, 323 :

j distinction he-
tween it, and his condescension, 323; steps
of it, his birth, 324; the meanness of hie
condition, 324; the place ofhis birth, 324;
his subjection to the law, 324 ; events of his
life, 325; his sufferings, 326; the wrathof
Cod which he endured, 326; his death on
the cross, 326 ; his burial, 327 ; opinion re
specting his descent into hell, 327,
 Intercession of, what it means,
318; place where carried on, 318; objects
of it, 319; mode of it, prayer, 319 ; subject-
matter of, 320; difference between it and
the intercession of the Holy Spirit, 321 ;
was typified under the Jewish economy,
321 ; cause or reason for it, 322; Christ the
only intercessor, 322.
 Judging the world, 338. See Gen
eral Judgment. ¦ Kingdom conferred on, 343 ; distin

guished from bis natural kingdom, 344 ; in
what nature he administers it, 344; its uni
versality, 345; view of it in reference to
the church, 34p; he reigns in the kingdom.
of glory, 348; its duration, 348; what ia
meant by Christ's delivering up the king
dom to his Father, 349.
 Person of, 283; his human nature,
283 ; Us integrity and sinlessness, 284; from
whence this sinlessness proceeded, 279;
reason for his assuming human nature,
284; constitution ofhis person as God and
man, 284 — 5; heresies respecting it, 285; ef
fects of the hypostatical union, 286; is his
human nature the object of worship ? 287.
 Priestly office of, 299; necessity of
his holding it, 299; his call to, and investi
ture with it, 300 ; duties of the office, and
general observations on his execution of
them, 300; Socinian heresy respecting nig
sacrifice, 301 ; his similitude to Melchisedek
explained, 301 ; his pre-eminence as a
priest, over all others, 302.
 Prophetical office of, 2F8; his exer
cise of it from the fall to his birth, 290 ; du
ring his life on earth, 29] ; from his ascen
sion to the end of the world, 291 ; view of
his instructions as a prophet, 292; hissupe
riority to all other teachers, 294 ; agency of
the Holy Spirit in the execution of his pro
phetical office, 296—7.
 — Resurrection of, preliminary re
marks respecting the possibility and neces
sity, 329; he was raised by the power of
God 329; time of it, 3:i0; evidence in proof
of it. 3L0; objections considered, 332; con
nexion with the resurrection of saints, 440,
.  Substitution of, in the room of sin
ners, 310 ; various passages to prove it, 310;
objection considered that be did not suffer
actually the same punishment to which
men are liable. 312; correct meaning of a
satisfaction for sin, 313; objections against
the doctrine considered, 3)6.
 Union of believer* to, 300. See
Union. Effected by justifying faith, 367.
Christianity, alone has pretensions to he a
Divine Revelation. 18; truth of, proved by
miracles, :,6; prophecy, 40; success of the
Gospel, 44; internal evidences, 46. 567

568

INDEX OF MATTER.

Church, view of Christ's kingdom in refer
ence to the, 345 ; how founded, 345 ; its form
and order prescribed by him, 346 ; his au
thority in it is exclusive of that of man, 346 ;
alliance with the state, 346. 512— 3; upheld
by Christ, 347; defended by him, 347; dif
ferent meanings of the term, 512 ; the visi
ble, 513 ; the invisible, 513 ; distinction of
militantand triumphant, 514 ; design of the
church, 514; qualifications for member
ship, 514; its unity, 515; its universality
and perpetuity, 516; its infallibility, 516;
nature of schism, 516 ; when is separation
justifiable, 517; the term in the New Testa
ment includes more than one congregation,
524 — 5; church of Jerusalem, its extent,
525 ; constitution of a church, 527 ; its inde
pendence, 5b7 — 8 ; its relation lo the slate,
538.541.
 Government of the. 517—8 ; Popish
form, 518 ; Episcopal form, 520; Indepen
dent and Presbyterian forms examined,
524; power of a church to enact a form,
539.
—  Power does not flow from tie peo
ple, 527 ; opinions of Dr. Owen, 528 ; sub
ordination of courts, 5^9; Poteslas Soypx-
ti*-4, 5:,8; in reference to the Scriptures,
538; to creeds, 539; Potestns ordinans or
JuTaxnit^ 5:, 9; cannot establish any form
of government, 539 ; or make laws to regu
late moral conduct, 540; nor enact rites
and ceremonies, 540; it extends to matters
of mere external order, 541 ; Poteslas judi
cialis, or ftsexfi-nieii, 5-11 ; extent of this
power, over whom it extends, and its ob
jects, 542.
Church Rulers, their power does not flow
from the people, 527 ; account of, 5:2; ex
traordinary apostles, 532 ; prophets, 532-3;
evangelists, 5l'-3 ; ordinary pastors, 533;
teachers or doctors, 534 ; deacons, 5t-5 ; ru
ling elders and warrant for them, 535; their
duties, 535; power with which rulers are
invested, 537. See Church Power.
Censures, church, 542.
Circumcision, a sacrament under tbe Mosaic
dispensation, 464 ; its origin, form, and im
port, 4iG4; was temporary, and is now abol
ished, 465; superseded by the Christian
sacrament of baptism, 466.
Clark, Dr. consideration of his argument, a
priori, for the existence of God, 82.
Clement, quotations of the New Testament.
in his writings, 29; proof afforded hy them
for Episcopacy, 523.
Coincidences in Scripture, a proofof their
genuineness, 33.
Commandments, the Ten, 543; the sum of
them. 545; reason for the division of them
into two tables, 5-18; statement of the sins
forbidden, and duties enjoined in the first,
548; the second, 550; the third, 552; the
fourth, 553; the fifth, 556 ; the sixth, 558 ;
the seventh. 559; the eighth, 560; the
ninth, 561 ; tenth, 563.
Complutensian edition of the New Testa
ment, 65.
Concomitance, Roman Catholic doctrine of,
487.
Concupiscence, whether of the nature of a
sin, 563.
Condition of a covenant defined, 236. See
Covenant. Of the covenant of works, 240;
of the covenant of grace, 260.
Conditional, the decrees of God are, 10,
185.
Confession, Popish doctrine of, 467 ; part of
prayer, 496.
Confessions of Faith, use of, 515 ; power of
the church to enact, 539; authority of, 539.
Confirmation, not a sacrament, 467; re
marks on as observed by the church of
England, 467.
Conscience, bears testimony to the justice of
God, 135; import and nature of. 41 1 ; office
of, 412; its fallibility, 412; not its own
rule, 412; power of superiors over, 413 ; the
will of God the rule, 413; how this rule
was known to the heathen, 414 ; only rule
to Christians is the word of God, 414 ; au
thority of an erring, 415; God alone the
Lord of the, 415—6; different stales in
which it may exist, 416; distinctions into
an antecedent and consequent, 416; en
lightened and erring, 416; firm, and as
sured, and doubting, 416; timid and deli
cate, 417; awakened and hardened, 417;
good and had, 217; operations of, prove
the immortality of the soul, 430.
Conscience, peace of, distinguished from"
mere security, 417 ; founded on peace with
God. 418; connected with privilege of sanc
tification, 418; produces spiritual joy, 418-
9; obtained by the Gospel, 452.

Consubstantiation, some remarks on, 287;
Lutheran doctrine of, 488 ; objections to,
488.
Contentment, duty of, 563.
Contradictions, objections to Scriprure,
founded on alleged, 56; remarks for ex
plaining apparent, 56.
Conversion, the effect of divine grace. See
Regeneration.
Countenance, variety in human, an argu
ment for providence, 220.
Covenant definition of a, 2?6.
 — of Grace, 254 ; fact of its existence,
255; the parties lo it, 255; character sus
tained by the Father in it, 256 ; character
sustained by the Son in it, 257—8; distinc
tion between it and the covenant of re
demption, 258; remarks on the Son's en
gagement to perform the conditions, 260;
perfect obedience a part of the conditions,
261 ; and satisfaction for the sins of his
people, 262; promises of it as they respect
Christ himself, 263; as they respect the
elect, 264; Administration of, 267; how
we may know if we are interested in, 270 ;
See Grace, Mediator.
 of Works, definition of, 236: scrip
tural evidences for it, 237; Parties, 2'.'H ;
character in which God stood, 238 ; charac
ter in which Adam stood, 2^8; he was the
federal head of the human race, 238; may
be inferred from the effects of his sin on his
posterity, 239; condition of it was obedi
ence, 240 ; its extent, 241 ; penalty of tem
poral death, 242: including the sufferings
of this life, 243; spiritual death, 244 ; eter
nal death, 245; penalty still in force against
all under it, 248; promise implied in it,
246; seals of it, 2-16; inquiry how far it
still subsists, 248; covenant form abolished,
248; effects of the breach of it on Adam's
posterity, 249; scripture proof for the doc-
trine^of original sin, 251 ; other proofs of it,
252.
Coveting forbidden by the tenth command
ment, 5G3.
Creation, heathen had no proper idea of,
10, 47, 177; not opposed to the immutability
of God. 106; proof that it affords of the ex
cellence of God, 200 ; of the wisdom of
God, 114; of his power, 121 ; ofhis good
ness, 125; ascribed to Christ, 169; and to
the Spirit, 180 ; what it properly is, 195 ; ar
guments to prove the creation of tbe world,
19t> ; illustration and defence of tbe Mosaic
account, 197 ; date of it, 199 ; time occupied
in it, 199; design of God in it, 200.
 of Angels, when it took place, 201.
See Anijels.
Creation of Man, 211 ; Mosaic account, 211 ;
pattern after which he was made, 212; in
what the image of God consisted. 212; spi
ritually of his soul, 213; authority with
which he was invested, 213; qualities of
his soul, 213; his knowledge, 213 ; his orig
inal righteousness. 214; his happiness, 215.
Creed, the apostles', 327.
Creeds, use of, 515 ; c hurch's power to enact,
¦ 539; authority of, 5:9.
Deacons, duty of, in the Episcopal form of
government, 520 ; they are ordinary rulers
in the church, 535.
Death, temporal, the penalty of sin, 242;
spiritual, in what it consists, 244 ; was in
cluded in the penalty denounced against
Adam, 244 ; eternal also included, 245; in
what it consists, 245; reason why death
befalls saints. 4^6 ; whether it is necessary
for the sanctification of the "soul, 427; its
effects on saints, 428 ; described as a sleep,
428 ; survival of the soul after it, 429 ; doc
trine of an intermediate state after it, 433 ;
of the sleep of the soul after it, 434; of pur
gatory. 435 ; state of the body after it, 436.
 of Christ, an atonement for sin,
:;04 ; extent of ils benefits, 315.
Decalogue, the, 543. See Commandments.
Decrees of God are immutable, 105"; diffi
culty of reconciling them with the free
agency and accountableness of man, 105;
definition of, 182; connexion with the
knowledze of God, 182; nature of them
183; objects of them, 184; properties of
them, 184; are eternal, 184; wise, 184;
free, 185 ; ahsolute and unconditional, 185 ;
.(his is not inconsistent with human respon
sibility, 186. See Predestination, Election,
Reprobation,
Defence, self, right of, 558.
Deluge, objections to the history of, 54.
Demoniacs, 209.
Depravity of mankind a proof of original
sin, 252.
Design, marks of, in the universe, a proof
of the existence of God. 85 ; in the human

body, 86 ; in the bodies of animals. 86 ; In
the veeeiable creation, 87; in the planeta
ry system. 87 ; in tbe surface of the earth,
87 ; unit v of exhibited in the works of cre
ation, 92.
Devils. Pee Fallen Angels.
Didactic theology, what it is, 6.
Difficulties may be expected in a divine
revelation, 17.
Discipline, power of the church concerning,
541 ; in primitive churches, 541 ; over whom
power extends, 542.
Discrepancies of the Gospels, a proof of
their genuineness, 33.
Dishonesty. 560.
Dispensation uf grace. See Grace. Of re
ligion undi;r the Old Testament, 71 ; under
the New Testament, 76; old, abrogated,
79; characteristics of the Christian, 78;
universality of the Christian, 80.
Divinity of Christ, 159; of the Holy Ghost,
177. SeeJdohj Ghost.
Divorce, grounds of. 559.
Doce.t*, tbeir heresy respecting Christ's hu
man nature, 283.
Doctor, or leacher, office of, in the primitive
church, 534.
Dualism, or the doctrine of two principles,
95.
Ebionites, proof they afford of the books of
New Testament, 30.
Editions, dillerent of the New Testament,
65.
Effectual, calling the work of the Holy
Spirit, 355. See Regeneration.
Elders, ruling, ordinary offire t.earersin the
church, 535; their duties, 535.
Elect, the object of Christ's intercession,
319.
Election, divine decree of, 188; was made
from eternity, 188; did not proceed on the
ground of foreseen qualificalions in its sub
jects, 189; they arc immutable. 189; con
nexion with the mediation of Christ, 190;
not the rule of human conduct, 190; im
possibility of the total fall of saints from
grace, inferred from, 422.
Elevation, degree of inspiration called, 60;
objections to t! e term, 61.
Elzevir, his edition of the New Testament,
66.
England, church of, practice of confirma
tion, 467 ; liturgy seems to countenance the
doctrine of regeneration in baptism, 475-6;
use of sponsors in baptism, 477; practice of
kneeling at the Lord'ssuppcr,493.; liturgy,
504 ; form of government, 520; ceremonies,
540.
Eno(H, state of religion in his days, 73.
Enos, state of religion in his days, 72.
Episcopal form of government, 520; duties
of tbe several orders. 520; difference from
Presbytery, 520; arsuments for it, 520;
Christian antiquify of this form considered,
522; explanation of the renunciation of, in
the solemn league and covenant, 524.
Erasmus, his edition of the New Testament,
65.
Erastianism, in what it consists, 537.541.
Eternal death, a penalty of the covenant
of works, 2-15
 Life, comprehends all the blessings
promised to believers, 264.
Eternity, scholastic divisions of, 89; of the
divine decrees, 184; of election, 188.
of God. 89; definition, 90; ascribed

to Christ, 166; to the Holy Spirit, 179.
Eucharist, the. See the Lord^s Snpper.
Eusebius, his testimony to the genuineness
of Scripture, 29—20; his catalogue of the
hooks, 30.
Eutyches, his heresy respecting the const!*
tution of Christ's person, -286.
Evangelists were extraordinary rulers in
the primitive church, 533.
Evidences of Christianity, 18 — 57. See
Christianity.
Evil. Revelation gives the only satisfactory
acrount of theorigin of moral and physical
evil, 48 ; origin of moral evil, 235.
Exaltation, Christ's state of, 328. See
- Christ.
Existence of God, a primary article of hatu
ral religion, 9,82; belief of natural to man,
and almost universal, 82; a priori argu
ment for it considered, 82; Bishop Stilling-
fleet's argument, derived from the idea of
God, 83 ; several arsuments for his exist
ence, 83 — 89; reflections of this subject, 89.
Faith, demanded by revelation, 18; analogy
of, an aid in interpreting Scripture, 68;
considered as the condition of the covenant
of grace, 258 ; it is the bond of union with
Christ, 362;' it is a fruit of regeneration,
365 ; different kinds of faith ; historical,

363 ; temporary, 365 : of miracles, 365 ; sa
ving, 365; objects, 366; nature and quali
ties of saving faith illustrated, 367.
Faith, Justifying, defined and explained,
367 , is assurance of the essence of faith ?
369; does it consist in a persuasion that
Christ died for us in particular, and that
we are pardoned ? 369, 382; office of. in
justification, 381 ; whether it precedes or
follows justification, 381 ; it is not our jus
tifying righteousness, 382 ; or the condition
of justification, 383; hut the means or in
strument, 383; this doctrine welt adapted
to promote the glory of divine grace, 383;
is the gift of God, 384; justification hy faith
not unfavourable to morality, 386; it is a
means of sanctification, 405 ; to secure spi
ritual joy, believers must live by faith,
420 — 1 ; profession of it by adults necessary
before baptism, 472 ; and a necessary qual
ification for church membership, 515.
Faithfulness of God. See Truth.
Fall of man, objections to the story of, 54 ;
Mosaic accouut of, 234; agent concerned,
.234; owing to man's own fault, 235; con
sequences to our first parents, 235; to tbeir
posterity, 239. See Covenant of Works.
Falsehood, crime of, 562.
Father". See God.
Fathers, their testimony to the genuineness
of Scripture, 28.
Forms of prayer; 504.
Fornication, crime of, 559.
Frauds, pious, 562.
Freedom of human will consistent with de
crees of God, 105. 186. 194. See Provi
dence,
Future state, heathen notions of, 49 ; supe
riority of Christian doctrine, 49.
Genuineness of Scripture, 18 — 33. See Scrip-
lure.
Generation, eternal, of the Son, 156 — 7.
Geology, remarks on, with reference to the
age of the world, 199.
Ghost, the Holy. See Holy Ghost.
Gibbon, examination of the five secondary
causes assigned by, for the success of
Christianity, 46.
Glory, future, one of tbe blessings promised
to the elect, in the covenant of grace, 265 ;
in what it .consists, 441. 443.
Goo, existence of, an article of natural reli
gion, 9—10. 82 ; how far it is demonstrable
by reason, 10; notions of heathen regard-'
ing, 10 ; how far our relations to him as
Creator and Governor are discoverable by
reason, 10; scriptural doctrine of the unity,
and existence of God, an internal evidence
of Christianity, 47 ; explanation of repre
sentations of Him as corporeal, and having
numan passions, 55; existence of God, 82;
his eternity, 89; his spirituality, 91; his
unity, 92; his immensity, 97; his immuta
bility, 102 ; his knowledge, 108; his wis
dom, 114; his power, 119; his goodness,
125; Ins justice, 131 ; his truth and faithful
ness, 137.; his holiness, 142. See these sev
eral titles. Review of his perfections,
145; he is an incomprehensible being, 145;
all sufficient, 146 ; sovereign, 147 ; name of
God ascribed to Christ, 163.
——  the Father, viewed as a party in the
covenant of works, 238; in the covenant
of grace, 256 ; sustains the relation of a Fa
ttier by adoption, 394; sanctification his
work, 401 ; happiness of intelligent crea
tures depends on him, 419; he is the only
proper object of prayer, 497 ; connexion be
tween his character and the duty of pray
er, 499 ; first table of the La w contains our
duty to him, 548; commandments consid
ered in their order, 548 ; time appointed for
his worship, 556.
Goodness of God, 125; displayed in the act
of creation. 125; instances and proofs of it,
126; not inconsistent with the prevalence
of disease and death among animals, 127 ;
proved hy his dispensations to man, 127;
consistent with the existence of physical
evil, 128; and of moral evil, 128; display
ed in redemption, 128.
Gospel, the success of, is a proof of Christi
anity, 44 ; was repugnant to the Jews and
Gentiles, 44; apparent want of qualifica
tion of persons employed to publish it, and
Us progress, 44; its rapid progress cannot
be explained on principles of reason or ex
perience, 45; examination of Gibbon's five
secondary causes of its success, 46 ; its suc
cess a proof of the power of God., 124; dif
ferent senses of the term, 449; its proper
import as distinguished from the law, 449 ;
not a new law of grace, 450; its efficacy
as a means of conversion, 451; peace of
conscience and consolation is obtained by
3 W

INDEX OF MATTER.
it, 452; it purifies the heart, 452; on
preaching it, 453,
Government of the church. See Church.
Grace, covenant of. See Covenant.
Dispensation of, 267; committed to

Christ, 267; viewed as a Testament, 267.
prior to the coining of Christ, 268 ; how
then carried on, 269 ; how carried on under
the New Testament, 270; distinguished by
its clearness, 270; design of it, 270.
— of God, meaning of the term in
Scripture, 356; its effect and mode of op
eration in conversion, 356 ; it is mighty and
invincible, 356 ; but consistent with liberty
of will, 357 ; its glory obscured by the doc
trine of justification by works. 378; but
promoted by the doctrine of justification
by faith, 383;" its riches illustrated by the
decree of reprobation, 193; external means
necessary to all but infants, 448; Gospel
not a new law of grace, 450; its efficacy as
a means of grace, 451 ; sacraments a means
of, 458; prayer a means, 496.
Happiness, primeval, of man, 215.
Heathen, were sensible of their ignorance
and need of revelation, 16 ; had no idea of
a resurrection of the body, 49 ; good works
of, 408.
Heaven, what the word signifies in different
places^lOS. 334; nature of, 443; employ
ment of the saints, 444'; felicity of, 445.
Hell, notion of Christ's descent into, 32".
Heretics, early, evidences of Scripture af
forded by, 30.
PIermas, pastor or shepherd of, allusions to
the New Testament in, 28. 30,
Holiness, meaning of. in Scripture, 142; in
crease of it implied in sanctification, 398;
perfected at death, 433.
of God, 142 ; definition of, 142 ; dis

played in the formation of man, 143; in
the law given to him, 143; in the dispen
sations of Providence, 144 ; in redemption,
144 ; in the qualifications for eternal happi
ness, 145.
Holy Ghost, divinity of, 177; proofs of his
personality, 178 ; reason of the name Spirit,
178 ; his divinity proved, from divine names
given to him, '179; divine perfections as
cribed to him, 179; works which he per
forms, 180; and religious worship paid. to
him, 180 ; his relation to the other persons
of the Godhead, called his procession, 181 ;
difference on this subject between the
Eastern and Western churches, 181 ; his
agency in the execution of Christ's pro
phetical office, 297; in what his teaching
consists, 297; intercession, 321 ; sanctifica
tion his work, 401 ; his inhabitation causes
spiritual joy, 419; and secures perseve
rance, 424; his office in sealing helievers
and giving them the earnest of their future
inheritance, 425; his influence must ac
company the means of grace to insure suc
cess, 458.
Hope, its influence in producing spiritual
joy, 420.
Human nature of Christ, See Christ.
Humiliation of Christ. See Christ, 323.
Hume, his arguments against miracles,, 38.
Husbands, their duties to their wives, 556.
Ignatius, notice of the books of the New
Testament in his writings, 29; proof fur
nished by his writings for episcopacy, 522.
Images, worship of, unlawful, 551 ; making
of them not forbidden, 550; of God con
demned, 550.
Immateriality of the soul, a proof of its im
mortality, 429.
Immensity of God, 97; denied by some, 97—
8; definition of, 98; distinguished from
omnipresence, 98; proofs of it, 99; distin
guished from infinite extension, 100; un
warrantable speculations concerning it,
101; presence of God with his creatures,
101 ; doctrine reconciled with passages
which represent God^as peculiarly present
in particular places, 101 ; reflections from
the doctrine, 102.
Immortality of the soul, result of the inqui
ries of reason with respect to the, 11 ; doc
trine of does not account for the spread of
Christianity, 46; proofs of it, 429.
Immutability of God, 102; proofs of it, 103;
he is immutable in his existence, 104; in
his knowledge, 104 ; in his counsels, or de
crees, 105. 189; and in his moral perfec
tions, 106; necessary to the support of re
ligion, 106; consistent with consummate
felicity, 106; objections considered, 106;
reflections on the use of this doctrine, 107;
incarnation, not opposed to it, 107 ; nor the
substitution of Christ, 317 ; ascribed to
Christ. 168.
Imputation of Adam'i sin on his posterity,

569
249; of Christ's righteousness in justifica
tion, 378; it is the act of a Judge, 379;
founded on union to Christ, 379.
Incarnation, objection to revelation, on ac
count of the doctrine of, 53; not at vari
ance with the immutability of God, 107,
See Christ.
Incest, crime of, 559.
Incomprkhensibllness of God, 145.
Independent form of government, 524 ; ex
amination of the arguments for, 525— 531 ;
objections to the system, 531. See Church
Rulers.
Infallibility of the Church, 516.
Infants, death of, a proof of the imputation
of Adam's sin, 249 ; early appearance of
depravity in them, a proof of original sin,
252 ; their regeneration, the immediate ef
fect of the Holy Spirit without external
means, 352. 448 ; infant baptism vindica
ted, 472 ; benefits resulting from it, 479.
Inspiration, claimed hy the sacred writers,
57 ; different opinions respecting it, 59 ; pie-
nary inspiration, 59; degrees of inspira
tion, 59; superintendence, 60; elevation,
60; suggestion or revelation, 61 ; in what
sense the Scriptures are tbe Word of God,
61 ; whether it extends to the language, 62.
Inspired men, character of, 62; mode by
which they were inspired, 63; peculiar
- privilege of Moses,,63.
Intercession, peculiar duty of a priest, 301 ;
Christ's intercession. See Christ. Of rite
Holy Spirit, 32l ; of saints, 322.
Intermediate state of tiie soul after death,
doctrine of, 433.
Interpretation of Scripture, rules for, 67.
Irenjeus, notices of the New Testament in
the writings of, 29; proof furnished by his
writings for episcopacy, 523.
James, doctrine in epistle of, reconciled with:
that of Paul, 68. 385.
Jehovah, name of, given to Christ, 165.
Jerome, proof furnished by his writings for
episcopacy, 523.
Jerusalem, extent of the church at Jerusa
lem in the apostles' days, and argument it
affords for Presbytery, 525; argument de
rived froin the account of the council of,
530.
John the Baptist, account of his ministry, 76.
Jonah, objections to the story of, 55.
Joy. See Spiritual Joy.
Judgment, the general, will exhibit the jus
tice of God, 137; ascribed to Christ, 171;
a doctrine of revelation, 338; reasons for
it, 338; time, 340; duration, 34u; place,
340 ; the parties, 340—1 ; the Judge and hta
fitness, 341 ; circumstances attending .it,
341 ; standards of judgment, 342 ; the sen
tences, 343; their execution, 343; final
judgment of the saints, 442; purpose for
which their good works are mentioned,
442; whether their sins will be mentioned,
442; their acquittal and entrance into hea
ven, 443.
Judicial law, given to the Israelites, 74.
Justice of God, 131 ; distinguished into abso
lute, 131; relative, 132; avenging justice,
134: testimony borne to this attribute by
conscience, 135: by the dispensations of
providence, 135: and redemption, 136.
256: it will be openly manifested. at the
end of time, 137: decree of reprobation
gives an impressive view of it, 193: ren
dered the priesthood of Christ necessary,
299 ; doctrine of his substitution not repug
nant to it, 316.
Justification, importance of the doctrine!
of, 370: meaning of the term, 371; its au
thor and subjects, 371: what it implies,
372: groundof it, 374: not the works of the
law, 374 : nor repentance, 376 : nor sincere
obedience, 376 : but solely the righteous
ness of Christ, 378: lemarks on the impu
tation of his righteousness, 379: office of
faith in justification, 381 : relation which
repentance bears to it, 384 : and which good
works bear, 384: doctrines of Paul and
James reconciled, 385: objection that the
doctrine is injurious lo morality consider
ed, '666 : it supplies the most powerful mo
tives to holiness, and against sin, 289: this
confirmed by experience, 390: difference
from sanctification, 397: peace of con
science founded on it, 418.
Killing, in self defence, 558.
Kingdom of Christ, 344. See Christ. _
Knowledge of God, 108: proofs that it Is
one ofhis attributes, 109; : extent of it, 110:
distinction of scientia simplicis intelligen-
ita> and scientia visionis, 112. 182: scien-
tia'media, 112. 182; its qualities, 112—3*
reflections, 113: connexion with, the de
crees of God, 183.

570

INDEX OF MATTER.

Knowledge of Man, possessed at his creation,
£13: knowledge acquired by the teaching
of the Holy Ghost, 297: degree of, neces
sary for salvation, 298: knowledge pos
sessed by the saints in heaven, 445: neces
sary for church members and the degree
of it, 514.
— —  Tree of, good and evil, command
regarding it, 233: whether it was a seal of
tbe covenant, 233— 4.
Koran, character of the, 18.
Language, whether inspiration extends to,
62 ; objection to inspiration, on theaccount
of di.lerence of style, 62.
Languages, acquaintance with original, a
prerequisite for study of the Scriptures, 67 ;
in which the Scriptures were written, 67.
Law, the ceremonial, objections to it con
sidered, 55; exhibilsthejusticeof God, 132;
correspondence between its atoning sacri-
ficesand the death ofChrist, 310.
¦  the moral, excellence of it, 49 ; ex
hibits the justice of Cod, I: 2; and holiness
of God, 143 ; how far it retains its author'
ity, notwithstanding the breach of the cov
enant of works, 248; it was not corrected
and perfected by Jesus Christ, 291 ; is one
of the principal parts of tbe word of God,
454 ; its requirements so high that no sin
ner can be justified by it, 374; these not
lowered in the dispensation of grace, 376;
nor a new law less rigorously enacted, 377;
the law as distinguished from the gospel,
449. 454, its use in awakening sinners,
454; and as a rule of life to believers, 455 ;
its connexion with the gospel as a rule.
455 ; when first given, 543 ; rules for inter
preting it, 545 ; it is of universal obligation,
547; and perpetual, 547.
Learning, a competent share of, a necessary
qualification for a student of theology, 8.
Liberty, human, consistent with the divine
decrees, lfctj ; consistent with the power of
divine grace, in the conversion of sinners,
357.
Lies, different kinds of, 562.
Life, tree of, was it a seal of the covenant
of works, 247. 460.
Liturgy of the church of England, 504.
Lord's Prayer. See Prayer.
.  Supper, a mean of sanctification,
404; institution and primitive simplicity of
the rite, 479; its gradual corruption. 480 ;
transubstantiation, 480; meaning of the
words of the institution, 481 ; Lutheran
opinion of consubstantiation, 488; opinions
of other reformers, 489; its true nature,
490 ; in what sense Christ is present, 49 1 ;
observations on the time of the institution
and the symbols, 491 ; mode of administer
ing it, 4fi2 ; what the partaking of it implies,
493—4 ; who may partake of it, 494 ; how
often it should I e administered, 495.
Love of God, tbe promises of the covenant
of grace originated in it, 265; good works
must proceed from love to God, 408 ; it is
the sum of the decalogue. 545.
Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, 488.
Magicians of Egypt, theirenchantments, 37.
Magistrate has no power over the con
science, 415 — 6; inconsistency of the
Westminster confession on this point, 416.
Mahowlet, cbaracler of bis religion, 18 ; suc
cess of ii accounted for, 44.
Man, creation of, 211. See Creation. Pat
tern after which he was made, 211; his
original iikeness to the image of God, 212;
happiness of his primeval state, 215; how
long he retained his innocence, 215; was
created fallible. 232; was placed under a
law, 232; fall of man, 234. See Fall. Du
ties he owes to God, 548; to his fellow
man, 556. See Commandments.
Mankind, universal depravity of, a proofof
original sin, 252.
Marcion, the heretic, proves the early exist
ence of the Gospels, 30.
Marriage, the popish sacrament of, 468;
marriage is an ordinance of God, 559; na
ture and duties of, 559.
Macknight, character of his commentary,
301. 351. 439.
Masu, the. See Transubstantiation.
MSS. of the Scriptures existing, 63; causes
of various readings in them, 64 ; classes of
them, 64; sources of various readings in
them, 65.
Material universe, existence of, a proofof
the existence of God, 84.
Means of grace, the word of God, 447 ; the
sacraments, 458; prayer, 496. See these
several titles.
Mediation ofChrist, its connexion with the
decree of election, 190: the effect of it, 274 ;
whether temporal blessings were pur

chased by it, 394 ; it secures the perseve
rance of tbe saints, 423.
Mediator of tbe covenant of grace, 258;
none necessary in the covenant of works,
271 ; necessary since the introduction of
sin, 27] ; observations On the ofhee, 271 ;
qualifications of Christ for the office, 272;
peace established r-eiwecn God and man,
by a mediator. 274 ; in what nature Christ
is mediator, 275; he is not a mediator of
angels, 275; commencement of his office,
276 ; duration of it. 276. 348; offices which
it includes, 288—290 ; kingdom conferred
on bim, 344. See Christ, Messiah.
Melchizedek, similitude between our Sa
viour and, ::01.
Members, church, qualifications of, 514 ; du
ties towards the rulers, 557.
Messiah, his character different from what
the Jews expected, 35 ; prophecies respect
ing him, and tbeir fulfilment, 43 ; opinion
-of the Jews regarding, 43 ; predictions of,
prior to the appearance ofChrist, 278 ; their
import, 279; proof that Christ is the Mes
siah, 280 ; from the lime of hisappearance,
280; his character, 281; his "wonderful
works, 282; the success ofhis religion, 282.
Methodists, doctrine of, as to sinless per
fection being attainable in this life, 4L0.
Middle scheme of the death of Christ, 306.
Ministers. See Pastors.
Miracles, definition of, 36; are possible, and
afford a proof of revelation, 14.^6. :.9; they
are the work of God, 15. 37; the miracles
of Apollonius of Tyanna.23 ; power of evil
spirits to work them, 37 ; Hume's argument
against them considered, c8; they are nat
ural accompaniments of a revelation, ?8 ;
and necessary, 38; miracles of Vespasian,
39; Popish miracles, 39; rules for distin
guishing the true from tbe false, 39 ;
whether they alone are sufficient to prove
the truth of a doctrine, 39 ; ascribed to the
Holy Spirit, 180; the faith of miracles, 365.
Moral Evil, bow existence of it is recon
cilable with Ihe holiness, justice, and good
ness of God, 96. 118; origin of, 235.
Moral Law. See Law.
Morals, heathen notices of, 11; excellence
of Christian, 49; doctrine of justification by
faith not contrary to morals, 3S6. See
Good Works. Church has no power to
enact rules of moral conduct, 540 ; state of
heathen morals accounted for, 543 ; insuf
ficiency of reason to discover true moral
ity. 543; the rule of moral action, 544.
Moses, looks of, genuineness of, 19;cavils
of infidel writers, regarding them 20; opin
ions of Father Simon and Le Clerc, 20 ;
their authenticity, 34 ; he excelled all hea
then philosophers, 47; his peculiar privi
lege, 63 ; character of his institutions, 74 ;
his account of the creation illustrated and
defended, 196 ; of creation of man, 211.
Murder forbidden, 558.
Mysteries might be expected in a revela
tion, 17; objection made to revelation on
account of them, 52; was a name given to
the sacr.iments, 458.
Name of God, what is meant by, 508; on
taking it in vain, 552.
Natural theology, articles of, 6 ; how far
tbey are discoverable by reason, 9-
Nature, laws of, what they are, 219.
New Testament, account of the books, 23
— 28; quotations from or references to in
the early writers, 29; catalogues of hooks,
30; inspiration of, 57 ; various editions, 65 ;
New Testament dispensation, 76. 271).
Nestorius. his heresy respecting the consti
tution of Christ's person, 285.
Oaths, whether they are lawful, 552.
Obedience, the condition of the covenant of
works, 240 ; its exlent, 240—1 ; perfect obe
dience ofChrist, a condition of Ihe cove
nant of grace, 2G0 ; how it availed sinners,
260 ; it constitutes his righteousness, 263.
Obligation, moral law is of universal, 547.
Offices of Chriat. See Christ, Mediator.
Old Testament, notices of the books of, 19 —
22; inspiration of, 58; the dispensation of
the Old Testament, 72. 268. See Scrip-*
tures.
Omnipresence of God, 101 ; ascribed to
Christ, J67; ascribed to the Holy Spirit,
179. See Immensity.
Oracles, character of the heathen, 41.
Orders, Roman Catholic sacrament of, 467.
Ordinances of Christ, a means of sanctifica
tion, 404.
Original righteousness, in what it consisted,
214.
 Sin, consequence of Adam's trans
gression, 249 ; scripture proofs for the doc
trine, 249; from the necessity of regenera

tion, 252; early depravity of children, 252
universal depravity of mankind, 252.
Paradise, held hy some to he a seal of the
covenant of works, 246. 460.
Pardon, promised to lie elect in the cove
nam of grace, 264. Pee Christ's Death and
Substitution. Doctrine of universal par
don considered, 315.
Parents, duties of, to children, 556.
Particularity of Scripture a proof of its
genuineness, ::2.
Passover, a seal of the covenant, 465; its
significancy, 466; superseded by the Chris
tian sacraments, 466.
Pastor, an ordinary ruler in the church,
533—4 ; their duties, 5:^4.
Patriarchal times, stale of religion in, 73.
Paul, doctrine of, as to justification by faith
reconciled with that of James, 68.385.
Peace of conscience, 417. See Conscience
Pelagians, their doctrine concerning Adam's
being the federal head of his posterity, 239;
respecting the penalty in "the covenant of
works, 242. 244 ; respecting the application
of redemption, :-53. 355.
Penance, Roman Catholic sacrament of, 467,
Penances, absurdity of them, 407.
Perfection, not attainable in this life, 400.
Perjury, crime of, 552.
Perseverance of the saints, 421 ; different
opinions respecting, 422; total fall of saints
impossible, 422 ; arguments for the doctrine
of perseverance, 422 ; examination of texts
alleged against it, 425 ; not unfavourable to
holiness, 426. "''
Person, meaning of the term as applied to
the Trinity, 154; constitution of Christ's
person. See Christ.
Personality of the Spirit proved, 177.
Peter, alleged supremacy of, 518; no proof
that he was bishop of Rome, 519.
Physical evil, how the existence of is recon
ciled with the goodness of God, 129.
Pie'iy necessary in a student of theology, 7
Pilgrimages, absurdity of, 406 — 7.
Plenary inspiration, 59.
Plurality of Gods impossible, 94.
Polemic theology, what it is, 7.
Popery. See Rome, Church of.
Popish form of church government, 518.
Polytheism, origin of, 95; forbidden by the
first commandment, 549.
Polycarp, quotations in his writings from
tbe New Testament, 29.
Polygamy, remarks on, 559.
Porphyry, writings of, piove the genuine
ness of the New Testament, 31.
Power of God, 119; definition of, 120; con
nexion of cause and effect, 120; apparent
limitations to it, 121 ; proofs of this attri
bute in creation, 121 ; in providence, 123;
and in redemption, 124 ; tbe power exerted
in the conversion of sinners is invincible,
356 ; ascribed to Christ, 169; connexion be
tween truth and power, 39.
Power of the church. See Church Power.
Practical theology, what it is, 7.
Prayer, a means of sanctification, 404 ; nat
ural to man, 496; definition of, and ita
parts, 496; object of it, 497; should be
founded on the dispensation of grace, 498 ;
connexion it has with the character of
God, 498 ; objections to it considered. 499;
the rule of prayer is the word ot God, 510;
blessings to be implored, 501 ;for others, 501;
public, 502 ; private, 502 ; ejaculatory, 503 ;
seasons for prayer, 503 ; forms, and oljec-
tions to them, 504; acceptable prayer, 505
the Lord's, 5C6 ; its use as a form

and pattern, 507; it is not a compilation. 507;
its parts, 507; commentary on it, 507 — 512.
 Intercessory, of Christ, 319.
- to Saints, absurdity of. 322.

Preaching the gospel, in what it consists,
453 ; observations on, 453.
Predestination defined, 187; supralapsa-
rian system, 187; sublapsarian, 187; Ar
menian, 188; decree of election, 188; de
cree of reprobation. 191; practical utility
of the doctrine, 192; objections to it, 194.
See Election, Reprobation.
Prelacy. See Episcopal form of Church
Government.
Priest, office of. 299 ; duties of, 3C0 ; improper
designation for ministers of the gospel
302; duty under the Episcopal form of
government, 520.
Priestly office of Christ, 299. See Chnst.
Priesthood, Christ's superiority to the Le-
vitical. 302.
Presbyter, a convertible term with bishop,
521 ; office in primitive times, 523.
Presbyterian form of government consider
ed along with independency, 524—51 2 ; su
periority over the independent system, 531,

Preservation of all things, a proof of divine
power, 221 . See Providence.
Privileges of believers, 370; justification,
371 ;adoption,391 ; sanctification, 396;abil-
jty to perform good works, 405 ; peace of
conscience, 411 ; spiritual joy, 419; perse-
' verance, 421. See these titles.
Procession of the Spirit, meaning of the
term, 155. 181.
Promise, the first, 72^; the promise implied
in the covenant of works, 246; the prom
ises of the covenant of grace, 263 ; meaning
of the promise in the fifth commandment,
obligation of a promise, 562.
Promises of God, faithfulness of them, 139 ;
remarks on as absolute, and conditional,
139; they are a source of spiritual joy, 420.
Property, how acquired, 560.
Prophecy, a proof of the truth of revealed
religion, 40 ; definition of a prophecy, 40 ;
power of evil spirit^to predict the future,
41 ; character of the heathen oracles, 41 ;
_ obscurity of prophecy, a proof of divine
wisdom, 41 ; argument from prophecy, 41 ;
consideration of particular prophecies, 42.
Prophet, office of, 290; was an extraordi
nary officer in the primitive church, 533.
Prophetical office ofChrist, 290.
Providence, heathens had imperfect notions
regarding, 10. 48; proofs it affords of the
existence of God, 88; of his wisdom, 117;
ofhis power, 123 ; of his goodness, 127; of
his justice, l35;his holiness, 144;ascrihed
to Christ, 170; to the Holy Spirit, 180;
meaning of the term. 217; arguments for
the doctrine of,2l7; objections refuted, 218.
220; in what it is concerned. 222; its con
cern in the sinful actions of men, 223 ; dis
tinctions of Calvinistic divines, 225; and
language of Scripture on this suhject, 227 ;
God's peculiar or gracious providence, 228 ;
is there iti the dispensations of providence
a revelation of grace? 350 ; dispensations a
means of sanctification, 404.
Purgatory, doctrine of, 435 ; arguments
against it, 436 ; best argument for it, 436.
Quakers, opinion of as to baptism, 469.
Reading the word, observations on, 457.
Reason, a source of theology. 9; definition
of it, and how its powers are to be ascer
tained, 9; its researches in natural reli
gion, 9 ; in morality, 10. 11 ; as to the im
mortality of the soul, IJ ; altogether fails
in discovering the doctrines of supernatu
ral theology, 12 ; its proper office in theol
ogy, 12; objection to revelation on the
ground of its sufficiency, 51 ; revelation
contains no doctrine contrary to reason,
52 ; reliance to be placed on its discoveries,
128.
Reconciliation to God,*he effect of Christ's
mediation, 274. 314.
Redemption, objections_made to revelation
on account of the scheme of,. 53 ; proofs af
ford by it of the wisdom of God, 118; of
his power, 124 ; of his goodness, 129; ofhis
justice, 136 . of his holiness, 144 ; divinity
of Christ interwoven with the whole
scheme, 174—5; it originated in the cove
nant of grace, 254.
-  application of, 350; ils necessity,
and what it implies, 350; the external
means, are the word and ordinances, 350 ;
internal and effectual means is the grace
of God, 353. See Effectual Calling, Re
generation, fyc.
Redemption, Universal^ doctrine of, consid
ered, 315.
Reformation is not regeneration, but will
always be the result of it, 359.
Regeneration, one of the blessings of the
covenant of grace, 264 ; effected by divine
grace, 353; change implied in it, 357; illu
mination of the mind, 358; renovation of
the will, 358; effects of it, 359; reformation
is its fruit, 359; it is specifically the same
in all, 359; and necessary to all, 359; it is
the foundation of all subsequent attain
ments in religion, 360 j difference between
itand sanctification, 397 ; they are insepa
rably connected, 397; good works a part
of it, 405; baptism does not regenerate,
475 ; it is signified in baptism, 477.
Religion, dispensation of, traced from the
creation to New Testament times, 71 — 81.
Repentance, not the ground of justification,
376 : place it holds in justification, 384.
Reprobation, decree of, 191 ; proof for it,
191 ; the ground of it, 192 ; in what it con
sists, 192.
Responsibility, divine decrees consistent
with human, 105. 186.
esurrection, heathens had no idea of it,
49; ascribed to Christ, 170. 440; ascrihedto
the spirit, 180 ; doctrine of a matter of pure

INDEX OF MATTER.
revelation, 437 ; was believed by the Jews
in Old Testament times, 438 ; universality
of the resurrection, 439; identity of our
bodies, 439 ; it is the work of divine power,
440; connexion between the resurrection
of the'saints, and that of Christ, 440; na
ture of the saints' glorified bodies, 441;
opinion of a partial resurrection, 441.
Resurrection of Christ, 328.
Revelation necessary even to establish doc
trines of natural theology, 12 ; a source of
theology, 13 ; definition of a revelation, 13 ;
its possibility, 13; connexion of miracles
with it, 14; its desirableness, 15; and neces
sary, 17; its probable character, 17; de
mands the exercise of faith, 18 ; has a rev
elation been given ? 18; pretended revela
tions, 18; Ihe scriptures contain the only
true revelation, 18; miracles are necessary
accompaniments, 38 ; objections to revela
tion, 51 ; degree of inspiration called reve
lation, 61.
Righteousness of Christ, in what it consists,
263 ; the sole ground of justification, 378 ;
his ohedience was entirely gratuitous, 379 ;
was fulfilled not for himself but for sin
ners, 379.
 Original, of man, at his creation,
214.
Rites, decreed by human authority, not
binding, 414 ; power of the church to" enact,
540.
Robbery, crime of, 560.
Rome, church of, her pretended miracles, 39 ;
belief of tradition, 69; conduct in reference
to the scriptures, 70 ; doctrines of interces
sion of the saints, 322; of justification, 371 ;
of pilgrimages and penances, 406—7; of
works of supererogation, 407; of proba
bility, 413; of purgatory, 435; of opus ope-
ratum in the sacraments, 462 ; of the inten
tion ofthe administrator of them, 463; five
spurious sacraments, 4G6— 7 ; unauthorized
additions to the rite of baptism, 470; opin
ion as to the persons by whom baptism
may be administered, '475; doctrine of
transubstantiation, 480; form of govern
ment, 518; opinion that the authority of
scripture depends upon the church, 538 ;
conduct in reference to the ten command
ments, 548 ; worship of saints and images,
551.
Sabbath, the, whether it was a seal of the
covenant of works, 247; when established.
553; ils morality, 553; change from the
seventh to the first day of the week, 554 ;
method of observing it, 555.
Sabellian heresy, 158.
Sacraments are seals of the union of be
lievers to Christ, 303; thevare means of
grace, 458; definition of, 458; their nature,
459 ; their design, 460 ; sacraments, or seals
ofthe covenant with Adam, 247. 460 ; with
Noah, 460; with Abraham, 460; sacra
ments are of divine institution, 461 ; are
significant of the blessings promised, 461;
and assurances that they shall be enjoyed,
461 ; how they are to be used, 462; by whom,
462 ; source of the efficacy, 462 ; not affect
ed hy the intention of the administrator,
463; consequences ofthe popish doctrine
on this subject, 463; sacraments of the Mo
saic dispensation, circumcision, 464 ; the
passover, 465 ; superseded by the Christian,
46C ; spurious sacraments ofthe church of
Rome, 466 ; Christian sacraments, baptism,
469 ; the Lord's Supper, 479. See Baptism,
Lord,s Supper.
Sacrifices, institution of, 72; of the ceremo
nial law, their connexion with the death
ofChrist, 310.
Saints, intercession of, 322; origin of this
doctrine, 322 ; perseverance of the saints,
421. See Perseverance. Worship of them
forbidden by the first commandment, 549.
See Believers.
Sanctification, one of the blessings of the
covenant of gr-ace, 265; inseparable from
justification, 396; meaning of the term,
396; difference between it and justifica
tion. 397; and regeneration, 397; viewed
as a privilege and as a duty, 397 ; as a duty
is our work, 397-$ what it implies, 398 ; ex
tends to the whole man, 399; not perfect
in this life, 400 ; it is the work of the Trin
ity, 401 ; nature and effect of the Spirit's
operation in it, 401 ; controversy as to the
formation of holy habits in it, 402 ; Christ
is the pattern of it, 403; the word of God is
the rule, 403; external means, 403; faith
is a mean hy which sanctification is car
ried on, 405; good works the fruit of it,
405; peace of conscience connected with
it, 418 ; whether death is necessary to com
plete the sanctification of the soul, 427 ; it

571
is completed at death, 433 ; the gospel as a
mean of sanctification, 452; the law as a
mean, 454.
Sanctification ofthe Sabhalh, 555.
Satan, his power to work miracles, 37; to
foretell future events, 41. See Fallen
Angels.
Satisfaction for sin, correct meaning of it
313. See Christ.
Scandal, what meant by it, 542; manner of
treating, 542.
Schism, nature of, 517.
Scriptures, the holy, contain the only sem
blance to a true revelation, 18 ; distinction
between their genuineness and authenti
city, 19; necessity and importance of as-
certaining their genuineness, 19. 21. 31;
account of the books of the Old Testament,
19; ofthe New Testament. 23; Jewish di
vision of the Old Testament books, 19;
Septuagint version, 19 ; they existed in the
days of Ezra, 19; references to the books
of Moses in the other books of the Old Tes
tament, 19; proof of the genuineness of the
several books, 21 ; jealousy of the Jews in
admitting a book into the canon, 22; apoc
rypha, 22 ; genuineness of the gospels, 23;
reason of there being four gospels. 25 ; gen
uineness of the other books of the New
Testament, 25; whether any books have
been lost, 27; testimony to ihe genuineness
of the New Testament books, 28 ; authen
ticity inferred from their genuineness, 34 ;
proved by miracles, 36; hy prophecy, 40;
by the success of the gospel, 44; by inter
nal evidences, 46 ; inspiration of the Scrip
tures, 57. See Inspiration, Sense in
which rhey are the word of God, 61; vari
ous MSS. 63; result of comparison of vari
ous readings, 66; acquaintance with the
original languages, a prerequisite for the
study, 66 ; method for elucidating the text,
and rules for the study, 67; they are the
only standards of religious belief, 69 ; law
fulness of inferences from them, 70; con
duct of the church of Rome regarding
them, 70 ; reasons for forbidding them, 70;
the church is the depository of" them, 538;
their authority does not depend on the
church, 538 ; her duty in reference to them,
538. See Word of God.
Seals of a covenant, what is understood by
them, 246. See Sacraments.
Sealino of believers, what is meant by it,
425.
Senses, dependence to be placed on the evi
dence communicated by the, 138.
Separation from a church, when justifiable,
517.
Septuagint version, account of, 19.
Servants, duty of, to their masters, 556.
Seventy, the commission of, when sent out
by our Lord, 520.
Sexes, proportion between the, a proof of an
overruling Providence, 220.
Simplicity of the nature of God, 108: of
the Scripture, a proof of their genuineness,
32.
Sin, existence of, reconciled with the belief
of a just and a holy God, 96. 128; sin of the
angels, 200 ; sin of Adam, 234 : consequen
ces of it to himself, 243; to his posterity,
243; it is universal, 252. '
Sincerity of God's admonitions, and invita
tions to sinners, 140. 352; consistent with
his decrees, 195.
Sleep, death of ihe saints compared to it,
428; doctrine of the sleep ofthe soul, 434.
Socinian doctrine of inspiration, 58; of im
mensity of God, 98; ofthe Trinity, 158;of
the divinity ofChrist, 159; ofhis' pre ex
istence, 162; of Adam as a federal headg^
and consequences ofhis sin, 239 ; ofChrist
having ascended lo heaven before he en
lered on his ministry, 290; of his having
perfecled the moral law, 291 ; of his sacri
fice, 301 ; of his death, 305 ; of the applica
tion of redemption, 353.
Sons of God, meaning ofthe phrase, 391.
See Adoption.
Soul, immortality of, a doctrine of revela
tion, 11 ; heathen notions regarding it, 11 ;
original qualities of the soul, 212; its im
mortality, 429; it is completely sanctified
at death, 433; doctrines of an intermediate
state after death, 433 ; of the sleep of the
soul, 431 ; of purgatory, 4'.f5.
Sovereignty of God proved from a review of
his attributes, 147 ; in election, 189 ; in repro
bation, 192 : in the covenant of, grace, 256.
Space, ideas entertained of, 98.
Spirit, properties of u 91.
the Holy. See Holy Ghost.

Spiritual death, a penalty of the covenant
of works, 244.

572
Spiritual life, the consequences of union to
Christ, 364.
— —  joy, the result of peace of con
science, 418: its sources, 419: the believer
enjoys only occasional transports of joy,
421 : means of seruring it, 42 L
Spirituality of God, 91: consistent with
texts in which bodily members are ascribed
to him, 91.
Standards, the Scriptures are the supreme
standard, 69: nature of subordinate stand
ards, 515.
State, alliance between church and, 346.
512: relation of church to the state, 517.
541.
Student of theology, qualifications of, 7.
Style of Scripture, a proof of genuineness,
31 : difference of, no objection to inspira
tion, 62.
Subjects, duty of, to their rulers, 557.
Sublapsarian system of the divine decrees,
167.
Substitution, objections made to revelation
on account of the doctrine of, 53: doctrine
of the substitution of Christ, 304. See
Christ.
Success of the gospel a proof of the truth of
revelation, 44. iree Gospel.
Succession, absurdity ofthe doctrine of eter
nal, 84..
Suggestion, degree of inspiration called, 60
¦ — 1 : ol jections to the name, 61.
Supererogation, Roman Catholic doctrine
regarding the works of, 407.
Superintendence, degree of inspiration call
ed, 61 : objections to, 61.
Supra lapsari an system of divine decrees,
187.
Supremacy claimed for Peter. 518.
Surety of the covenant of grace was Christ,
257.
Teacher, or Doctor, office of, in the primi
tive church, 534.
Temporal blessings, whether they were pur
chased by believers, 395.
 Death, the penalty of sin, 243.
Temptation, duty to avoid it, 512. 560.
Testament, account ofthe books of the Old,
19—23; ofthe New, 23— 28; dispensation
of religion under the Old, 72; under the
New, 76. See Scriptures.
-  , the dispensation of grace viewed as
a, 267.
Text, state of the sacred, 63; methods for
elucidating, 67.
Thanksgiving, a part of prayer, 496.
Theft, different kinds of, 560 ; duty of resti
tution, 561 ; whether lawful for the preser
vation of'life, 561.
Theology, observations on its importance,
5 ; definitions, 5; articles of natural, 6; di
visions, 6; qualifications of a student, 7;
sources, 9; connexion of doctrinal and
practical, 542.
Threatenings of God, truth of them, 140 :
remarks on them, 140.
Timothy, whether he was a bishop, 520.
Titos, whether he was a bishop, 521.

INDEX OF MATTER.
Tradition made a standard of religious. be
lief by the church of Rome, 69.
Transubstantiation, doctrine of, its rise,
460; explained, 480; its contrariety to
Scripture, 481; destroys the nature of a
sacrament, 482; is at variance with rea
son, 483; and the evidence of the senses,
484 ; Pascal's defence of it, 484 ; errors con
sequent on it, 485; idolatry, 485; sacrifice
of the mass, 486; mutilation ofthe sacra
ment, 487; reasons assigned for this, 487;
doctrine of concomitance. 487.
Trinity, the, ol jection to revelation on ac
count of this doctrine, 53; meaning and
origin ofthe term, 149; traces of the doc
trine among the heathen, 149; it is a doc
trine of pure revelation, 149; proofs for it
in the Old Testament, 150; in the New,
152; particular statement of the doctrine,
153; unity of the divine essence, 154;
threefold distinction of persons, 154; dif
ferent ideas of this distinction, 155 ; true
nature of it, 155; opinions respecting the
subordination of the Son and Spirit, 156;
nature of tbe Sonship. 156; in what his
generation consists, 157; procession ofthe
Holy Spirit, 157. 178—80; heresies opposed
to the doctrine, 158 ; objections to the doc
trine considered, 158. See Christ, Holy
Ghos-t.
Truth, love of, a necessary qualification for
a student of theology, 8; connexion be
tween truth and power,39; duty of speak
ing truth, 561 ; natural propensity m truth,
562.
Truth of God, 137; truth of his communica
tions to man, 138; faithfulness of his
promises, 139 ; of his threatenings and de
nunciations, 140 ; sincerity of his admoni
tions and warnings, 140; his nature ren
ders him incapable of error or deceit, 141.
Types, observations on, 75.
Unconditional, the decrees of God are, 185.
Unction, extreme, popish sacrament of. 468.
Union of believers to Christ, of two kinds,
360; legal, formed when he was appointed
their covenant head, 361 ; spiritual or
mystical, formed in regeneration, 361 ; ils
nature, 36 1 ; the bonds of it, 362 ; it is real,
362 ; spiritual and without confusion of
persons, 1*62; and indissoluble, 363; the
sacraments are seals of it, 363 ; consequen
ces of it, 374 ; faith as a bond more partic
ularly explained. See Faith. Imputation
of Christ's righteousness is founded on it,
379 ; spiritual joy results from it, 419.
Unity of God, inferred from the uniformity
of the works of nature, 92; other argu
ments for it, 94 ; doctrines opposed to it,
95; Polytheism, 95; dualism, 95; not op
posed to the scriptural doctrine of the Trin
ity, 96.
Universal redemption derogatory to the ex
cellence of Christ's sacrifice, 303; not a
doctrine of Scripture, 315.
Universality ofthe Christian dispensation,
80; ofthe church, 516.
Universe, not eternal, proved, 84.

Various readings in the sacred text, sources
of, 64.
Vespasian, emperor, miracles ascribed to,
39.
War, whether consistent with the sixth
commandment, 558.
Wife, duties of, to her hushand, 559.
Will, rectitude of man's, at his creation.
21 r; freedom ofthe will consistent with
the divine decrees, 105. 186. 194.
of God, whether the source of

moral obligation, 543.
Wisdom, of God, 114; distinguished from
knowledge. 114; characteristics of, 114;
proofs of it from works of creation, 114;
from providence, 116; redemption, 118;
from the means used for publishing tbe
gospel, 119 ; exhibited in the divine decrees,
184.
Word of God, sense in which the Scriptures
are, 61; the word an external means of
salvation, 351. 447^11 consists of two prin
cipal parts, the law and the gospel, 351.
448; it addresses persons of every nation
and condition, 351 ; it is not the efficient
cause of conversion, 353 ; it is the rule of
sanctification, 403 ; and a principal means
of carrying it on. 403; it is the only rule
of conscience to Christians, 414; it con
demns every sin and enjoins every duty,
414; its adequacy as a rule, 414 ; its doc
trines and promises a source of spiritual
joy ,,420 : the law and the gospel consider
ed separately, 448 ; use of other portions
of the Word, 45G ; observations on the
reading and preaching of it, 457 ; necessity
ofthe accompaniment ofthe Spirit, 458; it
. is the rule of prayer, 5(j0.
Works, covenant of, cannot be the ground
of justification, 374 ; the law considered as
a covenant of works, 451.
Good, relation they bear to justifi

cation, 384 ; the apostles James and Paul
did not teach different doctrines, 385; al
though not the ground of justification,
there are strong reasons for the perform
ance of them, 387; motives to them held
out by the doctrine of justification, 289;
sanctification as a duty is our work, 397;
good works are the fruit of sanctification,
405; what they comprehend, 406; their
relative value, 406 ; when materially good,
406 ; when morally good, 407; they are
possible only lo believers, 408; necessarily
imperfect, 409; incumbent on all the fol
lowers of Christ, 419; all have means and
opportunities of performing them,J 410 ; ex
tremes with regard to good works, 410;
Antinomiau doctrine, 410; necessity of
inculcating them, 410; reason for the men
tion of them in the general judgment, 343.
442.
Worship, religious claimed by, and paid to
Christ, 171; paid to the Holy Spirit, 180.
whether Christ's human nature is the ob
ject of it, 287 ; time appointed for, 555.
Zuinglius, his opinion respecting the eucha
rist, 489

INDEX

OF TEXTS INCIDENTALLY ILLUSTRATED.

Genesis.
Chap Verse. Page.
i l . . 197
2 - 180, 197
26,27. - 211
ii 7. - - 212
16, 17. - 233
20—24. - 212
1U 1—16. - 234
7—19. - 235
15. 72, 278
, 22. 460
iv 4. 26. 72
V 24. 73
vi 2. 206

viii

21.

251

iz

11.13.

400

16.

461
xvi
12.
42
xviii
25.
249
xix
24.
151
xxii
1.
56
228
18.
278
Xlix
10. Exodus.
74
280
vii
11.
37
xii
13.
465
36.
55
142
Xiv
21
15
xix
19.
271
XX
2.
455
Leviticus.
X
3.
508
xvi
21, 22.
Numbers
.
311
vi.
24—26.
151
Deuteronomy.
xiii
1—3.
40
xxviii
46. 64.
42
2 Samuel.
xii
11
228
xvi
11
1 Kings.
2-28
xxii
22, 23.
Job.
223
Ix
33.
271
xiv
4.
252
5. 14. 23.
222
xxviii
12, &c.
12
xxxi
33.PsALHS.
237
xxxiii
6
180
xxxvii
37.
428
xl
7,8.
257
xiv
6.
150
, 151
xlix
12.
215
li
5.
251
11.
421
422
Iv
17.
503
lxxxii
6,7.
237
lxxxix
3,4.
271
xcii
2.
503
xcviii
1.
142
civ
4.
201
cv
25.
228
cxix
165.
397
503
cxxx
2. 5, 6.
506
cxlv
17.
143
Ecclesiastes.
vii
29. Isaiah.
143
212
vl
1—5.
142
vii
14.
279
viii
13, 14.
142
xiii
19—22.
43
xxxiii
16.
509
xl
3.
166
x'v
21—23.
160
xlviii
16.
151
156
i
8.
371
liii
4.
312
10.
307
Jxv
23, .24.
Jeremiah
.
505
XX
7.9.
228
xxiii
5,6.
166
279
23, 24.
98,
167
xxxii
40. Ezekiel
423
iiv
9.
228
xviii
20.
374
Ezekiel.
xviii 24. 425
xxvi 14. 42
xliii 26, 27. 555
Daniel.
ix 17. 151
24—27. 280, 303
xii 3. 372
13. 437
HOSEA.
i 7. 151
vi 7. 237
Micah.
v 2. 167
Hagqai.
ii 9. 280
Zecharxah.
i 12. 277
xii 10. 456
Malachi.
i 11. 80, 282
iii 1. 280
iv 2. 4—6. 76
Matthew.
ii 22. 311
iii 6. 471
16. 289, 471
v 8. 445
17. 19. 377
34. 552
vi 9—13. 506
14, 15. 511
23. 416
xi 19. 371
27. 168, 174
xii 32. 436
xiii 20, 21. 365
xvi 18. 516
19. 541
xviii 10. 203, 205
15. 17. 513
18. 518
20. 167, 491
xix 14. 473.
16. 177
17. 237, 261, 454
21. 407
XX 28. 311
xxii 35—40. 545
xxiv 3. 340
22. 24. 423
XXV 31, 32. 171
32, 33. 442
34—36. 343, 442
xxvi 20.26. 491
xxviii 19. 153, 346
20. 346, 449
Mars.
i 10. 471
xiv 23. 492
ivi 19. 335
Luke.
i 1-4. 24
35. 157
xi 2—4. 506
11. 510
xviii 1. 503
xx 36. 202
xxii 31. 318, 320
xxiii 34. 318
43. 434
John.
i 1, 2. 25, 162
3. 164,169
18. 78, 174
29. 324, 466
ii 23—25. 168
iii 5. 354, 360
6. 251
13. 334
36. 140, 174
iv 2, 3. 162
14. 419
V 2. 25
17—19. 156, 169
21. 171
22, 23. 172
28, 29. 170
36. 40
Vi 35. 53, 54. 482
38. 101, 176
viii
xvixvii
viii
John.
44. 207
58. 74, 104
15. 316
16. 319
29. 423
25. 171
2. 432, 444
11. 40
16. 424
28. 176
26. 181
26, 27. 321
3. 176
5. 163
9. 319
11.15.20. 424
21. 361
24. 321
17. 168
19.26. 333
22. 174, 178
23. 372
28. 164
Acts.
6. 7. 345
5. 525
27. 31. 328
32, 33. 267
38, 39. 473
42. 495
44. 46. 525
23. 174
31, 32. 526
12, 13. 526
1. 525
3. 528
38. 58
55. 336
59.60. 172, 429
38, 39. 471
14. 172
34, 35. 194, 409
48. 475
1, 2. 530
18. 105, 184
5. 469, 474
7. 495
28. 175. 287, 521
;r i. 417
Romans. 13. 371
14,15. 219,342,414
16. 449
25. 134, 314
3. 383
4,5. 369, 372
11. 404, 473
3—5. 404
7, 8. 310
10, 11. 309, 314
12. 14. 236. 249
15, 16. 19. 249
15—19. 257
18. 240
19. 373, 376
4. 361, 471
5. 478
6. 401
23. 245
4. 405
7, 8. 250
25. 398
1. 364, 373
13. 425
17. 395, 425
26. 321, 504
28. 404
30. 350, 397
33. 321. 371. 379
35—39. 363, 420
4. 391
5 164
15—18 191
13—17. 351, 448
6—8. 535
1—4, 5. 413
14. 415
23. 408
1 Corinthians. 2. 172
1 Corinthians.
i 10. 12. 517
13—15. 475
30. 362, 380
ii 8. 175
9—11. 16, 61
10,11.16. 178-80
14. 353
iii 13. 15. 436
21, 23. 344, 395
iv 4. 377
v 4. 529
5. 541, 542
7,, 8. 459, 466
9. 20
vi 17. 362
vii 1—11. 407
14. 474
x 31. 408
16, 17. 363, 482
xi 14. 250
17. 20. 495
18. 517
23—26. 480
xii 4—6. 153
13. 478
28. 528
xiii 9—12. 445
12. 154
XV 20, 21. 333, 440
24. 26. 348
36, 37, 38. 53. 439
41. 447
50, 51. 428, 442
2 Corinthians.
i 12. 418
21,22. 425
v 6. 8. 435
10. 171
15. 316
19—21. 314, 315
vii 1. 397
xii 9. 405, 506
xiii 11. 418
14. 153, 180
Galatians.
ii 20. 301, 364
iii 10. 372, 374
13. 325, 327
iv 4. 77
v 4. 450
17. 214, 251
Ephesians.
i 13. 276
ii 3. 250
5. 364
6. 440
iv 11, 12. 292, 528
23. 561
v 5. 165
32. 459
vi 2. 548
12. 209
18. 503
Colossians.
i 15. 17. 170
ii 11, 12. 361, 466
12. 471
17. 269
iii 9, 10. 213, 252
iv 16. 26
1 Thessalonians.
iv 16. 342, 439
v 16. 421
23. 396, 400
2 Thessalonians.
i 12. 165
ii 3, 4. 43
13. 188
Philippians.
i 23. 434
ii 5-11. 337, 345
6. 176, 260
7, 8. 323
iii 21. 441
1 Timothy.
ii 1,2. 501
6! 311
iii 16. 459
iv 2. 417
T 17. 520, 536
1 Timothy.
V
21.
105
2 Timothy.
i
10.
432
iii
10. Titus.
57, 2U5
i
5
521
ii
13.
105
iii
4.6.
477
Philemon.
18.
380
Hebrew!
.
i
1
63
3. 123, 154, 170
6.
173
7.
201
8.
151, 164
ii
2.
204
9.
337
10.-
300
14—16.
273
16.
284
17.
287, 313
V
6.
301
7.
318, 319
vi
4—6.
426
vii
3.
301
21.
486
22.
257
28.
175
viii
7.
255
ix
12.
301
13, 14.
396
14.
179
15.
179
16, 17.
396
xi
35.
438
1.
540
3.
196
4.
72
5.
73
xiii
8.
168
12.
396, 401
James.
i
13.
56, 511
ii
10.
375
21, 22.
386
25.
386
V
14.
1 Peter.
468
i
10, U.
290
15.
365, 397
15, 16.
143
ii
24. 309
311,312
iii
21.
2 Peter
477
i
1.
165
i
10. 190,370,421
ii
4.
208
20.
426
1 John.
i
o
167
ii
2.' 81,203,309,314
18.
27
iii
18—21.
370, 418
24.
362
iv
10.
317
13.
362
V
7.
152
16.
502
Jude.
4. 165
191,192
14, 15.
73
19.
297
Revelations.
i
4,5.
153, 180
2,6.
173
8. 17, 18
167
20.
459
ii
23.
168
V
6.
312, 318
11, 12.
173
vii
10.
173
xii
10.
321
xix
13.
470
XX
4, 5.
441
12.
342, 384
xxi
19—25.
443
xxii
1,2.
385, 443
13.
167
14.
385
573
APPLEGATE & COMPANY,

imjfaellOT,

PUBLISHERS,

Mmtxs,

AND

BUM BOOK

MAKTTTI'ACTITH.ERS,
No. 43 MAIN STREET, CINCINNATI.

" A good book is the best friend; the same to-day and forever,"

Applegate & Co., in addition to a large and varied assortment of School, Clas
sical, Theological, and Miscellaneous Boolcs, which they have constantly on hand,
publish a series of valuable Standard Works, suitable for the fan.ily circle, as well as
public libraries.
At this time, when the press teems so abundantly with ephemeral literature,
the thinking mind experiences a need of more substantial aliment; of something
which shall at the same time furnish not only enjoyment for the present, but for after
thought ; something on which the mind will delight to ponder in its communings
with itself; something, from the perusal of which one can arise a wiser, if not a bet
ter man ; and among their publications, they flatter themselves such books will be
found. It is their aim to select such works, the intrinsic worth of which will cause
them to be sought after by enlightened and discriminating minds, and as worthy of
gracing the shelves of their libraries.
Among their publications may be found the following, to which they would res
pectfully invite attention. To these it is their intention to add the best works of tha
Standard Historical and other authors, and they trust that their selections will bo
such as to entitle them to a liberal Bhare of the patronage of the book-buying public.

APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.

DR. ADAM CLARKE'S COMPLETE COMMENTARY OK THE OLD AND
NEW TESTAMENTS.
With a portrait of the author, engraved expressly for this edition, accompanied
with Maps, &c. Sheep, spring back, marble edge. The Commentary of Dr. Clarke
is most deservedly popular, being not only a truly scientific and elaborately learned
work, but it is also well adapted to family reading. Liberal in his views, benevolent
in his character, Christian in his deportment, and deeply learned in Scripture lore,
and all the science of the ancients as well as moderns, Dr. Clarke produced a work
every way adapted to the wants of Bible students, preachers, and families. This
work, although the largest published west of the mountains, is yet afforded at a price
within the reach of all.
From, the Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate.
It would be difficult to find any contribution to Sacred Literature that has attained
to a higher rank than the Commentaries of Dr. Adam Clarke. Whether regarded as
a prodigy of human learning, or as a monument of what perseverance and industry,
within the compass of a single lifetime, can accomplish, it will long continue to chal
lenge the admiration of men as a work of unrivalled merit. It is a treasury of
knowledge, in the accumulation of which, the author seems to have had no purpose
in view but the apprehension of truth ; not to sustain a particular creed, but th6
apprehension of truth for truth's own sake, restrained in the noble pursuits of no
party tenets by no ardor for favorite dogmas. It is difficult to conceive of a complete
library without this valuable work, and yet alone of itself, it affords to its possessor
no mean variety of entertainment. Besides forming a moderate, but clear elucidation
of the true meaning of the Sacred Word, it abounds with illustrations in science, the
literature of all ages, and the history of all times and all countries ; and as a lexicon
for the exposition of abstruse phrases, of difficult terms, and the true genealogy of
words of doubtful import, it immeasurably surpasses all similar works of the age.

" Of the merits of this work we need not speak, as its fame is as wide as the world
of language in which it is written, and as imperishable as the name of its author;
but of this edition we may say a word : It consists of four super-royal octavo vol
umes, two of the Old, and two of the New Testament. The type is clear, printed
upon a beautiful white paper, of superior texture, bound in a strong and substantial
manner, with marbled edges. The first volume of the Old Testament contains a
superior steel engraving of the author. The last volume contains the usual copious
alphabetical index, while the entire work is embellished with the usual number of
tables and maps. Upon the whole, this is an excellent and cheap edition of this
great work of this great man."

DR. ADAM CLARKE'S COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.
2 vols, super-royal 8vo. Sheep, spring back, marble edge.
The increasing demand for Dr. Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament, has
induced us to issue an edition on superior paper, large clear type, handsomely and
substantially bound, containing 1978 pages, with a portrait of the author.
Of all " Defenders of the Faith," Dr. Adam Clarke is one of the most forcible in
his arguments, clear in his elucidations, and pungent in his exhortations, as well as
thoroughly accurate in scientific and historical researches, that have written on the
Sacred Records.

APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.

THE COMPLETE WORKS OF THOMAS DICK, LL. D.
11 vols, in 2, containing An Essay on the Improvement of Society ; The Philoso
phy of a Future State ; The Philosophy of Religion ; The Mental Illumination and
Moral Improvement of Mankind ; An Essay on the Sin and Evils of Covetousness ;
The Christian Philosopher, or Science and Religion ; Celestial Scenery, illustrated ;
'Siderial Heavens, Planets, &c. ; The Practical Astronomer ; The Solar System, its
Wonders; The Atmosphere and Atmospherical Phenomena, &e. Illustrated with
numerous engravings and a portrait. 2 vols, royal 8vo, Sheep, spring back and
marble edge.
This edition is printed from, entirely new plates, containing the recent revisions of
the autlwr, and is the only COMPLETE edition published in ihe United States.
The works of Dr. Dick are so well known and appreciated, (being such as should
be in the possession of every family and made the daily study of its members, old
and young,) that the attempt to praise them would be like gilding fine gold.
It has been the endeavor of the publishers to get up this edition in a style worthy
of their merit ; and they flatter themselves that they have succeeded in so doing, as
to paper, typography, and binding of the work, neither of which can be surpassed at
the East or West. From the Presbyterian Review, Edinburg.
Dick's Works. — .Those who read at all, know both the name of Dr. Dick and
the work itself, now reprinted. It has long found acceptance with the public.

From, the Wesleyan Associated Magazine, London.
We hail this remarkably cheap and greatly improved edition of Dr. Dick's
admirable and highly popular Works. It is a real love to the millions to be able to
purchase such an excellent work for so inconsiderable a cost. We earnestly recom
mend this work to all our readers, and especially to all who desire to store their
minds with general information. .
From the Presbyterian of the West.
Eleven different works are embraced in these volumes, making it an edition full
and complete. The range of subjects embraced in these several essays and scientific
treatises, is varied, are all highly important and of practical utility to mankind gen
erally. These characteristics of Dr. Dick's writings, while they render them per
manently valuable, insure for them also a wide circulation among all classes of
readers.  L 
From the Cincinnati Gazette.
The best recommendation which can be given of Dr. Dick's Works, is the great
popularity they have enjoyed, and the numerous editions of them, collected and
separate, which have been published in England and America. Messrs. Applegate &
Co. are deserving of much praise for the tasteful and handsome style in which they
have issued the work, and at such a price as to be within the reach of all.

From the Central Watchman.
Dr. Dick's works have filled a place occupied by no others, and have presented the
great facts of nature and the scientific movements and discoveries of the present ago,
in a manner at once both pleasing and instructive. They should have a place in
every family library, and be read by all.

APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.

THE SPECTATOR.
With Biographical Notices of its Contributors. 1 vol., royal 8vo., 750 pages,
with a portrait of Addison. Sheep, spring back, marble edge.
There is no work in the English language that has been more generally read, ap
proved, and appreciated than The Spectator. It is a work that can be perused by
persons of all classes and conditions of society with equal pleasure and profit. Of all
the writings of Addison, the Spectator is the most suited to general reading ; in the
Efcyle of its composition and purity of dictum it is unsurpassed, and it has ever stood
in the first rank among the English classics. Beside general notings of the state of
English society in all its phases, at the time and anterior to that of writing, it incul
cates sage maxims, morals, and advice, applicable at all times. It is bound in library
style, corresponding with our Dick, Rollin, &c.

From the Central Christian Herald.
One hundred and forty years ago, when there were no daily newspapers nor peri
odicals, nor cheap fictions for the people, the Spectator had a daily circulation in
England. It was witty, pithy, tasteful, and at times vigorous, and lashed the vices
and follies of the age, and inculcated many useful lessons which would have been
disregarded from more serious sources. It was widely popular. It contains some
very excellent writing, not in the spasmodic, moon-struck style of the fine writing of
the present clay, but in a free, graceful, and flowing manner. It used to be con
sidered essential to a good style and a knowledge of Belles-Lettres to have studied
the Spectator, and we are certain our age is not wise in the selection of some of the
substitutes which are used in its stead. It should yet be a parlor volume, which
should be read with great profit.
But we do not design to criticise the book, but have prefixed these few facts, foi
the information of our readers, to a notice of a new edition of the work by Messrs.
Applegate & Co. It is entirely of Cincinnati manufacture, and is in a style very
creditable to the enterprising house which has brought it out.

From the Cincinnati Commercial.
Applegate & Co., 43 Main street, have just published, in a handsome octavo
volume of 750 pages, one of the very best classics in our language, it would be
superfluous at this day to write a line in commendation of this vfork. The writings
of Addison are imperishable and will continue to charm youth and age while lan
guage lasts. From the Cincinnati Gazette.
It is a source of general satisfaction to hear of the republication of a work of such
standard merit as the Spectator. In these days, when the press teems with the issue
of ephemeral publications, to subserve the purpose of an hour, to enlist momentary
attention, and leave no improvement on the mind, or impression on the heart — it is
a cause of congratulation to see, now and then, coming from the press such works as
this ; to last as it should, so long as a pure taste is cultivated or esteemed.

From the Cincinnati Daily Times.
Criticism upon the literary merits of the Spectator would be rather late and
superfluous at the present time. Steele, Addison, and Swift are above criticism.
This edition is gotten up in style and form that will make it peculiarly acceptable to
the admirers of English literature. It is bound in one volume, with copious notes
of the contributors prefixed. The type is clear and elegant, the paper good, and the
binding excellently suitable for the library.

APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.

PLUTARCH'S LIVES.
With Historical and Critical Notes, and a Life of Plutarch. Illustrated with a
portrait. 1 vol., 8vo. Sheep, spring back, marbled edge.
This edition has been carefully revised and corrected, and is printed upon entirely
new plates, stereotyped by ourselves, to correspond with our library edition of Dick's
Works, &c. From the Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate.
Plutarch's Lives. — This great work, to which has long since been awarded the
first honors of literature, is now published complete in one volume by Messrs
Applegate & Co., of Cincinnati, and offered at so low a price as to place it within the
reach of all. This is a desideratum, especially in this age of " many books." Next
in importance to a thorough knowledge of history, and in many respects fully equal
to it, is the study of well authenticated biography. For this valuable purpose, we
know of no work extant superior to the fifty lives of Plutarch. It is a rare magazine
of literary and biographical knowledge. The eminent men whose lives compose this
work, constitute almost the entire of that galaxy of greatness and brightness, which
stretches across the horizon of the distant past, and casts upon the present time a
mild and steady luster. Many of them are among the most illustrious of the earth.

From the Ladies' Repository.
No words of criticism, or of eulogy, need be spent on Plutarch's Lives. Every
body knows it to be the most popular book of biographies now extant in any known
language. It has, been more read, by the youth of all nations, for the last four or
five centuries in particular, than any ever written. It has done more good, in its
way, and has been the means of forming more sublime resolutions, and even more
sublime characters, than any other work with which we are acquainted, except the
Bible. It is a better piece of property for a young man to own, than an eighty acre
lot in the Mississippi Valley, or many hundred dollars in current money. We would
rather leave it as a legacy to a son, had we to make the choice, than any moderate
amount of property, if we were certain he would read it. There are probably but
few really great men now living, that have not been largely indebted to it for their
early aspirations, in consequence of which they have achieved their greatness. It is
a magnificent octavo, on solid and clear paper, well bound, and, in every way, neatly
and substantially executed. Most sincerely do we eommend it, again and again, to
the reading public. From Cist's Advertiser.
A beautiful edition of Plutarch's Lives, published by Applegate & Co., has been
laid on our table. Who has not read Plutarch ? and what individual of any force
of character has not made the " Lives " his study ? It was one of Napoleon's
favorite books, and doubtless had its full share in forming his character, and fitting
him for that splendid career of his, which has had no precedent heretofore, as it will
hardly find a parallel hereafter. This volume is handsomely gotten up, and in every
respect creditable to the good taste and enterprise of this firm.

From the Indiana State Sentinel
tha literary merit of
knows

Of tha literary merit of this work, it is unnecessary to speak. Every school boy
nuows " Plutarch's Lives " is essential in every well-informed man's library. In the
language of the translator of the present edition, " if the merits of a work may be
estimated from the universality of its reception, Plutarch's Lives have a claim to the
first honors of literature. No book has been more generally sought after, or read
with greater avidity."

APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.

ROLLIN'S ANCIENT HISTORY.
The Ancient History of the Carthagenians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and
Persians, Grecians and Macedonians, including a History of the Arts and Sciences
of the Ancients, with a Life of the Author. 2 vols., royal 8vo. Sheep, spring back,
marble edge.
One of the most complete and impartial works ever published. It takes us back
to early days, and makes us live and think with the men of by-gone centuries. It
spreads out to us in a pleasant and interesting style, not only the events which char
acterized the early ages, but the inner world of thought and feeling, as it swayed
the leading minds of the times. No library is complete without Rollin's Ancient
History. From the Western Recorder.
A new edition of Rollin's Ancient History has just been issued by AppLg'jte &
Co. The value and importance of this work are universally acknowledged. Every
private library is deficient without it ; and it is now furnished at so cheap a rite, that
every family should have it. It should be placed in the hands of all our youth, as
infinitely more instructive and useful than the thousand and one trashy publications
with which the country is deluged, and which are so apt to vitiate the taste, and ruin
the minds of young readers. One more word in behalf of this new edition of Rol-
lin : It may not be generally known, that in previous English editions a large and
interesting portion of the work has been suppressed. The deficiencies are here sup
plied and restored from the French editions, giving the copy of Messrs. Applegate &
Co. a superiority over previous English editions.

From the Springfield Republic.
A superb edition of this indispensable text and reference book is published by
Messrs. Applegate & Co. The work in this form has been for some years before thi
public, and is the best and most complete edition published. The work is comprised
in two volumes of about 600 pages each, containing the prefaces of Rollin and thfl
" History of the Arts and Sciences of the Ancients," which have been omitted in
most American editions.

From the Western Christian Advocate.

The work is too well known, and has too long been a favorite to require any com
mendation from us. Though in some matters more recent investigations have led to
conclusions different from those of the Author, yet his general accuracy is unques
tionable

From the Methodist Protestant, Baltimore.
This work is too well known as standard — as necessary to the completion of every
gentleman's library — that any extended notice of it would be folly on our part. We
have named it for the purpose of calling the attention of our readers to the beautiful
edition issued by the enterprising house of Messrs. Applegate & Co. Those who
have seen their edition of Dick's Works, Plutarch's Lives, Spectator, &c, &c, may
form a correct idea of the style. We call it a beautiful library edition. The paper
is good, the type clear, the binding substantial, and the whole getting up just sugIi
as becomes standard works of this class.

APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.

MOSHEIM'S CHURCH HISTORY,
Ancient and Modern, from the birth of Christ to the Eighteenth Century, in
which the Rise, Progress, and Variations of Church Power are considered in their
connection with the state of Learning and Philosophy ; and the Political History of
Europe during that period, continued up to the present time, by Charles Coote,
LL. D. 806 pages, 1 vol., quarto, spring back, marbled edge.

From the Gospel Herald.
This edition forms the most splendid volume of Church History ever issued from
the American press; is printed with large type, on elegant paper, and altogether
forms the most accessible and imposing history of the Church that is before the
public. The former editions of Mosheim have ever been objectionable in conse
quence of the amount of matter crowded into a single page. To .do this, very small
type were necessarily used, and the lines were so crowded, that the close and con
tinued perusal of the work was very injurious to the eyes. This edition avoids all
these evils, and we most heartily recommend it.

From the Masonic Review.
This great standard history of the Church from the birth of Christ, has just been
issued in a new dress by the extensive publishing house of Applegate & Co. Nothing
need be said by us in relation to the merits or reliability of Mosheim's History : it
has long borne the approving seal of the Protestant world. It has become a standard
work, and no public or private library is complete without it; nor can an individual
be well posted in the history of the Christian Church for eighteen hundred years,
without having carefully studied Mosheim. We wish, however, particularly to
recommend the present edition. The pages are in large double columns ; the type is
large and very distinct, and the printing is. admirable, on fine white paper. It is
really a pleasure to read such print, and we recommend our friends to purchase this
edition of this indispensable work. From the Telescope, Dayton, O.
This work has been placed upon our table by the gentlemanly and enterprising
publishers, and we are glad of an opportunity to introduce so beautiful an edition of
this standard Church history to our readers. The work is printed on beautiful white
paper, clear large type, and is bound in one handsome voluce. No man ever sat
down to read Mosheim in so pleasing a dress. What a treat is such an edition to
one who has been studying this elegant work in small close print of other editions.
Any one who has not an ecclesiastical history should secure a copy of this edition.
It is not necessary for us to say anything in relation to the merits of Mosheim's
Church History. For judgment, taste, candor, moderation, simplicity, learning,
accuracy, order, and comprehensiveness, it is unequaled. The author spared no
pains to examine the original authors and " genuine sources of sacred history," and
to scrutinize all the facts presented by the light of the " pure lamps of antiquity."

From Professor Wrightson.
Whatever book has a tendency to add to our knowledge of God, or the character
or conduct of his true worshipers, or that points out the errors and mistakes of for
mer generations, must have an elevating, expanding, and purifying influence on the
human mind. Fully as important, however, is it that all the facts and phases of
events should be exhibited with truthfulness, perspicuity, and vigor. To the Chris
tian world, next to the golden Bible itself, in value, is an accurate, faithful, and life
like delineation of the rise and progress, the development and decline of the Christian
Church in all its varieties of sects and denominations, their tenets, doctrines,_ man
ners, customs, and government. Such a work is Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History.
Like " Rollin's History of the Ancients," it is the standard, and is too well known
to need a word of comment.

APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.

GATHERED TREASURES FROM THE MINES OF LITERATURE.
Containing Tales, Sketches, Anecdotes, and Gems of Thought, Literary, Moral,
Pleasing and Instructive. Illustrated with steel plates. 1 vol. octavo. Embossed.
To furnish a volume of miscellaneous literature both pleasing and instructive, has
been the object of the editor in compiling this work, as well as to supply, to some
extent, at least, the place that is now occupied by publications which few will deny
are of a questionable moral tendency.
It has been the intention to make this volume a suitable traveling and fireside com
panion, profitably engaging the leisure moments of the former, and adding an addi
tional charm to the cheerful glow of the latter ; to blend amusement with instruction,
pleasure with profit, and to present an extensive garden of vigorous and useful plants,
and beautiful and fragrant flowers, among which, perchance, there may be a few of
inferior worth, though none of utter inutility. While it is not exclusively a religious
work, yet it contains no article that may not be read by the most devoted Christian.

From the Intelligencer.
This may emphatically be termed a reading age. Knowledge is increasing in a
wonderful ratio. The night of ignorance is fast receding, and the dawn of a better
and brighter day is before the world. The demand for literature is almost universal.
The people will read and investigate for themselves. How important, then, to place
within their reach such books that will instruct the mind, cheer the heart, and im
prove the understanding — books that are rich in the three grand departments of
human knowledge — literature, morals, and religion. Such a book is " Gathered
Treasures." We can cheerfully recommend it to all.

From the Cincinnati Daily Times.
_ This is certainly a book of rare merit, and well calculated for a rapid and general
circulation. Its contents present an extensive variety of subjects, and these not only
carefully but judiciously selected, and arranged in appropriate departments. Its con
tents have been highly spoken of by men of distinguished literary acumen, both
editors and ministers of various Christian denominations. We cheerfully recom
mend it. From the Cincinnati Temperance Organ.
A book of general merit, diversified, yet truly rich and valuable in its interests ;
thrilling in many of its incidents ; instructive in principle, and strictly moral in its
tendency. It is well calculated for a family book, one that a father need not be
afraid to place in the hands of his children. We' hope it will meet with an exten
sive sale.
Gathered Treasures from the Mines of Literature. — " One of the most
interesting everyday books ever published. Like the Spectator, it may be perused
again and again, and yet afford something to interest and amuse the reader. Its
varied and choice selections of whatever is beautiful or witty, startling or amusing,
can not fail to afford rich enjoyment to minds of every character, and a pleasant
relaxation from more severe and vigorous reading.'

Gathered Treasures. — " A choice collection of short and interesting articles,
comprising selections from the ablest authors. Unlike voluminous works, its varied
selections afford amusement for a leisure moment, or entertainment for a winter
evening. It is alike a companion for the railroad car, the library and parlor, and
never fails to interest its reader."

APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.

NOTES ON THE TWENTY-FIVE ARTICLES OF RELIGION,
As received and taught by Methodists in the United States,
In which the doctrines are carefully considered and supported by the testimony of
the Holy Scriptures. By Rev. A. A. Jimeson, M. D. 12mo, embossed cloth.
This book contains a clear exposition of the doctrines of the Articles, and of the
errors against which the Articles were directed, written in a popular style, and
divided into sections,- for the purpose of presenting each doctrine and its opposite
error in the most prominent manner.

From Rev. John Miller.
It is a book for the Methodist and for the age — a religious inultum in parvo —
combining sound theology with practical religion. It should be found in every
Methodist family. From the Western Cliristian Advocate.
The author intended this volume for the benefit of the " three great divisions of
American Methodism, the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Protestant
Church, and the Methodist Episcopal Church South." The articles are taken up one
by one, and their contents analyzed, explained, and defended with much ability.
The style is clear and forcible; the illustrations are just, the arguments sound.
The author has performed a good and useful work for all the Methodist bodies in the
world ; as his book will furnish a very satisfactory exposition of the leading doctrines
of Methodism. We cordially recommend Mr. Jimeson's volume to the perusal of
our readers, as well as to all Christian people, whether ministers or laymen.

DICK'S THEOLOGY.
Lectures on Theology. By the late Rev. John Dick, D. D., Minister of the United As
sociate Congregation, Grayfrier, Glasgow, and Professor of Theology to the United
Session Church. Published under tbe superintendence of his Son. With a Biographical
Introduction. By an American Editor. With a Steel Portrait of Dr. Dick.
1 vol. Imperial Octavo, sheep, marble edge, spring back. 
Do do do do do embossed do 
Do do do do half antique do 
Do do do do Imt. Turkey full gilt do 
Do do do do Super. Turkey, beveled sides, full gilt 
From the Christian Instructor.
" These Lectures were read bv their Author in the discharge of his professional functions :
they embody the substance of his Essay on Inspiration, and the peculiar views on Church
Government, which he advanced in his Lectures on the Acts.
" The Lectures throughout, display an extensive and most accurate knowledge of the
great variety of important topics which come before him. His system has all the advan
tages of fair proportion ; there is nothing neglected, and nothing overloaded. His taste is
correct and pure, even to severity ; nothing is admitted either in language or in matter, that
can not establish the most indisputable right to be so."
From the Christian Journal.
"We recommend this work in the very strongest terms to the Biblical student. It is, as
a whole, superior to any other system of theology in our language. As an elementary
book, especially fitted for those who are commencing the study of divinity, it is unrivaled."
From Professor Wrightson.
" This is a handsome octavo work of 600 pages, publishad in uniform style with the
other valuable standard works of Applegate & Co. It contains a thorough and enlightened
view of Christian Theology, in which the author presents in beautiful, simple and torciOle
style, the evidences of authenticity of the sacred text, the existence and attributes ot tne
Deif, tbe one only and unchangeable God. _ The fall of man, a nd its conseque, ^es and
the restoration of the fallen through intercesswn of the Crucified. It is one of the most
simple and yet elevated of works devoted to sacred subjects."

APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.

PETERSON'S FAMILIAR SCIENCE;
Or, the Scientific Explanation of Common Things.
Edited by R. E. Peterson, Member of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Phila
delphia. 18mo., neatly bound in cloth.

From the Masonic Review.
This is a work of rare merit. It furnishes an immense amount of valuable inform
ation in relation to matters and things that are constantly presented to the mind, and
which are so common that they are overlooked. We have not seen a work in a long
time that we deem of so much value as the book before us. It should be in every
family, for more information can be gained from it, than from half the books afloat.
We most heartily commend it to the public.

From the Odd Fellows' Literary Gazette.
How often have we heard parents rebuke a child for asking what they term " silly
questions," when they were unable to answer their artless inquiries. The desire for
knowledge is ever leading children into asking questions, which, from their novelty,
are set down as foolish, when, in reality, they can be answered on scientific principles.
This little work is designed to explain many of these things ; it contains much useful
and practical scientific knowledge, in a very popular and entertaining form, suffi
ciently plain to be understood by a child, and yet affording instruction to persons of
mature years.

ELEMENTS OF THE GERMAN LANGUAGE.
A Practical Manual for acquiring the art of Reading, Speaking, and Composing German. Ry
Theodore Sodem, Professor of the German Language and Literature, at the Woodward and
Hughes' High Schools of Cincinnati. 1 vol. 12mo. half cloth.

From Alex. H. McGuffey, Esq., Cincinnati.
* * * Prof Soden's "Elements of the German Language" is superior to any other
Treatise, on the German Language with which I am acquainted.
To name only a few of its more prominent merits : — its order and method seem to be espe
cially adapted to the genius of the German language ; — its exercises are simple and carefully
progressive. They are made up of matter calculated to interest as well as to instruct the pupil,
and embrace a large proportion of the idiomatic expressions of the language, particularly of the
colloquial character.
The work is very complete in embracing all the more important grammatical rules and forms
(with copious exercises under each), and omitting only such as by their minuteness and compli
cation would tend rather to confuse than assist the beginner.
It everywhere bears the marks of most careful preparation, and is evidently the work of an
experienced practical teacher.
From W"m. Nast, D. D.. of " Der Christliche Apologete," Cincinnati.
* * * Mr. Soden's work is truly superior, original and the fruit of successful expe
rience in teaching. A peculiar recommendation of il is, that the student can make immediate
practical use of every lesson he learns. * * *
From Dr. J. S. Unzicker, Cincinnati.
This work has been compiled with great care and judgment, and is far more comprehensive
and practical than any similar work 1 know of. It is well p-dapted for the use of our High
Schools, and especially for those of English parentage who wish to study the German Language.

From J. B. Moorman, Esq., Cincinnati.
I have, with some care, examined Prof. Soden's Elements of the German Language, and I think
it will be found to be all that it was intended to be, " A Practical Manual for acquiring the Art
of Reading, Speaking, and Composing German." Its beginning is so siinple, au-i the advance
to the more difficult so gradual, tbat it must be very useful and even interesting to all whe desire
to learn a language " with which Bone that lives may enter the arena."

APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.

METHODISM EXPLAINED AND DEFENDED.
By Rev.. John S. Insicip. 12mo., embossed cloth.

From the Herald and Journal.
We have read this book with no ordinary interest, and, on the whole, rejoice in its
appearance for several reasons— First, It is a concise and powerful defense of every
essential feature of Methodism, now-a-days so much assailed by press and pulpit.
Second,. The general plan and character of the work are such, that it will be read
and appreciated by the great masses of our people who are not familiar with more
extended and elaborate works. Third, It is highly conservative and practical in its
tendencies, and will eminently tend to create liberal views and mutual concession
between the ministry and laity for the good of the whole — a feature in our economy
never to be overlooked. Fourth, This work is not written to advocate some local or
neighborhood prejudice; neither to confute some particular heresy or assault; but its
views are peculiarly denominational and comprehensive, indicating the careful and
wide observation of the author — free from bigotry and narrow prejudice.

From the Springfield Republic.
We have read this new work of Rev. J. S. Inskip with great pleasure and profit.
It in verytruth explains and defends Methodism, and, as the introduction (written
by another,) says, "its pages cover nearly the whole field of controversy in regard to
the polity of the Methodist Church, and present a clear and candid exposition of
Methodism in a clear and systematic form, and highly argumentative style. It is a
book for the times, and should be read by all who desire to become more intimately
acquainted with the Methodist economy. It excels all other works of its class in the
arrangement and judicious treatment of its subject." It has evidently been written
with great prudence and care in reference to the facts and evidences on which the
arguments are predicated. This book will doubtless be of general service to the
Church, and an instrument of great good.

CHRISTIANITY,
As Exemplified in the Conduct of its Sincere Professors.
By Rev. W. Secker. This is a book of rare merit, full of thought-exciting
topics, and is particularly valuable as an aid to Christian devotion. 12mo., embossed
cloth. ¦ 
From the Madison Courier.
This is a reprint of a quaint old English book, entitled "The None-Such Pro
fessor in his Meridian Splendor." It abounds in pithy sentences and suggestive
expressions, and should be read by such as wish to put a spur to thought.

From Rev. N. Summerbell.
This work can be best understood by presenting an outline of its contents :
Part First, answers why Christians should do more than others.
Part Second, considers what Christians do more than others.
Part Third, shows that the Scriptures require of Christians singular principles, or
to do more than others. .
Part Fourth, imparts instruction to those who wish to do more than others.
This work is peculiarly free from sectarianism, and breathes out, in short but
balanced sentences, the most Heavenly devotion and Christian piety, while probing
Ihe religious character with the most searching scrutiny.

APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS

SACRED LITERATURE OF THE LORD'S PKAYER.
In which the terms are defined, and the text carefully considered 12mo., cloth.
" This is a volume of rare excellence, written in the i uthor's usual style of great
beauty and elegance. It sparkles with gems of elevated thought, and abounds in the
most happy illustrations of the great philosophical bearings of the several petitions
of the Lord's Prayer on the general system of Revealed Religion, while their philos
ophy is very forcibly applied to the various duties of practijtJ Christianity.
" The introductory chapter is a learned and patient resca/jh into the real origin and
history of the use of this prayer, while the succeeding chapters can aut itnl both to
instruct the head and improve tbe heart. We have not xe'xd a more xiit/.iPsting book
for many years, and can most cordially recommend it to every lover of chaste theo
logical literature. It is a 12mo., gotten up in the best style of the art."

RELIGIOUS COURTSHIP;
Or, Marriage on Christian Principles.
By Daniel Defoe, Author of " Robinson Crusoe."
" Who has not read Robinson Crusoe ? It has fascinated every boy, and stimulated
his first taste for reading. Defoe has been equally happy in this present work, in
interesting those of riper years, at an age (Shakspeare's age of the lover) when the
mind is peculiarly susceptible of impressions. Although but few copies of this work
have ever been circulated in America, yet it has a popularity in England coextensive
with his unparalleled ' Crusoe.' "

From the Masonic Review.
Applegate & Co., have just issued, in their usual good style, a new edition of this
old and valuable work by Defoe. It treats of marriage on Christian principles, and
is designed as a guide in the selection of a partner for life. Young persons should
by all means read it, and with particular attention, for it furnishes important direc
tions relative to the most important act of life.

Home for the Million ; or Gravel Wall Buildings. — This is one of the most desirable booff pub
lished, for all who contemplate erecting dwellings or outhouses, as the cost is not over one-third
that of brick or frame, and quite as durable. Illustrated with numerous plans, and a cut of the
author's residence, with full directions, that every man may be his own builder.
The Camp Meeting and Sabbath School Chorister — A neat Sunday School Hymn Book.
Sacred Melodeon. — A Collection of Revival Hymns. By Rev. R. M. Dalby.
Nightingale ; or Normal School Singer. — Designed for Schools, Home Circle, and Private Prac
tice. On a Mathematically constructed System of Notation. By A. D. Fillmore, author of Uni
versal Musician, Christian Psalmist, etc.
lectures and Sermons. By Rev. F. G. Black, of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. I2mo.,
embossed cloth.
Western Adoenture. By McClcng. Illustrated.
American Church Harp.— A. Choice Selection of Hymns and Tunes adapted to all Christian
Churches, Singing Schools, and Private Families. By Rev. W. Rhineham. 12mo , half morocco.

Applegate & co.'s publications.

FARMER'S HAND-BOOK.
By Josiah T. Marshall, author of " Emigrant's True Guide." 12mo., cloth,
500 pages.
The publishers are gratified that they are enabled to satisfy the universal demand
for a volume which comprises a mass of superior material, derived from the most
authentic sources and protracted research.
The contents of the " Farmer's Hand-Book " can be accurately known and duly
estimated only by a recurrence to the Index of Subjects, which occupies twenty-four
Columns, comprising about fifteen hundred different points of information respecting
the management of a Farm, from the first purchase and clearing of the land, to all
its extensive details and departments. The necessary conveniences, the household
economy, the care of the animals, the preservation of domestic health, the cultivation
of fruits with the science and taste of the arborist, and the production of the most
advantageous articles for sale, are all displayed in a plain, instructive, .and most
satisfactory manner, adapted peculiarly to the classes of citizens for whose use and
benefit the work is specially designed. Besides a general outline of the Constitution,
with the Naturalization and Pre-emption Laws of the United States, there is
appended a Miscellany of 120 pages, including a rich variety of advice, hints, and
rules, the study and knowledge of which will unspeakably promote both the comfort
and welfare of all who adopt and practice them.
The publishers are assured that the commendations which the " Farmer's Hand
book " has received, are fully merited ; and they respectfully submit the work to
Agriculturists, in the full conviction that the Farmer or the Emigrant, in any part
of the country, will derive numberless blessings and improvements from his acquaint
ance with Mr. Marshall's manual.

LORENZO DOW'S COMPLETE WORKS.
Thk dealings of GOD, MAN, AND THE DEVIL, as exempted in the LIFE,. EXPE
RIENCE, AND TRAVELS of LORESZO DOW, in a period of over half a century, together
with his POLEMIC AND MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS COMPLETE.
To which is added —
The Vicissitudes of Life, — By Peggy Dow.
With an Introductory Essay, — By John Dowlixg, D. D., of New York. Making the best and
only complete edition published. 1 vol, octavo, Library binding. Do., do., Embossed. Spring
back, marble edge.

FAMILY TREASURY,

Of Western Literature, Science, and Art. Illustrated with Steel Plates. 8vo.,
cloth, gilt sides and back.
This work most happily blends valuable information and sound morality, with the
gratification of a literary and imaginative taste. Its pages abound in sketches of
history, illustrations of local interest, vivid portraitures of virtuous life, and occa
sional disquisitions and reviews.

APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATONS.

WEBB'S FREEMASON'S MONITOR!
By Thomas Smith Webb, Past Grand Master, etc.
A New Edition, printed on fine paper, large and clear type, beautifully and symbolically
illustrated, containing all the Degrees, from Entered Apprentice to Knights of Malta, together
with a sketch of the Origin of Masonry, Government of the Fraternity, Ceremony of Opening
and Closing the Lodge, with full directions for Instituting and Iustailing all Masonic bodies
to which is added — A Monitor of the Ancient and Accepted Rite,
Containing ample Illustrations of all the Grades, from Secret Master to Sovereign Grand Inspec
tor-General, including the series of Eleven Grades, known as Ihe IJVEFEAKLE DECREES,
arranged according to the work practiced under the jurisdiction of the Supueme Council ok thp
33d Degree. By E. T. Carson, Sov. G. Com. Ohio G. Consistory of P. R. S. 32°- 1 vol., 12mo..
cloth, 420 pages. $1.00. A Voice from all the Masonic bodies in Cincinnati. Cincinnati, June 1st, 18o8.
Gentlemen : — Having carefully examined your new edition of " Webb's Freemason's Monitor," we find it to corres
pond with the System of work as now adopted in all the Masonic bodies in the United States, and we take great pleas
ure in recommending it to the Craft throughout the country, as being the most useful and well-arranged practical
Manual of Freemasonry that we have yet seen. U. H. M1SARS. W. St. of N. 0. Harmony Lodge. No. 2.
WILLIAM SEE, W. M. of Miami Lodge. No. 40.
J. Jf. PARKS. W. M. of Lafayette Lodge, No. 81.
HOWARD MATTHEWS, W. M. of Cincinnati Lodge. No. 133.
O. MO >RE, W. M. of McMillan Lodge, No. HI.
B. T. CARSON. W M. of Cynthia Lodge. No. 155.
ANDREW Pl'IRRMANN. W. M. of Hansclmann Lodge, No. 208.
WJI. C MIDDLETON, H. P. of Cincinnati R. A. Chapter. No. 2.
OtlAS. BROWN H. P. of McMillan R. A. Chapter. No. 19.
Messrs. Applkgatk & CO." C. F. HANSELMANN, O. C of Cincinnati Enoa;npinent, No. 3.
From the Grand Master of Ohio.
* * * The admirable arrangement of the emblems of Masonry in your edition of Webb's Freemason's Monitor
makes the work complete, and I am much pleased to ^ay it meets my entire approval. Accept my thanks for the
beautiful copy sent me, which I assure you I prize highly. HORACE M. STOKES, Grand Master of Ohio.
Grand Lodge of Indiana, May 24, 1858.
Gentt.emen : — T have examined with care your late edition of " Webb's Masonic Monitor," and freely pronounce it
to be the best book of the kind extant. .The language, charges, <fcc, I have used in all my Masonic work, and would
not change under any circumstances. I freely recommend the "Monitor" to be adopted and used in my jurisdiction.
SOLOMON P. BAYLESS, Grand Master of Masons in Indiana.
* * * I most cheerfully award to it my testimony, as being the best hand-book for the Masonic student now extant,
and invaluable to the officers of the Lodge. JOHN M. PARKS, Grand Puissant of the
Grand Council of Select Masters of the State of Ohio.
From Distinguished Officers of 32 °
* * * It is really the only complete Monitor of the Rite in existence. As presiding officer of the Lodge of Perfection
and Chapter of Rose Croix, in this City [Cincinnati], I have long been in need, for practical use, cf just this work,
and I thank Brother Carson, most heartdy, for the valuable service he has rendered us of the Scotch Rite, in preparing
it. The work is arranged according to the system adopted in the Northern Jurisdiction of the 'United States, and the
directions are so full and complete, as to leave nothing to be desired. Yours truly, GKO. HOADLEY, 32°.
* * * The work must prove an acceptable offering to the Fraternity, as well from the superior excellence of its
mechanical execution, as from the intrinsic merits of its contents ; and every Mason should possess himself of a copy
I am, with respect, yours truly, CALEB B. SMITH, Past Grand Master of Indiana,
and Grand P. of Cincinnati Council of Royal and Select Masters

METHODIST FAMILY MANUAL.
By Rev. C- S. Lovell. 12ino., embossed cloth. Containing the Doctrines and
Moral Government of the Methodist Church, with Scripture proofs ; accompanied
with appropriate questions, to which is added a systematic plan for studying the
Bible, rules for the government of a Christian family, and a brief catechism upon
experimental religion.
This work supplies a want which has long been felt among the members of the
Methodist Church. As a family manual, and aid to the means of grace and practical
duties of Christianity, it is certainly a valuable work. It also contains the Disci
pline of the Church, with Scriptural proofs, and appropriate questions to each chap
ter. It is certainly an excellent book for religious instruction and edification. "We
most heartily commend it to the Methodist public, and hope it may have a wide
circulation and be made a blessing to all.

APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.

TEMPERANCE MUSICIAN.
A choice selection of original and selected Temperance Music, arrano-ed for one
two, three, or four voices, with an extensive variety of Popular Temperance Songs'
32mo. 

From the 'Summit, (0.,) Beacon.
This is a neat volume, well printed, and well bound, containing 256 pages. It is
the best collection of temperance songs and music we have seen. "Were a few copies
secured in every town in Ohio, in the hands of the warm-hearted friends of the Blaine
Law, an element of power and interest would be added to temperance meetings, and
a stronger impulse given to the onward march of the cold water army.

From ihe Temperance Chart.
This will certainly become one of the most popular temperance song books which
has been published in the country. We think it is, so far as we have examined, the
best collection of songs we have seen. Some of them are exceedingly beautiful and
affecting. 
From the Cleveland Commercial.
This is a popular Temperance Song Book, designed for the people, and should be
in every family. We can recommend it to the patronage of all our temperance
friends, as the best temperance songster, with music attached, we have seen. The
music in this work is set according to Harrison's Numeral System, for two reasons :
First, because it is so simple and scientific that all the people can easily learn
it. Second,, it is difficult to set music in a book of this size and shape, except in
numerals.

UNIVERSAL MUSICIAN.
By A. D. Fillmore, Author of Christian Psalmist, &c, containing all Systems
of Notation. New Edition, enlarged.
The title, "Universal Musician," is adopted because the work is designed for
everybody. The style of expression is in common plain English, so that it may be
adapted to the capacities of all, instead of simply pleasing the fancy of the few, who
are already thoroughly versed in science and literature.
Most of the music is written iu Harrison's Numeral System of Notation, because
it is the most intelligible of all the different systems extant ; and is therefore better
adapted to the wants of community. Music would be far better understood and
appreciated by the people generally, if it were all written in this way. For it is
more easily written, occupies less space, is more quickly learned, more clearly under
stood, is less liable to be forgotten, and will answer all common purposes better than
any other. - But the world is full of music, written in various systems, and the
learner should acquire a knowledge of all the principal varieties of notation, so as to
be able to read all music. To afford this knowledge to all, is the object of the pres
ent effort.
Poetry, which is calculated to please as well as instruct, has been carefully selected
from many volumes already published, and from original compositions furnished
expressly for this work. Much, of the music is original, which is willingly submitted
to the ordeal of public opinion. Some of it certainly possesses some merit, if we
may judge from the avidity with which it is pilfered and offered to the public by
some, would-be, authors.

APPLEGATE & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS.

SPEECHES AND WRITINGS OF HON. THOMAS F. MARSHALL.
As a popular Orator of unrivaled powers and a writer of unsurpassed ability, Mr. Mar
shall stands foremost among the prominent men of his day. The great reputation he has
acquired both as a speaker and writer, his long and active identity with and complete
knowledge of the political and social history of our country, have created a wide-spread
desire to see his numerous speeches and writings, on various subjects, in a permanent form.
"We feel confident that any one who has heard Mr. Marshall speak or read his writings,
will appreciate their power and admire, their beauty.
To meet this desire and to add a valuable contribution to the standard literature of our
own country, we have spared, neither pains nor expense to prepare the work in the highest
style of the art.
The work contains all of Mr. Marshall's finest efforts, since 1832. His able report on
Banking and paper currency, — his speech against John Quinoy Adams, in Congress, — his
memorable Slavery Letters,- the celebrated eulogy on Richard H. Menifee, the Louisville
Journal letter, and his great Temperance Speech, will all be found in the work. Besides
these, it contains his entire Old Guard articles, and many other productions of equal interest
and ability. 1 vol. Octavo, with splendid Steel portrait of Mr. Marshall, Library binding.
do do do do do half Antique.
From the Frankfort (Ky.) Commonwealth.
It is not necessary to puff this work ; it will be sought by every man of literary taste iD
the country. It will prove a valuable contribution to our standard literature, and the fame
of the author will go down to posterity as the purest of our American classics.
From the Maysville (Ky.) Eagle.
The work contains all those famous creations of genius that have rendered Mr. Marshal'
so remarkable as an orator and a man of genius, and is decidedly one of the most interest
ing books that has ever been published.
From the Bowling Green (Ky.) Gazette.
The reputation which Mr. Marshall has acquired as an eloquent orator and forcible
writer, render this volume the object of almost universal desire. As a popular orator he
stands at the head of the class of American speakers, possessing great powers of elocution,
ripe scholarship, and the highest order of intellect.
From the Louisville Journal.
We presume that very few persons will decline taking this work. It will be found
exceedingly brilliant and powerful. It is the productien of one of the master minds of the
nation. Remarkable as Mr. Marshall is with his humor and his wondrous flights of fancy,
he is, we think, still more remarkable for his strong, deep sense and inexorable logic.

CHAIN OF SACRED WONDERS.
Or a connected view of Scripture Scenes and Incidents, from the Creation to the end
of the last epoch. By Rev. S. A. Latta, A. M., M. D. Illustrated with two steel plates,
and a number of wood cuts. 1 vol. 8vo. cloth, marble edge.
do do do library style.
do do do embossed.
do do do half antique.
From the Cincinnati Daily Times.
The publishing house of Applegate & Co. is entitled to great praise for issuing so many
.rood and reallv valuable books, and so little of what is aptly termed "literary trash." The
kro-est work ever issued this side the Alleghanies, was from the press of Applegate & Co.,
Clark's Commentaries, in several massive volumes. Dick's works have also been issued in
a lar"0 and handsome volume by the same publishers.
The volume mentioned above is a work full of good reading, by an accomplished and
scholarly writer. It is well adapted to the Christian family circle, to Sabbath school and
religious libraries. The various sketches are admirably conceived, and written in a style
of simple purit" which is very attractive. The design of the author is to attract the atten
tion of youth to the Bible, and with that view he has endeavored to make his work an
instrument of much good. It is, indeed, an excellent book.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08867 6169

¥

i

i

:<s£r