: YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Presented by the Author CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY EXPLAINED & DEFENDED. WILLIAM COOKE SECOND EDITION SIXTH THOUSAND. LONDON : PARTRIDGE AND OAKEY, PATERNOSTER ROW. J. BAKEWELL, 80, NEWGATE STREET. MDCCCXLVIII. PEEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. This work was originated by circumstances which, in the view of the author, and many intelligent friends, loudly called for a defence of the truth. In the order of Provi dence, the author was appointed to labour in a locality where the fundamental principles of the Gospel were wantonly assailed, and the deadly poison of error was diffused with a zeal and a determination worthy of a better cause. On beholding the baneful consequences, — in the defection of multitudes of professing christians, the havoc of churches, and the prevalence of sceptical principles, — he felt himself, in duty bound, as one set for the defence of the Gospel, to issue a series of treatises on the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, adapted to counteract pernicious errors, and establish believers in the faith. Thus the work was origi nated, and was issued periodically, in small parts, to secure its more extended circulation. It will be seen, that the special object of the work determined, at first, the selection of topics, and greatly circumscribed the pen of the writer, especially on some subjects, which, under other circum stances, would have been treated with greater amplitude of argument and illustration. As the work proceeded, and obtained a circulation far beyond expectation, the author received repeated solicitations to extend the range of subjects. This he has done in part; but, after all his efforts at brevity and condensation, he finds it impracticable to comprise the whole in one volume. He has, therefore, determined on issuing another volume, on important theological subjects. In the present edition, the work is considerably improved, by a careful revision, and an addition of matter on some subjects, especially on those which have called forth the assaults of Unitarian sophistry. While the author has seen no reason to retract any theological sentiment, or concede a single argument, he felt it due to himself, and the sacred cause of truth, to expose the false reasoning of oppo nents, and fortify his own position, by additional facts and arguments. It may be here stated, that, for the accommodation of those who possess the former edition of the work, the most important and copious addition — "The Reply to a Critique" — is printed in a separate form, and may be had from the publishers. Manchester, January, 1848. ERRATA. Page 2, line 17, for "ne" read "one." ,, 4, „ 41, from top, for "a" read "as." „ 103, „ 21, do. for " with " read " which." „ 337, „ 2, do. for "necessary" read "unnecessary.' CONTENTS. I. Province of Eeason on Subjects of Divine Eevelation. — Eeason defined — Its province stated — Considered in reference to the mysteries of revelation — Compatible with reason to believe where we cannot comprehend — This the obedience of faith requires — The contrary is disobedience to God, and u rejection of his authority — Principles of TJnitarianism examined — Such are repugnant to the Gospel — Are iden tical with the Sadducean spirit — Involve the principles of Infidelity- Facts which exemplify this in the case of Priestly and the German Neologists — Lead also to the subversion of the principles of reason and common sense — Truths mysterious only through the weakness of our faculties — Are glimpses of truth to be hereafter developed — Serve to discipline the mind, and train it for a higher state. Pages 1-28. II. The Inspiration and Divine Authority of the Holy Scrip tures. — Inspiration defined — Distinguished from reason and common sense — The sacred writers professed to be inspired — Special evidence of this in relation to the several books of the Old Testament — Special proofs of the inspiration of the New Testament — The Saviour promised this inspiration— The claims to inspiration of Hebrews, and the Eeve lation especially defended and established — The kind and degree of inspiration vouchsafed — Verbal inspiration considered — The infallibility ofthe sacred writers proved — The integrity of the sacred text. pp. 29-56. III. The Hoiy Trinity.' — Above reason, but not contrary to it — If it were contradictory to human probability, still ought to be received on Divine authority — This proved to be consistent with reason — A Trinity held by the heathen — Hermes, Timotheus, Plato, Pythagoras, &c, referred to — The testimony of the ancient Jewish Church respecting the Trinity — The testimony of the christian fathers, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Clemens, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, &c. —The value of this united testimony — Scripture testimony — The names of God in the Old Testa ment prove him to be One in essence but Trinal in person — Three Divine persons distinctly named — Jewish form of benediction, Christian baptism, and apostolic benediction, teach a Trinity, pp. 57-85. IV. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. — The names of God, God with us, our God, the Lord God, True God, the Blessed God, Mighty God, Jehovah, and Jehovah of Hosts, applied to Christ— Eternity, immutability, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, applied to him — Creation, preservation, pardoning sin, raising the dead, judging the world, ascribed to him — He is worshiped, trusted, loved — He is equal to the Father, Proprietor of all things, Lord of the Temple, Lord of the Sabbath, Jehovah of the Old Testament— Objections answered, pp. 86-144. V. The Personality and Godhead of the, Holy Spirit. — The Spirit not a periphrasis, , or a figure of speech, but a conscious, intelligent Agent — The names of Deity ascribed to, him — ;The attributes and per fections of Deity ascribed to him — The works and prerogatives of Deity ascribed to him — The conclusion of the whole argument — The Trinity demonstrated, pp. 145-173. VI. Reply to a Critique. — Statements in p. 68, respecting the Chaldee paraphrases, defended — The errors of Dr. Lees exposed — Quotations given — The Memra of the Targums a real person, and invested with Divine attributes — The ignorance and folly of Dr. Lees, in " The Truth Seeker." exposed, in a variety of instances — The Logos of Philo shewn to be identical with the Memra of the Targums, and the "Word" of the New Testament — Divine titles ascribed to him by Philo, correspond with those of the New Testament writers. pp. 174-218. VII. The Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. — This doctrine most explicitly stated — The Unitarian pretext for rejecting it exposed — The fact of the miraculous conception attested by all Greek manuscripts extant — By the concurrent testimony of all versions, ancient and modern — By the multitudinous quotations of the Fathers, from Ignatius, who was contemporary with the Apostles, through all subsequent ages — The counter testimony of Marcion proved to be worthless — The Ebionites, and their spurious copy of St. Matthew — Difficulties in chronology and in the prophets explained and harmonised with the Evangelical narrative — The rejection of the Incarnation, a specimen of Unitarian scepticism, pp. 219-245. VIII. The Original State of Man, and Human Depravity. — Man created in a state of holiness — Adam's temptation and apostacy — Tra ditions of this truth scattered through different nations — The awful consequences — The death threatened against Adam suspended through the intervention of a promised Saviour — The consequences remotely considered— Temporal evils — The dissolution of the body— The de pravity of our moral nature— The sentiments of heathen writers CONTENTS. VU. respecting our depravity — This depravity proved to be hereditary and universal — The first and second Adam considered in relation to mankind. pp. 848-278. IX. The Atonement: First Part. — The Atonement defined — Not the subduing of man's hostility, but satisfying divine justice — Proved and illustrated by the case of infants, and the history of God's moral govern ment — Proved and illustrated by the sacrifices under the law — Christ s death a ransom — A satisfaction — A reconciliation — Properly a vicarious offering — Contrasted with the death of martyrs — Christ the only medium of access to the Father, pp . 274-302. X. The Atonement : Second Part. — Proved and illustrated by the nature and design of the Lord's Supper — By the priesthood of Christ — The fact that he suffered and died, though innocent, proves his Atone ment — The importance attached to Christ's resurrection, implies the efficacy of his atoning death — His' intercession — Objections answered — The Atonement reveals the Divine character, and affords the most powerful motives to humble confidence, obedience, and holiness. pp. 303-330. XI. Eeprobation and Election. — Eeprobation disproved by the fact that Christ died for all, even for them that perish — By the fact that all are invited, all are required to believe in him, and condemned for not believing — Objections answered — Election defined — Applied to Christ, angels — Applied to persons chosen to sustain offices — To the Jewish nation as a mass — To christian churches in the aggregate, without dis crimination as to character — Applied to true believers, but even then does not mean an unconditional appointment to everlasting life — Never has such a meaning — Some passages supposed to teach this, examined and explained— Recapitulation of the argument, pp. 331-362. XII. Justification by Faith. — Term defined — Synonymous with pardon Not obtained by works — N6r trirough the mere mercy of G6d — Nor by a speculative faith — But by a penitent reliance upon Christ — This God's mode of saving men under all dispensations — The apparent discrepancy betwixt Eom. iv. and James ii., harmonised — This plan of salvation adapted to man's condition— Completes the soul's submission to God- Unites man to God— Promotes humility— Generates hatred to sin- Exalts the Saviour, pp. 363-390. XIH. The Witness of the Holy Spirit. — The doctrine reasonable- Maintained throughout the Scriptures— Old Testament saints enjoyed it—Apostles enjoyed it— This the privilege of all— Nature of the evi dence explained— Not an external manifestation, but an inward impres sion—Not the result of reasoning, but realised by consciousness— Vlll. CONTENTS. Therefore direct and immediate, parallel to intuitive certainty— The witness of our spirit considered— How both are necessary, and both concur to guard against despondency and deception, pp. 391-418. XTV. Eegeneration. — Defined— Views of eminent men— Eegeneration a change in the qualities, but not in the substance of the soul— Under standing enlightened— Conscience rectified— Affections renovated— The change of heart manifested by the life— Overcoming the world— Domi nion over sin — The state described in Eom. vii. is shewn to apply to unregenerate man— This change transpires not before, but after, justi fication—Is essential to our obedience, and to everlasting life— Dr. Pusey's notions examined and refuted, pp. 419-446. XV. Entire Sanctification. — Meaning of the word sanctification ex plained—To separate, to devote— Applied ceremoniously to the Sab bath—To Jewish tabernacle, priesthood— Spiritually to' believers who are separate from sin, and devoted to God— Believers, though partially, yet not entirely sanctified— Entire sanctification explained — Separation from sinful tempers and affections, and filled with love— The privilege of believers in this life— The blood of Christ adequate to sanctify wholly— The blessing promised, commanded, prayed for, exemplified— Sundry objections answered— The blessing attained by prayer and faith, pp. 447-471. XVI. Perfect Love. — Love implies divine knowledge of God— Confidence in him— Gratitude— Delight in God— Perfect love implies to love God with all our heart, &c— Yet may continue to increase— Love of universal obligation — The root and principle of obedience — The fulfiUing of the law — A principle of the greatest energy — Benders all our works acceptable — The source of happiness — The duty of all to realise its fulness, pp. 472-489. XVII. The Christian Ministry, and the Scbiptueal Obligation of Christians to its Support. — The Ministry an institution which the state of society requires — Ordained of God — Proved from the Old Testa ment — From the New Testament — Objections answered — The practical benefits of the Ministry asserted — Demonstrated by facts — Liberality in its support urged upon churches, pp. 490-514. XVIII. The Christian Sabbath. — The Sabbath an institution coeval with the completion of creation — Kept by man in paradise — Known to all nations — Ee-enacted on Sinai as an ancient and well-known institution — The Sabbath a moral duty, and embraced in the moral code — Obli gatory upon Christians — Change of day does not alter its essence — Important reason for the change— Objections answered — The duty enforced— Addendum, a sophism answered, pp. 515-547. THE PROVINCE OF REASON ON SUBJECTS OF DIVINE REVELATION, especially in reference to the venerable mysteries of the christian religion. Timothy, 8 chap. 9 verse, "Holding the mystery ofthe faith in a pure conscience." We propose to enquire into the Province of Reason respecting subjects of Divine Revelation. Reason is the faculty which God has given to man for the investigation and reception of truth. Some truths may be discovered by the exercise of reason — for example, various truths in science' and natural philosophy. But many other truths, relating to religion, are not discoverable by reason, and therefore they are revealed to us by God Himself. Revelation is the discovery which God has made of His nature, His character, His government, His providence : of the plan of redemption, of a future world, and the duties devolving upon us. These great subjects have been revealed by the inspiration of pro phets and apostles, and by the personal ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ. This revelation is contained in the Holy Scriptures. The Bible professes to be an inspired book. It declares that " the pro phecy came not of old by the will of man ; but holy men of God spake' as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;" — "That all scrip ture is given by inspiration of God, and' is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, and thoroughly furnished unto all good works." In the same emphatic manner the New Testament writings profess to be inspired. Their authors were filled with the Holy Ghost, and wrote under the plenary influence of the Spirit that was promised to guide them into all truth. In speaking or writing respecting the common salvation; they declare 'that their gospel is not after men, for they neither received it from man, nor were they taught it but by the revelation of the Holy Ghost' As Theodore and Gregory have observed, "The tongues and the 2 THE PROVINCE OF REASON hands of the sacred writers are to be regarded as the instruments employed by the Holy Spirit to make known and record His will."* Now what is the Province of Reason with regard to the truths revealed in the Holy Scriptures? Is it first to construct a theory of our own, and then to make the statements of the Bible bend and yield to our preconceived opinions ? No : this would be to assume the office of dictator, not the humble position of the scholar. It would be, in effect, to discard the authority of the Bible, and practically to disown our need of its instructions. Is it the Pro vince of Reason to reject whatever is mysterious, and admit only what is obvious and easily understood? No : for this would be to make the human capacity the measure and limit of all truth. It would be, in effect, to affirm that there is no truth, nor can there possibly be any truth in existence, except it can be fully compre hended by the human mind. On this principle, too, truth itself must be as variable as the minds of men; for what is obvious to one is obscure and mysterious to another; and, therefore, what is truth to a man of vigorous and capacious mind, would be error to another of weaker capacity. The incongruity and absurdity of such reasoning are too glaring to need a serious refutation. It is because we are ignorant that a revelation is given to enlighten us ; and because we are wandering in error, it is sent to lead us into all truth. It is a light from heaven to shew us that which reason could not discover. It is an infallible standard of truth by which our follies are to be corrected, as well as our vicious habits to be reformed. The Province of Reason, therefore, is this — First, to examine thoroughly the evidence on which the Bible rests its claim to inspi ration; and being satisfied on this point, Secondly, to ascertain the true meaning of the sacred text, and sincerely receive it as the testimony of God. As the learned Dr. Stuart has observed, " The Scriptures being once admitted to be the word of God, or of Divine authority, the sole office of reason, in respect to them, is to act as interpreter of revelation, and not in any case, as legislator. Reason can only judge of the laws of interpretation, and direct the applica tion of them in order to discover simply what the sacred writers meant to assert. This being discovered, it is either to be received as they have asserted it, or their Divine authority must be rejected, and our obligation to believe all which they assert, denied. There * Linguas et manus scriptorum sacrorum nihil aliud quam spiritus sancti calamos appellandos esse. ON DIVINE REVELATION. 3 is no other alternative. Philosophy has no right to interfere here. If she ever interfere, it must be when the question is pending whether the Bible is divine. Nor has system, prejudice, sectarian feeling, orthodoxy, or heterodoxy, so called, any right to interfere. The claims of the Bible to be authoritative being once admitted, the simple question in respect to it, is, What does it teach ? In regard to any particular passage, what idea did the original writer mean to convey? When this is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpretation, it is authoritative— this is orthodoxy in the highest and best sense of the word; and every thing which is opposed to it, which modifies it, which fritters away its meaning, is heterodoxy, is heresy, to whatever name or party it is attached." These sentiments accord exactly with the author's established views. We come to the holy scriptures to be instructed — we open the sa cred volume to ascertain what God has revealed to His creatures, and both our understanding and our heart must reverently say — "Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth." That the Holy Bible contains some doctrines which are myste rious, and in some respects beyond our comprehension, we readily acknowledge. The doctrines ofthe Holy Trinity and Incarnation of our Blessed Redeemer are of this class. But these doctrines stand ing, as they do, so prominently on the sacred page, and every where interwoven in the texture of inspired truth, we are as much bound to believe them as any other part of the sacred writings; for our obligation to believe them depends not upon the ques tion, — are we able fully to comprehend and explain them ? ¦ but upon this question, are they contained in the holy scriptures ? If they are, then, being a part of the sacred records, they are given by divine inspiration, and, as such, we are required to believe them. Nor does the duty depend upon our inclination ; it is imperative. Our own admitted principle that the scriptures are of divine origin, and the authority of Him who gave them, require our assent to these truths. To reject them is to reject the testimony of God ; and, to act consistently, we must reject the whole volume of revelation. In reference to the important doctrines now adduced we shall, select a few scriptural proofs. A more extended and elaborate dis cussion on these important doctrines will be entered upon hereafter. Our object, at present, is to show that the truth of these doctrines lies upon the very surface of revelation. As it respects the doctrine of the Holy Trinity— the scriptures clearly speak of a three-fold distinction in the Godhead, under the THE PROVINCE OF REASON denomination of " Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," To define pre cisely what this distinction is, we profess purselves to be unable, nor have we any warrant from the sacred volume to make the attempt ; but that this distinction is real, and not merely nominal, is obvious from the Name appropriated to each, from the offices assigned to them in the economy of redemption, and from the three personal pronouns, I, Thru, and He, being employed to represent Them. Thus, in the promise of our Lord to His disciples, the real ity of this distinction is plainly recognized : — " And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you anpther comforter, that Tie may abide with you for ever ; even ths Spirit of truth." — John xiv. 16, 17. Here three persons are evidently indicated, and as evidently distinguished one from another. To each Divine Person, the names God, Lord, Jehovah, and all the names appropriate to Deity, are unreservedly applied; to Hack, the attributes and perfections, the works and prerogatives of Deity, are ascribed; to Each, religious homage and adoration are required to be rendered. In the name of JEaeh, the religious ordinance of baptism is commanded to be per formed. " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and pf the Holy Ghost." — Matt, xxviii. 19. From Sack, the blessings of grace, mercy, and peace are sought ; and, in the name of Hack, the apostolical bene diction is pronounced. " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." — 2 Cor. xiii. 14. But althpugh a distinction pf perspn, and the Godhead ef each person, are thus clearly taught, the same scriptures maintain the unity of the divine essence. " Hear, O Israel : the Lord thy God is one Jehovah," — Deut. vi. 4. In reference to thq Incarnation of our blessed Lord, the holy scriptures speak in the same clear and emphatic manner. This interesting event was held fprth in the first promise of a Saviour, repeatedly foretold by the prophets, and its actual fulfilment is recorded in the gospel history. Our Lord often asserted His pre existent dignity and glory. He declares — "Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am." — John viii. 58. " I came forth from the Father, and am come into the wprld : again I leave the world, and go to the Father." — John xvi. 28. "I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to dp ; And npw, O Father, glprify Thou Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was." — John xvii. 4, 6. All the apostles constantly maintain the incarnation of our Lord as a cardinal doctrine of Christianity, and they dwell upoa it with gratitude and joy as the grand display of ON DIVINE REVELATION. Jiehpvah's condescension and love. The apostle John says, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Gpd.— AU things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made— He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not." This same word which is called Gpd, and by whom all things were made — " was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of tjie Father,) full pf grace and truth;" 1st chapter. St. Paul declares, " ^e know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for ypur sakes he became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich."— 2 Cor. yiii. 9. "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery tp 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. "—Phil. ii. 6, 7, 8. The same apostle, referring to the privileges bestowed upon the Jewish natipn, observes, " Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, whp is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." — Rom. ix. 5. Again he states, " And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, Gpd was manifest in the flesh. " — 1 Tim. hi. 16. The pre-existence, the Deity of Christ, and His incarnation for man's redemption, are here most clearly maintained. If language can have any definite meaning, and if we admit that God has chosen those terms best adapted to impart suitable ideas of the truth he desires to convey, it must follow that the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnatipn of our Lord are held forth in the passages ad- duped. We might propeed with pur proofs, and produce a multi tude of passages expressing the same important truths, but, the present suffice to show that the doctrines in question are unequi vocally taught in the Holy Scriptures. They stand prominent; they meet us in almpst every page ; they are published as with the light of a sunbeam. We may reject them, but then we reject the testimony of Gpd; we may fritter away their meaning, but in so doing we wrest the Holy Scriptures to our own destruction. These doctrines are indeed rejected by some who assume the Christian name, but it is manifest the objections felt against them arise not from the want of evidence to sustain them, but from the mysteries they involve. There is a breadth and fulness of mean ing in the declarations of Scripture sufficient to fix these doctrines }mmQveably in the confidence of all, were they not supposed to be encumbered with rational difficulties. The Unitarian alleges, that b THE PROVINCE OF REASON they are incemprehensible, and repugnant to our reason; and, from the mode of argument commonly adopted by such persons, it is obvious that these are the main, if not the only, objections. To these, therefere, we must specially direct our attention. We reply that these objections are untenable. We maintain that the doctrines in question are not repugnant or contradictory to our reason. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as revealed in the Scriptures, is this — That while Jehovah is one in essence, as distinguished from all the inferior and subordinate deities of Poly theism, there is a real distinction in the godhead, and that this distinction is indicated by the name of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." We do not profess ability to define or explain this sub ject, and when we apply the word persons to the Trinity, we do it merely from the poverty of human language. We use it not to express the same ideas as when applied to human beings, but, as the language of approximation, to mark the distinction taught in the holy Scriptures. Now what is there irrational in this doctrine? The Unitarian replies that " It is contradictory to reason that one should be three, or that three should be one." J£ this were a question of arithmetic, the objection would apply; but we are not speaking of mental abstractions, represented by algebraic figures, and re specting which our ideas are adequate and complete. We are speaking of the Godhead. The question refers to the mode of God's existence — to His essence. Now, before any one can ration ally determine that the distinction maintained in the Godhead is contradictory to reason, he must have adequate and complete ideas of the Godhead; he must know God fully; he must penetrate His essence ; he must comprehend the mode of His existence. He must, in fact, be equal with God Himself. He must either bring the Deity down to a level with himself, or exalt his own nature and capacities to an equality with God, for an infinite being can be comprehended only by an infinite mind. If these suppositions involve absurdity and arrogance, they are the absurdity and arro gance of the unitarian theory, — the logical consequences of that theory which assumes to pronounce the trinitarian distinction con tradictory to reason. For if reason assume the authority to deny what the scriptures predicate of the Godhead, it must assume to comprehend the subject of that predicate — the Godhead itself. If it is incompetent to comprehend the Deity, it is also incompe tent to deny what the scriptures affirm to be the mode of his ex istence. Thus the unitarian argument falls to the ground by its own weakness. .*•- ON DIVINE REVELATION. 7 It is clearly beyond the province of human reason, unaided by revelation, either to affirm or deny the doctrine asserted respect ing the mode of God's existence. The abyss of the divine essence is too profound to be fathomed by the short line of human reason. Whether or not the Divine nature admits of a threefold distinction, is an enquiry which we could never decide without the Bible. It is a subjectrespecting which of ourselves we know nothing, can dis cover nothing, and on which, a priori, we can detemune nothing. It is totally beyond the sphere of human knowledge, and, therefore, beyond the reach of the human mind. The natural sources of our ideas, sensation, reflection, and consciousness, can furnish no data from which to reason out a conclusion. They furnish no ideas on the subject, and it is obvious to a truism, that where we have no ideas we can form no propositions, and where we have no proposi tions we can arrive at no conclusions — we can neither affirm nor deny. Inspiration alone can furnish knowledge on this question, and that knowledge has been vouchsafed by inspiration. God has revealed himself to us under a real distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and we are bound to believe it. We cannot contra dict it from reason, for reason has no rule or standard of its own by which to decide ; and to contradict it without reason, would be to add absurdity to impiety and blasphemy. That the nature of man admits of the union of two substances in one person, we dp know ; and although this fact cannot be adduced in direct and po sitive proof of the Trinity, yet it serves another important purpose — it destroys the force ofthe unitarian objection against the Trinity ; for if a duality of natures, so diverse as body and soul, can be united in one person, why may there not be a Trinity in the God head ? If man can be two in one sense and one in another, why may not God be three in one sense and one in another ? The Bible declares He is, and as reason cannot prpve to the contrary, it is our duty to receive its dictation. The principles involved in this argument apply with equal force to the doctrine of our Lord's incarnation. This doctrine, like the Trinity, is above the power of the human mind to discover, to ex plain, or fully to comprehend. It is not, however, contradictory to our reason, though above it. For no one but a being who could penetrate into the nature of God, so as to comprehend the Divinity in all His modes of existence, and in all His attributes, could deter mine, apriori, whether His incarnation were possible or not. It is most obvious that man, placed at such an immeasurable distance from his Maker, has no means of his own to determine, and no autho- B THE PROVINCE OF REASON rity to dogmatize, on such a subject. We know not how Ipw the Deity can cendescend, and can, therefore, prescribe no limit to his con descension. On a subject then where we are totally ignorant, it is the province of human reason and sbund philosophy neither to affirm nor deny, but with all humility and meekness to confess our ignorance and incapacity. However, though our sagacity could not solve the problem, God himself has revealed it in the holy Scrip tures. The incarnation, as we have seen already, is most clearly taught in the Bible, and, being satisfied that the Bible is the word of God, we are bound to' receive its testimony. It is also alleged by the advocates of nnitarianismand others, that the doctrines in question are mysterious and incomprehensible — that man cannot justly be held accountable for not believing that which he is unable to comprehend— that mystery and revelation are inccmpatible: — -that the terms themselves are inconsistent with each other — that if a subject be revealed it is no longer mysterious ; or, if mysterious, it is not revealed. This reasoning, however plausible, is full of sophistry and infi delity. We shall therefore devote some time to its refutation. The objections alleged against either the word mystery, or the venerable truths signified thereby, are not very becoming in any one professing to believe in the inspiration of the sacred volume. To say the least, such objections are inconsistent with the reve rence due to the holy scriptures. The divine oracles clearly recog nise the existence of mysteries in religion, and frequently use the word. And although this word is sometimes employed in reference to such gospel truths as were formerly concealed, or but faintly re presented by types and symbols, but now clearly revealed and' un derstood; and sometimes also to the free dispensation of the gos pel to the Gentiles, unencumbered with Jewish rites, yet it frequent ly refers to those doctrines of the christian system, which, though announced by revelation, are not fully comprehended — to facts and truths which are to be received by faith, though pbscure and mysterious ~to the understanding. Thus the apostle speaks of the resurrection of the deadahd the transformation of the living at the last day as a mystery. " Behold I show you a mystery. We shall not all-sleep but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinklihgof an eye, at the last trump': for the trumpet-shall sound, and the dead'shall be raised ^corruptible, and we shall be changed." The light of "revelation makes known this doctrine, but does not dissipate the mystery. The resurrection of the dead, under the me ridian beams of revelation and the highest attainments of philoso- ON DIVINE REVELATION 9 phy.is a mystery still. The same apostle applies the woxdimystery to the Godhead. Writing to the Colossians, he earnestly desirea that they might attain " unto all riches of the full assurance of un derstanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of Ged, and of the Father, and of Christ."— CpL ii. 2. In 1 Tim. iii. 9, he ex horts us to hold fast " The mystery ofthe faith in apure conscience." In this passage the word mystery is applied evidently to doctrines, and facts in the christian system. So, in the following passage, it is used with special reference to the incarnation of God. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness : God was manifest in the flesh." The use of this word therefore is sanctioned by the highest authority— the authority of God; and its applica tion in scripture not only sanctions its use in theology, but esta blishes the position we have taken— that though some doctrines ofthe christian system are mysteripus to the understanding, they are to be steadfastly held as articles of faith. Tp assert that the word mystery -is inapplicable to truths reveal ed and made known— that if a subject be revealed, it is henceforth in fact, no mystery : and if a mystery, it is no revelation, is to dar ken counsel by words without knowledge. Fpr a subject may be partially revealed, or revealed to some extent, or revealed in some respects, and not in all its modes ; and certainly it requires no pro found sagacity to see that in proportion as a subject becomes known, it ceases to be mysterious, and vice versa. Many truths which were obscure under a former economy, are clearly revealed in this, hut though now fully comprehended, they may, by ihe freedom of lan guage, retain their old name as the mysteries of a former dispen sation. It is thus the sacred writers apply the term to the call of the Gentiles, and various other subjects. Some doctrines are still obscure ; because, but obscurely and partially unfolded — we know them only in part ; these are mysteries ; still, so far as they are known, they are known by revelation. Without the light of reve^ latipn they would not have been known by us at atU-the existence of such truths, even as mysteries, could never have been conjectured. Thus mystery and revelation are not incompatible with each other. We may certainly know a fact or a truth to exist, though incapable of explaining or comprehending its mode. The uninstructed peasant, gazing upon an eclipse of the sun, is certain ofthe event, though he cannot explain the cause. The fact is evident, though its philosophy is mysterious to his untutored mind. So the doctrines of the Trimly, the incarnation, and the resurreetien, aro known as dpctrines pf the christian system, though either for the want of clearer light, or stronger faculties, we cannot fully comprehend them. 10 THE PROVINCE OF REASON So far from mysteries being incompatible with a divine revela tion, we know not how it is possible for a revelation to be given without them. If Christianity treated only of those subjects we know already, it would be no revelation at all ; if it spoke of those things only which reason itself could discover, it would be superflu ous, or at the most would stand on a level with a human produc tion ; and if it spoke of those subjects only in which there is no mystery, almost every truth relating to man's spuitual nature and future existence must of necessity be excluded. But the great themes of the scriptures are — the Deity, His nature, His mode of existence, His attributes, His government, His relation to mankind and the universe; — the plan of redeeming mercy; — the soul of man, and its eternal destiny ; — with the various duties arising from these truths : subjects, many of which are wholly spiritual in their nature, bearing but a remote analogy or resemblance to the things of this world — subjects which, as the apostle tells us, the " eye of man hath not seen, nor his ear heard," nor his mind, by its own powers of discovery, hath ever conceived ; and subjects too, though sufficiently understood for practical purposes, yet involving enqui ries so profound and recondite, that the most piercing intellect cannot fathom, the most capacious mind cannot comprehend them. It must also be remembered that these divine truths are presented to us through the limited and imperfect medium of human language. There are, doubtless, profound mysteries in some of the truths, as seen by the clear vision of angels, but there must be a still deeper tinge of obscurity about them when viewed by man, owing not only to his inferior capacity, but to the gross and imperfect medium through which they are contemplated. All representations in hu man language, of things purely divine and spuitual, especially of such as are revealed respecting the Godhead, can only be approxi mations to the archetypes themselves. As a familiar illustration of our meaning : — If a learned European should write a treatise on some branch of modern science, in the circumscribed and broken dialect of some savage tribe, he would find himself embarrassed in the attempt for want of appropriate and adequate terms. In a language confined to the few ideas of savage life it would be im possible to give perspicuity and full expression to his meaning. He might succeed so far as greatly to instruct these children of nature, to enlarge the bounds of their knowledge, to excite their astonish ment and curiosity, and lead to many practical improvements in their condition ; but the poverty of then- language, and the narrow range of their ideas must leave many parts of philosophy for the present veiled in obscurity and mystery. So it is in regard ON DIVINE REVELATION 11 to the divine subjects revealed to man in the Scriptures. When God speaks to man he must use the language of man ; he must restrict himself to the terms already familiar to the human mind. Thus, truths in relation to the Divine Nature, and in relation to invisible and spiritual realities, have to be clothed in an earthly costume — to be presented to the mind in tropes, figures, and terms borrowed from sensible objects. Can such a medium of commu nication convey clear, defined, and adequate conceptions of every sacred truth? Can earthly symbols perfectly depict and represent the deep things of God ? Can human articulations, with all their ambiguity, poverty, and inadequacy to express our own narrow circle of earthly ideas — give utterance so distinct, plain, and expres sive, to the whole volume of heavenly oracles, as to. leave no part obscure, no truth uncomprehended, no doctrine shaded by mystery? Such a result is impossible. A revelation of truths so spiritual and exalted, transfused through a medium so inadequate, ambigueus, and earthly, and received by minds so limited and feeble, cannot but contain some things obscure and mysterious. The ideas we receive then of the more recondite and spiritual parts of the chris tian system can only be ideas of approximation, although compe tent to subserve all the practical purposes for which a revelation is given to mankind. But the Unitarian still objects that man is not under any im perative obligation to receive these mysteries, because his duty to believe can only be commensurate with his capacity to understand the gospel. Some of the observations already adduced apply to this. objection, but it may be necessary to furnish a more special refutation, as the objection is urged with an air of confidence, and however unsubstantial in its nature, has something specious in its aspect, and operates as an opiate to the conscience of many who reject the vital truths of Christianity. To this objection we have a two-fold reply to make — First, that it involves a principle of disobedience to the gospel ; and, secondly, that it involves a principle which, if carried out, leads to universal scepticism. First, this objection involves a principle of disobedience to the gospel. Christianity imperatively requires our faith in its doctrines and principles; faith therefore is an essential part of our obedience to God. Hence the apostle speaks expressly of "the obedience of faith." — Rom. xvi. 26. And the Redeemer Himself has made faith a condition of salvation. This faith has respect to the mysteries of our holy religion, as well as to the plainest doctrines. . Mysteries 12- THE PROVINCE OF REASON are distinctly recognized as objects of the christian faith; for in the same chapter where the apestle states that cenfessedly " great is ihe mystery ef godliness," he strenuously exhorts and requires us to hold fast the mystery ofthe faith in a pure conscience. It is of no avail to allege that a mystery is beyond our comprehension ; the apostle knew this when he gave the command in our text. The Saviour knew this when he taught the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and commanded men to be baptised in that doctrine, and when he solemnly declared " he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned. " A mystery is not a contradiction to our reason, though above our comprehension. It is a doctrine partially revealed and par tially obscure. The doctrine itself is plainly inculcated as a part of tlie christian system, though its mode be unknown by us ; and, as such, we are under a solemn duty to believe it. Beyond what is revealed, we are not bound to believe, but all that is- reveal ed, however obscure, however mysterious, and however incompre hensible, we are required to believe. This is the obedience of faith. This is a principle which God has everrecognizedi and which He has ever honoured with His approval. It was a mystery to Abra ham that he should have a son when Sarah was past age, and that in his seed all nations should be blessed ; yet Abraham believed the promise, and Gpd "both, honoured the faith of His servant and fulfilled His own word. It was a still greater mystery when the patriarch, was commanded to sacrifice that son, and had he be lieved only what reason could comprehend, he would have resisted the command. For the promise of God, the dictates of nature, and the predictions ofthe world's redemption, all seemed repugnant and contradictory to the command. But though the patriarch could not comprehend the mysterious dispensation, he believed ia all that God had said. He both believed the promise and yielded to the command. He was satisfied that what God had said must be true. He therefore staggered net at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strong in faith, giving glory to God. It put ho- npur upon God's veracity, and the Almighty, in due time, put honour upon tile patriarch as a special reward for his fidelity. He was called the father of the faithful, the friend of God ; and is held forth as a pattern to all believers. The same principle of simple trust in the testimony of God, is held up with the same approbation (throughout the sacred volume. On the contrary, the spirit of scepticism and unbelief is every where denounced and condemned. In Nazareth the people believ- ON DIVINE REVELATION. 13 ed not in Jesus. They looked upon His humble origin and pover ty, and would not believe that one so mean in aspect possessed such extraordinary powers, for such a belief was not compatible with their reasoning and their pride ; but so repulsive was their unbelief, that it restrained the hand of Omnipotence. Christ could not per form many mighty works amongst them. The resurrection of our Lord was an event mysterious. Reason did not look for it, and, when informed by the highest authority, staggered at the information. It was an event out of the course of nature, and the apostles them selves were slow of heart to believe it. The most credible testimony was rejected, and one of them declared " Unless I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger upon the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe it." This was sinful unbelief, for the fact was sufficiently attested to secure their assent. The evidence was credible, but the fact asserted was mysterious, and on this account alone it was rejected. For this reason their scepticism was displeasing to God. It sa voured of pride and carnal nature, and therefore met with our Lord's rebuke. " He upbraided them with their unbelief and hard ness of heart, because