:. W ': 'Vt ^V **^Sik. s^# raw zfflfa ^ < :4Va? J%^.^hetc:rc $ /nutty LECTURES CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY GEORGE CHRISTIAN KNAPP. TRANSLATED BT LEONARD WOODS, JUN. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL,* II. NEW-YORK: PUBLISHED By G. & C. & H. CARVILL, No. 108, Broadway. Andover Printed at the Codman Press, BV FLAGG, GOULD, AND NEWMAN. 1833. Hp7)#T It Tr V>2- TABLE OP CONTENTS. BOOK SECOND. THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. PART FIRST. THE STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. ARTICLE NINTH. OP SIN, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN. Page § 73. What is meant by sin ; the different words used in the Bible to de note sin, and the meaning of them ...... 11 § 74. What does reason, without the use of the Bible, teach us respecting the sinful state of man, and the origin of it? And how far do the results of Reason on this subject agree with the Bible ? . . 15 §75. Mosaic account of the sin of our first parents ..... 26 §76. Of the imputation of the sin of our first parents . . . .42 § 77. In what the natural depravity of man consists ; its appellations in the Bible ; when it has its principal seat in man ; and how its exis tence may be proved from the Holy Scriptures . . . .52 § 78. Of the nature and attributes of this corruption ; its propagation, its punishableness ; also of the origin of sinful desiresamong men, and their punishableness ......... 65 § 79. Of the representations of the ancient Church-fathers respecting hu man depravity ; and the manner in which the ecclesiastical phrase ology on this subject, and the various forms of doctrine were grad ually developed . . . . • ¦ • .75 § 80. Results of the foregoing discussion respecting the doctrine of natural depravity, and observations on the mode of teaching this doctrine. 84 § 81. Explanation of the idea which is commonly connected in theology with the expression Actual Sins; and of the different degrees of sin. 93 § 82. Divisions of sin in respect to the law, to the knowledge and putpose of him who commits it, and to the action itself . . . .98 § 83. Of some other divisions of sin, and sins of participation . . .106 5 84. Of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,— or the sin against the Holv Ghost . 110 CONTENTS. § 85. Of the State into which men are brought by the commission of sin, and the different kinds and names of it . . • ¦ ¦. . ' § 86. What punishment is, and what is the object of it ; how the divine punishments are named in the Bible, and what we are there taught respecting their nature ; also the various divisions of the divine 116 123 punishments *„. § 87. Some remarks on positive divine punishments BOOK SECOND. THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. PART SECOND. OP THE STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. ARTICLE TENTH. OF JESUS CHRIST. CHAPTER FIRST. OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTIONS FOR THE RESTORATION OF MEN, IN A GENERAL VIEW ; THE EXPECTATIONS, PREDICTIONS AND TYPES OF THE MESSIAH, AND THEIR FULFILMENT IN JESUS OF NAZARETH. § 88. Of the institutions established by God for the moral recovery and the salvation of the human race, in a general view ; the scriptural doctrines and representations on this subject ; as a general introduc tion to what follows ... .... 140 § 89. Formation-and developement of the idea of Messiah among the an cient and modern Jews ; their opinions respecting him ; and the proof that Jesus was the Messiah ...... 148 § 90. Of the principles on which we are to interpret the literal and figura tive predictions contained in the Old Testament respecting the Mes siah, and the new institute founded by him ..... 156 § 91. Of the successive degrees of the revelations and predictions contain ed in the Old Testament respecting the Messiah . . 164 CHAPTER SECOND. HISTORY OF JESUS IN HIS TWO STATES OF HUMILIATION AND EXALTATION. § 92. The Scriptural representation of the two principal periods in the life of Jesus; the scriptural names of those periods ; the proof texts; and some conclusions ....... . 171 § 93. Of the origin, conception, birth and youth of Jesus; his true humani ty, and the excellencies of it ..... . 177 §94. Of the doctrine of Jesus, and his office as teacher . . . 184 § 95. Of the hardships and sufferings of Jesus 192 § 96. Of Christ's descent into Hell 193 § 97. History of Christ considered as a man, in his state of exaltation . 204 § 98. Wherein the heavenly glory or majesty of Christ, as a man consists ; and the soriptural idea of this kingdom and dominion ofChrist . 211 CONTENTS. § 99. Remarks on the form and sense of the Scriptural representation re specting the kingdom, of God and of Christ ; and on the significa tion of the phrase, to sit on the right hand of God, as applied to Christ. 217 CHAPTER THIRD. ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. § 100. The higher nature of Christ, and how it is proved .... 225 § 101. Of the connexion between the Deity and humanity of Christ accord ing to what the Bible directly teaches, and the consequences which may be deduced from its instructions .... 229 § 102. Historical observations explanatory of the origin and progressive de- velopement of the ecclesiastical system respecting the person and the two natures of Christ, until the eighth century ' . . . 238 § 103. Historical observations continued ; the ancient terminology respect ing this doctrine explained ... .... 249 § 104. Abrief exhibition of the ecclesiastical system respecting the person and the two natures of Christ ; an explanation of the ecclesiasti cal phraseology now in use in the doctrine de communicatione idiomatum; and a critical judgment upon the same . . . 254 CHAPTER FOURTH. THE WORK OF CHRIST AND WHAT HAS BEEN EFFECTED BY IT. § 105. Scriptural names and descriptions of the works of Christ, and their salutary effects ; also, the names of Christ as the Saviour of the world ............ 263 § 106. What is considered in the Scriptures as properly belonging to the work which Christ performed for the good of men ; explanation of the word redemption, as used in the Bible ; and what is the most convenient and natural order and connexion for exhibiting the doctrine of the entire merits of Christ 267 § 107. Of the method formerly adopted of considering the work of Christ, as consisting of the prophetic, priestly, and kingly offices . . 274 Part First of Chap. IV. On redemption from the punishment of sin ; or, the Atonement of Christ, and the justification of men before God, — the consequence of the Atonement. § 108. Of the various opinions respecting the forgiveness by God, and the conditions on which forgiveness may be granted ; and an appli cation of this to the Scriptural doctrine of the Atonement . . 280 § 109. Scriptural doctrine respecting the necessity of the forgiveness of sin ; what is meant by forgiveness, pardon, justification ; and the Scriptural terms by which they are designated . . . 291 §110. Illustration of the Scriptural statement, that men owe it to Christ alone, that God justifies' them, or forgives their sins . . 298 § 111. Of the sufferings and death of Christ; how far we are indebted to them for our justification or pardon ; together with observations on some of the principal attributes (affectiones) of the 'death of Christ . ... . 303 § 112. Of the influence which the resurrection of Christ, and his subse quent exaltation and intercession, have upon our forgiveness or justification . . 312 CONTENTS. § 113. The scripture doctrine of pardon or justification through Christ, as an universal and unmerited favor of God 317 §114. Of the various theories respecting the nature and manner of the atonement of Christ ; and a notice of some of the most important works on atonement and justification . . ... 324 § 115. Of the active obedience of Christ . ... .335 Part Second of Chap. IV. On redemption from the power or dominion of sin. § 116. Of the importance of this doctrine ; its conformity with Scripture, and the manner in which we are freed from sin through Christ. 342 § 117. Of the deliverance from the power and dominion of sin, for which we are indebted, under divine assistance, to the instruction and example of Christ ........ 347 Part Third of Chap. IV. On the present and future consequences of the work of Christ. $ 118. Scriptural titles of salvation procured by Christ for men ; its gener al nature ; the doctrine of the New Testament respecting the abolition of the Old Testament dispensation, by Christianity, and the advantages resulting from it to the world .... 352 5 119. The happiness which Christians obtain in this life from Christ . 358 $ 120. The happiness which Christians obtain through Christ in the fu ture life . 365 ARTICLE ELEVENTH. ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION. v 121. Of the Christian doctrine of -Faith, as the only condition of salvation, together with remarks respecting the salvation of the heathen and of infants ¦¦•¦•..¦... 370 § 122. Of the various significations of the word faith, as used in the Bi ble ; some of the principal passages relating to faith ; the parts of which faith is made up; and some of the most important theolo gical divisions of faith ......... 377 § 123.. Of the different objects of Christian doctrine to which faith refers • and the relation of faith to the same . . ... 335 § 124. Of the connexion of the parts of which faith is composed ; the char acteristics and degrees of faith; and the conditions on which it is saving . . . 394 §125. Of the nature of Christian good works or virtues; the relation in which they stand to salvation ; and their meritoriousness . , 403 §126. Explanation of the terms which are used in the Scriptures, to de note both the external profession of Christianity (fides externa) and internal moral improvement and sanctification . m § 127. Statement of the doctrine of moral reformation ; its commence ment; on putting off repentance, and on late conversions . . 418 § 128. Remarks on the false opinions and perversions concerning the doc trine of repentance, which have been gradually adopted in the Christian Church . . 423 CONTENTS. ARTICLE TWELFTH. ON THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE J ON THI DIVINE INSTITUTIONS FOR PROMOTING REPENTANCE AND FAITH. § 129. Explanation of the terms Grace, Operations of grace, Means of grace, and other phrases employed in theology on this subject ; and the connexion of this doctrine with the preceding . . . 434 § 130. What are the operations of divine grace for promoting the repent ance and salvation of those who live in Christian lands ; and what means does God employ in exerting these influences on their hearts ? . ..... .... 437 § 131. How is the divine origin of these gracious renewing influences proved from the Holy Scriptures ? and remarks in explanation of the scriptural phraseology on this subject 445 § 132. A sketch of some of the principal theories respecting the operations of divine grace, and the freedom (or ability) of man in spiritual things ; and the controversies on this subject in the Christian Church . ......'... 452 § 133. Exhibition of the modern theory respecting the divinity of the ope rations of grace, and the powerof the word of God . . .463 APPENDIX. OF PRAYER AS A MEANS OF GRACE .... 473 ARTICLE THIRTEENTH. ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY OR CHURCH. § 134. What is meant by the Christian Church ; its object; its names; and the divisions of the Church, common in Theology . . 478 § 135. Attributes of the Christian Church; the ecclesiastical terms com monly employed to designate them, and their signification . 483 § 136. Of the Head of the Christian Church ; and of the institutions estab lished to maintain and extend it, especially through the office of public teaching .... 491 ARTICLE FOURTEENTH. OF THE TWO SACRAMENTS, BAPTISM AND THE LORD S SUPPER. § 137. Of the Sacraments in general ,501 CHAPTER FIRST. THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. § 138. Names, institution, and origin of Christian Baptism; with observa tions on John the Baptist and the Jewish Baptism of Proselytes . 510 § 139. How and by whom baptism is to be administered ; and respecting the optional and unessential things attending the observance of this rite 516 § 140. Object, uses, and effects of Christian Baptism .... 522 § 141. Of the necessity of Baptism, and whether itmay be repeated . 528 §142. Of the Baptism of Infants , . 534 VI11 CONTENTS. CHAPTER SECOND. ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. § 143. Of the names of the Lord's Supper; and the occasion and objects of its institution • .540 § 144. Of the distinction between what is essential and unessential in the celebration of the ordinance of the Supper . . • .550 § 145. Of the uses and efficacy of the Lord's Supper ; and inferences from __ these • • 5o9 § 146. The various opinions and forms of doctrine respecting the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's supper, historically explained ; and also a critique respecting them . • 567 ARTICLE FIFTEENTH. ON DEATH, AND THE CONTINUANCE AND DESTINY OF MEN AFTER DEATH J OR THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING THE LAST THINGS. § 147. Of Death . A .581 § 148. Of the Christian doctrine of the continuance of the human soul, and its state after death ..... . ¦ 586 § 149. Historical illustrations of the various opinions which have prevail ed in ancient and modern times respecting the continuance of the soul after death ; and the proofs drawn from reason in favor of it. 593 § 150. Of some of the most important of the various opinions respecting the place of departed souls, and their condition there . . 602 § 151. What is understood by the resurrection of the dead; the meaning of the word resurrection ; and what is taught respecting it by the Jews ... 611 § 152. The Christian doctrine respecting the resurrection of the body 620 5 153. Doctrine of the New Testament respecting the nature of the body which we shall receive at the resurrection ; and the opinions of theologians on this point . .... . 627 5 154. Of the last appearing of Christ before the end of the world ; the vari ous opinions on this subject ; also respecting the Millenial king dom, and the universal conversion of Jews and Gentiles . . 634 5155. Of the general judgment, and the end of the present constitution of the world ... 642 5 156. Of the punishments of Hell, or eternal condemnation . 650 5157. Duration of future punishments; reasons for and against their eter nal duration . . 658 5158. Result drawn from comparing and examining the different argu ments for and against the eternal duration of future punishment ; and a sketch of the history of this doctrine . . 666 On Eternal Blessedness. 5159. Introduction to this doctrine ; and explanation of the Scriptural phraseology with regard to it . . . . . . 672 5160. What do reason and Scripture teach, and lead us to expect, in a general view, as to the real nature of future blessedness ? . . 678 BOOK SECOND. THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. PART FIRST. THE STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. Vol. n. ON THE PLAN, ORDER, AND SUCCESSION OF TOPICS IN THE SECOND BOOK. This Book is properly denominated, theological Anthropology, because it contains the doc trine respecting man, and his relation to God. In respect to the order and succession in which the various topics belonging to this doctrine, are treated, there is a great diversity in the sys tems of Theology both ancient and modern. The particular order in which doctrines are treat ed is, indeed, of no great importance ; provided only that those doctrines are placed firBt, which constitute the basis of those which follow, or which contribute essentially to the illustration of them. To place the doctrine respecting Christ, e. g.— respecting his person,— the redemption effected through him, etc. at the very introduction of the system, (as some have done,) is certain ly very preposterous, since a great deal in these doctrines cannot be placed in the proper light, until the Scriptural doctrines of the depravity of man, of sin, and the punishment of sin, have been previously illustrated. The plan adopted by Morns, of placing the latter doctrines first, has, therefore, greatly the advantage over the other. Still, on any method which may be adopt ed, there will always be found difficulties and imperfections. — Some have made a merit of devi ating from the method generally pursued in Systems of Theology, of inventing a method wholly new, and especially of giving new titles to the various divisions of the subject. Bnt no new land is won for the science itself by means of these innovations; and on the contrary, the study of it is rendered very perplexed to beginners, and they are compelled, whenever they take a new system in hand, to begin, as it were anew, and to learn a new language. We adopt the following order, viz. (a) Man may be considered in his former or original condition, the state of innocence, and of this an account has already been given in Book First, §§ 53 — 57. Farther, man may be considered (5) in his present state — that in which he is, since the state of innocence has ceased. In this connexion belong the doctrines respecting Sin^ — its origin, — the various kinds of sin, — and its consequences ; Art. IX. §§73 — 87, incl. Finally, man may be considered (c) in that better state to which he is restored. Here the whole doctrine re specting the Redemption of the human race belongs. (I) D^eratia Dei salutari, — the gracious Institutes which God has established to promote the holinessTmd happiness of men, — especially those established in and through Christ, — the different states of Christ, — his person, — his work, and the salutary consequences of it to the human race; Art. X. §§ 88— 120, inch (2) On the conditions (Repentance and Faith) on which we can obtain the blessedness promised to Chris tians by God ; Art. XT. §§ 121 — 128, incl. (3) On the manner in which God aids those who be lieve in Christ, and enables thorn to fulfil the prescribed conditions, or, respecting divine influen ces and the means of grace ; Art. XII. §§ 129 — 133, incl. (4) On the Christian community, or the Church ; Art. XIII. $$ 134—136. (5) On Baptism and the Lord's. Supper, or the sacraments ; Art. XIV. §§ 137— 146. (6) On the passage of man to another world, and his state in it, — of death, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the Day of Judgment, the End of the world, and future happiness and misery ; Art. XV. $$ 147—160. ARTICLE NINTH. OF SIN, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN. §73. What is meant by sin; the different words used in the Bible to denote sin, and the meaning of them. I. Definition of Sin. Sin, understood objectively, and taken in its wider sense, is, any deviation from the law of God; or, what is not right, according to the divine law ; what is opposed to the law. In the language of ju rists, a deviation from the law is called, a crime (Germ. Verbrecli- en, crimen) ; in theology, and when the concerns of religion are made the topics of discourse, that is, when men are considered in their relation to God, it is called sin ; and it is an advantage which the German language [and also the English] possesses, that it is able to designate this particular form of transgression by an appro priate word. — Sin, thjjtfore, properly speaking, is a deviation from the divine law, or according to the Scripture phraseology, what is not yearn to ¦&At]fia rov ¦&tov. — This word is always used with re ference to God, as Legislator ; and because the Bible, in entire con formity with experience, regards all men in their present condition as transgressors of the divine law, it calls them sinners ; Rom. 3: 9, 23,24. But would we define subjectively that act by which one becomes a sinner or punishable, we might say, sin is a free act, which is op posed to the divine law, or which deviates from it. Here it must be remarked, (a) That iriiorder for an action to be imputed to any one as sin ful, it must be a. free action. For whenever a man acts by compul- 12 ART. IX. § 73. DEFINITION OP SIN. sion, and it does not depend upon himself either to perform or omit the action, it cannot be imputed to him as sin ; the consideration of which will be resumed in § 81. (b) Properly speaking, it is the law which makes sin what it is. All morality proceeds from the law ; and where there is no divine law, there is no sin. This is taught by Paul, Rom. 4: 15, ov ovx i'art, voftog, ovdt naga^aaig (tori). — Were there no law given, the actions now denominated sins (e. g. licentiousness, theft, murder), while they must still be regarded as foolish and injurious, and be called evils (Germ. Uebel), could no longer be denominated sins. Wild beasts often despoil and destroy other beasts and human be ings. This is an evil, and has injurious consequences, even for the beasts themselves, — they are ensnared, and hunted down. But what they do is not sin, because they have no law given them ; and no reasonable man would call such things in brutes sins, or serious ly affirm, that a beast had sinned. Nor is even the word crime ap plied to their outrages, because they are exempt alike from human and divine laws. By law is meant, the precept of a ruler, accompanied with com- minations ; and by a ruler, is meant one who has the right to pre scribe rules of acting to others, and to connect these rules with threatnings. Commands and laws are two different things. In every law there is a command ; but every command is not a law. A command must be rightful in order to be a law, — the preceptor must be entitled to give commands, and those to whom they are giv en must be bound to obey ; — and on these Renditions only does a command become a law. Hence the demanrrTf the robber, to give him our property, with the threat which he annexes, that he will murder us if we refuse, is no law. The laws of God are made known to us partly through nature, and partly by immediate Revela tion, through the Holy Scriptures. The latter are designed to re new, impress, confirm, illustrate, and enlarge or complete the law of nature. God has thus, both by the works of nature, and by the doctrines contained in the Holy Scriptures, given us information re specting his designs, as his will respecting men and a rule for them. to which they should continually have regard, and according to which they should regulate their conduct. Morus, p. 106, n. 3, 1. ITS SCRIPTURAL NAMES. 13, II. Scriptural terms for Sin. 1. The most common word for sin is the Hebrew hNUrt , gen erally rendered by the Grecian Jews d^agtia. Both of these words are used in various senses. (a) The Hebrew NUfr signifies literally to deviate from one's way, to slip aside ; a meaning which it has among the Arabians. Hence to fail of one' s end, to see his design frustrated; Job 5: 24. Prov. 10: 2. In the same way are the words dfiagzavsiv and dfictp- rt'a employed by the Greeks in reference to those, whose expecta tion is disappointed, who lose, or are deprived of something, who miss their aim, and come short. Thus, e.g. Xenophon speaks of those ct/xaptavovTeg Ttjg ^ovKtjaemg, whose counsel was frustrated ; and even in Homer we find the phrase dfiagT^oaa&at, T^g onunrjg, to be deprived of sight. In the Iliad (XXIV. 68) he says with regard to Hector, that he never suffered the gods to want for offerings worthy of their acceptance, ovt£ cpiXmv rjfXttQTttvs 6coqwv. Hence, (6) These words are used figuratively, and are transferred to the soul, and denote the faults and defects of the understanding and of the will, and also of the actions, — of the latter more frequently, though sometimes of the former, e. g. John 8: 46, iXi'y^tiv nepl (/.iiacjTi'ag, err oris convincere, and John 16: 8, 9, where diiagrlix signifies, delusion, blindness of the understanding. More common ly, however, it is used with reference to the will and the actions, and denotes every deviation from the divine law in willing and act ing. 'H dfiagxla therefore often signifies, sometimes every trans gression of a grave character, and sometimes, in general, impiety, profanitas, irreligion. Thus the heathen were denominated by the Jews dfA.aQTOi'kol, tPNOtl , in opposition to themselves, the gens sancta. In Heb. 10: 26 dfiagrdveiv signifies to apostatize from the Christian faith. In Rom: 7: 9, Paul uses upaQTia to denote the j propensity to sin (Germ. Hang zur Sunde) which is every where observed in man, and which is natural to him. [Cf. Usteri, Ent- wickelung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffs, Zweiter und Dritter Theil. Tr.] (c) This, and all the words which signify sin, are often used by the Hebrews and Hellenists to denote the punishment of sin ; e. g. Is. liii. 2 Kings 7: 9, sq. 14 ART. IX. § 73. SCRIPTURAL NAMES OF SIN. (d) They also signify a sin-offering ; e. g. Ps. 40: 7. 2 Cor. 5: 21, &volu tiiqi dn«QTiug. 2. Besides this word, there are many others by which the idea of sin is expressed by the Hebrews and Greeks. Among these are, (a) In Hebrew, y-\y , guilt (reatus), sin, Ps. 59: 5 ; frequently rendered in the Septuagint ddlxrifjia or ddwla. — SVUS , strictly, apostasy from the true God or rebellion against him. [The word S-no from "fiD has the same signification. Tr.] Forsaking the worship of Jehovah for that of idols, and every deliberate transgres sion of the divine law, were justly regarded as rebellion against God, and so called by this name, 2 Kings 8: 10. Jer. 3: 13. S1BS is therefore a stronger word than iiNDf. • — ^an is used to denote the injustice of judges, when they lose sight of what is just (p'lS) and decide unjustly and partially, Job 9: 24. Ezek. 7: 11 ; hence applied to any misdeed or wickedness, by which the desert of punish ment is incurred, Ps. 5: 5. Hence »un signifies one guilty (reus, damnatus,) sensu forensi. Sttj'n is rendered in the Septuagint by the words ddwlu, uadptiu, x.t.I. — fil2J« , guilt, guiltiness. — TiiVO or SWW) , error, mistake, transgression, Ps. 19: 13. Sept. ¦nagdmto- (xa. Classical Greek, nlavrj. (6) In the New Testament, the words which denote sin are mostly taken from the Septuagint, where they are used interchangea bly the one for the other. Among these are nagaxoy, Heb. 2: 2 ; — nugapcHSig, Rom. 4: 15 ; — ddixict and ddlxri(ia, (like dficcgrla and dfidgrvfia,) Rom. 1: 18. 6: 13;— oqxlknfH*, Matt. 6: 12. (The Hebrews often represent sins under the image of debts, which must either be remitted or paid.) — TIaguitTmfia, Matt. 6: 14, also used to signify apostasy from religion, Rom. 11: 12 ; — dyvotjiia, a sin com mitted through ignorance, erratum, Heb. 9: 7. (So Aquila renders ¦JTS* , Lev. 26: 39, by ayvow so also nluvr\.) — 'Avopla, illegality, transgression of the Law, or sin, Matt. 7: 23. It is also sometimes used in the sense of irreligion, heathenism ; since vo/xog often sig nifies the religion revealed by God. Hence the heathen are called dvofiov, Rom. 2: 12. 6: 19. Cf. dai(2et,a, dai^g. In the text, I John 3: 4, tj dftagrla taav *J dvoplct, it is not the intention of the writer to give a logical definition of sin, but rather to oppose those deceivers, who maintained that a sinful life was allowable. The meaning of the text is as follows : ' whoever leads a sinful life, acts in opposition to the precepts of the divine law ; for every sin is § 74. OPINIONS OF HEATHEN PHILOSOPHERS. 15 against the divine law (which commands us to live holy and with out sin, vid. v. 3).' In the discussion here following of the doctrine respecting sin, this order will be observed; viz. (1) The origin of sin among men, or the sin of our first parents, and the moral corruption of hu man nature derived, according to the Scriptures, from them, will be first considered, §§ 74 — 80. (2) The origin and nature of the par ticular sinful actions of men, which have their ground in that moral depravity, together with the different kinds and divisions of these actions, §§ 81 — 85. (3) The punishment of sin, as learned from reason and revelation, §§ 86, 87. § 74. What does Reason, without the use of the Bible, teach us re specting the sinful state of man, and the origin of it ? And how far do the results of Reason on this subject agree with the Bible ? I. Opinions of heathen philosophers. The fact, that human nature is imperfect, and has a morally de fective constitution, showing itself in the earliest youth, was observ ed and conceded by most of the ancient heathen philosophers ; and the fact is so obvious, and so conformed to experience, that it could hardly have been otherwise. It was formerly observed, as it is now, that man has more inclination to immorality and sin, than to inno cence, holiness, and moral purity. A perpetual conflict was seen to exist in man, from his youth up, between reason and sense,— a con test in which man oftener sided with the latter, than with the for mer, and thus made himself unhappy. It was seen that man, even when enjoying the best moral instruction, and when possessed of a full conviction of the justice of the requisitions of the moral law, still often acted immorally ; and this, even when perfectly convinced that in so doing he did wrong ; and that he was thus in a state ex tremely wretched ; vid. Morus, p. 109, § 3.— Now, if it was with man as it should be, he would suffer his will to be at once determin ed by what his understanding perceived to be true and good, 16 ART. IX. §74. OPINIONS OF HEATHEN PHILOSOHPHERS. and would regulate his conduct accordingly. That this is not so, experience sufficiently teaches. — It is false therefore to assert, that every thing depends upon instruction, and that if the mind were only enlightened with regard to duty, the will would soon follow. So it should be, but so it is not ; and it is the greatest of all moral problems, how to render the will obedient to the dictates of the un derstanding. These things having been observed in ancient times, the writ ings of the Pagan philosophers are full of complaints over the moral corruption of man. Socrates is said by Plato (De Repub.) to have complained that all nations, even the most cultivated, and those ad vanced farthest in intelligence and knowledge, were yet so deprav ed, that no human discovery -or art sufficed to remove the disorder. The writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero are full of expressions of the same kind. Aristotle called this evil avyyevig, Ethic, ad Ni- com. III. 15. Plato says in his Meno, that children by nature ((pvast) are not good ; for in that case, says he ironically, it would only be necessary to shut them up, in order to keep them good. He saw that it was a mistake to suppose, that man is made wicked merely by education, or that he becomes so merely by the imitation of bad examples. Cicero says in his Tusculan Questions (III. 1), Simulac editi in lucem el suscepti sumus, in omni continuo pravitate, et in summa opinionum perversitate, versamur : ut pane cum lacte nutricis errorem suxisse videamur. De Amicit. (c. 24,) Multis signis natura declarat quid velit : obsurdescimus tamen nescio quo- modo ; nee ea quce ab ea monemur, audimus, — our will does not fol low what our understanding approves as right and good. In this connexion we may cite the common declaration, Nitimur in ve- titum semper, cupimusque negata; and that of Ovid, (Metam. VII. 18, sqq.) Si possem, sanior essem. Sed trahit invitum nova vis ; aliudqua cupido, Mens aliud suadet. Video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor. [Very remarkable are the words of Seneca, in his work De de mentia, L. I. c. 6. " duotus quisque ex qusestoribus est, qui non ea ipsa lege teneatur, qua qusrit 1 Quotus quisque accusator, vacat culpa ? Et nescio, an nemo ad dandam veniam difficilior sit, quam qui illam petere saepius meruit. Peccavimus omnes, alii gravia, ON THE MORAL STATE OF MAN. ]7 alii leviora; alii ex destinato, alii forte impulsi, aut aliena nequitia ablati ; alii in bonis consiliis parum fortiter stetimus, et innocentiam invite ac renitentes perdidimus. Nee delinquimus tantum, sed us que ad extremum sevi delinquemus." Compare with this, what he says in his Treatise De Ira (II. 8), " Omnia sceleribus ac vitiis plena sunt. Plus committitur quam quod possit coercitione sanari. Certatur ingenti quodam nequitia certamine. Major quotidie pec- candi cupiditas, minor verecundia est. — Nee furtiva jam scelera sunt ; prater oculos eunt ; adeoque in publicum missa nequitia est, et in omnium peetoribus evaluit, ut innocentia non rara, sed nulla sit." Cf. also the declaration of Sopater, ov{tq>vxov di'&gunoig to d/Augiuvttv. For numerous other passages of similar import, the student may consult Tholuck, Lehre von der Siinde, SS. 48, 49. 72, 73 ; and the works commended by Hahn, Lehrbuch. S. 359. — For the opinions of the later Jews, vid. Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, Theil II. S. 80, f.— Tr.] All this is in perfect accordance with the declarations of the sa cred writers, and especially with that of Paul, Rom. 7: 15, " For that which I do, I allow not ; for what I would, that I do not ; but what I hate, that do I."— It is, also, in accordance with the experience of every individual. And yet there have been philosophers, especial ly in modern times, who have denied the truth of such representa tions and have attempted to demonstrate the contrary, and who have sought to found new systems of education, upon their peculiar views respecting the character of man. As to the real causes of this depravity which was so universally seen and acknowledged, the opinions were very various. (1) Men in the earliest times, and among the rude heathen na tions, being left to themselves, either neglected all reflection upon this subject, or invented various philosophemes or narrations, in or der to facilitate to themselves the understanding of the origin and diffusion of this evil. In all of them, however, it was assumed, that the human race was originally better than afterwards, and that eith er by slow degrees, or suddenly and at once, it became corrupt. As soon as men begin to reflect upon God and themselves, they ex hibit almost universally the feeling, that it is necessary to suppose that mankind was originally in a better condition ; nor can tins feel ing be obliterated by any subtle reasoning ; cf. Vol. I. § 56. 3 18 ART. IX. § 74. OPINIONS OF GRECIAN (2) The ancient Grecian philosophers adopted in part the fables and narratives which they found already existing ; but they also un dertook to investigate the first origin of evil more particularly. In doing this, they soon came to the result, (which indeed had been al ready observed by the authors of those narratives,) that the defec tive constitution of man consisted in the undue power of sense (Sinn- lichkeit), and that this had its seat in the body. Paul distinguishes in man the vofiog tv Toig /xiXiaiv (i.e. iv aagxl, v. 18), and the vo'fiog tov voog. The former, he says, avxiargaziviTai, vofiai voog, xal aixftaktoTtCet /xi icu vo/xoi zrjg dfiagrlag, Rom. 7:23. We have thus a dictamcn sensuum, and a diciamen rationis. So Araspas in Xenophon distinguishes in every man an dya&ri and a novriga ipv%rj, Cyrop. VI. 21 ; and Plato makes mention of the Xoyiazixov Trjg ipv%?jg and of the dXoyiarixov or ini&vpiiTixov. — These Grecian philosophers proceeded on the supposition, that there are two equal ly eternal and original principles, God and matter. The former they supposed to be the rational, thinking principle, and the origin of all good, physical and moral ; the latter, the irrational principle, and the cause of all evil ; vid. Vol. I. § 46, II. To the former principle, they supposed the rational soul of man belongs ; and his body to the second ; and as his body consists of matter, so his soul is a part of the divine nature, and a pure effluence from the same. They were too prone, under the influence of these views, to over look the advantages which the human soul derives from its connex ion with the body, — advantages which could not otherwise exist ; and to regard the body too much as a prison, in which the soul is impaled. So taught the Persians, and most of the Oriental philoso phers [vid. Neander's account of the Gnostic Systems] ; so Pythag oras and Plato, especially in Timaeus ; so Aristotle, the Stoics, and their followers. In conformity with these views, Socrates and Pla to always gave the advice, yrmgigttv ojg fidXioza duo tov aufxccTOg zi]v \pv%i}v. They believed, however, that after death, the soul would be reunited with God, after having undergone various de grees of cleansing and purification from the matter cleaving to it ; respecting which, vid. § 150, II. [This purification was the intent of the Transmigration of souls, (Metempsychosis,) a doctrine held in all the religions of the east, and in that also of ancient Egypt. The soul, it was supposed, would be purified by the sufferings en dured in wandering through uncongenial matter, and be at length AND ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHERS. 19 prepared to merge into the pure fountain from which it originally emanated. For some valuable remarks on this, and other religious ideas and observances in the East, vid. Schlegel, Philosophie der Geschichte. Tr.] (3) The account which the Holy Scriptures give of the origin of sin, is as follows : ' God made man, not only as to his soul, but his body also ; and both pure and without sin ; by a daring transgres sion, however, the nature of man is changed, and from being pure and immortal, has become defective and mortal. This, however, is overruled by God, for our good, by means of Jesus Christ, the Re storer of the human race.' [Note. The traditions of many of the Oriental nations correspond remark ably with the narrative in Genesis, and confirm its truth. This is the case, especially, with the doctrine of Zoroaster, which so strikingly agrees with that of Moses, as to indicate a common source in the historic fact of an origi nal Temptation and Fall. According to Zoroaster, the first human pair were offered heaven on condition of virtue, and of refraining from homage to the Dews, — the demons of the Persian mythology. For some time f.hey complied with these conditions ; but at length Ahriman (Satan) caused the thought to be infused into their minds by a Dew, that he was the Creator of the world. They believed this lie, and so became like Ahriman, evil and unhappy. On one occasion they went out upon a bunting excursion, and found a wild goat, and tasted its milk, which was sweet to their taste, and reviving, but injurious to their body. The Dew then offered them fruit, which they ate, and in conse quence were still more injured, and stripped of their remaining blessings. Vid. Kleuker, Zend-Avesta, 3 Thl. S. 84, ff. Cf. Schlegel, Philos. der Ge schichte, B. I.— Tr.] II. Results of independent reason and observation. If, in investigating the origin and causes of this evil, we disre gard all authority, even that of the Holy Scriptures, and proceed solely from those considerations to which experience conducts us, we arrive at the following results, which are not indeed entirely sat isfactory, but which yet somewhat illustrate this subject, and there fore may be useful to those to whom the instruction of the young is committed. It may be remarked in general, that the philosopher, as such, can assign no other ground, than that man is a limited being, and con sequently can err. The nature of this limitation, and liability to sin, is now to be more closely examined. — Man has a twofold nature, — one part of which is rational and moral, (vovg,) by means of 20 ART. IX. § 74. RESULTS OF REASONING which he can act with reference to ends, and possesses understand ing and free-will : the other part of which is sensuous (sinnhch), and consists of desires and appetites (ipv%ri). By the former, he belongs to the world of spirit ; by the latter, to that of sense. He is therefore to be regarded, as a being compounded of reason and sense (Germ, vernunftig-sinnliches Wesen). In this way, man is distinguished from the brute, which has indeed sense, but no ration al or moral nature. This in man should be the ruling power, — the other subject to this ; and then only is man free, when he acts in dependently of the impulses of his lower nature, and obeys the voice of the moral law, uttered so imperatively within him. — But in man in his present state, we notice a continual conflict between these two natures, — a conflict which cannot be explained away by any subtleties. This conflict rests upon the distinction between these two dissimilar natures in man, and is the immediate result of their connexion in human beings, according to their present constitution. Beyond this, — the essential nature of man, the mere philosopher cannot go, in his inquiries after the causes of sin ; and the fact of a particular corruption of our nature, or of the invisible agency of evil spirits, cannot be resorted to by him, to account for the existing evil. In short, the mere philosopher, who is unacquainted with what the Scriptures have taught on this subject, or who will make no use of their instructions, cannot proceed from facts, because these are either unknown to him, or doubtful and uncertain. Hence the truth of what many of the old theologians have said, that the fact of a better state of human nature depends for its proof upon the Holy Scriptures ; and that neither that state, nor the Fall which succeeded it, can be demonstrated from mere reason. But we are now exhibiting those results only to which unassisted Reason would arrive. In noticing the defects and imperfections, which result from the connexion of these two natures in man, the many advantages which also spring from it, ought not to be overlooked. It should be re membered, that man could never have been what he is, if this con stitution were different. Man possesses various faculties, which have their ground in this constitution, which may indeed, and ac tually do, mislead him into many faults and errors, but which are in themselves good, and when rightly cultivated and employed, bring him great advantage. Such are self-love, so deeply implanted RESPECTING THE CAUSES OF SIN. 21 in the human breast, (hence the instinct for self-preservation, and for personal improvement,) the love of honor, the tendency to imi tate, and others, which are in themselves good, and only need to be kept under the control of Reason, and properly directed to the ends for which they were given. After these remarks, we come now to inquire after the more im mediate causes, from which the prevailing power of sense, and the inability of reason to control it, are to be explained. We design in this place, to give only the result of human observation and experi ence, which will be very inadequate to the full explanation of this subject. We shall afterwards exhibit the doctrine of the Scriptures, and inquire how far it agrees with these results. These causes are to be found partly in the strength of the feelings belonging to hu man nature, partly in the manner in which the powers of the hu man soul develope themselves, and partly in the external circum stances in which this developement proceeds. (1) The feelings of man are much stronger, than those ideas of his mind, which have their foundation in his reason ; and the mere philosopher, who receives no light from Revelation, cannot tell that this has not always been the fact with man. For he cannot conclude with any certainty, from his mere reason, that human na ture was originally in a better state, than that in which he now finds it ; he must take man as he finds him, and on the supposition, which he has no means of refuting, that he was always the same. In general, the end of this constitution of our nature would seem to be, to guard against insensibility and inactivity. For the mere motives of reason, would act far too feebly and slowly ; and except for this influence of the feelings, many actions which are useful and necessary for our own good, and that of others, would remain un done. And so it is found, that men of a cold and phlegmatic tem perament, who have but little feeling and excitability, though they may have good heads, and benevolent hearts, are generally indolent, irresolute, and inactive, and accomplish very little. It is often the case, indeed, that a man suffers himself to be carried away by his feelings, and resolves and acts without regard to consequences. The advantages of this constitution must, however, be greater than the disadvantages, because it is so established by God. But on this subject much may be said, without leading to any satisfactory con- 22 ART. IX. § 74. RESULTS OF REASONING elusion. This visible inordinateness of one portion of our nature can hardly be made to harmonize with our conceptions of the divine attributes. But beyond this, the philosopher as such cannot go. (2) In the earlier years of our life, before we can rightly use our reason, we have no other rule for desiring or avoiding any thing, than our feelings. And on this account, that they have no maturi ty of reason, children and minors cannot be left to themselves, but need to be guided and governed by others. We thus become ac customed from our youth up, to desire those things which excite agreeable sensations in us, and to shun those things, which have an opposite effect. , Now the kind of agreeable sensations with which man is earliest acquainted, is that which arises from the gratifica tion of his animal desires. For in the earliest years of his life, man, having not yet attained the full use of his rational faculties, has no taste for the more pure and spiritual joys, which are above sense, and which are attendant only on the knowledge of the truth, and holiness of heart and life. When now, after a long time, and by slow degrees, man has attained to the full use and the maturity of his rational faculties, he has for a long time been habituated, even from his youth, to will and act according to his feelings and the impulses of sense, without duly consulting reason, and carefully weighing every thing by his understanding. This long practice has produced in him a habit, and it is now hard for him to break this habit, and to acquire in place of it, the habit of rational consideration before action. Quo semel est imbuta recens servabit odorem testa diu. Very true, therefore, is the remark of Tacitus (Vita Agricol. c. III.), " that human weakness is of such a nature, that the reme dies do not act as efficiently, as the disease.'' From these remarks, we draw the following important inference, that we should endeavor, as early as possible, to awaken, cherish, and develope the moral sense in the youthful heart. And there is no way for us to do this so successfully, as by means of religion ; vid. Vol. I. Introduction, § 2. It is therefore one of the most per verse and injurious maxims, to say, that young children should not have religion taught them. The evil, effects resulting from this maxim have been deeply felt in our age. (3) The first knowledge of man is derived from his senses ; at first, he can acquire information in no other way, than from sensible objects. The senses must, in all cases, serve as the vehicle of RESPECTING THE CAUSES OF SIN. 23 knowledge ; and they are often misemployed. Since now, from the nature of the case, man must, from his earliest youth, be so familiar with visible and sensible objects, it is not strange that he should be too little affected by the instructions given him respecting objects not cognizable by the senses, and especially respecting God, — the In visible ; and that he should be so indifferent to the motives to love Him, and from love to obey Him. The remark 1 John 4: 20, " he that loveth not his brother, whom he hath seen, how can he love God, whom he hath not seen," is therefore psychologically true. If we see a man, who has no true love to his neighbor whom he hath seen, we may safely conclude, that he has no love for the invisible God. Hence we may explain the natural coldness of the carnal mind to God, and every thing which belongs to the moral and spir itual world ; and hence too we may derive the duty, of opposing this at the very earliest periods of life ; for the longer a man lives, the more fixed and habitual does it become, and the harder to be remov ed. (4) Man brings with him into the world various powers and fa culties ; but according to the plan of God, these can be developed and brought to a good end, only by instruction and a wise educa tion. Man does not come into the world with any inborn habits of action, or with any thing which answers to the instincts of brutes ; the place of which must be supplied by instruction. But this in struction in religion, morality, and other useful things, which is so necessary to the proper developement of our powers, is enjoyed by very few, and some are wholly destitute of it. And the instruc tion given on these subjects is often defective and calculated to mislead. It allows men to be satisfied with a merely formal worship, in which the heart remains cold and unimproved ; it is generally above the capacities of the young, and by taxing the memory, more than affecting the heart, it often produces aversion and disgust. The whole moral education, especially in the so called higher cir cles of life, is often extremely deficient ; so that frequently the rude children of Nature, left to grow up by themselves, are in a better condition, than those who have been reared in the midst of refine ment and cultivation. At least they are not so perverted and cor rupted ; although they may be wanting in some of the artificial ac complishments which the latter possess. Evil example, too, has an indescribable effect upon children and 24 ART. IX. § 74. RESULTS OF REASONING, ETC. youth, and brings them to an earlier acquaintance with vice than with virtue. It should be remarked, that the out-breakings of many perverse inclinations and dispositions, which are perceived in chil dren, are the signs and the consequences of some endowments of human nature in themselves good. The exhibitions of these dispo sitions are important hints to the teacher and guardian of the young ; and, if he is wise and skilful, may receive such a direction from him, as will turn them to good account in the ultimate character of those entrusted to his charge. For example, self will and obstina cy indicate firmness of character ; forwardness and inquisitiveness indicate a curious and active mind. (5) The social life of man, the gradual increase of cultivation, refinement, and luxury, and the propensity to seek for the pleasures of sense, while they are in some respects advantageous, are the cause of great evil and injury ; cf. Rousseau, Sur Tinegalite des hommes. The wants of men are greatly multiplied, their sensual ap petites are greatly excited, by the constant presentation of new ob jects, and their true peace and contentment (avTagxia) are pre vented. They thus become continually more passionate, and insa tiable, and more withdrawn from invisible and spiritual objects. Civilized man has, indeed, more means in his power to resist the evils arising from the social state ; but these means are too lit tle regarded and employed. Luxury makes men selfish, proud, and hard-hearted, and paves the way to other vices. And when Self, which is so pampered by luxury, once gets firm possession of the heart, morality and virtue are forever banished. The observation of the evils which arise from the connexion of men in social life, and from the progress of cultivation, suggested to many even of the an cient heathen world the thought, that men were formerly in a bet ter condition, than at a later period ; vid. Vol. I. § 56. But Philo sophy, uninstructed by Revelation, can never prove a priori, that a change has taken place in human nature, and that it is now differ ent from what it was. — At least the philosopher can never attain to perfect certainty on this subject, and will find many things enigmat ical and inexplicable. Cf. on this subject the works from the different schools. Jerusa lem, Betrachtungen liber die Wahrheiten der Religion, B. II. Th. II. S. 731, f. Junge, Philosophische und theologische Aufsatze Th. II. SS. 297, 367. Steinbart, System der Gliickseligkeitslehre,' COULD GOD HAVE PREVENTED SIN ? 25 Cap. III. S. 46, f. Eberhard, Apologie des Socrates. Tollner, Theologische Untersuchungen, B. I. St. 2. S. 112, f. As however in some of these works, especially in Steinbart, the depravity of man is very inadequately represented, and the present state of man is placed in far too advantageous and favorable a light, in contradic tion both to the Bible and to experience, we refer with pleasure to the views of Michaelis on this subject, expressed in his Book, " Von der Siinde," §§ 48—54, and in his " Moral," Th. I. S. 105—130 ; also to Kant, " Ueber das radicale Uebel," first Essay in his, " Re ligion innerhalb der Granzen der blossen Vemunft ;" and to Morus, " Theol. Moral," and Reinhard's " Dogmatik" and " Moral." [Cf. on this subject Bretschneider, Dogmatik, B. II. S. 17, § 120, Ursprung der Siinde. Also Tholuck, Lehre von der Siinde. Coleridge, Aids to Reflection, pp. 154 — 178, especially 158. Nean- der, Allg. Kirchengeschichte, B. I. Abth. II. S. 640. Hahn, S. 342, § 77. Tr.] III. Could God have prevented sin .' The question here arises, How can God be justified as the au thor of this constitution ? Could he not have guarded against mor al evil in the world ? Might he not have constituted human nature less weak, and less inclined to err and sin 1 It is not strange, con sidering how imperfect is our knowledge of the eternal plan and of the universal government of God, that reflecting minds should have always been disturbed by doubts on this subject, and that they should have devised various means of relieving their doubts, and of vindicating God, and that after all they should have been unable, by mere philosophy, to attain to satisfaction. A great portion of the ancient philosophers, endeavoured to relieve themselves of this diffi culty by supposing two eternal principles ; vid. No. I. In philosophizing on this subject, we make the following gener al remarks. (1) It is an established point, that to God all evil, both physical and moral, as such, must be displeasing ; and that he seeks to pre vent it, wherever it may be done. But since there is much imper fection, evil, and sin, actually existing in the world, we must con clude, that God has effected and will effect more good by the per mission of sin, than could be effected if he had not permitted it. He must have seen, that he would have prevented the good, if he Vol. II. 4 26 ART. IX. § 75. MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE FALL. had not permitted the evil. Vid. Vol. I. § 48, ad finem ; and § 71, I. To show this, was the object of Leibnitz in his " Theodicee." (2) We must proceed on the same principles in judging of mor al evil and corruption, especially among men. Hateful to God as this moral evil must have been, and punishable as it is in itself, God yet must have seen, that by means of this constitution of human na ture, a greater amount of good would be accomplished for the hu man race as a whole, and for the world, than if he had made man more perfect, had secured him against every opportunity to sin, or had hindered his transgression by the immediate exercise of his power. The latter could not take place, as God had given to man a moral nature, which is placed under the law of freedom alone, and to which compulsion and necessity, which prevail in the material world, where every thing proceeds by mechanical laws, cannot be applied. — But as in every other case, so in this, God knows how to overrule evil in such a way, that higher good shall result from it. — Throughout the world, there is a constant successive developement, and a struggle after an advancement and improvement of condition; and so it is with man ; vid. Rom. 8: 20 — 23. Sin itself may serve for the promotion of good, and may contribute to the perfection of man. Through his liability to err, he may indeed pursue a retro grade course with regard to virtue and moral perfection ; but with out this liability, he could not make advancement; and his virtue would cease to have any worth, and would no longer deserve the name, if there were no possibility of wrong. Neither morality nor happiness can be conceived to exist without freedom. — So much may be said on this subject in the way of philosophy ; it is, howev er, far from being satisfactory. § 75. Mosaic account of the sin of our first parents. The moral depravity of the human race is derived everywhere in the New Testament, from the disobedience of our first parents. This universal corruption is denominated by Theologians, peccatum originatum, or originate, or originis ; the first transgression, pecca tum originans. More frequently, however, is this transgression de nominated lapsus, fall, according to the Hebrew usage, where the ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION OF IT. 27 verba cadendi signify to err, to sin, also to become unhappy ; as Prov. 24: 16, 17. Rev. 2: 5, ixnisixiw. In the same way is labi used in Latin instead ofpeccare, errare ; and cadere, excidere, to be misera ble, to lose a thing. — Moses in his narrative first gives an account of the divine precept, that Adam and Eve should not eat of the Tree of knowledge, etc. Gen. 2: 15—17 ; (vid. Vol. I. § 52, II. 2 ;) and then follows the account of the transgression itself, Gen. 3: 1, seq. We must therefore refer back to what has been already remarked in general, respecting the creation of the world and of man, Vol. I. § 49, 1. ; and § 52, II. — We now proceed to explain this account. I. Different ways in which this passage has been explained. The interpreters of this passage were formerly divided into two general classes. Some have regarded it as an allegory, and inter pret it metaphorically, admitting no real serpent, tree, etc. Others consider it as a literal narrative of events which actually occurred in the manner here recorded. To these two classes, a third has been added in modern times, who hold that it is merely a didactic fable. — With respect to the History of these various interpretations, cf. Pfaff and Buddeus, in their systems of Theology ; also Ode, De Angelis, p. 498 ; M. J. O. Thiess, Variarum de cap. III. Geneseos recte explicando specimen I., Lubecaj, 1788, 8vo. [Cf. Hahn, Lehr- buch, S. 345, f. § 78. Bretschneider, Dogmatik, B. II. S. 58, §125. Tr.] (1) The Allegorical interpretations. These are very various, and prove by their variety, that no certain results can be attained by allegorical interpretation. All the explanations of this kind are forced and artificial. To suppose an allegory in this passage, which is preceded and followed by plain and simple history, is altogether unnatural, and foreign to the spirit of these ancient monuments. Nor is any hint or key to such an interpretation given us by the writer. This mode of interpreting this passage was resorted to mere ly for the sake of avoiding certain difficulties, some of which seem to arise from the great simplicity of this narrative, (for to the learn ed interpreter, this simplicity constitutes an objection,) and others, from the great dissimilarity in the manner of thought and expression of this narrative, from that which is found in this cultivated and refined age. The interpreters of this passage thought it necessary, therefore, to make the writer say something of higher import and 28 ART. IX. § 75. LITERAL INTERPRETATION more philosophical, than is contained in the simple words ; and pro ceeded with regard to Moses very much as the later Grecian inter preters did with regard to Homer. The first attempts at allegorical interpretation are found among the Grecian Jews, and principally in Philo, De Opifieio Mundi, p. 104, sq. ed. Pfeif. He was followed by Origen in this general prin ciple of interpretation, though the latter gave a different turn to the narrative ; and Origen was again followed by Ambrose in his book, *' De Paradiso," I. Some of their followers understand all the cir cumstances here mentioned allegorically; others, only some of them, e. g. the serpent, and allow the rest to stand as history. It is said by some, that the whole is intended to teach, by allegory, how un happy man becomes by the indulgence of violent passions, and the evil consequences resulting from the prevalence of sense over reason. To this view of the subject, Morus is inclined, p. 99, n. 2. He supposes, that by the serpent are intended, in general, the external inducements to evil, by which we are surprized and overborne; but that the very things which constituted the original temptation are unknown to us. (2) Literal interpretations. A large proportion of the Church fathers (e. g. Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, Augustine, and Theodoret), and also most of the older theologians even in the Protestant Church, were united in the opin ion, that this passage should not be explained as an Allegory, al though they differed among themselves in the interpretation of par ticular expressions. They agreed however, for the most part, in considering the serpent, as something else than a mere natural ser pent, as it was regarded by Josephus, and other Jewish interpreters. Some affirmed, that the serpent was simply the Devil, — an opinion justly controverted by Vitringa, on account of the great difficulties by which it is encompassed. Others, and the greater part of the older Jewish and Christian interpreters, supposed that the serpent here spoken of, was the instrument wliich was employed by the Evil Spir it to seduce mankind. So it is explained by Augustine, who was followed in this by Luther and Calvin ; and this, from their time was the prevailing opinion of Protestant theologians, until the mid dle of the' eighteenth century. There is, indeed, nothing said in the original text, respecting an Evil Spirit ; but as the serpent is here introduced as acting and speaking after the manner of an intelligent OF THE HISTORY OF THE FALL. 29 though evil-disposed being ; it was thought fair to conclude that an evil being actually spoke through the serpent ; and so has it been understood even among modern critics, e.g. by Michaelis and Zacharia. This exposition respecting the Serpent is indeed ancient ; but still we can find no distinct traces of it in the books of the Old Testament written before the Babylonian exile ; and we are there fore alike unable to prove or disprove, that before that period this passage was so understood. To suppose that the Serpent in this passage was the instrument of an invisible being, is certainly entire ly in the spirit of the most ancient people, who imagined that evil and good spirits were every where active in all the evil and good done in the world. After the Babylonian exile, however, we find it expressly said by the Jewish teachers, that in the temptation, an evil being was invisibly active through the serpent. This point may, there fore, be one of those, (of which we find many relating to the doctrine of spirits,) which belong to the later disclosures of the prophets; vid. Vol. I. § 58. — In the Apocryphal books before Christ, we find it said, that the Devil deceived mankind, and brought sin and death into the world ; e.g. Book of Wisdom, 1: 13, 14; and especially 2: 23, 24 (cp&ovaj dtctfioXov x. z. X.) This is conceded on all hands. It is asserted, however, by many learned men, that this idea does not occur in the New Testament, and they appeal to 2 Cor. 11:3, where it is said, that the serpent deceived Eve, and no men tion is made of the Devil ; and also to Rom. 5: 18, where Paul makes no allusion to the Devil, although he is treating of the origin of evil. In answer to this it may be said, (a) that considering how prevalent this explanation was at the time of Christ, and that neith er he nor his apostles contradicted it, nor said any thing inconsis tent with it ; the probability is, that they also assented to it. Mo ms seems to admit this, although in so doing he cannot be altogeth er consistent with himself. — But (b) it deserves also to be consider ed, that there are many allusions and references in the New Testa ment, in which this interpretation is presupposed, and from which it appears, that Christ and his apostles assented to it, and authoriz ed it ; e. g. John 8: 44, dvQgomoxzovog an dgxv? 5 1 J°nQ 3: 8, an dgxnS o did@oXog dixagzdvet, ; also the titles in Revelation, dgdxayv (iiyag, 6 otptg 6 dgxdiog, Rev. 12: 9, sq. From these texts we can see, how the text 2 Cor. 11: 3 is to be understood. The 30 ART. IX. § 75. PHILOSOPHICAL INTERPRETATION New Testament writers, therefore, assumed it as a fact, that in some way, not farther determined, the Devil was concerned in the Temptation of man. It is not, however, expressly said in any one passage, that the Devil spoke through the serpent. The principal advocates of the interpretation formerly adopted by Theologians, and in opposition to the Allegorists and to the class of interpreters to be hereafter mentioned, were, among the more ancient, Aug. Pfeiffer, Dubia vexata, cap. 6; among the more modern, Joh. Balth. Liiderwald, Die allegorische Erklarung der drey ersten Capitel Mosis, u. s. w. in ihrem Ungrund vorgestellt, Helmstadt, 1781, 8vo; also Karl Traugott Eifert, Untersuchung der Frage, Konnte nicht die Mosaische Erzahlung vom Fall buch- stablich wahr, und durch den Fall ein erbliches Verderben auf die Menschen gekommen seyn? Halle, 1781; especially Storr, De Protevangelio, Tubingae, 1789 (in his Opuscula, Tom. II. num 7) ; and Koppen, Die Bibel u. s. w. Th. II. [To this Class the great body of American theologians belongs.] (3) To the third class, belong those interpreters who consider this narration as a Mythus, or a truth invested in a poetic form. According to this idea, this passage has been interpreted in modern times by Eichhorn, in his " Urgeschichte ;" in such a way, howev er, that he allows some things in the account to be historical, and others allegorical. Such, in some respects, is also the interpreta tion of Rosenmiiller, (Repertor. Th. I. S. 160,) who supposes that the narrative in Genesis was taken from a hieroglyphick picture, i.e. transferred from pictural representation to alphabetic signs. These interpreters have endeavoured to unite the historical, and the mythical or allegorical interpretations. But this is inadmissible. If the mythical interpretation is adopted, the whole narrative, in all its parts, must be considered as a Mythus, like what other nations had, in order to represent to themselves, each in its own way, in a distinct and vivid manner, the first sin of man, and its consequences. So Eichhorn, Paulus, Gabler, and many others. — One of two things must be admitted, either this narrative throughout must be consid ered as a veritable history of events which took place just as here related (and this agrees with the New Testament) ; or it is wholly a didactic or moral fiction. In both cases, the interpreter must proceed in the interpretation of the particular portions of this ac count from the same principles. — It is undoubtedly the fact, that Mo- OF THE HISTORY OF THE FALL. 31 ses, or the writer from whom he took this account (vid. Vol. I. § 49), understood these expressions just as they stand, according to their literal meaning ; and that these other ideas which are attached to this narrative were ascribed to it at a later period, in order to adapt it more to the tastes and feelings of cultivated and speculative minds. In confirmation of the internal truth and consistency of this nar rative, let the following things be considered ; and they are equally deserving of notice, whether this passage be literally or historically understood. Conversation with animals is something, which to man in his natural condition and before the refinements of social life, is perfectly common, and by no means strange and incredible. How often is it the case with children, (even with those too, who are somewhat grown up,) that they address inanimate things, and still more frequently living creatures, imagining what they would answer, and then replying to them in turn ! They will often, too, relate to others the conversations they have had with the animals around them. Hence the fables of .f innocence in which our first parents were placed, was a state of im maturity, of childhood, and infantine simplicity ; and that they then had no very extended knowledge or experience. They were deceiv ed in nearly the same way, as an innocent and inexperienced child is now deceived. In this point of view, this narrative has been very justly apprehended even by Morus, p. 99, n. 1. [Note. There is an interesting Essay on the Mosaic account of the Fall in the Appendix to Tholuck's " Lehre von der SUnde." While he contends for the historic fact of the fall, he at the same time regards the representation here given of this fact as figurative, and finds insuperable objections in the way of the literal, and very plausible arguments in favor of the moral interpretation. He gives the following as the moral import of the passage : " Man who, in ac cordance with his destination, enjoyed a holy innocence in which he knew no other will than that of God, abandoned this state, became selfish (autonomic), and would no longer acknowledge the divine law of life as the highest." S. 266, of the work above mentioned. The views of the German theologians on this subject are very various ; and though often fanciful, sometimes deeply interesting and profound. It will be sufficient to refer to some of the more important of these, which the ardent student of theology, who wishes to over step the limit of merely traditionary ideas, may consult at his leisure. Cf. Schleiermacher, Christ. Glaub. B. II. S. 59. — Schlegel, Philosophic der Ge- schichte, B. I. S. 42, 43.— Herder, Geist der Ebra. Poesie, B. I. S. 155.— To these we may add the speculations, ingenious and exciting, even when un founded and fanciful, of Coleridge. See his " Aids to Reflection," Notes, pp. 324, 325,— also p. 176, 177. Tr.] II. Particular expressions and representations. (1) Respecting the divine law, the transgression of it, and tlie temptation ; Gen. 2: 17, coll. v. 9, and chap. 3: 1 — 6. For an ac count of the name, Tree of the knowledge of good and evil vid. Vol. I. § 52, II. The question is here asked, what design God had in view in giving this precept ? According to the opinion of many theologians, this command was given by God merely for the sake of putting the virtue of Adam and Eve to the test, there being no in jurious quality in the tree itself which should lead him to forbid it ¦ and so they suppose that the punishment of death threatened and inflicted by God, had no natural connexion with the eatino- of the forbidden fruit ; but depended merely upon the divine will. This is supposed by Ernesti, Vindicia: arbitrii divini, in his " Opusc. Theol." p. 231 ; and among the ancients by Theophilus, Ad Auto- IN FORBIDDING THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. 33 lyc. L. II. c. 35. But against this supposition, there are many rea sons, both of an internal and external nature, which have been well exhibited by Michaelis, Von der Siinde, S. 559. The fact that this forbidden Tree is set over against the Tree of Life, would lead us to think, that it was in itself a poisonous tree, and in its own nature destructive to man. And to this opinion even Morus assents, p. 102, § 16. The writer here designs to show, by what natural means the life of man was to have been prolonged, according to the divine appointment, in the state of innocence ; and this means is the Tree of Life, or life-giving Tree ; and afterwards, by what means death came into the world ; namely by a poisonous tree. It is against the latter, which bore an alluring, beautiful fruit, that God warns inex perienced man, as a father cautions his child not to taste of a pleas ant poison, which may lie in his way, Since man entered his new abode as a stranger, it was natural that he should receive all neces sary instructions and cautions from the Being who prepared it for him, and introduced him to it. Tasting of the fruit of this Tree, introduced disorder into the human body, which from that time for ward was subject to disease and death. In this way is God justifi ed, as every one can see, from the charge of being the author of hui man misery ; just as a father is acquitted from blame in the misfor tune of his children, if he had before cautioned them against the poison. In this way, too, every one can understand why God should require obedience from man. The father requires obedience of his children, because he knows better than they do, what is best for them. For the same reason, should we unconditionally obey God.— Nor is the explanation now given, by which the forbidden fruit is considered in its own nature poisonous, a new explanation ; it is mentioned by Chrysostom, although he rejects it. The propriety and consistency of the account of the Temptation by means of the Serpent may be illustrated by the following remarks. The Serpent was used by almost all the ancient nations, as the sym bol of prudence, adroitness, and cunning ; vid. Matt. 10: 16. 2 Cor. 11: 3. Eve sees a serpent upon this forbidden Tree, and probably eating of its fruits, which to a serpent might not be harmful. And it is very natural, that this should be first observed by the woman, that her interest and curiosity should have been arrested by the sight, and that, with her greater susceptibilty to temptation, her desires should have been first kindled, and she first seduced from obedi- Vol. II. 5 34 ART. IX. § 75. SPEAKING OF THE SERPENT. ence. Paul mentions it as worthy of notice, that the woman first sinned, 1 Tim. 2: 14 ; coll. Sir. 25: 32, and yvvatxdg dgxv «>«P" zlag. We may compare with this part of the narrative, the Gre cian Mythus of Pandora.— As to what follows, we very naturally understand, that Eve reflected upon what she had seen, and ex pressed her thoughts in words : " The Serpent is a very lively and knowing animal, and yet it eats of the fruit which is forbidden us. This fruit cannot therefore be so hurtful, and the prohibition may not have been meant in earnest ; etc." — the same fallacies with which men still deceive themselves, when the objects of sense en tice and draw them away. The fact which she observed, that the Serpent ate the fruit of the forbidden Tree without harm, excited the thought, which in vs. 4, 5, are represented as the words of the Serpent, that it was worth while to eat of this fruit. It did not seem to occasion death, and on the other hand, appeared rather to impart health, vigor, and intelligence, as was proved from the exam ple of the Serpent, which remained after eating it well and wise. " Consider me," the Serpent might have seemed to her to say, " how brisk, sound, and cunning, I am ; etc." Now, as she knows of no being who surpasses man in wisdom, excepting God only, she supposes, in her simplicity, that if she became wiser than she then was, she should be like God. Meanwhile, the desire after that which was forbidden became continually more irresistible. She took of the fruit and ate. The man, who, as is common, was weak and pliable enough to yield to the solicitation of his wife, received the fruit from her, and ate with her. All this may have been as now stated, even on the supposition, so conformed to the spirit of the ancient world, and fully authoriz ed in the New Testament, that the Evil Spirit had an agency in this transaction. This supposition can occasion no alteration in the ver bal explanation of this record. Satan can be allowed to be no oth erwise concerned in this affair, than as instigator and contriver • somewhat after the manner of a malicious and crafty man, who might secretly injure another, by tempting him, either by words or in any other way, to taste of a poisonous article. — Those to whom the real speaking of the Serpent seems strange and incredible, may understand it as above. Now it was in this transgression of the divine law, which made strict abstinence from the forbidden Tree binding upon them, that CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL. 35 their sin is placed ; and it is this which the Apostle calls nagaxori, Rom. 5: 19. The rising desires which our first parents felt to eat the fruit, were founded in their nature, and were not imputed to them as sin. Nor is the springing up of involuntary desire in the heart of man ever considered in Scripture as sin ; but merely the entertaining, cherishing, and accomplishing of this desire ; vid. James 1: 14. — The sin of our first parents, then, properly consisted in this, that they were not implicitly obedient to God, as Paul re marks in the passage just cited. This disobedience to God is the greatest wrong, and draws after itself inevitably the most injurious consequences, whether it is shown in greater or smaller instances. Cf. 1 Sam. 15: 23. They did what God had forbidden, under the impression which men are accustomed to have in such cases, that it was something trifling and of little import. — From this first act, there now arose in their minds, alienation from God, distrust of him, the desire of independence of him, etc. They began to say, ' that God had not allowed them to be like himself,' etc. — thoughts from which they should have shrunk with abhorrence, and banished instantly from their hearts. (2) The consequences of this transgression are narrated, vs. 7, sq. The author does not give such a representation, as would lead us to think that all piety, virtue and religion ceased with man, im mediately upon his first transgression. For we see in the sequel, that the knowledge and worship of God were perpetuated in the family of Adam. We perceive too, that our first parents felt re pentance and shame after the fall, and these feelings are sufficient proof, that morality and rectitude were not wholly obliterated by the Fall. Some theologians maintain, that by the Fall man lost the Image of God ; but this is denied by others. And both may be true, according as the image of God is understood in a wider or more narrow sense. The whole dispute is more respecting words, than things ; vid. Vol. I. §53, ad finem, and § 54.— The author pla ces the consequences of this transgression in the following partic ulars ; viz. (a) In the disturbed balance of the powers and inclinations of man, and in the preponderance which the impulses of sense now obtained over reason. For this balance and harmony of powers was that which constituted, according to the account of Moses, the principal advantage of the state of innocence. That this was the 36 ART. IX. § 75. PHYSICAL AND OTHER consequence of the first transgression is clearly taught by Moses, in the expression, and they knew that they were naked, which may be euphemistically expressed as follows : ' they felt the motions of sense uncommonly strong, which they were no longer able to control as heretofore, but by which they were now governed ; whence the feel ing of shame arose in their minds ;' as is still the case with inno cent youth, when it first begins to have such desires. It is possible that this may be considered as also the effect of the harmful fruit which had been eaten by them, by which their nerves were strong ly excited. For there are many poisonous plants, by which violent excitement is imparted to the nerves, and by which great disorder is produced both in soul and body, — spasmodic affections, stupefaction, and delirium ; such are Belladonna, Opium, Thorn-apple, and Hem lock. This supposition will at least serve to render the subject more intelligible, and to explain how this effect may have been pro pagated from Adam to his posterity ; although it is by no means necessary to understand this effect as a physical one ; and at all events, this should not be brought into popular instruction, as it is merely conjectural.* * The views here expressed respecting the nature of the forbidden fruit, and the consequences of eating it upon our first parents, are the basis of our Author's ideas respecting the natural character of man ; they ought therefore to be carefully examined here, where they are first introduced. It is easy to see how Dr. Knapp's love of plainness and simplicity of interpretation, and his aversion to the metaphysical and speculative spirit of his times, should have inclined him to sentiments like those which he has here expressed re specting the narrative in Genesis. Indeed, they may be said to result fairly from adopting and carrying through the principle of Literal interpretation in application to this passage. To the same conclusion substantially were Mi- chaelis and Reinliard brought before him, by reasoning on the same principles. But we ought to hesitate before adopting principles which strip this opening page of human history of its chief moral and religious interest, and substitute transactions so unimportant and even trivial. To teach that the Forbidden Tree was one of physical poison,— that on this account mainly, and not for tho purpose of testing their obedience, our first parents were warned ao-ainst it that by seeing a serpent feed on it with impunity, they falsely concluded they might do so,— that having thus by mistake been led to taste of it, their nerves were excited, their passions inflamed, and reason weakened, — and lastly that the propagation of this physical disorder is the cause of the universal predom inance of sense over reason, in short of human depravity, — these are proposi tions so strange, that we must wonder how they could have been soberly pro pounded by writorsof such ominence. EFFECTS OF THE FALL. 37 (6) The consequences of the first transgression are seen in still other evils. Physical evils are usually regarded as the consequen ces of antecedent moral faults ; and experience shows this to be correct, though mistakes are easily made in applying this principle to particular cases. When man was more perfect and lived in a state of innocence, he bore none of those loads which he is now called to sustain ; he was under no necessity of tilling the ground with weariness ; he lived free from care, needed no clothing, etc. ; vid. Vol. I. § 56. All this now ceased ; and the evils which began to appear were regarded as the consequences of the Fall, and as pun ishments inflicted by the Deity. Hence it is related, v. 8, that God sat in solemn judgment upon our first parents, and pronounced their sentence. And this was done in a Thunder-storm, which took place typft M"il? , i- e. at eventide, when the cool evening wind be gan to blow at sunset, as it does in the east. This term is used in To minds of a particular cast, which had been disgusted with the assump tions of philosophy and wearied with travelling through its thorny mazes, so simple and easy a solution of the mysteries of our present condition, might naturally furnish repose. But a just and unperverted critical taste must be offended with an interpretation so flatly and frigidly ad literam, as that which is here suggested. If this narrative is to retain the least doctrinal interest, it must be regarded as exhibiting the trial of man as to obedience to the divine will, and the unhap py issue of this trial. And if this meaning be extracted from this history, it is not of so much consequence whether it be by an allegorical or literal in terpretation. But to make this the history of the imprudent conduct of Adam and Eve in eating of a fruit of whose fatal qualities they had been forwarned, and thus poisoning themselves, is to empty it of its high interest, as the ac count of the birth of Sin, and to reduce it to a common-place story, unworthy of its place at the head of the history of man. It was well said by Theophilus of Antioch long ago, " that it was not the Tree, but the Disobedience, which had death in itself,' Contra Autyl. Luther, too, who in general followed the literal interpretation, says with regard to this passage, " Adam indeed stuck his teeth into the Apple; but he set them, too, upon a thorn, which was the Law of God and disobedience against him ; and this was the proper cause of his misery," Com. on Gen. 2: 5. Some of the remoter consequences of Enapp's view of the transgression of our first parents and its influence on their posterity, are not less singular, than the first appearance of his interpretation. If the result of the Fall to Adam was a physical disorder which we inherit from him, then it would seem that in order that man might be restored, a physical cure ought first to bo effected, and the first step towards his recovery should be a medical prescription. But of this more hereafter. — Tr.] 38 ART. IX. § 75. SENTENCE OF ADAM AND EVE, opposition to tri'H tin , meridies, Gen. 18: 1. — Man hid himself, — the natural effect of the consciousness of having acted wrong ; and then comes the trial. All this is perfectly natural, and like what we see every day in the case of crime, and of an evil conscience. Men, as here, fear the presence of God, and wish to conceal them selves from him ; although they well know, that this is impossible. It is hard for them to acknowledge their sins, repent of them and confess them. They seek vain excuses, and throw off the guilt from themselves to others ; Eve upon the Serpent, and Adam upon Eve. And indeed in these words, the woman which thou gavest me, Adam seems to throw the guilt upon God ; as much as to say, ' hadst not thou given her to me, this evil had not been done.1 But the most distinct punishment for the transgression of the di vine Law, was this, that they must die ; Gen. 2: 17. coll. 3: 19. In the former of these texts, the phrase is, rft12T\ nift (best rendered by Symmachus, &vrjzog toy) ; in the latter, thou shalt return to the earth from whence thou wast taken. In the latter passage, therefore, it can be only mortality which is spoken of; and the theological distinction of spiritual, bodily, and eternal death, has no connexion with this passage. Some theologians assert even, that it does not relate to bodily death at all, but only to spiritual and eternal. So Calovius, Seb. Schmidt, Fecht, etc. — This mortality now was the consequence of the harmful fruit they had eaten, just as their immor tality wasdescribed as what would be the consequence of eating of the Tree of Life. And as men were henceforward to be deprived of im mortality, they were no more permitted to eat of the Tree of Life, and were therefore removed by God from the Garden ; vs. 22 — 24. In the same way, that their removal from the Garden is represented as an act of God, are we to understand the direction that they should be clothed with the skins of beasts (" God made them coats of skins," as it is said v. 21) ; viz. as an instruction which they received di rectly and immediately from God ; for it was a common opinion throughout the ancient world, that God had directly communicated to men the knowledge of many useful inventions. In the words, v. 22, " Adam has become like one of us, know ing good and evil," there is something ironical, and they refer to v. 5 ; as much as to say : ' we see now how it is ; man wished to become wise and like to God ; but in breaking the commandment of God, he acted like a fool.' — Others render these words, ' he was like one of us, but now is so no more.' AND OF THE SERPENT. 39 With respect to the curse pronounced upon the Serpent, v. 14 many difficulties are found. How can the Serpent, which, even supposing it the instrument of the Devil, was an innocent cause of the Temptation, have been punished ? This certainly does not seem to agree with our present ideas of punishment and what con stitutes capacity for it. But if we notice the conduct of children, and of rude and uncultivated men, we shall find a solution. God deals with men more humano, and condescends in his conduct to their limited and infantine comprehensions. When children are in jured by an animal, or even by an inanimate thing, they often pro ceed in the same way, as they would with one like themselves. The sense of the injury which they have experienced, and the displeasure which they naturally feel, leads them to wish for recompense ; and they feel a kind of satisfaction, when the cause of the injury done them, even if it be a lifeless object, is in their view repaid. To these conceptions does God here condescend ; and designs to im press upon the minds of our first parents by this vivid representation, the idea, that the Tempter in this transaction would not go unre warded, and that every tempter must expect to receive from him unavoidable and severe punishment. This is the doctrine, which is taught them in this, so to speak, sensible manner. The punishment inflicted upon the invisible agent concerned in this temptation could not be made obvious to them ; it must therefore be made to fall upon the instrument. Enough for them, that they could derive from the punishment of the Serpent this doctrine, which, in the state in which they then were, could have been in no other way made so obvious and impressive. Hence the fear and dread of the serpent which is felt by man and beast. It is the im age of baseness, and cleaves to the ground. — To eat dust, is a' figu rative expression, denoting to be levelled with the ground, laid in the dust, Is. 49: 23. So, to eat ashes, Ps. 102: 10, and the phrase hu- mum ore memordit, used by Virgil with respect to one struck dead to the earth. Cf. Horn. Odyss. XXII. 269. (3) V. 15, 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. — jnt in the first case denotes the posterity of the Serpent, — the serpent-race ; in the second case, either collective ly, the posterity of Eve, ytvvnxo\ yvvatxwv, Matt. 11: 11 ; or one of 40 ART. IX. §75. MEANING of S^ \. this posterity, a descendant, or son of Eve ; for in this latter sense may s«ij in the singular be taken, according to the Hebrew idiom ; e. g. Gen. 4: 25. Taken in this sense, it is referred to the Messiah, the second Adam, who even by the later Jews was denominated yyt , the descendant sometimes of Adam and sometimes of Abraham ; vid. Gal. 5: 16, and Wetstein ad. h. 1.— These words admit of a threefold construction, neither of which is inconsistent with, or entire ly excludes the others ; and either of which contains instruction for those to whom these words were first addressed, and to their poster ity. (a) If these words are referred to the serpent here visible, the sense is : 'It is my will, that enmity should exist between thee, and the woman, between thy breed, and her descendants ; i. e. there shall be a constant hatred between the human and the serpent race. Men shall aim at thy head, and thou at their heel, i. e. they shall seek thy life, and thou shalt seek to injure them, by thy poisonous bite, whenever thou canst' Cf. Zacharia, Bibl. Theol.Th. II. S. 318. and Repert. IV. 250, f. (6) Every thing which took place here was designed to give moral instruction to our first parents. In this way, it was intended to teach them respecting the external occasions and excitements to sin ; and by means of the Serpent, this lesson was made plain and obvious to their senses. Hence we have in these words the follow ing maxim : ' Thou and thy posterity (i. e. all men) will have from henceforward a constant warfare against sin to maintain. The vic tory of man over the Tempter and his seductions will be difficult and uncertain ; they will be in constant contention with each other, and men will not comeoff uninjured, nor will they remain hereafter un- seduced, and must always feel the injurious consequences of trans gression.' (c) Tf J>^J in the second case denotes a single individual among the descendants of Adam, it refers to the Messiah, who has destroy ed the power of the Tempter and of Sin, and who has also made it possible for all his followers to overcome them ; vid. 1 John 3: S. Our first parents could not indeed have understood these words as , a distinct prophecy respecting the Messiah ; for they were not able at that time to comprehend the idea of a Messiah in all its extent ; nor is this text ever cited in the New Testament as a prophecy re specting Christ. From these words, however, they could easily de- PRACTICAL USE OF THIS HISTORY. 41 duce the idea, that in this contest the human race might and would come off finally victorious. The head of the Serpent would be bruis ed for its entire destruction ; and the only revenge it could take would be to bite the heel ; it could injure less, than it would itself be injured. Hence it was here, as Paul says respecting the Patri archs, Heb. 11: 13, — they received the promise from God, but saw that which was promised nog'gu&sv. Respecting the manner in which this promise should be fulfilled, and the person through whom it should be performed, more full revelations were gradually given at a later period. So that even although our first parents might not have been able to refer this »nj to one particular descendant of Adam, they might yet find in these words a consoling promise from God. And for this reason we may justly call this passage, as it has been called by some of the Church fathers, Protevangelium, because it contains the first joyful promise ever given to our race. Vid. Storr, DeProtevangelio, Tubingae, 1781 — [Hengstenberg, Christol- ogie. — Smith, Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, Vol. I. — Tr.] Note. In explaining the history of the Fall to the people, the teacher should dwell mostly upon the internal truth and the practical instruction contained in it. In conformity with the remark at the latter part of No. I. of this sec tion, he must show, from the example of the progenitors of our race, not only how sin first entered into the world, but also how it is still accustomed to arise. In doing this he can appeal to James 1: 13 — 15, and then illustrate the truth by examples, such as daily occur. In this way he may rescue this his tory from the contempt sometimes thrown upon it, and teach those entrusted to his care, to regard it not as a fable, but seriously to reflect upon it in such a manner as may be profitable to them. He must treat it entirely as fact or histo ry, in the same manner as it is treated both in the Old and New Testament. Let him by no means initiate his hearers into all the hypotheses and contro versies of the learned on this subject; since they are unable to form a judg ment respecting them, and will be rather confounded than enlightened by hearing them recited. — And since in the New Testament, the Devil is repre sented as having an agency in this transaction, he must also be so represent ed by the Christian teacher, who, however, must not attempt to determine the manner in which this agency was exerted, as on this point the Scripture says nothing. [On the general subject of this section, cf. the authors before referred to, Tholuck, Lehre von der SUnde, Appendix, S. 264. Schleirmacher, Glaubens- lehre, B. II. S.59. Hahn, Lehrbuch, S. 345, § 78. Bretschneider, Hand- buch, B. II. S. 58, § 125. Herder, Geist der Ebrai. Poesie, B. I. S. 136, ff.— Tr.] Vol. II. 6 K. § 76. OPINIONS OF THE JEWS § 76. Of the imputation of the sin of our first parents. It is taught in Theology, that the transgression of the progeni tors of mankind, had a twofold influence upon their posterity ; viz. a. physical influence, in the propagation of sinful desires and moral imperfection, and also a moral influence, which is commonly con sidered as properly imputationem peccati Adamitici. These two do not necessarily belong together, although imputatio and peccatum originate have been often connected together by Theologians. They may however be distinguished ; and one may easily affirm mor al corruption while he denies imputation, and the reverse. We shall therefore first treat of imputation, and then show how, according to the Scriptures, the two are united. Now whatever diversity there may exist in the opinions of The ologians respecting Imputation, when they come to express then- own views definitely ; they will yet for the most part agree, that the phrase, God imputes the sin of our progenitors to their posterity, means, that for the sin committed by our progenitors, God punishes their descendants. The term to impute is used in different senses. (a) It is said of a creditor, who charges something to his debtor as debt ; like i'lUrt , and Xoylfrfictt, and iXXoytto, e. g. Philem. v. 18. (6) It is transferred to human judgment, when any one is punished or declared deserving of punishment. Crime is regarded as a debt. which must be cancelled partly by actual restitution, and partly by punishment, (c) This now is applied to God, who imputes sin, when he pronounces men guilty, and treats them accordingly ; i. e. when he actually punishes the sin of men (]¦)» 5UJH, Xoylfea&tu dfiagzlav, Ps. 32: 2). The one punished is called yis NiD2 in op position to one to whom !"ij?n^b 3aTi , who is rewarded, Ps. 106: 31. Rom. 4: 3. In q^der to learn what is taught in the theological schools ou this subject, we must pursue the historic method, or we shall grope in the dark. I. ( Opinions of the Jews. The imputation of Adam's sin is not called in the Mosaic narrative, or any where in the Old Testament, by the name of imputation , al- RESPECTING IMPUTATION. 43 though the doGtriile of imputation is contained in it, as we shall soon see. But in the writings of the Talmudists and of the Rabbins, and still earlier in the Chaldaic Paraphrases on the Old Testament, we find it asserted in so many words, that the posterity of Adam were pun ished with bodily death on account of his first sin, although they themselves had never sinned. Cf. the Chaldaic Paraphrase on Ruth 4: 22, " Because Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, all the inhabitants of the earth are subject to death." In this way they accounted to themselves for the death of the greatest saints, who, as they suppos ed, had never themselves sinned. They taught also, than in the person of Adam, the whole multitude or mass of his posterity had sinned. Vid. the Commentators on Rom. V. ; especially Wetstein and Koppe. As early as the time of the Apostles, this doctrine was widely prevalent among the Jews. It is clearly taught by Paul in Rom. 5: 12 — 14, and is there placed by him in intimate connexion with the more peculiar Christian doctrines. In this passage, Mhe has employed exactly the same expressions which we find among the Rabbins. How was this doctrine developed and brought to such clearness among the Jews ? They proceeded from the scriptural maxim, that man was created immortal, and that the death of Adam was a con sequence of his transgression. And since all the posterity of Adam die, although all have not themselves sinned (e. g. children) ; they concluded, that these too must endure this evil on account of Adam's transgression. Cf. Book of Wisdom 2: 23, 24. Sirach 25: 32, ctjio' yvvoaxog agxv otfiagzlag, xal dt, avTrjv anofrvrjaxoftev navTig. — Farther than this, which is evidently founded in the Scriptures, they did not go. In order to illustrate this doctrine and render it plain, they probably resorted to some analogies ; such, for example, as the fact, that children must often suffer for the crimes of their parents, in which they had no share ; and that according to the Law of Moses, the iniquity of parents was visited upon the children of the third and fourth generation. — In what way they probably con ceived of imputation, and formed their conclusions about it, may be seen from the remarkable passage, Heb. 7: 9, 10. The pa triarch Levi, (who, according to the Mosaic Law, receives the tithes,) paid tithes to Melchisedec in the person of Abraham ; i. e. it is to be considered the same as if the Levites paid tithes to Mel chisedec, when Abraham paid them, for Levi was in the loins of his 44 ART. IX. § 76. OPINIONS OF NEW TEST. WRITERS father Abraham, when he met Melchisedec, i. e. he already existed in Abraham, although he was not yet born. What Abraham did is to be considered as if it had been done by his descendant ; for had he lived at that time, he would have done the same that Abraham then did. ./¦ . . - II. Opinions of the New Testament writers. This doctrine is most clearly taught in Rom. 5: 12 — 14, — a pas sage which is very variously explained. It is also briefly exhibited in 1 Cor. 15: 21, 22.— Vid. Tollner, Theol. Untersuchungen, Theil I. St. 2. S. 56. Modern philosophers and theologians have found •many things here inconsistent with their philosophical systems. And some of them have laboured so hard and long upon this pas sage, that they have at length extorted a sense from it, in which nothing of imputation could any longer be discerned ; and this is the case with Doderlein in his " Dogmatik." They did not consid er, however, that Paul here makes use of the same words and phrases which were then common among the Jews on the subject of Imputation, and that he could not therefore have been otherwise un derstood by his contemporary readers ; and that Paul has also rea soned in the same way on another subject, Heb. 7: 9, 10; cf. No. I. Paul shows, in substance, that all men are regarded and punish ed by God as sinners, and that the ground of this lies in the act of one man ; as, on the contrary, deliverance from punishment de pends also upon one man, Jesus Christ. If the words of Paul are not perverted, it must be allowed, that in Rom. 5: 12 — 14 he thus reasons : ' the cause of the universal mortality of the human race lies in Adam's transgression. He sinned, and so became mortal. Other men are regarded and treated by God as punishable, because they are the posterity of Adam, the first transgressor, and conse quently they too are mortal. Should it now be objected, that the men who lived from Adam to Moses might themselves have person ally sinned, and so have been punished with death on their own ac count ; it might be answered, that those who lived before the time Of Moses had no express and positive law, which threatened the punishment of sin, like those who lived after Moses. The positive law of Moses was not as yet given. They could not consequently RESPECTING IMPUTATION. 45 be punished on account of their own transgressions, as no law was as yet given to them ; v. 14. Still they must die like Adam, who transgressed a positive law. Hence their mortality must have an other cause, and this is to be sought in the imputation of Adam's transgression. And in the same way, the ground of the justification of man lies not in himself, but in Christ, — the second Adam.' Such is the argument of Paul in this passage. But respecting eternal death, or the torments of hell, he here says nothing, and is far from implying, that on account of a sin committed by another man long before their birth, God punishes men with eternal hell- torments. On the contrary he here speaks of bodily death merely, as the consequence of the sin of Adam. And herein the learned Jews agreed with him. And in the passage 1 Cor. 15: 21, sq., Paul shows that the Resurrection to a blessed immortality will be the best and highest proof of our entire restoration through Jesus Christ, even as bodily death is the first and most striking proof of our degeneracy through Adam. [On this passage, cf. Tholuck, Comm. iib. Rom. V. — Usteri, Entwickel. d. paulin. Lehrbegriffs. — Edwards, Original Sin, Chap. IV. p. 352. — Stuart's Commentary on Rom. V. and Excursus. — Tr.] III. Hypotheses of Theologians. The greatest difficulties with respect to this doctrine have arisen from the fact, that many have treated what is said by Paul in the fifth of Romans, — a passage wholly popular, and any thing but for mally exact and didactic, in a learned and philosophical manner, and have defined terms used by him in a loose and popular way, by logical and scholastic distinctions. We do not find any where among the ancients, in their popular discourses, an exact and phi losophically precise use of terms with respect to the consequences and the punishment of sin. They frequently use the word punish ment in a wider sense, in which it is here and elsewhere employed by Paul. He and the Jewish teachers, with whom in this particu lar he agrees, use punishment (xaiaxgifia), imputation of sin, etc. in the same sense in which it is said respecting children, for exam ple, that they are punished on account of the crimes of their ances tors, that the crimes of their ancestors are imputed to them, etc. ; although they, in their own persons, had no share in the guilt, and 46 ART. IX. § 76. DIFFERENT USES could not therefore, in the strictest philosophical and juridical sense, be considered as the subjects of imputation and punishment. The family of a traitor, whose name is disgraced, and whose goods are confiscated, are thus said to be punished on his account. Respect ing Louis XVI. who was so unfortunate, and suffered so much in consequence of the errors of his predecessors Louis XIV. and XV., it would be commonly said without hesitation, that he endured pun ishment on their account, and had to atone for or expiate their crimes. Here, what is merely the consequence of the sin of anoth er, is called, from some analogy between them, the punishment of one, who has no personal guilt in the matter. Just such is the case here. Mortality was to Adam the punishment of his sin, strictly speaking. His posterity are also mortal ; since a mortal cannot be get those who are immortal. With them, therefore, mortality is the natural consequence of Adam's sin, but not their punishment, in the proper juridico-philosophical sense of the word, — because they them selves had no share in the first transgression. Imputation, there fore, of the sin of Adam, in the strict sense of the word imputation, does not exist with regard to us, his posterity ; since we only suffer the baleful consequences of the sin of the first man, of which we our selves were not, however, guilty, and for which we cannot therefore be punished. Speaking, however, in a loose and popular way, we may call what we endure, punishment and imputation. By this observation, many difficulties in other passages of Scrip ture are obviated. So when Moses says, " the iniquity of the fa ther shall be visited upon his posterity from generation to genera tion" (cf. Ezek. 18: 4, 20, coll. Jer. 31: 29, 30), he is to be under stood as speaking in a popular way, of the consequences which should befall the posterity of the wicked without any fault of their own. When on the other hand it is said, " the son shall not bear the ini quity of the father," it is to be understood as a maxim of justice, and to be taken, in the literal sense. Paul himself says in other passa ges, that man will be punished solely on his own account, Rom. 2: 6. 1: 18, sq. Gal. 6: 5. 2 Cor. 5: 10. In these he speaks sensu pro- prio etforensi. He also teaches expressly, that reward and punish ment do not depend upon natural birth and derivation, Rom. 9: 11 ; and Jesus rejects the opinion suggested by his disciples, that the misfortune of the one born blind was to be regarded as the imputa tion of the guilt of his parents, John 9: 2, 3. OF THE WORD PUNISHMENT. 47 But why is language used in such a manner with regard to this subject in the Scriptures? The principal reason why the wordpwn- ishment is used in this connexion, lies in the fact, that there is, in all the mortal descendants of Adam, a preponderance of carnal ap petites and passions, and that they are invariably seduced by-these into actual sin, and so become punishable. There is not one upon earth who remains uncorrupted, and consequently all are rendered liable to punishment ; vid. Rom. 5: 12. Eph. 2: 3. God would not treat all men as sinners, did they not in this respect resemble Adam. We find, accordingly, that the passage in Rom. V. was never understood in the ancient Grecian Church, down to the fourth cen tury, to teach imputation, in a strictly philosophical and judicial sense ; certainly Origen and the writers immediately suceeding him, exhibit nothing of this opinion. They regard bodily death as a consequence of the sin of Adam, and not as a, punishment, in the strict and proper sense of this term. Thus Chrysostom says, upon Rom. 5: 12, ' Extlvov niaovzog CA8«(i), r.ul ol /.it] q>dyovxsg dnd tov %i>Xov, yeyavuaiv il; txttvov &vr[toL And Cyril (Adv. Anthro- pom. c. 8) says, ol ysyovozeg l| avxov ('Add/A.), ug dno q>&agzov, cp&ugTol yiyovafisv. The Latin church, on the other hand, was the proper seat of the strict doctrine of imputation. There they began to interpret the words of Paul, as if he were a scholastic and logical writer. One cause of their misapprehending so entirely the spirit of this passage, was, that the word imputare (a word in common use among civil ians and in judicial affairs) had been employed in the Latin Ver sions in rendering v. 13 of Rom. V.; and that i&ogu) of man exerts a powerful influence 54 ART. IX. § 77. THE BODY THE SEAT upon his soul, — his understanding and will ; vid. Rom. 6: 14 23. Eph. 2: 3. The body is, however, plainly the principal seat of the carnal appetites and desires, and hence the origin of this depravity is to be sought chiefly in the body ; vid Rom. 7: 5, 23. 6: 12, sq. And all the ancient heathen philosphers, who considered the pre ponderance of this lower animal nature as the source of human de pravity, made the body the principal seat of this evil, and in doing so were supported by observations familiar to all. (a) The ancient Grecian philosophers, Pythagoras, Plato, Aris totle, the Stoics (vid. § 74, I.), considered matter, and the human body as consisting of matter, to be the seat and source of evil. With these writers, the Hellenistic Jews agreed ; vid. Book of Wis dom, 9: 15, " The decaying body burdens the soul, and the earthy tabernacle presses down the thinking spirit." Of the same mind were most of the early Christian fathers, e. g. Justin the Martyr, Origen (although some passages in his works appear to contradict this), Hilarius, and Augustine himself. This doctrine was carried to a great length and very much abused by some heretics who sprang up in the Christian church, particularly in the East. They regarded matter as in itself an evil existence, not deriving its being from God, nor depending upon him. So the Gnostics and the Man- icheans. (6) The doctrine that the body of man is the chief seat of hu man weaknesses and imperfections, and also the germ of moral evil, was widely diffused among the Eastern nations in the remotest anti quity, and was adopted by the writers of the Old Testament, as may be clearly seen from their use of the word -iiaa (adg$.) This word signifies originally the human body, then, men themselves, but always with the implied idea, that they are frail, imperfect, and mortal, or in a moral respect, that they are inclined to err and sin ; vid. Gen. 6: 12. 8: 22. Is. 40: 6 ; coll. Matt. 26: 41. John 3: 6. On the oth er hand, the word tTH (nvev/xa) denotes what is spiritual, moral, divine, perfect, holy, etc. (c) This doctrine, the first traces of which we find in the earlier Jewish books, was gradually developed, and was at last exhibited in the New Testament with the greatest clearness. Paul places a«p| in opposition to vovg or nvtvfxa, and depicts the controversy between the two, and the hindrances which the adg^ opposes to the nvtvpa in the knowledge of the truth, and holiness of walk ; vid. Rom. 7: OF SINFUL DESIRES. 55 18, 23. With him, qjgoviiv and jugmurtiv xaxd augxc* mean to indulge sinful desires, Rom. 8: 1,5; and diXyixa, qigovrj/xa, vovg aagxog, signify the corrupt, depraved disposition of human nature, — the propensity to sin, Gal. 6: 13. Ephes. 2: 3. Cf. ini&viiiao aag- xixat, bodily, sensual desires, 1 Pet. 2: 11 ; also 6 aagxixog (dv- &gwnog). In Rom. 6: 6, 16, Paul says that the Christian should deprive the oci/ik d/xugziag of its power, and not suffer himself to be subject im&v/xlatg awfxazog ; and in Rom. 7: 18 — 25, still more plainly ; he knew, he says, that in him (or rather in his body, iv aug- xi) the seat of moral good was not to be found (ovx olxii dya&ov). He was not, indeed, wanting in good will to live righteously ; but in power to perform his will. He often could not accomplish the good, which he heartily approved from his inmost moral feelings ; and on the contrary, he often did the evil which he disallowed. And thus he knew, that sin (i. e. a disposition to sin, sinful depravity) dwelt in him. His spirit (vovg, 6 i'am av&gmnog) approved the divine law, and acknowledged it good and useful ; but in his members (iv itiXiai, i. e. iv amiiazi) there was another law, the law of sin (dictamen sensuum), which was opposed to the law of God, and which ruled over him. Hence he exclaims, " O miserable man that I am, who shall deliver me from this mortal body (adi/xa tov ¦Q-avdzog zoiizov)." And at last he thanks God, that through Christ he has granted him this deliverance, and that he was no more under the necessity of yielding obedience to his depraved appetites, al though they still continued, and often resumed their power. The word ipv%ix6g, ipvxtxog uv&gmnog is also often used in the Scriptures, denoting that one does not follow his reason, but is whol ly under the influence of his bodily appetites and desires, and will give heed only to what he learns through his senses, and so despises the instruction which God has given respecting spiritual things. Thus Jude, v. 19; forniBS and ipvxv often signify the impulses, de sires and propensities of our lower nature ; and 1 Cor. 2: 14, where ipvxixog uv&gwnog is one who scorns divine instruction, and choos es rather sense, darkness, and delusion ; one who has no organ for what is above sense, and no taste for divine instruction, — the same with aagxixog, 1 Cor. 3: 1 . — The inordinate desires, those which are not as they should be, are often called in Scripture by way of emi nence, im&vixia, int&vfxlat aagxog, 1 John 2 : 16, — commonly ren dered in the Vulgate concupiscentia ; hence this word is adopted in ecclesiastical Latinity. Vid. Morus, p. 107, n. 3, 4. 56 ART. IX. § 77. INFLUENCE OF THE BODY ON THE SOUL. (d) From the passages now cited, and from the known sense in which the words above mentioned were anciently used, it is plain that those writers who make the soul the chief seat and original source of corruption very much mistake. Into this error Buddeus has fallen, as appears from his dissertation, " De anima sede pecca- ti originalls principale," Jenae, 1725 ; and in this error he is follow ed by SeileV. It is equally certain, however, that this originally bod ily disorder has a powerful influence upon the soul, on account of the intimate connexion between these two essential parts of man. It acts (a) upon the Understanding, since by means of it the ob jects of knowledge are placed before the mind in an entirely false light, so that the understanding holds that which is false for true, what is evil for good, and the reverse. (/3) Upon the will and the actions, so that what has been thus falsely represented by the senses to the Understanding as good and right, is now desired and accom plished. The evil consequences of this are, that man prefers appa rent, to real good, that he allows himself to be more governed by his senses than by his understanding, and often does that which he him self disapproves, and so chooses and acts against his own principles, and his better views ; vid. Rom. 7: 8, 19, 23. Gal. 5: 17, " The]de- sire of the flesh is often opposed to the desire of the spirit, so that man is often unable to accomplish his good purposes." The soul, as Paul teaches, is so far weak, as the animal propensities (iia&ri- fxaza aagxog) are strong ; and so feeble, that it is the slave of these propensities ; and although it may have a better conviction, is not able to carry it into effect, but is so carried away, thatTit must do what itself disapproves. — And this is the benefit of Christ (xdgtafxa), that he saves us from the power of sin, as well as from its punish ment. Note. 1. Care must be taken here, that the doctrine of the injury which we sustain from the body and the inordinate appetites of which it is the seat, be not carried too far, as it has been by Less and other modern theologians. This extreme in the doctrine very naturally leads to dangerous perversions ; and we might expect that it would lead many to resort to suicide, in order to free themselves from the burdensome prison of the body. And indeed suicide was justified on this ground by the Stoics, and other ancient philosophers.— On this subject, it is important to bear in mind the great advantages which, as we are taught in the Scriptures, we possess from the connexion of the ra tional soul with the body in our present state ; vid. § 74. The false idea of the ancient Pythagoreans and Platonists, that the body is a prison, where IS THE BODY THE CHIEF CAUSE OF SIN 7 57 the soul is incarcerated for its punishment, was held also by many of the Mys tics and Platonists among the old Jews and Christians : but it has no founda tion in the Scriptures. The sacred writers never require us, as Grecian phi losophers and Christian Mystics often do, to eradicate our bodily appetites and desires, (which, if it were possible, would destroy the very nature of man); but only to control them, and subject them to reason. Christian Morals therefore insists, not that man should leave off particular sins, or suppress par ticular outbreakings of unlawful desire, but that a new turn should be given to all the natural desires ; and this is the proper tendency of Christian Morals. It designs to bring man from the love of the world, to the love of God, from an improper self-love, to the love of others, from a love to sensible and perish ing things, to a love of spiritual and eternal good. Such are the instructions which Christ every where gives ; vid. John 3: 3—21. — It is a false assertion, that the inculcation of the doctrine of the natural propensity to evil, has a ten dency to discourage men from the pursuit of good ; when properly exhibited, this doctrine has exactly the opposite effect, and excites to the vigorous em ployment of our powers. The great point in this doctrine is, that the man who would fulfil his destination, must depart from evil, and not content with mere ly cultivating and developing his powers, must experience a radical reforma tion. [Note. 2. Does the depravity of our nature consist in the inordinateness of our bodily desires f From the views exhibited in this section, it appears that our Author adopts the affirmative of this question. He sees in man a conflict between Reason, and those lower principles which have their seat in the body, and thinks of of no ulterior or more radical evil. To such a conception of human depravity he is necessarily brought by his theory respecting the consequences of the Fall, making them to consist chiefly in the disarrangement of our bodily con stitution. In behalf of these views he appeals, as the reader has perceived, to the universal doctrine of Pagan philosophy on this subject, to the familiar ob servation of the actual inordinateness of the bodily appetites and their pre ponderance over reason, but principally to the Scriptural phraseology employed to designate the native character of man, and which, taken in its first etymo logical sense, seems to indicate that the body is the ultimate cause and princi pal seat of human depravity. This part of our Author's system is of such radical importance, and so ma terially affects the views we must entertain of the other doctrines of Christian ity, and especially of the Atonement, that it ought not to pass without exam ination. As to the first argument above mentioned,— it will be readily conceded that this view of our natural character and state harmonizes well with Pagan Philosophy. It has a general resemblance even to the Indian and Persian religious systems, as exhibited by the Schlegels and other modern writers on the East. But it corresponds more exactly with the Platonic system, which fully recognizes the conflict between the rational principle (the loyixbv) and the irrational, animal principle (the Uoyor). And while it resembles these Vol. II. 8 58 ART. IX. § 77. KNAPP'S ARGUMENTS EXAMINED. systems, it must be said also, that it is liable to the same objection which has often been been urged against them, viz. that in some v/ay, by supposing ei ther an eternal intelligent principle of evil, or a blind destiny, or some defec tive bodily organization, or by some other external necessity, they account for the origin and prevalence of evil, instead of charging it upon the perverted use of the moral powers of men. But to all such conceptions of our moral con dition, Christianity stands opposed,— especially in the doctrine of the Atone ment, which, by its proffer of forgiveness, presupposes, not misfortune merely, but guilt, on the part of man, and which, in its whole bearing, aims at a spirit ual, and not a physical evil. It is in this way that Christianity furnishes a new point of view for observing the character of man, and discloses the essen tial nature and deeper root of evil. The fact alledged in the second argument, viz. that there is a visible pre ponderance of sense or of bodily appetites over reason, is also readily conceded. But can we conclude from this fact, that this disorder is to be attributed to the body, and the affections having their seat in it? Would not the just balance between the higher and lower principles of our nature, be equally disturbed by altering the weight in either scale ? If in the original constitution of our nature, the lower principles of the animal life on one side, were balanced on the other by the higher principles of our intellectual life, not by themselves, but in connexion with a communicated divine life of which they are the organ (as we shall attempt to show) ; then the mere loss or withdrawment of this divine life would be followed of course by a loss of this original equipoise, and the un due predominance of the lower principles. Thus it can be conceived that the inordinateness of the bodily appetites, in which human depravity might seem at first view to consist, so far from constituting its real essence, may be only the necessary result of an ulterior cause, — the defect of the higher principles. Indeed considering the nature of these higher principles, and their rightful su premacy, how can their being drawn away and enslaved by principles so in ferior and subordinate be accounted for, except from some defect in the spirit ual part, to say nothing of positively evil inclinations seated there ? The argument derived from the use of the Scriptural terms -i'oa and oao% and their synonymes is very plausible ; and when Paul calls the roiios rljo ano xic also a vofioc iv rof; filXtnt., the question might seem to be decided. But if this is difficult on one side, it is not less so on the other, that pride, envy, and other feelings, the most remote from the influence of the body, are derived by Paul from ocigl, as its immediate fruits. Cf. Gal. 5: 19 — 22. Col. 2: 18. — Other reasons against the meaning assigned by our Author to these Scriptural terms, will appear in the sequel of this Note. The following developement of the Scriptural doctrine respectino' the nat ural state of man, is offered for consideration, in the belief that it is Augusti- nian and Edwardsean on the particular points in which these systems differ from the Pelagian and Arminian anthropologies. In the first place ; that principle, state, or disposition of human nature, whatever it may be, by which it designated as corrupt or evil, is more usually denominated oao£, — one who is in this state, oaqxixo;, — the living and acting in it are described by the formulas, ntQinaxeiv iv oaqxi, xarA oiqxa tijr, tpqoriir. MEANING of odg% and nvtvfxa. 59 x. t. i. The same state is also described, though less commonly, by other terms nearly synonymous with these. Secondly. The most important clue to the meaning of the term aio%, upon which so much depends, and which is so difBcult of interpretation, is the fact that is placed in constant and direct contrast to the term nvevfia, — so much so, that it seems necessarily to imply a state exactly opposite to that denoted by the latter term. The opposition between these two principles is pointed out in the following passages; viz. Rom. 7: 25. 8: 1, sq. 1 Cor. 3: 4. Gal. 5: 19. sq. Hence it is obvious, that in order to attain distinct and specific concep- 1 tions of the meaning of ouo$, we must fully understand the import of the term Tivtv/ia, with which it is contrasted. If nrevtia denotes merely the intelligent, rational principle (the 7.oyix!iv), then may ouoi- designate merely the irrational, bodily appetites and desires (the UXoyov). But if nviiifia have a higher import, then to suppose obe unnecessary to contend so strenuously against evil, and to employ so many means to incite man to goodness and to secure him against vice. And among all the thousands who have lived upon the earth, there would have been found some examples of persons who had passed through their whole life free from sin. As man, therefore, has within himself a natural adaptation to much which is good, he has also a natural disposition and bias to much which is evil (malum radicate), which soon strikes root, spreads round, and chokes the good. It is absolutely inexplicable how the preponderance of sense over reason, so visible in all men, could be derived from mere imitation. Were this the case, this preponde rance ought to cease as soon as man, in the full exercise of his un derstanding, were taught better. The will, we should expect, would then obey the dictates of reason. It is not found, however, to be so in fact. The dominion of sense still continues, as the experience of every one proves. The ground of this must therefore lie deeper ; and both experience and reason confirm the account which Scrip ture gives of it ; vid. § 77. 72 ART. IX. § 78. PUNISHABLENESS OF DEPRAVITY. III. The imputation or punishableness of natural depravity. This is the reatus or culpa vitiositatis, and was asserted by Augustine and his followers ; vid. Morus, p. 120, § 7, coll. § 79, No. 2. They contended, that all men, even before they had committed any sinful actions, and barely on account of this native depravity, were deserving of temporal and eternal death, or of damnation. Others have endeavored in various ways to mitigate the severity of this opinion. Some modern theologians have taught, in imitation of Augustine, the doctrine thztpeccatum originale per se esse damnabi- le; but that, for Christ's sake, punishment was not actually inflicted. But the assertion, that this corruption, in and of itself, involves condemnation, cannot be proved. For (a) it is irreconcilable with the justice and goodness of God, that he should punish (in'the proper sense of this term) an innocent person for the sins of anoth er. Sin cannot exist, certainly cannot be punished, unless the ac tion is free : otherwise it ceases to be sin ; vid. § 76, III. (b) In those texts of the Old and New Testament which are commonly cited in behalf of this opinion, the death spoken of, is not eternal death, or condemnation ; but temporal death, Gen. 1: 2, 17. Rom. 5: 12. 1 Cor. 15: 22 ; vid. § 75, II. 2. (c) Even bodily death is rep resented in the Scriptures as, indeed, the consequence of Adam's sin, but not as a punishment, strictly speaking, for any beside him self; for none but himself were guilty of his sin. In conformity with this view, Rom 5: 12, 14 is to be explained ; also Rom. 6: 23, &avazog oiliwvia dftagzlag, or v. 21, tikog (xag- ndg) djxagziag- so called because it followed upon Adam's sin, and as far as he was concerned, was a punishment for it ; vid. § 76, III. — The doctrine of the Bible on this subject is the following : ' The bias of man to. evil, and to do that which is forbidden, is in itself bad (Germ, fehlerhaftes, esse invitio,vitiosum), Rom. 7: 5, 13, 18; but it cannot be imputed to man, or he be regarded as punishable on account of it, unless he yields himself to it, and indulges it ; vid. Rom. 6: 12. Gen 4 : 7, coll. James 1: 15. This, however, is the case with all men ; no one has lived upon the earth who has not been led by this propensity into actual transgression, and so has be come deserving of punishment.' Truly, therefore, does the Scrip ture affirm, that we are all subject to punishment (tixvu ogyijg, Eph. PARTICULAR SINFUL DESIRES. 73 2: 3); not, however, because we are born with this disposition (for this is not any fault of ours), but because we indulge it, give an ear to our unlawful desires, and so suffer ourselves to be led on to the commission of sin. IV. The source and origin of sinful inclinations, and their punishableness. From the preponderance of sense now explained, particular sin ful dispositions and passions take their origin, and so are the result and the proof of the sinful depravity of man. But in order that we may rightly estimate the sinfulness and punishableness of these de sires, we must attend to the following considerations. (1) The desires of man are not in themselves and abstractly con sidered, sinful ; for they are deep laid in the constitution which God himself has given to human nature ; they arise in man involuntarily, and so far cannot certainly be imputed to him. The essential con stitution of man makes it necessary, that every thing which makes an agreeable impression on the senses, should inevitably awaken correspondent desires. The poor man, who sees himself surrounded with the treasures of another, feels a natural and involuntary desire to possess them. The mere rising of this desire is no more punish able in him, than it was in Eve, when she saw the tree, and felt an impulse to eat its beautiful fruit, which is never represented in the Bible as her sin. (2) The desires of man become sinful and deserving of punish ment then only, when (a) man, feeling desires after forbidden things, seeks and finds pleasure in them, and delights himself in them, and so (b) carefully cherishes and nourishes them in his heart, (c) When he seeks occasions to awaken the desires after forbidden things, and to entertain himself with them, (d) When he gives au dience and approbation to these desires, and justifies, seeks and per forms the sins to which he is inclined. This is followed by the two-fold injury, that he not only sins for this once, but that he gives his appetites and passions the power of soliciting him a second time more importunately, of becoming more vehement and irresistible ; so that he becomes continually more disposed to sin, acquires a fixed habit of sinning, and at last becomes the slave of sin ; vid. Michae- lis, Ueber die Siinde, S. 365, f. — But if a man repels and suppres ses the involuntary desire arising within him, because it is evil, he Vol. II. 10 74 ART. IX. § 78. NATURAL DESIRES NOT SINFUL. cannot certainly be punished merely because, without any fault of his own, he felt -this desire. It were unjust to punish any one for being assailed by an enemy, without any provocation on his part. (3) With this doctrine the Holy Scripture is perfectly accordant Even in his state of innocence, man felt the rising of desire ; nor was this in him accounted sin ; Gen. 3: 6. Hence we are never required, either in the Old Testament or the New, to eradicate these desires (which, indeed, is a thing impossible, and would cause a de struction of human nature itself) ; but only to keep them under con trol, and to suppress those which fix upon forbidden things ; vid. § 77. In Rom. 6: 12, we are directed not to let our sinful appetites rule, and not to obey the body in the lusts thereof; here, therefore, it is presupposed that these tempting lusts remain. Again in Gal. 5: 24 we are charged, to crucify the flesh, with its affections and lusts. It is to those who contend against their wicked passions, that rewards are promised, and not to those who have never had these solicitations and allurements to evil. The pretended virtue of such men scarcely deserves the name, and is not capable of re ward. Some texts are indeed cited in which the passions, in themselves considered, are forbidden, as Rom. 7: 7, ovx ini&vfxrjoug- Ex. 20: 17, " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house," etc. Some al so in which they are said to be deserving of punishment from God, as Matt. 5: 28. But in these texts, such desires are not spoken of as arise involuntarily within us, and for which we are not there fore culpable, but such as man himself nourishes and entertains, or by his own agency awakens within himself, and which he aims to execute. And so in Matt. V. Christ speaks of the actual intention and design of man to commit adultery, if he could ; and not of the passion arising in his heart, which he himself disapproves, and immediately suppresses, because it is contrary to the divine law. (4) The manner in which man is borne away by his passions to the commission of sin, is described by James (1: 14, 15) in a way that corresponds with the experience of every one ; and this text confirms all the preceding remarks. When desires arise within us, we are in danger of sinning. Some present enjoyment of sense tempts us. Enticements to sin spring up. These James calls temptations (elsewhere called axdvdaXa, Matt. 18: 7,8, bizjsa , Ezek. 17: 19). For we look upon that which is represented to us by our § 79. HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF DEPRAVITY. 75 senses as charming and desirable, to be a great good, the possession of which would make us happy. This is expressed by i£tXx6/xevog and daXeu£6fxevog. The image is here taken from animals which are ensnared by baits (diXeag) laid before them, in order to take them. To these allurements all men are exposed, although not in the same degree. Thus far there is no sin, i. e. the man is not yet caught in the snare under which the bait lies. But here he must stop, and instead of indulging, must suppress these desires, — must fly from the bait. Otherwise, lust conceives (im&vfxta avXXafiovoa), i. e. these desires and passions are approved in the heart, and the man begins to think, he can satisfy them. This is wrong and sin ful. For this is no longer involuntary, but on the contrary the re sult of man's own will, and he is now deserving of punishment. This is what is called peccatum actuate internum. But finally, de sire brings forth sin, — the evil intent passes into action, and is ac complished. This is peccatum actuate externum. Hence flows •8-dvarog, misery, unhappiness of every sort, as the consequence and punishment of sin. § 79. Of the representations of the ancient Church-fathers respecting human depravity ; and the manner in which the ecclesiastical phraseology on this subject, and the various forms of doctrine were gradually developed. (1) The oldest Christian teachers were mostly agreed in consid ering death as a consequence of Adam's sin ; vid. § 76. [It should be observed,' however, that in these early writers, the term tp&ogd stands not only for mortality, but also for depravity ; vid. Neander, B. I. Abth. III. S. 1045.— Tr.] But we shall look in vain through the writings of most of the Greek teachers, to find the full scriptural idea of an innate depravity ; or at least, it cannot be found exhibit ed with sufficient distinctness or clearness. As there had been as yet no controversy on this subject, nothing respecting it was deter mined and settled on ecclesiastical authority. Still they agree for the most part, that the disproportion between sense and reason, or the corruption of human nature, began after the fall of Adam, and has been diffused, as a universal disease, through the whole human race. 76 ART. IX. § 79. VIEWS OF GREEK AND LATIN FATHERS That this evil, however, in itself considered, is to be regarded as ac tual sin, and as such is punished by God, they do not teach ; but rather the contrary. So Justin Martyr, Ap. I. 54, sq. Irenaeus, Adv. Hasres. IV. 37, sq. Athenagoras, Legat. c. 22. Clemens Alex. Strom. III. (contra Encratitas). " No one," says the writer last mentioned, " is wholly free from sin ; but the child, who has never personally trespassed, cannot be subjected to the curse of Adam (the punishment of his sin). Yet all who have the use of their reason are led by this their moral depravity to commit actual sin, and so become liable to punishment." The same writer says, in his Pffidag. III. 12, jxovog dvcifxdgrrjzog 6 Xoyog' to ydg i£tt/xagza- vhv ndatv ifxtpvzov xal xovvov. Cyril of Alexandria in his Com mentary on Isaiah, says cpvatxov iv dv&gdtnoig ovx elvat, xaxov and in his work ' Contra Anthropomorph." c. 8, he says, " Adam's posterity are not punished as those who with him had broken the law of God." So also Origen, Praff. ad libros ntgl dgx, tPT'Dtl, ^Til? j dtxaioi, dyioi, ngaeig, evae§iig, dovXoi &tov, x. z. X. ; one of the opposite character is called daefirig, ddixog, x. x. X. But one who acts according to his corrupt desires, and does so habitually, is called in Scripture the servant or slave of sin ; it is said of him, that he lives to sin, he serves it, he obeys it, he is sold under sin, and it rules over him; vid. Ps. 19: 14. Rom. 6: 1, 2, 6, 12, 16, 20. 7: 14, 24. 14: 24. John 8: 34, sq. 2 Pet. 2: 19.— He only who is placed in a state in which he can govern his desires, and subject his appe tites to reason enlightened by divine instruction, is a free man (John 8: 34) ; whoever cannot do this, is a slave of sin. The state of all who are devoted to sin is not however alike. Every vicious man is, in his own way, a servant of sin ; but all are not so in the same way. Three principal classes may be in general here distinguished, (a) Some adopt the appearance of virtue and piety ; they give a saintly appearance even to their crimes, in order to obtain the advantages connected with goodness. These are hypocrites, and their fault is called vnoxgiaig, *"lj?.'i2? , aj3 , SlH'ia ; opposite to which are n»S», illWN , dXrj&eia, truth, sincerity. This is one of the most shameful, aggravated, and dangerous crimes, — the hatefulness and destructiveness of which, are more fully considered in the department of Morals. Cf. Matt. vi. and xxm. Luke 11: 37—54. 2 Tim. 3: 5. (6) Others have no hesitation in acting out before the world the ungodly desires and purposes of their hearts. Such are called, ungodly, improbi, ddixot, aaifiilg, E^'iH , because they do not fear or regard God or his law ; opposite to these are those who fear God, i. e. act with reverential regard to his com mands, (c) Those sinful and godless men, who by long custom in sinning have established a fixed habit of it, are called vicious, wick ed, sceleratos. Cf. § 82, II. ad finem. II. The state of sinners in respect to the consequences which sin involves. The different kinds of sinners noticed above are all unhappy, and in the judgment of God, deserving of punishment. The feel ing of their danger and misery is not, however, alike with them all ; 118 ART. IX. § 85. STATES OF SLAVERY AND SECURITY. and some live even in entire insensibility. In this observation we have the ground of the divisions of the various states, which have been commonly made by theologians, and which are founded in ex perience ; though the passage from one to the other of these states is very easy. ( 1 ) Some men very plainly see the unlawfulness of their actions, and the evil consequences springing from them ; they often form the purpose of renouncing sin, and living better; but the power of the evil inclinations which have obtained the mastery over them is so strong, that they allow themselves to be continually hurried away into sin. Such are in constant restlessness, fear, and anguish, on account of their sins ; and their state is denominated by theologians, in conformity with scriptural phraseology, conditionem sive statum servilem or servitutis, a state of slavery ; and this is taken from John 8: 34. Rom. 6: 20, and chap. vn. Men in this state are like slaves, who at least sometimes, if not always, wish to be free, and make at tempts for their own deliverance, and yet always remain slaves. (2) Others lead a sinful life, without having an earnest desire to free themselves from the dominion of sin. They pay no regard to their unlawful actions, and have no scruples about them, either from ignorance or levity, or because they hope to remain unpunished, and from many other reasons, often those which are in the highest degree foolish. This is called the state of security, i. e. freedom from care, like the Latin securus ; — status securitatis or libertatis carnalis, because those who are in it feel free to follow their sin ful appetites (a«p|). This state is far more dangerous than the pre ceding one ; and with such sinners reformation is far more difficult. Cf. Matt. 24: 38. Eph. 4: 17—19. Jude v. 4, sq. The state of such is therefore compared with that of the sleeping or of the dead, Eph. 5: 14. They live for sin ; but are dead to goodness ; while it ought to be the reverse. Note. Theologians distinguish between this state, and that of spiritual W>- eHy or security. They give the latter name to the state of the pious, the whole disposition of whose heart is so renovated, as to be conformed to the pre cepts of Christianity, who by divine assistance control their evil desires, and are sure of the pardon of their sins; vid. John 8: 36. Rom. 5: 1. 6: 18. For true spiritual freedom consists in being free from the power and dominion of sin, and also from its punishment ; and we owe both to Christ. These are the blessed godly ones (Gottseligen, in the proper sense of the term), i. e. those who are blessed in the conviction which they feel of the forgiveness of God, STATE OF OBDURACY. 119 who internally and from the heart enjoy a happiness, in which they cannot be disturbed even by outward calamities. Happy and unhappy (selig and unselig), are terms which apply properly to the internal state, — the well or ill-being of the soul ; fortunate and unfortunate (glucklich and unglucklich) more to the external state. (3) Others still come into a state of hardness or obduracy. This state exists, when any one remains insensible and indifferent under the most powerful motives to repentance, so that they cease to make any impression on him. It springs (a) from the frequent repetition of sin, and from the settled habit of sinning. This produces a grad ual diminution of the power of the motives to abandon sin, and at length an entire cessation of their efficacy, (b) But those are in pe culiar danger of coming into this state, who have had placed before them the most urgent and moving inducements to religion and vir tue, but have yet neglected and despised them all. It is in the very nature of the human soul, that these motives, at each repetition of sin, lose something of their energy, and that at length an entire in difference must ensue, rendering the conversion of one who has brought himself into such a state, morally impossible. This state is called by theologians, statum indurationis perfectum. It is describ ed by Paul, Heb. 6: 4 — 6, and Is. 6: 10, ' who have eyes, but see not ; ears, but hear not,' i. e. who are deaf and insensible to all the motives to holiness which are held before them and which they clearly understand, and who therefore cannot be healed, i. e. reno vated and made happy. Cf. John 12: 40. Acts 28: 26, 27. 2 Cor. 4: 4. 3: 14 ; also Ex. 7: 13. The words and phrases used in the Bible to denote this state are, (1) "ia.3 , Pagvvea&ai, fiagvg- These words are literally em ployed to signify what is heavy and inactive ; they are then used with reference to the members of the body and the organs of sense, as heavy tongues, hands, ears, denoting their inactivity, and the difficulty of their use ; Zech. 7: 11. Gen. 48: 10. Matt. 26: 43 ; lastly, they are applied to the soul, indicating stupidity of the under standing, and slowness of belief; 1 Sam. 6: 6. 2 Chron. 25: 19; sometimes also the qualities of the will, and sometimes those of the understanding and will both, — an inertness of soul, and an incapaci ty to the right use of its essential powers. (2) rTJOjJ , literally hard; Hiphil, Sliapn , axXrigvveiv, axXijgvvea&ar hence the term oxXy- goxugSla, from which obduralio is taken. The state of mind now 120 ART. IX. § 85. AGENCY OF GOD under consideration is often indicated by this axXrigvvea&ai, as Heb. 3: 8, 15, sq. Rom. 2: 5 ; and by nUJR in the Old Testament; Ex. 7: 3. Ezek. 8: 7. (3) The words which originally signify fat, denote also this state of insensibility and unfeelingness ; e.g. \l3toTt, pingue fieri, naxvvia&ai, Is. 6: 10, and Matt. 13: 15 ; as likewise the Latin pinguis is synonymous with hebes, siupidus, tardus ; e. g. ingenium pingue is the same as dull and obtuse. The fat of the body of animals is without sensation : and this observation was much more familiar to nations offering sacrifices, and so having much to do with the slaughter of animals, than to us ; and hence this phrase ology was so current among them. (4) The words which indicate deep sleep, in which all external sensation ceases ; xazavv^ig, Rom. 11: 8, answering in the LXX to the Hebrew !TB!"1R . (5) One of the most common words used in the New Testament on this sub ject is ncogcoatg, and nmgom, ntogovo&ai, e.g. Rom. 11: 7, 25. 2 Cor. 3: 15. Mark 6: 52, xagdla nenwgco/xivri. This word is pro perly taken from neogog, which means having a hard, indurated skin (as in the hands of workmen) ; callous, without feeling ; and so ncogcooig figuratively denotes, according to Hesychius, the same as ¦/] dvaia&tjaia, and is synonymous with axXrigoxagdia. All these words which signify hardheartedness, are sometimes used in refer ence to the understanding (called ab), sometimes in reference to the will, and often with reference to both. A soft heart is accord ingly susceptibility for reasons and conviction, the open ear of the soul. A hard heart is the opposite, and indicates a want of knowl edge and capacity, — the remiss use of them, inactivity. With regard to this status indurationis there has been a great difficulty, which may be stated as follows. From what has been al ready said, it appears, that when a man comes into this state, he alone is to blame, and has all the guilt of it resting upon himself. This is taught in the Scriptures in many of the passages already cit ed. Still there are other texts of Scripture in which God seems to be made the author of this obduracy of men, and of sin in general, and its consequences ; e. g. Ex. 4: 21, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart ;" 14: 17, sq. Is. 63: 17. Deut. 2: 30. Josh. 11: 20. Ez. 20: 25 ; and in the New Testament, John 12: 40, TezicpXtaxev 6is, yogis &sov, Sailed &eov, are used to denote the whole compass of means employed by God to bring men to happiness, as well as any particular means; vid. Morus, pp. 122, 125. The term gdgtg is used in various senses ; and as unscriptural ideas are often attached to it, we shall here briefly explain the scriptural significations. It corresponds to the Hebrew Ifl , and sometimes to jits ft , and similar words. It signifies (1) in general, the unmerited love and benevolence which God, as the supreme Governour, bears for all his creatures and subjects, and especially for men ; and so is synonymous with dydmj, XQ^ororrjg, tpikav&QOiitla, Tit. 3: 4; and (2) the consequences and proofs of this gracious regard ; in short, all undeserved divine favors ; John 1: 16, %dqtg dvxl ydovcos. These are else where called %d(>io[ia, SojQsd, x. r. X. Cf. Rom. 5: 15. Inasmuch as they are undeserved, they are contrasted with ooptiXr/fia, Rom. 4: 4. Hence arise various other significations, by which certain great favors are called %d(>iTee, by way of eminence : as, (a) the Christian doctrine and insti tute in general, and particularly that principal doctrine of Christianity, the gracious forgiveness of sin on account of Christ. Xdqn xal dXrj&eia, John 1: Vol. II. 19 146 ART. X. § 88. THE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTION. 7; Xoyoe fdqirog, the benevolent doctrine, Acts 14: 3; %Aqi$&sov, Tit. 2: 1], jfdoig XQusroi, and *«$>« simply, Acts 18: 27, seq. (b) Certain employments, businesses, and offices in the Christian church, and the talents, abilities, and •gifts bestowed by God upon particular persons in reference to these offices. Thus Rom. 1: 5, %dgig xal dnooxoXrj- also 12: 3. In other texts %dqus(w. is used, with which %dqig is interchanged as synonymous in 1 Pet. 4: 10, and in the epistles to tho Corinthians. From these and similar texts is derived (c) the ecclesiastical usage, in which gratia denotes, by way of eminence, the opera tions of God upon the hearts of men for their improvement and conversion. These operations were called actiones gratia; and the condition of a con verted man statum gratia. The Latin church, especially since the time of Augustine, has used this word in this sense. Vid. infra, § 129. From what has been said, it appears, that the grace of God is only his good ness, considered in a particular relation. Grace is the goodness of a superior to a subordinate person. The ruler, properly speaking, is gracious only to the subject, and the lord to the slave. The Bible conforms to this usage. God then is gracious in the highest sense of this word, because he is the supreme and necessary ruler and governour of men. Every thing consequently, which God does for men, relating to the body or soul, is an operation of his grace, actus gratia divinm. And this grace is free, because no one can compel it. And the very idea of grace excludes all merit; Rom. 4: 4. UI. The particular purpose of God to restore the human race by Christ. The New Testament teaches, that God has determined to be stow his favors upon men through Christ ; and to lead them to holi ness and happiness by him. Hence Christ is called dgxnyog fwJJs, Acts 3: 15, coll. v. 26. This term is explained by a'iziog oaizijgias, Heb. 5: 9, coll. Acts 17: 30, 31. The gracious decree of God to pardon, sanctify, and bless mankind, and the institutions he has es tablished for this purpose, are called £«p«s awzijgiog, Tit. 2: 11. 3: 4. The following particulars are implied, viz. God "designs to free men from the unhappiness occasioned by sin (ato^e7v) ; and also to bestow upon them unmerited favors (xagitovv, #apt?, *• *• *•)• These favors are pardon, sanctification, and eternal blessedness, al so information communicated by God respecting this blessedness, instruction as to the manner how we may attain to it, and strength im parted to us for this end. This grace of God is called -n x«QiS -&eov iv Xgiazoj Sodelaa, 1 Cor. 1: 4. It is always represented in the New Testament as bestowed upon us through Christ, and on his account. By him God teaches us, and renews us ; pardons us on account of his death ; and bestows upon us eternal blessedness through him and for his sake. Every thing proceeds from him, and PRINCIPLES ON WHICH IT IS FOUNDED. 147 is referred to him. This purpose of God is also described in the Bible by the words {reXy/xa ¦iJeov, ngo&eaig ngoyvwaig and ngooglCeiv, Ephes. 1: 4, 11. 3: 11. The Bible says, too, that God made this de cree from eternity (ngo almvoiv or xaza§oXrjg xoa/xov). All the di vine decrees are of this peculiar nature, as is implied in the particle ngo. The passage 1 Pet. 1: 20 is very clear upon this subject. From the Old Testament, the passsage Ps. 40: 7, sq. belongs in this con nexion. This decree is always described as the free determination of God. Thus in the passages cited it is called, sudoxla -deX^/xaTog. Not that it would have been consistent for God to desert the human race, and leave it to perish ; — the divine goodness forbids such a supposition. The simple meaning is, that no external neces sity compelled him to it, and that it is his free grace, without any desert or worthiness on the part of men. Paul too, in Rom. ix. — xi. speaks of the free grace of God in respect to the new institute which he established upon earth by Christ. The following result may be deduced from what has been said : Christianity is founded upon the principles, (a) that all men are considered as sinners in the sight of God ; to which the conscience of every one bears testimony (vid. No. I. ad finem) ; and that there fore, (6) they are subject to the punishment of sin ; as experience proves. The distinguishing trait of Christianity is this, that it prom ises to men deliverance from sin, and the punishment of sin, before it requires of them perfect holiness, acceptable to God. It thus comes to the relief of ignorant, desponding, and feeble man ; inspires him with confidence in God, and with love to him ; acquaints him with his destination to - true holiness and unalterable happi ness, and shows the only way by which he can attain it. Any philosophy or system of religion, which reverses this order, and de mands holiness of men before it gives the power to attain it ; which represents holiness as the procuring cause of forgiveness ; fails of its object, and asserts and requires an impossibility. The great point in this pardon or amnesty which Christianity promises, is the doctrine that Jesus Christ came into the world to bless sinful men, to free them from sin and death ; 1 Tim. 1: 15 ; coll. 2 Tim. 1: 10. John 3: 16, 17. This pardon, however, reaches men, only when under divine guidance and assistance, they act according to the conditions and precepts laid down. Hence forgiveness and eternal life are inseparably connected in Christianity with the requisition of 148 ART. X. § 89. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPEMENT repentance and faith, made active by love. These doctrines are always connected in the Scriptures; so Tit. 2: 11 — 14. § 89. Formation and developement of the idea of Messiah among the ancient and modern Jews ; their various opinions respecting him ; and the proof that Jesus was the Messiah. 1. The gradual developement of the idea of a Messiah among the Israelites. (1) The idea of a former happy condition in the earliest ages of the world is universal among men ; and is found too among the Israelites ; vid. § 56. But it is quite as natural to the human mind, to console itself in the midst of troubles, sufferings, and the feeling of physical and moral imperfection, with the hopeof better times to come, and of a future happy condition, either in this life or the life to come, or in both together. Hence arose the fables of the heathen respecting the return of a golden age, the expected dwelling of the gods upon earth, and pictures of a similar nature, in which their wishes and ex pectations were embodied. These ideas, like those concerning the original golden age, are held by every nation, and are founded, like those, in a feeling of necessity which is deep laid in the human soul. These ideas, expectations, and wishes are found in every nation, dif ferently modified, however, according to their particular situation, and mode of thinking and representation. One people is more bold and confident in its expectations ; another is more moderate, hoping and wishing, rather than determining and deciding. (2) The Jewish nation, too, expected such a return of the gol den age to the earth ; and they were justified in this by the declar ations and promises of their oldest prophets. But this expectation of the Jews was peculiar, and distinguished from that of others in this respect, that this period was placed by them in the times when the Messiah should appear. These happy times were called xin nbi*. (3) But the question here arises ; is the doctrine respecting the Messiah, the Saviour of the world, a doctrine really revealed by God to men ; or is it merely a human opinion, originating among the Jews from their accidental circumstances, — in short, a Jewish fable, employed by Christ and the Apostles for benevolent moral purposes 1 First. The last supposition is maintained in general by those who deny or question all direct revelation ; by all, indeed, who deny the OF THE IDEA OF MESSIAH. 149 reality of miracles ; for predictions belong to the class of miraculous occurrences ; and the objections made to one may be made to the other, vid. § 7, III., § 72, II. These writers endeavour by various hypotheses to explain the natural origin of this idea. Cf. Stephani, Gedanken iiber die Entstehung und Ausbildung der Idee von einem Messias, Niirnberg, 1787, 8vo. Eckerman, Theologische Beytrage, B. II. St. 1, Altona, 1791, 8vo. Ziegler, Entwickelung des wahrscheinlichen Ursprungs der Idee vom Messias, in Henke's Mag. fur Religionsphilosophie, B. I. St. 1, Abhandl. 2. Amnion, Ver- such einer Christologie des alten Testaments, Erlangen, 1794, 8vo. Their principal opinions may be compressed in the following state ment : viz., Many brave heroes and deliverers (amrigtg, b^ajia) had ap peared among the Jews from the earliest period of their history, and had contributed to the public weal. Such were the prophets and great kings. But the advantages which had been hoped for, both in respect to religious and moral improvement, and also in re spect to civil and social welfare, had not as yet been realized, and were still expected in future time. By degrees, all wishes, hopes and expectations centered in one person, who would accomplish all which was desired. This idea did not become general, or rather did not take its origin, among the Jews, until after the Babylonish captivity. This person was expected to be the deliverer and hel per of the Jewish nation, and principally a temporal deliverer, who would establish an earthly kingdom. This idea prevailed widely among the Jews at the time of Christ, and, by the aid of the alle gorical interpretation then current, was carried into the more an cient of their sacred books. Now Jesus, it is said, found this idea, and connected it, such as he found it, with his doctrine ; not consid ering it himself (as many say) to be really true. He modified this idea and gave himself out for a spiritual deliverer of mankind, by his instruction. Eckermann, therefore, affirms distinctly, that in the whole Old Testament there are no proper predictions of Christ ; Beytr. St. 1. Remarks on this explanation. (a) All accounts of the origin of this idea, which are exclusive of direct divine revelation, if not otherwise objectionable, are mere ly conjectural and hypothetical, and cannot be historically proved. 150 ART. X. § 89. OBJECTIONS TO THE DIVINE ORIGIN This is the reason why they are so various and contradictory ; there is no sure historical ground and basis upon which they can be es tablished and built ; they are mere plays of the imagination, mere conjectures as to the manner in which the thing may possibly have been. And, indeed, many cases may be imagined possible, no one of which can be proved to be historically true, and most of which have historical evidence against them. This discrepancy of views among writers on this subject, therefore, never will or can cease, as long as they proceed in this way. (6) The assertion of Eckerman and others, that the Old Testa ment descriptions of the Messiah are not descriptions of Jesus, but of an earthly king, is unfounded. For although the Messiah is of ten compared to a king, as even God is, he is also named and de scribed as a prophet and priest. And to free men from sin, to in struct them, and promote their moral improvement, are ascribed to him, as the principal part and proper object of his advent ; Pss. xxii. xl. ex. Is. II. XI. LIU. (c) The predictions of the prophets represent the Messiah not as the king and ruler of a single nation, as the Jewish kings were ; but as the king and benefactor of all who should be friendly to him. In the predictions of the Jewish prophets he is promised quite as much, and even more, to the heathen than to the Jews themselves. Vid. the passages before cited. The promises given to Abraham, Gen. 12: 3. 22: 18, are certainly free from any Jewish exclusive- ness, and are as comprehensive as possible. (d) The assertion that the idea of Messiah originated during the Babylonish captivity or afterwards, and that the earlier Jews differ ently understood the so named messianic passages in Moses and the prophets, is contrary to history. For the idea respecting a Messiah was universal among the Samaritans at the time of Christ, and much earlier. And indeed it was held by the Samaritans more purely, than by the greater part of the Jews ; as the Messiah was represented by them as the great prophet and saviour ; John 4: 25, 42, sq. Therefore this idea must have existed among the Jews be fore the religious separation between them and the Samaritans ; and consequently before the Babylonian exile. For the Samaritans would not certainly have received it from the Jews after the separa tion. Whence then did they derive it ? They admitted only the five books of Moses from the whole Old Testament. Accordingly OF THE IDEA OF MESSIAH, ANSWERED. 151 they must have grounded their expectation upon the testimony of Moses, and the interpretation of this testimony given them by the Israelitish teachers sent to them from Assyria, 2 Kings 17: 27, sq. The Israelites, therefore, must have had the idea of a Messiah long before the Babylonian exile, and must have found it, too, in the books of Moses. Secondly. The whole opinion, that the idea of Messiah does not depend upon divine revelation, and that it is not contained in the old est sacred records of the Hebrews, stands in the most palpable contra diction to the clearest declarations of Christ and his apostles. For (a) the writings of the prophets are acknowledged by them to be of divine authority, and the doctrines and predictions contained in them are not treated as fictions and fables, but as truly revealed by God. — And (6) it is no less certain, that they teach that there are in Moses and the prophets, predictions respecting the Messiah, or benefactor of the world, and that these were fulfilled in Jesus. Je sus himself frequently asserts this in the most impressive and solemn manner ; Luke 18: 31—33. 22: 37. 24: 27. Matt. 20: 18, 19. 26: 54. Mark 9: 12. John 5: 39, 46. And in this his apostles exactly follow his example, Acts 2: 16, 25. 8: 18. 10: 34. 13: 23, 32. 26: 22, 23. 1 Pet. 1: 11. 2 Pet. 1: 19, and the Pauline epistles. The apostles themselves therefore believed this. Now if Jesus and his apostles were merely human teachers, they may possibly have erred in this matter ; as also many of the Jewish teachers of that time, who interpreted these passages in the same way, may have done. But if they were divinely commissioned, what they say on this subject must be believed. For I am not at liberty to proceed optionally in believing the declarations of a man, whom I acknowledge to be divinely commissioned. I am not at liberty to make selection of what I will admit, and what reject, at my good pleasure. I must rather yield unconditional faith to each and every thing which he, as a divine messenger, teaches and de clares. Consistency, then, requires us to go on this principle in this subject. Vid. Herder, Briefe das Studium der Theologie betref- fend, Br. 18, 21, particularly S. 303, f. 349—352, Th. II. Cf. Herder's Work, " Vom Erloser der Menschen, naeh unsern drey ersten Evangelisten," Riga, 1796, 8vo. [Cf. especially Hengsten- berg, " Christologie," where this whole subject is more ably discuss ed than any where else. Tr.J 152 ART. X. § 89. MESSIAH VARIOUSLY REGARDED II. Various opinions of the Jews at and after the time of Christ respecting the Messiah, and the nature of his kingdom. (1) At the time of Christ and previously, the current opinion of the people in Palestine, and indeed of most of the Pharisees and lawyers, was, that he would be a temporal deliverer and a king of the Jews, and indeed a universal monarch, who would reign over all nations. Thus they interpreted the passages, Ps. 2: 2, 6, 8. Jerem. 23: 5, 6. Zech. 9: 4, seq. Hence those, who during the life time of Jesus acknowledged him to be the Messiah, wished to proclaim him king ; John 6: 15, coll. Matt. 21: 8, 9. The apostles them selves held this opinion until after the resurrection of Christ, Matt. 20: 20, 21. Luke 24: 21. Acts 1: 6. And Jesus himself, during his life upon earth, proceeded very guardedly, in order to lead them gradually from this deep rooted prejudice, and not to take it away at once. Josephus says, that the enthusiasm of the Jews in the war against the Romans was very much increased by this belief of ari universal monarchy ; vid. Bell. Jud. VI. 5. Suetonius (Vesp. c. 4) and Tacitus (Hist. V. 13) speak of this expectation spread throughout all the east by the Jews. It was expected that he would institute new religious rites, John 1: 25 ; that he would per form uncommonly great miracles, John 7: 31 ; that he would be born at Bethlehem, of the line of David, and yet from obscure pa rents, John 7: 42 ; and that he would never die, John 12: 34. (2) Some, but by far the smallest number, had purer ideas re specting the Messiah ; and did not so much expect an earthly king dom, as forgiveness of sin, instruction, diffusion of truth, and in short spiritual blessings. Simeon had this correct view, Luke 2: 30, sq ; the malefactor on the cross, Luke 23: 43 ; and a few other Jews at the time of Christ. Many pious Jews too, out of Palestine, may be supposed to have had the same correct views. For evenjthe common people of Samaria had opinions on this subject compara tively pure ; vid. John 4: 25, seq. Jesus approved these opinions, as just and scriptural, and always acted in conformity with them ; vid. Luke 17: 20, 21. John 18: 36—38. It is, then, very unjust to charge him with the intention of establishing an earthly kingdom, as is done in the work " Vom Zweck Jesu," Braunschweig, 1778. Vid. Koppe " Progn de sententia Judaeorum de Messia et futuro ejus regno," Gott. 1779. AS PROPHET, PRIEST AND KING. 153 (3) Many united both of these opinions, and considered the Mes siah as a teacher and earthly king at the same time, — as the su preme head of Church and state. This appears to have been the opinion of the apostles, and most of the disciples of Christ, while he lived upon the earth. A multitude of Christians of the Judaizing party, during the first and second centuries, believed that Christ would return to the earth to establish a temporal kingdom for a thousand years ; — an opinion which has been indulged by many Christians in every age down to the present time. (4) Some of the Jews at the time of Christ, and previously, were free thinkers, and appear to have rejected the whole notion of a Messiah, as a popular superstition, a fabulous and groundless expec tation. Especially was this the case after the destruction of the Jewish state by the Romans. Many of the Jews out of Palestine, especially the learned Grecian Jews, appear to have been of this way of thinking. Accordingly there is no mention of this idea, even in the Book of Wisdom, or in all the writings of Philo. And even Josephus, in his desire to please the Greeks and Romans, ap pears to have been ashamed of this faith of his fathers ; and so al ways avoids the subject. They were satisfied with mere morality, and connected the Grecian philosophy with the doctrines of the Jew ish religion and theology. This silence is the more remarkable, es pecially in Philo, considering how much he was given to the allegor ical interpretation of the Old Testament. (5) We find all these different opinions repeated in the writings of the Jews who lived after the time of Christ and the destruction of the temple ; — in the Chaldaic paraphrases, in the book Sohar, in the Talmud, and in the Rabbins, where so many of the ancient tra ditions are exhibited. (a) The opinions of the more modern Jews were very various respecting the importance of the doctrine itself. Some considered it to be the most important doctrine of their faith, and expected that a complete restoration of. religion, morality, and happiness, would be effected by the Messiah. In their view he was to accomplish, as it were, a new political and moral creation ; so Maimonides. Others considered it as a doctrine of less importance, and seldom mentioned it. Many of them appear, in reality, to have rejected it altogether, or to have been ashamed of it. (b) In respect to the institutions of the Messiah, and the object Vol. II. 20 154 ART. X. § 89. JESUS PROVED TO BE MESSIAH of his mission, they exhibited the same diversity as prevailed at an earlier period. Most adhered to the gross opinion of the establish ment of an earthly kingdom, and the subjection of the tpia. Others made his most prominent object to be the improvement of doctrine, the restoration of morals, and spiritual blessedness. But these were comparatively few. (c) Some of the Jews who could not understand how the Mes siah should be described by the prophets sometimes as king (Ps. ii. ex. Is. xi.), and sometimes as inferior, lowly and despised (Ps. xxn. Is. liii.) ; invented the doctrine of a twofold Messiah, in order to re concile these accounts; — one, the inferior, despised Messiah, Jo seph's son, in whom Christians believe ; the other David's son, who is yet to come, and establish his kingdom. (d) Many of the Jews endeavoured to account for the long de lay of the Messiah, by the sinfulness of which their nation is guilty. The promise, they say, was made conditionally. But this hypothe sis derives no support from the Messianic oracles in the Old Testa ment. III. The method of proving that Jesus of Nazareth is the true Messiah. (1) This is proved from the marks and descriptions which the Old Testament gives of the Messiah ; all of which meet in Jesus in the most remarkable manner. This proof, that Jesus is the Messi ah promised in the Old Testament, may be made extremely con vincing. Christians however do not, as Collins supposes, by any means rely solely on the predictions of the Old Testament, for the Messianic authority of Jesus; nor does Christ himself; vid. John 5: 34, sq. For these predictions, though ever so valuable and impor tant in themselves, are always, like all predictions, in a certain de gree obscure. The Old Testament is indeed very instructive and useful, when rightly employed ; but it is not the only ground on which the confidence of Christians rests. It affords important proof even for Christians ; but not the only proof; vid. Vol. I. § 12, II. This method of proof from the Old Testament is especially use ful in convincing the Jews, and in refuting their objections. Thus Christ applies it, John 5": 39 — 47. All the marks which the Jews consider characteristic of the Messiah, according to their sacred books, agree exactly in Jesus. And all those traits, and minute cir cumstances, which are exhibited in passages of the Old Testament, BOTH FROM THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 155' acknowledged by the Jews themselves to relate to the Messiah, meet in him, as they do not in any other person known in history. He was born at Bethlehem, of the family of David, of which the Jews have now for a long time had no continued genealogical tables. He had a precursor. He confirmed his doctrine by the most strik ing miracles. He died, was honorably buried, and rose again. His garments were divided. Vinegar was given him to drink. And many other circumstances of the same same nature, greater and smaller, which were predicted concerning the Messiah, were fulfill ed in Jesus. Such passages are therefore very frequently urged by the apostles against the Jews, in order to convince them. (2) Christians, who acknowledge the divine authority of the New Testament, and the credibility of Jesus and the apostles, have an additional and principal ground of their belief of this truth, in the testimony and information contained in the books of the New Tes tament. Throughout these books, Jesus is represented as the great est divine messenger, Lord overall, the Saviour of the world (ataztjg, quag zov xoa/wv, 6 xvgiog): In short he is described as the same person whom the Jews call Messiah. If divine wisdom had seen proper to raise him up in another country, and under other circum stances, his name and the form of his doctrine might, indeed, have been different, while the substance itself would have continued the same. According to the constant representation of the New Testament, God himself confirmed the truth, that Jesus was the Messiah. He did this by John the Baptist, John 1: 19 — 41 ; by voices from heav en at the baptism of Christ, and on other occasions ; by angels, Luke 1: 30 — 38 ; by Jesus himself, who confirmed the truth of his declarations by miracles, John 4: 25, 26. Matt. 26: 62, 63 ; and by the apostles commissioned to be his messengers, Acts 2: 22 — 38. 1 John I and 2: 1 ; etc. Thus in all the passages of the New Testament where it is said that Jesus is the Messiah, or that the Messiah has come in the per son of Jesus, the idea is always implied, that Jesus is the promised Lord and Redeemer, the Benefactor and Saviour. In short, the word Messiah, which grammatically signifies king, becomes a doc trinal word, synonymous with xvgiog and aottrig . And in this way the erroneous views of the Jews respecting the Messiah, were cor rected. If we would consider the subject in this light, and be satis fied with the representations which the New Testament gives of it ; 156 ART. X. § 90. INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS. we should easily avoid the difficulties with which many have been oerplexed regarding this doctrine. Vid. Eckermann, Theol. Beytr. St. 1. We should not then declare with this writer and others, that the doctrine that Jesus is the Messiah, belongs only to the Jews and is not an essential doctrine of pure Christianity. The He brew name hvi5a was Jewish or Israelitish, but the thing denoted by it was intended for all, and is a fundamental doctrine of Chris tianity. Note. Works on some of the subjects treated. in this section. For infor mation respecting the Jewish opinions of the Messiah, vid. Maii ' Synop sis Theol. Judaicae,' Giess, 1698, 4to; Glassner, De gemino Judaeorum Mes sia, Helmst. 1739,4to ; Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum ; Keil (Prof. Lips.), Hist. Dogm. de regno Messias, Jesu el app. setate, Lipsiae, 1781 . On the point, that Jesus is the Messiah, vid. the ancient works of Olearius and Schottgen, in " Hor. Hebr." T. II. The most complete work after these, is that of Bishop Kidder, " Convincing .proof, that Jesus is the Messiah ;" translated from the English by Rambach, Rostock, 1757, 4to. [For a fuller account of the litera ture of this subject, cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, S. 444, Anmerk. Vid. especially e late work of Hengstenberg, Christologie des A.T.— Tr.] § 90. Of the principles on which we are to interpret the literal and figurative predictions contained in the Old Testament respecting the Messiah, and the new institute founded by him. I. Brief History of the manner in which Christians have interpreted the Messianic predictions. The allegorical method of interpretation prevailed among the early Christian fathers, especially the Egyptian fathers ; e. g. Justin the Martyr, Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Tatian ; and still more after the age of Origen. They considered the Bible, as Philo and other learned Grecian Jews had done before them, to be a repository of every kind of useful information, and especially of all religious truth. Any truth of this kind which they did not find clearly ex hibited in it, they introduced, by means of their allegorical inter pretation ; exactly in the same way as the Stoics, and many other learned Grecians, had proceeded with Homer, and some other of their sacred books. On this principle it was, that many of these lathers endeavoured to find all the perfection of Christian knowledge THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION. 157 in the Old Testament, and carried back into it the entire Christian system. But in this they deviated widely from the mind of the apostles, who expressly say, that the patriarchs saw the promised blessings only from afar off, Heb. 11: 13 ; and that there was much obscurity in the predictions concerning Christ, 2 Pet. 1: 19 — 21. 1 Pet. 1: 10—12. But this extreme was objected to by many of the learned fathers ; e. g. Eusebius the Emesene, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodorus of Mop- suestia. Some of these fell into the opposite extreme, and allows few or no passages in the Old Testament to refer to the Messiah. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others, took a middle course between these two parties. This difference of opinion has continued down through all ages of the Christian church. Some have seen the Messiah rarely or nowhere ; others, every where, in the Old Testa ment ; while others still have pursued a middle course. Vid. Er- nesti, " Narratio critica de interpret, prophetiarum Mess, in eccl." in Opusc. Theol. II. Examination of the principles of the theory of accommodation applied to the interpretation of the Messianic, predictions. Since the time of Semler, about the middle of the eighteenth century, an opinion has prevailed widely in the Protestant church, that the Old Testament contains very few passages or none at all, which treat literally and properly of Jesus Christ ; and that all or most of the passages cited in the New Testament, are used in the way of accommodation. The following reasons have been offered in support of this theory. The Jews at the time of Christ, were very much given to the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Ever af ter the time of the exile, when the expectation of a Messiah had be come universal among them, they had eagerly searched the Old Testament for every thing which in the least favored this expecta tion ; and had succeeded, by the help of their allegorical interpreta tion, in making their Scriptures seem to contain predictions re specting a Messiah. Jesus and the apostles were therefore compel led to pursue the same method, and to use it as a means of gradual ly bringing the Jews to a better knowledge of religion. Their pur suing this course does not prove that they themselves considered these passages as actual predictions. That they did not so consider them, appears from the fact, that they pursued a different course 158 ART. X. § 90. PRINCIPAL OBJECTIONS when teaching Gentiles, and did not in that case appeal to the Old Testament. But in this statement we must carefully distinguish betweeti what is true, and what is erroneous and exaggerated. (1) The allegorical interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures can not be historically proved to have prevailed among the Jews from the time of the exile, or to have been common with the Jews of Pa lestine at the time of Christ and his apostles. Although the Sanhe- - drim and the hearers of Jesus often appealed to the Old Testament, according to the testimony of the New Testament writers, they give no indication of the allegorical interpretation. Even Josephus has nothing of it. The Platonic Jews of Egypt began, in the first cen tury, in imitation of the heathen Greeks, to interpret the Old Testa ment allegorically. Philo was distinguished among those in that place, who practised this method ; and he defends it as something new, and before unheard of, and for that reason opposed by the oth er Jews ; De confus. lingu. p. 347, sq. Jesus was not, therefore, in a situation where he was compelled to comply with a prevailing custom of allegorical interpretation ; for this method did not prevail at that time among the Jews ; certainly not in Palestine, where Je sus taught. (2) The writers of the New Testament themselves make a clear distinction between the allegorical and literal interpretation of the Old Testament. When they use the allegorical method, they eith er say expressly, here is allegory, Gal. 4: 24 ; or they show it by the context, or by prefixing some particle of comparison, e. g. toaneg, xa&wg, Heb. vn. John 3: 14. Matt. 12: 40. But they express them selves very differently in texts which they quote as literal prophecy, for the purpose of proof. (3) If the Apostles did not allude to the Old Testament in the instructions which they gave to Gentiles, it does not follow either that they believed the Old Testament to be of no use to them, or that they did not seriously consider the passages which they cited as predictions in their instructions to the Jews, to be really such. The reason why the Apostles omitted these allusions in the commence ment of the instruction- which they gave to the heathen, is the same, as leads the wise missionary at the present day to omit them in the same circumstances. Their Gentile hearers and readers knew noth ing of the Bible ; and could not, of coTirse, be convinced from an un- TO THE THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION. 159 known book. The apostles, however, gradually instructed their Gentile converts in the contents of this Book, and then appealed to it as frequently before them, as before Jews or converts from Juda ism. This is proved by the Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles. Thus Peter says to the heathen centurion, Cornelius, after the latter had become acquainted with the prophets, " Of this Jesus testify all the prophets," etc. Acts 10: 43, coll. Acts 8: 26—35, and the epistles of Paul. (4) It cannot be shown in general that Jesus and his Apostles, in compliance with the current prejudices of their contemporaries, ever taught any thing, or seemingly affirmed any thing to be true, which they themselves considered as false. No more can it be shown, in particular, that they adopted and authorized any expla nations of the Old Testament, which they themselves considered as invalid, merely because they were common among their contempo raries. Such compliance is entirely contrary to their usual course of action ; vid. Matt. 5: 19,23; nor can it be at all justified on pure moral principles, as even modern theologians are beginning more and more to allow. When Christ, therefore, says distinctly, Matt. 22: 43, that David, by divine revelation, called the Messiah, Lord (Ps. ex.) ; he must have believed exactly as he said ; and so have admitted a divine prediction respecting the Messiah in this Psalm. The same when he says, John 5: 46, " that Moses wrote concern ing him." Hence it follows, that whenever Jesus and the apostles expressly assent to the Jewish explanations of the Old Testament, or build proofs upon them, they themselves must have considered these explanations as just. Here every thing depends upon the doctrine above stated : if Christ and his apostles were mere human teachers, they may have erred ; but if they spake as divine messengers, they must be believ ed, on their simple authority. III. The principles of interpretation on which Christ ajid his apostles proceed in quoting from the Old Testament, especially the Messianic passages. Undoubtedly many of the same principles often appear in Jew ish writings ; as well as the same formula of quotation, * thus is ful filled,' etc. Vid. Wiihner, Antiqq. Heb. T. II. ; Surenhus,}.5/|3Aos xazaXXayrjg. Wetstein ad Matt. 1: 22, and Schottgen in § 89 of his book last cited. Now if Christ, by his own example, authorizes the 160 ART. X. § 90. PRINCIPLES OF CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES principles which were embraced by the Jews, he himself must have considered them to be true. Whether we must on this account con sider them as true, must be determined by the alternative above stated. The principles of interpreting the Old Testament which many modern commentators have adopted, differ altogether from those which Christ and his apostles followed ; still these modern principles must not be ascribed to Christ and his apostles, but we must inquire historically, What were the principles on which Christ and his apostles proceeded ? These need not necessarily be the same, as those which modern interpreters adopt. (1) God determined from eternity (ngo xaxapoXr\g xoafiov) to send a benefactor and Saviour (aoiT-qg, Messias) to bless the world made wretched by sin. This purpose was revealed very early ; and was from time to time repeated and rendered more plain. Thus Christ and the apostles declare, with the Jews, " that Moses, the Psalms, and the prophets spake concerning him ;" vid. § 89. (2) God saw best to communicate his will to the patriarchs of the Jewish nation, and to transmit this revelation to their posterity, by means of extraordinary men, messengers (B"'i?',i:) ; thus making the Israelites, as it were, the depositories of the divine revelations for the salvation of men, during the earlier ages of the world. In, this respect, too, Christ and the Jews were agreed ; and in this al so, that God had reference in all his instructions and ordinances given by the prophets, to his great plan respecting the Messiah. (3) Consequently, according to the doctrine of Christ, the writ ings of the prophets, from Moses downwards, contain literal predic- )0 tions respecting this Saviour of the world, and the new institute to be founded by him ; though all these predictions are not of equal clearness. (4) But to these prophets themselves every thing which they predicted was not perfectly plain and intelligible. God saw best to reserve the more clear explanation of the sense of many of his ear lier oracles to be communicated by prophets at a later period. Thus many of the predictions respecting Christ and his apostles, could be more distinctly and justly interpreted in after times, than by the prophets themselves who originally uttered them. This maxim of ten appears in the writings of the Jews, and is expressly mentioned in the New Testament. 1 Pet. 1: 10—12, and 2 Pet. 1:19; vid. Progr. ad h. 1. [Vid. the discussion of this point in the Bib. Repos- v My RESPECTING MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS. 161 ¦ j __ itory, No. I. Art. 4. also No. IV. Art. 4. Cf. Woodson Inspiration, Lect. I. p. 33. Tr.] (5) The duties and offices of the Messiah very much resemble the duties and offices of the Old Testament prophets, priests and kings. These names are therefore frequently applied to him. As a king of the house of David, he inherited, as it were, all the rights, privileges and titles of the kings (e. g. of David or Solomon) ; as a prophet, those of the Jewish prophets (e. g. of Moses and others) ; and as a priest, those of the priests (e. g. of Melchisedec and Aaron). The character which they possessed, and the actions which they performed imperfectly, and on a small scale, he possessed and per formed perfectly, and on a large scale. This canon of interpreta tion is held by the Rabbins, and is not in any way objectionable. The case is very much the same as when the rights of an emperor are proved by showing from the history of the empire, that his pre decessors, possessed them ; or when the official rights of a person are established from the ancient privileges of the office, and from the history of his predecessors in it. Cf. Ps. 89: 27, 31 — 34. This principle casts light upon the passages of the New Testa ment, where texts are cited from the Old, which appear at first sight to treat of different persons and objects. All the texts in which the rights, offices, and dignities of the Israelitish prophets, priests, and kings, are the subjects of consideration, relate to the Messiah, the greatest of their successors, and are directly applicable to him. He possesses all the greatness, distinction, and preeminence ascrib ed to them, only in a far higher degree. So it is in the writings of the Jews, and in the New Testament, Heb. I. and II. and other pla ces. (6) The Jews generally, though not uniformly, asserted the pre- existence of the Messiah before his visible appearance upon the earth; although the doctrine of his miraculous birth was not as yet entire- ^ ly clear to them. This is seen in the Chaldaic paraphrases and in the writings of the Rabbins. Christ himself affirms his preexistence in the clearest manner, John v. 8: 58. ch. xvn. seq. The writers just mentioned ascribe every thing which was done in the Old Tes tament for the salvation of men, and particularly of the Jews, to the Messiah, as the efficient or concurrent cause. He led them from Egypt, defended them in their journey through the desert, and spake to them by the prophets. They explained many passages of the Old Vol. II. 21 162 ART. X. § 95*. ALLEGORICAL AND TYPICAL Testament in which the appearance of God, or of the angel of the Lord, is mentioned, as applying directly to the Messiah. This prin ciple, too, is authorized and adopted in the New Testament. Ac cording to 1 Pet. 1: 11, it was the Spirit of Christ which inspired the prophets of the Old Testament, and communicated revelations through them. According to 1 Cor. 10: 4, the rock (a common ap pellation of God) which accompanied the Israelites in the desert, was Christ. When they tempted God by disobedience, they tempt ed Christ (v. 9). Isaiah, who saw God in his glory (Is. vi.), is said to have seen the glory of the Messiah, John 12: 41. Thus we see why texts of the Old Testament, which treat of God in general, and of his works among men, especially among his own people, are applied in the New Testament directly to the Mes siah. (7) Instruction by means of allegories, symbols, and symboli cal actions is very suitable to men ; especially during the childhood both of individuals and nations. Such instruction is exactly in the spirit of the Hebrews, and of other oriental nations. This being so, it would have been a subject of wonder, if instruction of this kind had not been given respecting so important an object as the new dis pensation to be instituted by the Messiah. That such instruction was given, the Jews have always maintained ; and it is clearly con tained in many passages of the Old Testament : e. g. Ps. 40: 7, sq. The writers of the New Testament distinctly teach, that some of the ordinances appointed by Moses and the other prophets by divine command, were designed by God to prepare the way for the future Saviour of the world, to point to him, and to be types of him and his blessings. Sacrifice, expiation, and other ordinances of the Old Testament, were not appointed on their own account ; but were in tended as images of the more perfect ordinances to be expected in * future time. Many of the expressions and images in the discourses of John the Baptist and of Christ respecting sacrifices, and the sac rificial lamb, lead to this conclusion ; and the correctness of it is distinctly declared by the apostles ; vid. Col. 2: 17. Rom. 3: 21. the Epistle to the Galatians, and Heb. vm. ix. x. John 19: 36. But we are very liable to go too far in the illustration and de velopement of these allegorical predictions ; and this study fre quently degenerates into an idle amusement. The charge of extrav agance in this respect may be justly made against many of the ec- PREDICTIONS OF THE MESSIAH. 163 clesiastical fathers, and many Protestant theologians of later times ; especially against Cocceius and his followers, at the close of the sev enteenth century. The best way to avoid such mistakes, is to ad- i mitof no allegorical predictions except such as are mentioned in the New Testament ; and to extend the resemblance no farther, than it is carried there. But we must not suppose, because some have made this subject ridiculous by their extravagance, that the New Testament does not authorize the belief of allegorical predictions. Such a supposition is most obviously untrue ; and the only reason why any have sup ported it, is, that they would prefer that an idea so inconsistent, as it seemed to them, with the spirit and ideas of our own age, should not be found in the New Testament. That the design of God re lating to the future was not always made known immediately on the establishment of the ordinances of the former dispensation, does not prove that God, in founding those ordinances, had no such de sign. It was sufficient that he made it known, as soon as men were capable of understanding it ; vid. supra No. 4. These allegorical or symbolical predictions and indications, are commonly called types. So they were [called by the fathers, who took this term from Heb. 8: 5. Rom. 6: 7. 1 Cor. 10: 6, 11. They were divided into typos personates, certain persons (rulers, prophets, priests), who were the representatives of the Messiah ; and typos reales, to which the Levitical ritual, sacrifices, and other ordinances of Moses belong. Vid. Michaelis, Typische Gottesgelahrtheit ; Dr. Rau, Freymiithige Untersuchung iiber die Typologie, Erlan- gen, 1784, 8vo ; and most of all, Storr, Cdmmentar iiber den Brief an die Hebraer, particularly SS. 199—208. Note. In the instruction of the common people, the following view of this subject may be most scripturally and safely presented : by means of various religious ordinances and remarkable persons among the Israelites, God rep-,. resented and pointed out the Messiah ; to these Jesus and his apostles often allude, in order to show that the present dispensation was of old designed and decreed by God, and in order to excite a due estimation of these benefits in us, who have, not the shadow simply, but the full enjoyment and possession of them; Col. 2: 17. Those who deny any direct revelation of the divine will during the Old Testament dispensation, declare themselves against allegorical predictions with great zeal. And so they must, in order to be consistent. But this Bhows, that their doctrine is not agreeable to the Scriptures, which affirm that both the Old and New Testaments contain direct divine revelations. 164 ART. X. § 91. FIRST PERIOD OF PROPHECY (8) Finally, all these observations are perfectly consistent with the principle, that many texts of the Old Testament are cited mere ly on account of some accidental resemblance in subject or expres sion ; in the same way as quotations are made in works of every kind ; conveying the idea, that what was true in the passage cited in one sense, is true here in another sense. Thus the text, Is. 53: 4, 5, " he removed our sicknesses," denoting spiritual sicknesses, is applied, Matt. 8: 17, to bodily infirmities. The discourse of Christ, John 18: 9, coll. c. 17: 12, affords a similar example. Cf. on this subject, Koppen, Die Bibel ein Werk der gottlichen Weis- heit, Th. I. S. 235 ; Michaelis, Dogmatik, §§ 122—128 ; Scrip. Var. Arg. p. 609, sq. respecting nXtjgoidijvai, x.t.X; Kleuker, Tractat. de nexu prophetico inter utrumque constitutionis divinas foedus. [Vid. also Woods on Inspiration, Lect. II. — Tr.J §91. Of the successive degrees of the revelations and predictions contained in the Old Testament respecting the Messiah. Divine providence frequently makes a long and secret prepara tion for great and important events, before they are actually accom plished. Commonly it gives at first only intimations, and distant allusions; but gradually unfolds its designs more clearly. We might expect, then, with much probability, that the divine revela tions respecting the Messiah would, at first, be comparatively scanty and obscure ; and would gradually become more clear and evident. And such we find to be the fact. Besides, the early childhood of the world, and of the Jewish nation, was not prepared to receive full information upon this subject. Theologians observe very justly, that God has most exactly adapted the instruction given respecting the Messiah to the necessities of men, and the circumstances of particular times. The Messiah, accordingly, is sometimes represen ted under the image of a king, sometimes under that of a prophet, again under that of a priest ; etc. § 90. Four periods are commonly distinguished. (1) The first period extends from the commencement of scrip tural history to the lime of David. In this period there is, by gener al confession, the most obscurity. From the remotest ages, however, FROM ADAM TO DAVID. 165 there was a general belief, that a time would come, in a distant fu turity, in which God would show signal favor to men, and espe cially to pious men, in some extraordinary manner, by means of his prophets, and particularly one of them. This belief was sufficient ; ' They saw the promised blessings from a distance ;' Heb. 11: 13. The first text of this kind occurs Gen. 3: 15. Vid. § 75, ad finem. [Also Hengstenberg's Christologie, S. 26, ff] It was during the life of Abraham, and the times immediately follow ing, if we judge from -the Bible, that the general truth was made known, that his family would be the medium of communicating this great blessing to a future age. Here belongs the promise, Gen. 12: 3, that ' in Abraham all nations should be blessed.' This can not mean that they should prosper if they received him and his pos terity with kindness, and treated them as friends, and be unfortunate, if they did the contrary ; but that this happiness should be diffused over all through Abraham, and his posterity ; he should be the instrument or agent in the hand of divine providence. Farther, Gen. 22: 8, 'In (or through) thy seed shall all nations be blessed.' This cannot mean that Abraham's posterity, as well as he himself, should be remarkably favored by God ; and all nations friendly to them, and who wished them well, should be prospered on their account. But here again is the idea conveyed, that the great happiness of the nations should proceed from Abraham and his posterity, the Is raelites. The former passage is explained by this. The word snt may be used collectively here, as Paul uses it, Rom. 4: 13. But in Gal. 3: 11, he refers this y-]T more especially to the Messiah, and remarks, that it may be translated in the singular. Christ says ex pressly, that Abraham rejoiced in view of the birth and appearance of the Messiah upon the earth, John 8: 56 ; and all the writers of the New Testament agree in referring these texts to the Messiah. Another text is found in the song of Jacob, Gen. 49: 10. This is not, indeed, cited in the New Testament as a Messianic predic tion ; but it is so understood by the Chaldaic paraphrast, the Tal mud, and many of the Rabbins, among the Jews ; and by Justin the Martyr, in the second century ; and afterwards by Augustine and others, among the Christian fathers. The word n'bvJ3 , which Luther renders Held (hero) has been explained in a great variety of ways. But in whatever way this word is understood, the rest of this text applies very well to the Messiah. And if Abraham expect- 166 ART. X. § 91. SECOND PERIOD OF PROPHECY ed such a deliverer, and waited for the day of the Messiah, accor ding to the declaration of Christ above quoted ; the same certainly may be true, in the view of Christ, respecting his grandson, who had the same promises and indulged the same hopes as Abraham. This text declares, that " the sceptre shall not depart from Judah," (i. e. the preeminence of this tribe over the others shall continue, although Judah was not the first-born ; that tribe furnished the na tion with the greatest kings and warriors, long before the time of the Messiah,) " until at last the nb^'Ji (to be descended from it) should come, and to him should other nations gather ;" i. e. many other nations, besides the Jewish, should be subjected to him, and dependent upon him. The best translation of nfr1® is proles ejus,fil- ius ejus, especially his great descendant. After Schultens, Stange has explained this word in the best manner, in his work, " Symmikta," Th. II. S. 224, f., Halle, 1802 ; though I cannot consent to refer the whole passage to Solomon, as he does. The last text is Deut. 18: 18, " a prophet like me, will Jehovah raise up," etc. This text is referred to Christ in the discourses of Peter and Stephen, Acts 3: 22 and 7: 37 ; and is probably alluded to in John 1: 45. Moses is giving the distinguishing mark of true and false prophets, and wishes to assure the Israelites, that they would not be destitute of direct messengers from God after his death. By itself, therefore, it might be taken collectively, meaning ' proph ets like me' etc. But if at the time of Moses, there was a belief in a general reformation of religion and morals, which should be ef fected in some future time in a special manner, by a prophet sent from God ; (the opposite of which cannot be proved ;) this word may be used especially, to denote this future reformer ; and Je sus expressly says, ' Moses wrote concerning me,' John 5: 46. Besides these, the origin of many of the symbolical predictions respecting the Messiah may be traced to this period ; respecting them, vid. § 90. (2) The second period comprises the reign of David. A consid erable number of texts are found in the Psalms of David which may be referred to Christ, more easily and naturally than to any other person. Some of them make mention of very minute circumstan ces, which had their accomplishment in Jesus. These Psalms are actually referred to Christ in the New Testament. The most im portant of them are Ps. n. xvi. an. «.. ex. Now many of the COMPRISING DAVID'S REIGN. 167 Psalms from which passages are cited in the New Testament, as referring to the Messiah, may, indeed, be understood to refer in their primary and literal sense to another king/jfrom whose history they may be explained. But this is no objection to considering them, as the New Testament does, to be predictions of the Mes siah, according to the principle contained in § 90. III. No. 5. E. g. Ps. XLV. LXVIII. LXIX. LXXII. Sometimes, in these Psalms, the Messiah is represented as a king and priest, in short, in his exaltation. The wide extension of his kingdom is described ; and the spiritual nature of his mission, is de noted with sufficient clearness. Thus Ps. 11. and parts of Psalms xvi. xl. ex. Again, he is represented in suffering and humiliation. Thus Ps. xxn. and part of Psalms xvi. and xl. The piercing of his hands and feet, and the parting of his garments by lot, are men tioned in Ps. 22: 7, 14, sq. His death and resurrection are men tioned in Ps. 16: 10, 11, and also in Ps. 22: 25. It was during this period that the appellation raffia (xgiatdg) i. e. king, by way of eminence, became common ; because the Mes- , siah was described, as a ruler appointed by God, as the representa tive of the Deity upon earth. At this time, too, it was distinctly predicted, that he should be born of the line of David ; vid. 2 Sam. 7: 12, sq. Ps. ii. and lxxxix. Acts 2: 30. 13: 34. (3) The third period extends from the reign of David to the Babylonish captivity, and a little later. The writings of the proph ets during this period contain many passages which treat of the future restoration of the Jewish state, and of the church, then fallen into great degeneracy ; and which encourage the hope, that a dis tinguished reformer and deliverer, commissioned by God, would ap pear ; and that with him the golden age would return to the earth. These blessings are not promised, however, to the Jews only, but also to the heathen, and to all who should desire to share in them. Indeed far better promises are given in these prophets [to the heath en, than to the Jews : e. g. Is. n. and lxvi.,— promises which have been confirmed by the result. In this period, as in the'second, the Messiah is described as a king and ruler, born from the line of Da vid ; as a prophet, and a reformer of religion and morals : as Is. 11: 1. sq. ch. xl. — lxvi. But the passage, Is. lih. is particularly applicable to the Messiah. It describes his humiliation, rejection, death, exaltation, the diffusion 168 ART. X. §91. THIRD PERIOD, TO THE CAPTIVITY. of his doctrine, etc. No other person has- been found in history, to whom this passage can apply ; although some have referred it to Hezekiah, others to the Jewish people, and others to Jeremiah ; vid. Dbderlein, ' Uebersetzung des Isaias,' (Edit. 3d), where he en deavours to apply this passage to the Jewish people. Dr. Eckermann (Theol. Beytr. St. I. S. 192) endeavours to show, that the new Isra elitish state is here meant by the servant of Jehovah. Staudlin un derstands it of Isaiah., explaining it from the Jewish story, that king Manasseh persecuted Isaiah, and at last caused him to be sawn asunder. But this interpretation is forced ; and the story itself a modern fable. Paulus refers the passage to the better part of the Jewish nation, which was called ni!"!"1 *153> . The New Testament always refers this passage to Christ and to none else; and all other explanations must be allowed to be difficult and forced. There is no person in history to whom it applies, as well as it does to Christ. If we were not sure that it was written long before the birth of Christ, we might be tempted to believe, that it was an imitation of the evangelical history, and was an extract from it, clothed in poet ical language. The passage of Micah, (who was a contemporary of Isaiah) ch. 5: 1, was considered by the Jewish Sanhedrim as giving indubitable indication of the birth place of the Messiah, Matt. 2: 4, sq. Tn Zech. 12: 12, 13, we have the lineage of the family of David, from which the Messiah should be born (vid. Dathe in loc.) ; and in Hag. 2: 7 — 9, an exact indication of the time in which he should appear, viz. the time of the second temple. This passage treats, indeed, more particularly of the gifts, presents, and offerings, which foreign ers would bring to the second temple. Still it exhibits those cheer ful prospects for the future which were first realized at the time of the Messiah. The passages Mai. 3: 1.4: 5, 6, respecting the Mes siah and his precursor Elias, are more clear. The passage Dan. 9: 24, sq. respecting the seventy weeks has been commonly considered very important, and as calculated to car ry conviction even to the Jews. But the passage is so obscure, and is encompassed with such numerous difficulties, that it is not so use ful as many believe, for the purpose of convincing the Jews, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. Some modern interpreters have even doubted whether the Messiah is the subject of the passage. By rpilia some have understood Cyrus, others, a king. Modern commentators have labored with the greatest zeal to throw light FOURTH PERIOD UNTIL THE ADVENT. 169 upon this subject. Clauswitz, Michaelis, Hassenkamp, Dathe, Blayney, Gerdes, Velthusen, Less, Dcederlein, and Berthold, have written upon it ; but much yet remains uncertain. Still it cannot be referred to any but the Messiah, without doing violence to the words. And so much is clear from this passage, that the advent of the Messiah is fixed to a time, which has now been past for upwards . of a thousand years. The Jews then may be convinced from this passage, that the Messiah has long since come ; and then from oth er passages, that Jesus is the person in whom all the characteristics of the Messiah are found. [Cf. the late Commentary of Hengsten- berg on Daniel. — Tr.] (4) Fourth period. We have already shown in § 89, from the New Testament and other writers, how general the expectation of the Messiah was about the time when Jesus appeared, and shortly after, especially after the Jews became subject to the Romans ; and how this idea was modified by the great multitude, and intermingled with various unscriptural views. A few, however, entertained right conceptions. If we had more Jewish writers of this latter period, especially more from the Jews of Palestine, who had written upon the religious opinions of their nation ; we should certainly obtain more accurate and distinct knowledge upon this point. Still in what we do know with certainty, we have enough for our thorough conviction. Farther ; one age was distinguished above another in the earnest expectation of the Messiah to come ; just as among Christians, one age is distinguished above another in its belief on the Messiah already come. Even in the Christian church, some one ^doctrine has, at one particular time, been made more prominent than others. And so it was in the Jewish church. Thus far the first Chapter, as introductory. We have now to consider the doctrine respecting Jesus Christ himself; what he was according to the description of the New Testament ; and what he performed for the salvation of men. The New Testament proposes Christ himself as the foundation of the Christian faith, John 17: 3. We shall treat first of the history of Jesus, or of the doctrine of the states of Jesus ; in Chap. II. Then of the person of Jesus Christ, in Chap. III., it being inconvenient to treat of this subject first, as is done in many systems. Finally, the doctrine respecting what Christ has done for the good of man, or respecting the work and office of Vol. II. 22 170 ART. X. § 91. PLAN OF THIS ARTICLE. Christ (de munere Christi) ; in Chap. IV. Morus discusses all these subjects, pp. 134 — 196 ; and has interspersed many excellent ex- egetical, doctrinal, and practical observations ; but he treats them in a very broken and disconnected way ; and in an entirely differ ent order from what is common in the systems ; and, in short, in a manner not very much calculated to facilitate the subject to the stu dent just commencing his theological studies. CHAPTER SECOND. HISTORY OF JESUS IN HIS TWO STATES OF HUMILIATION AND OF EXALTATION. § 92. The scriptural representation of the two principal periods in the life of Jesus ; the scriptural names of these periods ; the proof- texts ; and some conclusions. Before the man Jesus was raised by God to that illustrious dig nity (do^a), which, according to the testimony of the New Testa ment, he now enjoys even in his human nature ; he lived upon the earth in greater depression and indigence, more despised and neg lected, than the greater part of mankind. This gave occasion to the division of the whole life of Christ, into two parts, or conditions ; — the state of humiliation and the state of exaltation ; or better, status humilitatis et gloria. These-conditions might be called, with equal scriptural authority, the states of subjection and of dominion, of pov erty and splendor, of lowliness and majesty, etc. I. Scriptural names of both conditions. (1) Taneivog, Tanslvwaig, and mfiog, vipm&ijvai. These, which are the more common theological terms, are taken from Phil. 2: 8 (iTanilvcoaev iavzov), and v. 9 (&eog avzov vnegvipaae). Tanei vog denotes, in general, misery, inferiority, indigence; and iiifiog, elevation, greatness, majesty ; James 1: 9, 10. Matt. 23: 12. Note. The word Cif/ovv is applied by Christ himself, in a different sense, to his crucifixion, John 3: 13, 14. 8:28. 12: 32 — 34. For the verba exaltandi signify also among the Hebrews, to hang up, publicly to execute a malefactor. Vid. Gen. 40: 13, 19. (2) 2agl, and the opposite nvevfxa. 2dg1$ and ^to2 do not de note simple humanity and human nature; but frequently weak, 172 ART. X. §92. PROOF-TEXTS RELATI NG mortal, suffering humanity ; and the depressed condition in which man lives. They are nearly synonymous with mortalis, conditio mortalis. The opposite nvtvua denotes what is perfect, a perfect condition. Thus Paul, 1 Cor. 15: 50, calls the mortal body of man odgt xal al/ut, which he afterwards calls inlyeiov, and aolfxa xan- eivwaimg. The heavenly body he calls nvev/tuzixov, and the heav enly condition of Christ nvevuu. Accordingly, the humble life of Christ upon the earth is called i]jxigai zrjg aagxog, Heb. 5: 7 ; and /J/os iv aagxl, I Pet. 4: 2. The same explanation must be given to the following terms : viz. Xgiaiog iXtiXv&ev, iqtavegdj&r) iv aag xl, 1 John 4: 2. 1 Tim. 3: 15, 16 ; e more binding than thatof Socrates, of Confucius, Zoroaster, and other wise men of antiquity. Whoever, then, denies the miracles of Jesus, removes all that is positive in the Christian religion ; the sure consequence of which is,thatevery man may believe as much of the Christian doctrine as he pleases, and is by no means bound to admit the truth of whatever Jesus says ; because he is of opin ion that the doctrine of Jesus is subjected to the revision of his reason. To such an one, the writings of the New Testament may possess an historical, but not a doctrinal value. Cf. Rahl, Werth der Behauptungen Jesu und seiner Apostel, Leipzig, 1792, 8vo ; especially the first treatise. § 95. Of the hardships and sufferings of Jesus. I. During his whole life upon the earth. Although it is true, that Jesus suffered a great deal while he was upon the earth, we should avoid all unscriptural exaggeration of this subject ; and not maintain, that his whole earthly existence was mere, uninterrupted suffering. We find scenes in the life of Jesus, which caused him many happyjand cheerful hours, Luke 10:21. Matt. 17: 1, sq. Jesus, as a man, possessed very tender feelings and warm af fections, John xi. Both pain and pleasure, therefore, made a strong and deep impression upon his heart. The evangelical history exhib its him, as at one time in deep distress, and at another in great joy. His external trials and hardships consisted principally in his great poverty and indigence, Matt. 8: 20. Luke 9: 58. 2 Cor. 8: 9. ; the many difficulties and hinderances in the way of the accomplish ment of his office as teacher ; contempt, persecution, danger ; and the suffering which the disobedience and obstinacy of his contempo raries occasioned him. The sufferings which he endured at the end of his life will be considered in No. II. The following remarks will serve to the better understanding of the doctrine respecting'the sufferings and adversities of Jesus. (1) Human infirmities and calamities are of two kinds : viz. (a) Natural; which are founded in the laws and constitution of hu man nature, and are therefore common to all men. Jesus too, we find, was subject to these, § 93 ; but in common with all others ; DURING HIS LIFE. 193 and when he became a true man, he of course subjected himself to them. (6) Contingent (accessorial ;) which do not happen to all, but only to a few. Such are lowliness, poverty, contempt, etc. Jesus, as a man, was not necessitated to endure these ; and the very opposite of them was expected in the Messiah. He submitted to them, because the divine plan for the good of men required it ; Heb. 12: 2. Phil. 2: 6, 7. (2) Many things which are commonly accounted hardships and trials, are not so in the eyes of the true sage, who is superior to the prejudices of the multitude. And on the other hand, many things which are commonly admired as the best fortune, do not appear to him either good fortune, or real welfare. We should be careful, therefore, not to enumerate among the suf ferings and afflictions of Jesus, such things as would be so ac counted only by the voluptuary and libertine, and not by the wise man. Such things are his frequent journeys, his being born in a stable, laid in a manger, etc. These circumstances in themselves considered, were no hardships to a man who disregarded conve nience and worldly honor. « Religious teachers must exercise great caution on this sub ject. There is a double disadvantage in enumerating such circum stances among the sufferings of Jesus ; one is, that the common people will be confirmed in the error, which is very prevalent, of considering the goods of fortune, rank, birth, splendor, and other externa] advantages as of great value : the other is, that they will be encouraged in effeminacy and false sensitiveness. The example of Jesus in his humiliation ought, on the contrary, to be employed to show, that a man of true piety and magnanimity needs none of those external advantages, which are commonly so highly esteem ed, in order to be happy and contented ; that a man, even in pov erty and humiliation, may be highly useful to others ; etc. The sufferings of Jesus, considered in this light, are very encouraging and cheering to despised or neglected worth. And the New Testa ment makes this very use of the doctrine of the sufferings and hu miliation of Jesus. E. g. Heb. 12: 2, alaxvvr\g xaraqigovrjaag, i. e. he was so superior to his enemies in greatness and strength of spirit that he disregarded their insults, and their foolish judgments respect ing him. The sufferings of Jesus are eminently calculated to impress our Vol. II. 25 194 ART. X. § 95. SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST minds with a view of his great love to men. He became poor for our sakes, that we might become rich. The proper effect of this view is to lead us to gratitude and cheerful obedience. (3) Some are accustomed to particularize the sins for which Jesus atoned by particular hardships and sufferings ; and also the virtues, for the performance of which he at such times procured us , the power. But we ought not to go beyond the New Testament, and to make arbitrary distinctions, which have no scriptural ground. The Bible does not represent Christ as enduring, in the highest possible degree, every imaginable distress of mind and body. The greatness of the merits of his sufferings depends neither upon their continuance, nor upon their magnitude and variety. The suffer ings of Christ would still possess their whole adequate value, even if lie did not endure every imaginable distress. II. Sufferings of Christ at tho end of his life ; commonly called his passion. (1) The sorrowful feelings of his soul, or his mental sufferipg, his anguish of heart, exhibited most strikingly on the Mount of Olives in Gethsemane, Matt. 26: 37—44. Luke 22: 41—44. This anguish is described by Luke as great to an extraordinary degree. He felt it shortly before his enemies commenced their abuse. In view of this distress many difficulties have arisen. The martyrs of religion have frequently exhibited under greater sufferings than these, and tortures which they have actually solicited, a joy and firmness, which we have been accustomed to admire. Besides, Jesus exhib ited, throughout all the lest of his life and his after sufferings, an unexampled magnanimity and power. He foresaw his sufferings with cheerful courage, and undertook them of his own accord. But Jesus did not exhibit, either in the last moments of his life or at any other period, that ill-timed enthusiasm which was so much admir ed in the Christian martyrs of the second and third centuries. Nor, on the other hand, did he shew any cold insensibility to suffering. Both enthusiasts and philosophers are therefore displeased with his allowing himself to feel this fear and timidity ; and many interpreters have exerted their skill upon these passages, to pervert their true meaning. Why such despondency and anguish just at this time? We remark upon this subject, (a) There is nothing in the conduct of Jesus at this time, which AT THE END OF HIS LIFE. 195 is inconsistent with a great man. He was far from that apathy and stoicism, which the martyrs exhibited either from affectation, enthusiasm, or insensibility. He actually endured therefore, for a considerable time, the pains of death which are natural to men ; as appears from Matt. 26: 39—44, and John 12: 27 ; and Paul says distinctly, Heb. 5: 7, 8, that Christ wished to resemble us, his brethren, in respect to the painful accompaniments of death, in or der to qualify himself better to become a compassionate high-priest. ' He prayed to God who could deliver him from death, with loud crying and tears.' A forced, stoical apathy is entirely opposed to the spirit of Christ and his religion. Christianity pronounces against every thing which is forced, artificial, and unsuited to the nature which God has given us. It is the duty of men to improve and to increase in holiness ; but they should still continue to be men ; and not be ashamed of human feelings, and of the natural and in nocent expressions of them. The example of Christ is instructive in this respect. But the most important consideration is the follow ing : viz. (b) These sufferings, as Jesus and his apostles always taught, were endured for our sakes, and were the punishment of our sins. This being the case, it was necessary for Christ to feel that he suffered. He could not, and should not remain insensible. We must see by his example, what we deserved to suffer. Some hours before his death, Jesus assigned this as the true object of his sufferings — ' he would shed his blood for the remission of the sins of men,' and he instituted the Lord's Supper in memory of this great event, Matt. 26: 28. This suffering, therefore, arose principally from a view and a lively feeling of the great multitude of sins, their criminality and liability to punishment. Cf. Harwood, Ueber die Ursachen der Seelenangst Christi, 4 Abhandl. Berlin, 1774. The history of the sufferings and death of Christ is considered in this light throughout the gospel and epistles. He suffered and died for us, and on our account; and we thus learn, what we deserve. This history was not intended to produce a short and transient emotion, or mere com passionate sympathy. And the preacher who employs it for these purposes only, neglects its proper object. This is a great fault of many Passion and Good Friday discourses ! (2) The great bodily sufferings and tortures which he firmly endured ; with which is connected, 196 ART. X. § 95. THEORIES RESPECTING CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS. (3) His condemnation to a violent death on the cross, and his undergoing of this sentence. His life of humiliation on the earth tjixigai aagxog closed with his death. For the time which he lived upon the earth after his resurrection did not belong to it. Crucifix ion, which was designed for slaves and insurgents, was a very dis graceful punishment; vid. Gal. 3: 13, coll. Deut. 21:23. Paul therefore considers it as the lowest point of the humiliation of Jesus, and calls it zaneivmaig in distinction, Phil. 2: 5 — 8. cf. Heb. 12: 2. Every thing was ordered by God in such a way as to convince the world beyond a question, that his death had actually taken place ; vid. the circumstances, John 19: 30, sq. In that age, no one doubt ed the fact. Jesus was laid in the tomb as plainly dead. He re mained in the tomb until the third day, that the fact of his death might be the more certain. His burial was honorable. The pas sage Is. 53: 9, may well be referred to this event : " he was destin ed to a grave among transgressors ; but was buried with the rich." The New Testament does not, however, expressly cite it as appli cable to this event. The question has sometimes been asked, Whether the burial of Jesus belonged to his state of humiliation or exaltation. It is suf ficient to answer, neither to one nor the other. The burial con cerned only the lifeless body, separated from the soul. But accord ing to the common way of thinking and feeling among men, the circumstances of the burial were honorable to Jesus, and should therefore be rather connected with his exaltation, than his humilia tion. Note. At the time of the apostles no one doubted the actual death of Jesus. All, Christians, Jews, and Gentiles, as appears from the New Testament, were firmly convinced of it, as an undeniable fact. Some, however, appeared in the second century, who either doubted or denied the actual death of Christ; or who gave such a turn to the affair, as to remove from his death and crucifix ion whatever was offensive to the Jews and heathen. The death of Jesus was not however disputed on historical grounds, for there were none ; but merely for doctrinal reasons. The doctrine of Christ's death was inconsistent with some of their philosophical hypotheses. Most of the Gnostics and Maniche- ans, who maintained that Christ had a seeming or shadowy body, contended that he did not actually suffer tortures and death ; but only iv Soxijoci (seem ingly, in his seeming body) ; vid. § 93, II. The Basilidiani maintained, that Jesus was not crucified, but Simon of Cyrene in his stead. Cerinthus taught, that one of the highest Deons, Christ or the tiyog, united himself with the man Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary, at his baptism ; that Christ deserted ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS. 197 the man Jesus during his sufferings, and returned to heaven ; and that thus the man Jesus alone suffered and died. In accordance with this opinion he and his followers explained the exclamation of Christ upon the cross, " My God ! why hast thou forsaken me?" Matt. 27: 46. This desertion (derelictioa Deo) has been very differently understood, even in modern times. The words which Christ uses are taken from Ps. 22: 1 ; — a psalm which he frequently cites as referring to himself. It is the language of a deeply distressed sufferer, who looks forward with anxious longing to the termination of his sufferings, and to whom the assistance of God, comfort, and consolation seem to disappear altogether, or to delay too long. The phrase to be deserted by God, is frequently used without implying a prevailing doubt in the actual providence of God : as Ps. 71: 11. Is. 49: 14. Notwithstanding, this anxious feeling was one of the greatest and most piercing of the mental sufferings of Jesus. At the same time it is very consoling and quieting to one who comes into similar circumstances, especially at the close of his life; since he can count upon being heard in the same way. Thus Jesus was enabled shortly before his death, when he saw his approaching end, joyfully to exclaim, TiTiXsaraij i. o. now every thing, which I had to do or to suffer according to the will of God, is accomplished and perfected ; John 19: 30. coll. v. 38. This term refers especially, as -kXtjqovv does in other cases, to the fulfilment of what was predicted concerning him as the decree of God ; vid. Luke 18: 31. 22: 37. Acts 13: 29. III. Attributes and motives of the sufferings of Christ. Jesus underwent all these sufferings and death itself (1) innocent ly, Luke 23: 14, 15 and the parallel texts, 2 Cor. 5: 21. 1 Pet. 2: 22, 3: 18; (2) freely, Matt. 16: 21—24. John 10: 11, 17, 18. 13: 1,21 — 33. 18:1 — 8; (3) with the greatest patience and firmness, 1 Pet. 2: 23 ; (4) from unexampled and magnanimous love to us; also from obedience to God, he herein subjected himself to the will and decree of God, vid. § 88 ; John 15: 13. Rom. 5: 6 — 8. Theologians call this obedience which Jesus exhibited in suffer ing passive obedience, from Phil. 2: 8, " obedient unto the death of the cross." The active obedience of Christ, his doing every thing which was suitable to the divine will and command, was considered § 93, III. They are one and the same obedience in reality. The origin and advantage of this distinction will be farther considered in the Article on justification. The various objects and uses of the sufferings of Christ will also be considered more fully in the same Article, § 115. Cf. Morus pp. 160, 161, § 7. 198 ART. X. § 96. SCRIPTURAL TEXTS § 96. Of Christ's descent into Hell. I. Meaning of the phraseology, to descend into hell, (^"itta Vt* 11* > xaza^aivtiv elg k^CA and an explanation of the texts relating to this subject. (1) The ancients believed universally, not excluding the Orien talists and the Hebrews, that there was a place in the invisible world, conceived to be deep under the earth, into which the disembodied souls of men, good and bad, went immediately after death. The name of this place was inNia , ddrjg, orcus, the under-world, the king dom of the dead. This word never denotes the place of the damned, either in the Scriptures or in the Fathers of the three first centuries. Accordingly the phrase dcscendere in orcum, always denotes in the Bible, the separation of the soul from the body, and the condition of the disembodied spirit after death ; Num. 16: 30, 33. Job 7: 9. Ps. 55:16. Is. 14: 15 ; and frequently in the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. When the heroes of Homer are slain, their souls are said to descend to Hades. This phrase may then be explained, in this sense, to refer to the death of Christ ; and so it is a tropical or figurative representation of his death, and the separation of his soul from his body. When he died, he descended into Hades, and continued there, as to his soul, as long as his body continued in the grave. We find the con tinuance of Christ in Hades actually mentioned in this sense in the New Testament. Peter, in his speech (Acts 2: 27), cites the pas sage, Ps. 16: 10, ovx iyxazaXelyjeig zrjv xfivx^v fiov elg adov, which is always referred to Christ's death and continuance in the grave. The phrase xazafialveiv elg qdi]v, does not indeed occur in that passage ; but the omission is merely accidental. It was certainly us ed by the first Christians respecting Christ as deceased, in the same way as respecting other dead. (2) But the chief dependence is placed upon two other texts of the New Testament ; in which the descent of Christ to hell is ex pressly mentioned, and in one of which his employment in Hades is thought to be determined. (a) Ephes. 4: 9. But the context shows,Sthat the descent", of Christ to hell, is not the subject in this text|;5 but his descent from heaven down to the earth ; and his subsequent return into heaven. RELATING TO CHRIST S DESCENT TO HADES. 199 (6) The principal passage is, I Pet. 3: 18—20. Various ex planations are given of this passage. In the earliest times, it was universally considered as denoting the continuance of Christ in Hades ; and this meaning is undoubtedly the most natural, and best suited to the words, the context, and all the ideas of antiquity. But as this meaning does not accord with modern ideas, various oth er explanations have been attempted. But the context shows that ' the continuance of Jesus in Hades is the subject of this passage ; i. e. that it treats of the condition and employment of the soul of Christ after death. The Apostle is showing, from the example of Jesus, that suffering for the good of others, is honorable and will be re warded. Christ laid men under great obligations to him, by suffer ing and dying for them, v. 18 ; by what he did too, after death, while his spirit was in Hades, v. 19 ; (v. 20, is parenthetic ;) by his resurrection, v. 21 ; his return to God, and his elevated situation in heaven, v. 22. The sense then is : the body of Christ died ; but his soul was preserved. (Peter always uses adg}; and nvev/xa in this sense ; as 4: 1, 6.) While his body was lying in the grave, his soul (iv m, sc. nvevfxazi) wandered down to the kingdom of the dead, and there preached to the disembodied spirits. It was the be lief of the ancients that the Manes still continued, in the under-world, to prosecute their former employments ; vid. Is. 14: 9. The same belief is seen in the fables of the Grecian kings and judges. Tire- sias still continued to prophecy. Vid. Is. 14: 9. Christ, by his in structions and exhortations to reformation, deserved well of men while he was upon earth. He continued this employment in Hades. He preached to the greatest sinners ; and Noah's contemporaries are particularized as distinguished examples of ancient sinners, v. 20. Now that Peter really supposed, that Christ descended to Hades, appears from Acts 2: 31. II. A sketch of the history of this doctrine. For the various opinions of commentators respecting the descent of Christ to hell, cf. Dietelmaier, Historia dogmatis de descensu Christi ad inferos, ed. 2. Altorf. 1762, 8vo ; Semler, in Programm. Acad. p. 371 sq ; Pott, Epistola Catholica perpetua annotatione il- lustr. Vol. II., Gottingen, 1790, Excurs. III. (ad 1 Pet. 3) ; and Dr. Hacker, (court-preacher in Dresden,) Diss, de descensu Christi 200 ART. X. § 96. HISTORY OF OPINIONS ad inferos, ad provinciam Messiae demandatam referendo, Dresden, 1802. [Cf. Hahn- S. 472.] The passage Acts n., coll. Ps. 16: 10, was the foundation upon which this doctrine was built. Its simple meaning is, that Christ really died, like other men, and that, while his lifeless body lay in the grave, his soul was in the same place and state with the souls of all the dead. So the early Christians undoubtedly understood it. The question now arose, was the soul of one, who while on earth had been so active for the good of men, idle and unemployed in Hades 1 No. Hence a third question, What was his employment while there t The same as on earth ; — he instructed, — was the na tural conclusion, which was confirmed by the word ixrjgv£e, 1 Pet. 3: 19. — But since in later times, Hades was understood to signify only the place of the damned ; and since cpvXaxr) and sinners are mentioned by Peter in this passage ; it was thither, — to the place of the damned, — that Christ was supposed to have gone, to preach re pentance (xrigvaaeiv), to show himself as a victor in triumph, etc. Such is the course which the investigation of this question na turally took. Now the historical sketch itself. (1) The ecclesiastical fathers of the three first centuries, were agreed in the opinion, that during the three days in which the body of Christ lay in the grave, his soul was in the kingdom of the dead. This opinion they derived correctly from 1 Peter in. and Acts ii. By this representation, they supposed, in substance, the condition of Christ, as to his soul, during his death, to be described. Thus Ire- neeus says, ' Christ in this way fulfilled the law of the dead,' V. 31. Clement of Alexandria expresses himself in the same way. Origen says, yvfxvri amjxazog yevofxevrj ijjvx^, Contra Celsum II. Tertul lian says, ' Christus forma humanae mortis apud inferos (est) func tus ;' etc. They differed in opinion respecting his employment there. Most supposed, that he preached the gospel to the ancient believers who expected his advent, — to the patriarchs, etc. Vid. Iren. (IV. 45, 50). Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen and others. But Origen and some others seem to have believed, that Christ res cued the damned who believed on him in Hades, and transported them to the abode of the blessed. Still, the descent to hell is no Where expressly mentioned in the ancient creeds of the three first centuries, either in the eastern or western Church. No one, in RESPECTING CHRIST'S DESCENT TO HADES. 201 this period, held it to be the interment of Christ. Nor did any one assert that he went exclusively to the place of the damned. (2) This doctrine was gradually regarded as fixed after the fourth century, and was adopted into the creeds. The phrase, xax- iX&ovza eig zd xazax&ovta, was established at the Arian Council at Sirmium in the year 357, and at many orthodox and Arian Coun cils after that time. It was now inserted in the more ancient creeds, to which it had not previously belonged ; e. g. into the Apostolical creed ; particularly, as it seems, on account of the controversies with Apollinaris. But all the churches had not admitted it into this creed before the sixth century. Ruffin says (Expos. S. Ap.), that the Romish church did not admit this doctrine into the Apos tolical creed, ' nee in Orientis ecclesiis habelur,' and adds, that the word buried which is there used, conveys the same sense. The reason why this doctrine was so much insisted on, and admitted in to the creeds, especially after the middle of the fourth century, is, that it afforded a weighty argument against the followers of Apolli naris, who denied the existence of a human soul in Christ. -Vid. § 93, II. ad finem. It may be added, that the fathers of the fourth century, and of the one succeeding, adhered for the most part to the opinions found among the earlier fathers ; No. 1. (3) The opinions of the earlier fathers were gradually set aside in after ages, especially in the Western church. The opinion, that} the separation of the soul from the body was all that was intended! by the representation of Christ's descent to hell, was by degrees en-t tirely laid aside. The infernus was considered by many as the ap propriate designation of the place of the damned, and the passage in 1 Pet. hi. as the only proof-text ; and so the descent to hell, became equivalent to the descent of Christ to the place of the damned. Such were the views of many of the schoolmen. Thomas Aquinas adopted the opinion of Hieronymus and Gregory, that Christ res cued the souls of the pious fathers who lived before Christ from the limbus patrum (a kind of entrance to hell, status medius). So also the Council at Trent. They now began to dispute, whether the soul only of Christ was in hell, or his body also ; whether he was there during the whole time in which his body was in the grave, or only on the third day, shortly before the resurrection, etc. Durandus and other school men, understood the matter figuratively. According to them,1; Je- Vol. II. 26 202 ART. X. § 96. HISTORY OF OPINIONS sus was not in hell quoad realem prcesentiam (as to his substance), but only quoad effectum. This ppinion had many advocates. The Protestant theologians since the Reformation have been di vided in opinion upon this subject. (re) Luther spoke very doubtfully upon the subject, and was un willing to determine any thing decidedly. He agreed at first with Hieronymus and Gregory, in supposing a limbus patrum whither Christ went. But whenever he mentioned the subject, especially after 1533, he was accustomed to remark, that Christ destroyed the power of the Devil and of hell, whither he went with soul and body. This induced the theologians, who adhered strictly to every partic ular doctrine of Luther, to represent the descent of Christ to hell as his victory over the Devil ; as was done in the Formula Concor dia:, Art. ix. M. Flaccius had represented the descent to hell as belonging to the state of humiliation. But they represented it as belonging to the state of exaltation, and declared that on the mo ment of the resurrection, Christ repaired to hell, with soul and body, and in both natures, — showed himself to Satan and hell as victor, and then appeared alive upon the earth at day-break. They are not so unreasonable, however, as to demand a belief in all their dis tinctions respecting this doctrine. Hutter, Baier, Winkler, Carp- zov, and others held these views. But there is no foundation for them in the Bible. Some of the ancient creeds say, the gates of hell (kingdom of the dead) trembled at his approach; e. g. the Sir- mian creed, 357. (b) Beza and other Reformers understood the descent of Christ to hell to mean his burial. Russ and Rambach among the Luther ans assented to this opinion. It is false, however ; for descent to hell, in the sense of the ancients, does not refer to the body but to the soul ; vid. supra. (c) Others affirmed, that Christ preached the gospel in Hades ; some say, to the believers who lived before his advent; others, to the wicked also, and that such as submitted to him, were deliver ed from the place of the damned ; almost like the opinion of many of the ancients. Even Seiler thinks this opinion very probable. He supposes, with others, that both the body and soul of Christ were in Hades. But Flaccius, Brentius, Dreyer, and others agree with the ancients, that only the soul of Christ was there, while his body lay in the grave. But these differ again on the question, RESPECTING CHRIST'S DESCENT TO HADES. 203 whether the descent to hell belongs to the state of humiliation or ex altation. (d) Some supposed, as Durandus did, that the whole subject should be understood figuratively. (e) Zeltner, Baumgarten, Qeder, and others returned to the an cient opinion, and understood ddi]g to denote in general, the place and condition of departed spirits. So most of the English and Ar- minian theologians. (f) John Aepinus, (a Lutheran theologian at Hamburg, of the sixteenth century,) affirmed that Jesus endured in hell the pains of the damned, and therefore accounted his descent thither as belong ing to the state of humiliation.. He had many followers ; though he was not the first who advanced this opinion. Cardinal Nicolaus of Casa had before asserted the same thing, in the fifteenth centu ry ; and also many Reformed and Lutheran theologians since the sixteenth century ; as John Agricola, Hunnius, Brentius, Cocceius, and Witsius. We omit the mention of the peculiar hypotheses of some other theologians. II. Critical observations, and a result from what has been said. Theologians at the present day are agreed, for the most part, that this question is one of minor importance. Some have often af firmed, that the passage, 1 Pet. in. did not relate to this subject. But all the other explanations given are forced and unnatural ; and the idea, after all, is scriptural ; for the passage Acts ii. cannot be explain ed away. According to the passage, 1 Pet. m. the soul of Christ ac tually went to the place of the damned (tpvXaxri, career caecum) in Hades, and there preached to the disembodied spirits. Until the last Judgment the souls of all the deceased are in Hades, (i. e. they are manes, disembodied,) but in different regions, distant from each other (i. e. in vario statu) ; Luke 16: 19—31. Christ, then, dur ing his continuance there, did what he was accustomed to do while yet on the earth for the good of men ; he instructed those who need ed instruction, and exhorted. The object and use of this preaching, which is mentioned in the passage in Peter, we cannot see ; since those who are in Hades are always represented by Jesus, the apos tles and Peter himself, as fixed in their destiny, and reserved to the day of Judgment ; cf. Luke xvi. 204 ART. X. §97. RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. It will be sufficient for the teacher of religion to say, that the phrase, Christ descended to hell, teaches (1) that during the time in which the body of Christ lay in the grave, he was really dead ; and (2) that the human soul of Christ was in the same unknown condition and place, to which the souls of all the deceased go, and where they continue till the day of Judgment ; (3) that, in this re spect also, as in others, he was like men, his brethren, and that (4) he had a true human soul, Acts n. (5) Peter assures us that Christ did this for the good of men, — he preached to the departed spirits. The nature of this preaching, its particular object aDd consequences, what he intended to effect, and did actually effect by it, — are entire ly unknown to us, as many other things which pertain to the invisi ble kingdom of spirits. When we ourselves shall belong to that in visible kingdom, and probably not till then, we shall receive more perfect information respecting this subject, if it can be useful for us to have it. § 97. History of Christ considered as a man, in his state of exalta tion or perfection. §§ 97 — 99, incl. I. Of the resurrection of Christ. (1) The vivification and resurrection of the man Jesus is not, strictly speaking, pars status exallationis, but terminus a quo, as some theologians have justly remarked. So his conception was the terminus a quo of the state of humiliation. The state of exaltation, strictly speaking, commences with the ascension of Christ. The events which preceded were merely preparatory. (2) The resurrection of Jesus is frequently ascribed in Scripture to the Father, Acts 2: 24, 32. 3: 15. Vid. other texts, Morus p. 174, § 1, not. Jesus, however, frequently ascribes it to himself, as the Son of God, John 10: 18, coll. 2: 19, " I have power (i£ovoi«v) to take my life again." He had this power, inasmuch as he acted in common with the Father, and, as Messiah, had received power from the Father adequate to this purpose. (3) The proof of the resurrection of Christ on the third day, is to be deduced entirely from the accounts given of it in the New Testament. The genuineness of these histories, and the entire CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING IT. 205 credibility of the accounts contained in them, are here presupposed. On these grounds we may be satisfied of the truth of this fact even if no inspiration is admitted ; vid. §§ 6, 8. The following circum stances deserve notice : viz., (a) The disciples of Jesus had always expected that he would establish a visible kingdom upon earth. They had never under stood and always perverted, what he frequently said to them respect ing his death and resurrection. When, therefore, his death took place, they did not believe that he would actually rise again ; vid. John 20: 9, coll. vs. 24, 25. Accordingly, they were so incredu lous on this subject, that they regarded the first information of the fact which they received, as fabulous and unworthy of credit, Luke 24: 11, coll. vs. 22 — 24. Gregory the Great remarks justly and happily : dubitatum est ab Mis, ne dubitaretur a nobis. (b) After this event Jesus appeared frequently to his apostles and his other disciples. Ten different appearances have been noticed by some writers in the Evangelists. At these times, he conversed with his disciples, and gave them such palpable demonstrations of his resurrection, that none of them could longer doubt respecting the fact ; vid. the last chapters of the gospels, and particularly John 20: 21, and Acts 1: 2, 3. 10:41. Some, at first, regarded his ap pearance, to be that of a dead man with a shadowy body, such as was believed by the Jews, Greeks, and Romans ; very much the same as in Homer and Virgil. So Thomas, in John 20: 25, sq. For this reason, Jesus ate with them, and allowed them to handle him, John XXI. (c) Thenceforward, they were so convinced of the truth of his resurrection, that they never were, or could be persuaded to doubt respecting it. They spake of it, after the final departure of Christ from the earth, as an established fact, which was universally admit ted. They proclaimed it publicly at Jerusalem, where Jesus was condemned, before the Sanhedrim, and other tribunals ; nor could any one convince them of the contrary. Acts 2: 24, 32. 4: 8 — 13. in. x. xm. 1 Cor. 15: 5, sq. 1 Pet. 1: 21. (d) No solid historical objection has been ever brought against this event ; nor has any ground been alleged sufficient to convict the apostles of imposture ; because the data for such proof are wanting. The event must, therefore, be regarded as true, until the contrary can be proved by historical reasons, or until the witnesses 206 ART. X. § 97. RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. can be convicted of untruth. The enemies of Christianity have of ten been challenged to produce a single example of a history so well attested as thatof the resurrection of Jesus, and followed too by such important consequences both among cultivated and ruder nations, which has turned out in the end to be false and fictitious. But such an example, they have never been able to produce. It is worthy of notice, that we do not find in the whole history of the apostles, that any of the most enlightened enemies of Christianity, even the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, undertook to say, that Christ had not ris en ; although they hated the apostles so much as to abuse and con demn them. At that time, no one ventured seriously to question this fact. The grave was watched ; the frightened guards brought the news of what had happened to the Sanhedrim, and were bribed to give out, that the disciples of Jesus had stolen his corpse, Matt. 28: 1 1 — 13. Incredible as this story was, still many of the Jews at first believed it, as Matthew declares, v. 15, of the same Chapter. To this latter supposition, the Wolfenb. Ungenannte has entire ly assented, in his work, Vom Zweck Jesu, and in the fragment, ' Ueber die Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu,' which Lessing publish ed in his " Beytragen ziir Geschichte und Literatur," B. 4, 1777. He looks up all possible discrepancies in the narrative which the Evangelists have given of minute circumstances ; although they would not be sufficient, even if well grounded, to render the fact historically suspicious. Vid. Doederlein, Fragmente und Antifrag- mente, 2 Thle. Niirnberg, 1781; Semler's ' Beantwortung,' 2d ed. 1780 ; Michaelis, Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu, Halle, 1783. Among the ancient writers, see Ditten, Wahrheit der christlichen Religion auf der Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu, u. s. w ; and Sher- lok, Gerichtliches Verhor der Zeugen fur u. s. w. Some have endeavoured to render this history suspicious, from the fact, that Jesus did not publicly shew himself after his resurrec tion, and did not appear to his enemies. Some reply, that it does not follow from the silence of the evangelists that he did not. But Peter says expressly, that he appeared ov navzl zm /law, aXX' — r,fuv (the disciples), Acts 10 : 40, 41. What object, now, would have been answered by this public appearance 1 Those who had not be fore received him as Messiah, would have rejected him anew ; and even although they should effect nothing by it, they would still have given out the whole thing as an imposition. And suppose the whole IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCTRINE. 207 populace had believed ; they might have commenced dangerous in novations, and made arrangements to establish Christ as an earthly king. Cf. John 6 : 15. Those who had no taste or capacity for the spiritual kingdom of Christ, would no more have believed in him, or firmly and faithfully adhered to him, after he had appeared to them, raised from the dead, and had himself preached to them, than before, when he also preached to them in person, and wrought the greatest miracles before them ; so that he himself would have found the truth of what is said, Luke 16 : 31. Persons have not been wanting who have considered the account of the resurrection of Christ as allegorical. Semler supposed that Christ did not physically rise from the dead, and that the life which is ascribed to him is spiritual life, in heaven and in the hearts of men. Others suppose that he did not actually die upon the cross, but that he lived in private among his friends, for a considerable time after his crucifixion, and then disappeared. They suppose that when his side was pierced, he fell into a swoon, from which he was revived by the evaporation of the spices in the tomb ; — without thinking, that even if he had survived the crucifixion, this evapora tion in a confined cave would necessarily have suffocated him. Spi noza says somewhere, that the resurrection and ascension were not events which took place in the material world, but in the moral world, i. e. they are fictions, — ancient Christian fables, — which how ever had great moral consequences. Many modern writers, and even some theologians have adopted this opinion. Dr. Paulus rather inclines to it, in his Comments on the Evangelists. (4) The necessity and importance of this doctrine. It is one of the most important of the positive and peculiar doctrines of Chris tianity ; and is so regarded by Christ, and in the whole New Tes tament. Morus p. 175, sq. § 3. (a) The apostles always represent this as a fundamental truth of the Christian faith. The cocpd?] dyyiXoig, he showed himself alive to his messengers, i. e. disciples, is mentioned as a fundamental truth, 1 Tim. 3: 16, coll. Rom. 10: 9. The apostles were called fxdgzvgeg avaazdatatg Xgiazov, Acts 1: 22. Paul therefore says, that if Christ be not risen, we can have no hope of resurrection, and our whole faith in him is unfounded, 1 Cor. 15: 14, 17, coll. vs. 5 — 7. For the instructions of Christ are attested and confirmed as certain and divine, only by the resurrection ; cf. 1 Pet. 1: 3, and Morus p. 176, n. 5. 208 ART. X. § 97. ASCENSION OF CHRIST. (b) All the apostles agree, that Christ, by his resurrection re ceived the seal and sanction of God, as the great prophet and Saviour, constituted by him. He himself had claimed to be the Messiah ; but his death seemed to frustrate every hope ; vid. Luke 24:20,21. His resurrection, however, rendered this belief more sure and unwavering. His disciples now saw, that he was the per son whom he claimed to be. They were compelled to conclude that God would not, by such a distinguished miracle, authorize and sup port an impostor, who merely pretended to be a divine messenger. Added to this is the fact, that he himself had prophesied, that he should rise in three days, Luke 18: 33. John 10: 17. The accom plishment of this prophecy proves that Christ did not teach in his own name, but as the messenger of God ; as he often said, John vm. — x. The following are the most important texts relating to this point : viz. Rom. 1: 4. Acts 17: 31. 1 Tim. 3: 16. The pas sage Ps. 2: 7, " thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee," is often referred in the New Testament directly to the resurrection. " I have declared thee (by raising thee to life) on this day (the day of the resurrection) to be the Messiah." Acts 13: 33, 34. II. The ascension of Christ. (1) Jesus spent forty days on earth after his resurrection, in or der to render his disciples more sure of the fact, to teach them many important things, and to prepare them for the discharge of their pub lic office; vid. the last chapters of the Evangelists, and Acts i. Af terwards, he was removed to the abodes of the blessed. These abodes are situated in regions invisible to men, at a distance from the earth, and inaccessible to us, while we continue here. They cannot be better described, than by the word heaven, which almost all people and languages have, and which the sacred writers fre quently employ. As they use it, it denotes the place of the highest sanctuary of God, i. e. the place where the Omnipresent Being re veals himself with peculiar glory ; cf. John 14: 2, 3. Jesus was taken up from earth in view of his apostles, and borne hence (inyg&t}, dveXriq>&ii etg ovgavov), Acts I: 9 — 11. 1 Pet. 3: 22. Heb. 9: 10, 1 1 , 24. He ascended from Bethany on the Mt. of 01- . ives, Luke 24: 51. He predicted his ascension to his disciples; John 6: 62. 14: 2, 3. This doctrine, like that of the resurrection, is enumerated among the fundamental truths of Christianity, I Tim. 3: HIS PRESENT STATE. 209 16 (dvsXriq>&n iv doty), 1 Pet. 3: 22. He taught his disciples to find in all these events, confirmation of his declarations, and joy and consolation. As he had risen, the first that arose from the dead, and had been translated to heaven ; they too should one day arise, and be glorified, if they reposed faith and confidence in him. They should be with him, where he was, at home, in the house of his fa ther; etc. Note. Some modern writers have endeavoured to awaken suspicion re specting the doctrine of the ascension of Christ, from the fact, that Matthew, Luke, and John do not expressly narrate this history of the ascension in their gospels, as Mark does in his, and as Luke does in the Acts. But they could not have been ignorant or doubtful respecting this event, any more than the other writers of the New Testament ; since Jesus had mentioned it in his early instructions, according to John 6: 62, and had frequently alluded to it afterwards. The writings of Paul, Peter, and the Acts of the apostles writ ten by Luke, show how universal was the belief of this event among the first Christian teachers. And how could these two have been exceptions ? Vid. the Essays, " Warum haben nicht alle Evangelisten die Himmelfahrt Christi ausdracklich miterzahlt ? in Flatt's Magazin, Stuck 8, Tubingen, 1802, Num. 2. (2) According to the clear declarations of the New Testament, Christ lives in the abodes of the blessed, as a true man; cf. Acts 1: 11. 17: 31. Heb. 9: 10, sq. Vid. his appearances in the Acts. But the saints in heaven do not have a gross, feeble, perishable body, like the human body which we possess upon the earth ; but a more perfect, imperishable, glorified body ; very much like that of the gods of Homer and the Grecians ; 1 Cor. xv. coll. § 152. Now Jesus received such a body in heaven, as we shall one day receive ; Phil. 3: 21 ; — otSjxa ¦dotyg (i. e. evdo^ov) avt ov , which our present earthly body (adifxu tanelvmaemg) will in future resemble. The same doctrine is carried out, 1 Cor. 15: 42 — 53. As inhabitants of earth, men have a mortal body, like Adam ; as inhabitants of heaven, a refined and immortal body, like Christ, the second Adam. Christ, however, did not receive this body immediately on his resurrection ; but when he became an inhabitant of heaven. During the forty days which succeeded his resurrection, he ate and drank with his disciples ; — actions which cannot be predicated of heavenly bodies. He bore, too, on his body the scars and marks of the crucifixion. Some few have supposed, that he then possessed a spiritual body, from a misunderstanding of the words, Ovgwv xexXeiOfiivmv, John 20: 19, 26. The declaration in the epistle to the Hebrews, that he Vol. II. 27 210 art. x. § 97. Christ's second coming. offers to God, as High-priest, his own blood, in the Holy of holies, shows that the same Jesus, who according to the divine decree died on the earth for our good, now lives in Heaven ; and that we may always rejoice in the happy consequences of his sacrifice ; Heb. 9: 14, 24, sq. Note. The dispute relative to the Lord's Supper has occasioned much controversy since the sixteenth century, respecting the Omnipresence of the body of Christ, which was asserted by many Lutheran theologians. But the doctrine de omnipresentia or ubiquitate of the human body of Christ, is a mere hypothesis of some theologians, without any sure scriptural support. Indeed, those divine attributes, which, from the nature of the case, cannot be predicat ed of Body in general, cannot be ascribed to the body of Christ, although it be glorified. Besides, we are expressly assured, that we shall in future receive a body of the same kind, as the heavenly body of Christ, Phil. 3: 21. 1 Cor. 15: 49. Finally, this doctrine is not necessary for the defence of the Lutheran doctrine respecting the Lord's Supper; vid. infra, respecting this doctrine. (3) There has always been a great diversity of opinions on the ques tion, How long Christ, as a man, will continue in heaven, and when, ac cording to his promise, he will return and visibly reappear on the earth. Christ himself has promised no other visible return, than that at the end of the world, as the Judge of men. For his nagov- ala to destroy Jerusalem, and punish his enemies, is a figurative mode of speech, like the adventus Dei so often spoken of by the prophets. But many of the early Christians, who were inclined to Judaism, and expected the establishment of an earthly kingdom, ex plained many texts in accordance with such an opinion, although there is not one passage in all the writings of the apostles distinctly in favor of it. The apostles always supposed, that Christ would re main in heaven until the end of the world, (during the whole time of the New Testament dispensation,) and not visibly return until that time ; although they did not undertake to determine how long this period would continue ; vid. Acts 1: 11. 1 Thess. 1: 10, coll. 2 Thess. n. sq. Here belongs that remarkable passage in the speech of Peter, Acts 3: 20, 21, which has been so often misunderstood and referred to the restoration of all things. " God has caused the joyful times of the New Testament to appear (xaigol dvaif.iv£eug , cf. 2 Cor. 6: 2), and has sent Jesus Christ, whom now the heaven hath again re ceived, or still retains, as long as this happy period of the New Tes tament (the new dispensation upon the earth) shall continue." Here, SCRIPTURAL IDEA OF CHRIST'S GLORY. 211 then, is no promise that Christ will return to found an earthly king dom. — At'iaa&ai, when spoken of a place, always means, accord ing to a Greek idiom, that the place receives or retains any one. So all the ancient interpreters, and Beza, who denied the omnipresence of the body of Christ from this passage. For this reason the Lu theran theologians have preferred to refer St%aa9ai to Christ. — The xpuvoi dnoxazaozdaemg are the times of the New Testament like X9""0i Siog&moemg, Heb. 9: 10 ; vid. v. 20.— And &xgi signi fies not until, but dum, while, during; uxgig ai\pegov xaXeizai, Heb. 3: 13. Vid. Ernesti, Program, ad h. 1. in Opusc. Theol. p. 488, sq. Note. It was intended to teach men by this event, to regard Christ, even in his human nature, as henceforth standing in the closest connexion with God, — as in the possession and enjoyment of supreme felicity and power, and as the Ruler and Lord, whose agency and influence were unlimited. The description of God, as dwelling in heaven, suggests the idea of his supremacy over all the inhabitants and events of the world, his controling providence, boundless reign, and perfect enjoyment. Morus p. 177. not. extr. § 98. Wherein the heavenly glory or majesty of Christ, as a man, consists ; and the scriptural idea of the kingdom and dominion of Christ. I. Scriptural designation of the glory of Christ. The imperfection and inferiority, which Christ had voluntarily assumed during his life upon earth, ceased immediately on his as cension. He now became, even as a man, immortal and blessed ; Rom. 6: 9, 10. Heb. 7: 16, 25. Even in his human nature he was raised by God to a very illustrious dignity ; John 17: 5 (Sola, Sotaa- &nvai), Acts 2: 33—36. Eph. 1: 20, sq. Col. 1: 17. "Ovopa vnig nav ovofxa, Phil. 2: 9, 10. He is entitled to honor from every being, even from the higher intelligences, Heb. 1: 6. Phil. 2: 9, 10 ; since he is henceforth raised in glory and majesty above all, 1 Pet. 3: 22. Hence a kingdom is ascribed to him, over which he reigns in heav en. He is called King, and divinely appointed Lord; d Kvgiog, Acts 2: 36 ; and Kigiog tfogijs, especially by Paul, I Cor. 2: 8 (i. e. 212 ART. X. § 98. NATURE AND EXTENT the glorious, adorable Lord, "rdSrt *fcq , Ps. 24: 7, 8). In Heb. 1: 9, Paul applies to Christ the passage, Ps. 45: 8, " God hath anoint ed thee with the oil of joy above thy fellows," i. e. God honors thee more, and gives thee more privileges, than all the partners of thy dig nity,— the other kings, or sons of God. Note. Various other appellations are applied in the New Testament to Christ, descriptive partly of his supremacy, and partly of his care for the Church, as its head. Among these are the following ; viz. Kstpah), the Chris tian church being often compared with u, body, Eph. 1: 22, 23. 5:23; mn'jQ, maritus, 2 Cor. 11:2; and vvp-tpiog, John 3: 29. Also the appellation of a shep herd, and the comparisons taken from it, John 10: 12. So Christ is called, by Paul, moifiiva, tov fxiyav, Heb. 13: 20, and aQ%ntot[ii}v, 1 Pet. 5: 4. This is a very honorable appellation, since kings were called shepherds by the Hebrews, Ps. 80: 2, sq ; like the -jtotfiheg Xao/v of Homer. We must understand, how ever, by this appellation a pastoral prince, such perhaps as Abraham was, and the orientalists frequently were ; — the proprietor and owner of the herds, who had servants in his employment, as under shepherds. II. The Nature and extent of the kingdom of Christ, the administration of his reign which he carries on from heaven. Cf. Ncesselt, Diss. " de Christo homine regnante," Opusc. Tom. II., Halle, 1773 ; and the programm, " De Christo ad dextram Dei sedente," p. 10, sq. Halle, 1787. There are some good remarks, together with many very unfounded ones, in Dr. Eckermann's Essay, Ueber die Begriffe vom Reiche und der Wiederkunft Christi, in his Theologischen Beytragen, B. II. St. 1. Altona, 1791, 8vo. Morus treats this subject admirably, p. 178, sq. (1) The terms which signify rule, are sometimes used figura tively, and denote a joyful situation, happy and honorable in an un common degree, — -freedom, independence, authority, in short, every kind of distinguished happiness and welfare. Thus the Stoic para dox : " omnem sapientem regnare, sive esse regem ;" and Cicero: " olim cum regnare existimabamur." In this sense, Christians are called kings, 1 Pet. 2: 9. Rev. 1: 6. They are said avit(laotXeveiv zo} Xgiazqi, to share with Christ the royal privileges, 2 Tim. 2: 12. In the parallel passage, Rom. 8: 17, they are said avvSo^aa&^vai. They are said, also, xXrjgovofxelv (iuaiXelav, Matt. 25: 34 ; and jSaff- iXeveiv iv fwjj, Rom. 5: 17. Accordingly, when Christ is said to reign, his life in heaven may be intended. But this phrase applied to him, is not confined to this meaning ; it signifies something far of Christ's kingdom. 213 more great and elevated than all this ; as will appear from the fol lowing remarks. (2) The kingdom of Christ, according to the doctrine of the New Testament, is of very wide extent. A. It extends over every thing in all the universe. " All power, in heaven and on earth is given to me," Matt. 28: 18. 'O nazjg navTu di'Smxev tig Xl'QaG avrov, x. r. X. John 13: 3. God exalted him, even as a man, above every thing which is great and powerful in the material and spiritual world, in order that he might rule over them ; and subjected to him even the different orders and classes of good and bad spirits. Christ reigns over them as Lord, Phil. 2 9—11. Eph. 1: 20, 21. Col. 1: 15—17. Heb. 1: 4—14. 1 Pet. 3: 22. The ground and object of such an extensive rule is this : There are many things both in the material and spiritual world which operate to the advantage or disadvantage of men. Now if men are to be peculiarly the subjects over whom Christ is to reign, as king ; if to promote their welfare and to shield them from all harm ; if to punish his own enemies, and the enemies of his king dom, and to bless and reward his followers, are to be his peculiar concern ; — he must be able to control all these other objects. For, B. The reign or government of Jesus, as Christ or Messiah, has a principal respect to the human race. He exerts his authority on account of men, and for their advantage. This kingdom is two fold : viz. (a) Regnum sensu latiori. Since the time when Christ was re ceived into heaven (Eph. 1: 20), he has reigned over all men, whether they know and honor him, or not ; i. e. he provides for them all that spiritual welfare, and true happiness of which they are capable. He received from the Father right and power over the human race, John 17: 2. Matt. 28: 18. Eph. 1: 10. 2 Pet. 2: 1. (6) Regnum sensu strictiori sive angustiori, extends over his worshippers, who know and love him ; over the whole society (ixxXijaia, b!lp) of those who are united not by external power and compulsion, but by the power of truth and by instruction. This community is therefore called, in the discourses of Jesus, fiaoiXeta ¦&eov sive ovgavov, Eph. 5: 5. Col. 1: 13. Over this community, he exercises the most special watchfulness and care. Its members, when faithfully devoted and obedient to him, are his ngoffata 'ISia. The foundation was laid and the beginning made in this commu- 214 ART. X. § 98. NATURE AND CONTINUANCE nity, during the life of Christ on earth. From the time of John it suffered violence, Matt. 11: 12. But the beginning was small, and, in comparison with what afterwards took place, unobserved by the great multitude ; ovx agxezai fxezd nagazrigrjoemg, Luke 17: 20. This kingdom was not extended and widened till after the ascen sion. (3) The manner in which Christ governs or rules his kingdom. He reigns as amzrjg, Eph. 5; 23 — 29. A. Now, during the continuance of the present state of the world, (a) By instruction in the truth, John 18: 37. At his departure from the world, he committed this instruction to his disciples, and especially to his apostles as his ambassadors, that they might com municate it every where, without regard to nation or kindred, Matt. 28: 18 — 20. It was to be more extensively diffused and widely propagated by means of other teachers, appointed by the apostles under the guidance and authority of Christ, Eph. 4: 11, 15, 16. Accordingly in the passages mentioned, Paul derives the qualifica tions and the ministry (#apt?, jfap/oytara) of teachers from Christ himself; as Christ also himself does, John 10: 1, sq. (6) By that support, help, and assistance which he imparts to his Church, — his special concern in its extension, and the frustration of the designs of its enemies, Matt. 28: 20. 1 Cor. 15: 25, 26. 1 John 4: 4. 5: 4, 5. Note. All the hindrances which stand in the way of the extension of Christianity, and the success of the designs of Christ to promote human hap piness, are frequently called, iyftgol Xqustov. This term is borrowed from Ps. 110: 2. Morus has enumerated these hindrances, as presented in the Scriptures, p. 180, sq. § 6. Christ has already removed these hindrances in a measure; he is constantly diminishing them, and at the end of the present dispensation, will have entirely surmounted them. Ps. 110: 1, 2. 1 Cor. 15: 25. Morus p. 181, sq. § 7. B. In future, when the present state of the world shall cease (at which time the greatest revolutions will take place in the whole uni verse, 2 Pet. 3: 7, 10—13). Then, and not before, will Christ ex hibit himself in all his glory, as Lord of the human race. Paul says expressly, that all the glory of Christ is not now displayed, Heb. 2: 8. Col. 3: 3, 4. For all have not yet acknowledged him as Lord, and his enemies have still power to harm. But then his glory will of Christ's dominion. 215 become visible, 1 Cor. 15: 26, 27. Heb. 10: 13. Christ will solemn ly and visibly reappear on the earth, Acts 1: 11. 1 Thess. 4: 16. 2 Pet. 3:10, 13. Heb. 9: 28. Col. 3: 4. He will raise the dead, John 5: 21 — 23. Matt. xxv. He. will sit in judgment upon the dead and the living, 1 Cor. 15: 26, 27. Rom. 14: 10. Phil. 2: 10 ; and will allot rewards and punishments, John 5: 21 — 23, 27, sq. Matt. xxv. Acts 17: 31. According to the doctrine of the univer sality of Christ's kingdom, he will judge, not Christians only, but all men. Cf. the passages above cited, and Acts 17: 31. Rom. 2: 6, 7. But the time of this Judgment is unknown, and was so even to the apostles, 1 Thess. 5: 1, sq. coll. 2 Thess. 2: 3. Many of the early Christians, however, appear to have supposed that it was near at hand, and was connected with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which was also called nagovaia Xgiazov. For the Jews believed that the temple would stand until the end of the world, Ps. 78: 69. But the apostles never adopted or favored this opinion ; vid. Thess. ut supra. (4) Some farther observations on the nature and continuance of the government which Christ as a man administers in heaven. (a) The government of Christ is described by himself and his apostles as being not external and temporal, but spiritual, conduct ed principally by means of his religion, by the preaching of the gos pel, and the power which attends it ; — aXrj&eia, John 18: 37 ; or grjfxazi, Ephes. 5: 26 ; vid. No. 3. This fact excludes and refutes the objection, that Christ designed to establish an earthly kingdom, §89; and it frustrates the hopes of the Chiliasts, who, agreeably to Jewish prejudices, are expecting such a kingdom yet to come. (6) This government which Jesus administers, as a man, is not natural to him, or one which he attains by birth, but acquired. He received it from his Father as a reward for his sufferings, and for his faithful performance of the whole work, and discharge of all the offices, entrusted to him by God for the good of men. 'Ex agia- az o avza) ovopa, and ^to avzov vnegvxpwai, Phil. 2: 9. " We see Jesus, after he had endured death, crowned with glory and hon or," etc. Heb. 2: 9, 10. The Father is described as vnoza^ag Xgiazm ndvza, 1 Cor. 15: 24, 27. Acts 2: 31 — 36, the discourses of Jesus in John 17: 5. Matt. 11: 27, sq. 28: 18, also many of the texts which speak of his sitting at the right hand of God, § 99. Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews, frequently makes use, in relation 216 art. x. § 98. continuance of Christ's kingdom. to this subject, of the word zeXeim&ijvah which is applied literally to the reward of victors. He explains the idea in a very intelligible manner, Heb. 5: 8. Christ learned by his sufferings to obey God, and do his will ; and he who knows how to obey so well, is also qualified to govern well. Vid. Morus p. 184, § 9, for other texts and comments. This kingdom is therefore called, at one time, the kingdom of God, from its founder ; at another time, the kingdom of Christ, who accomplished the plan of God ; and still again, the kingdom of God and of Christ, because God and Christ were unit ed in its establishment. (e) The Israelites imagined, according to the instruction of the prophets, that the kingdom of the Messiah would be an everlasting kingdom (almviog, perpetuus), continuing as long as the world should , endure. Thus it is always represented in the New Testament. " He will reign over the house of Jacob elg xovg almvag, xal zrjg (iaaiXtlag avzov ovx eaTai TtXog," Luke 1: 33. The text Ps. 45: 7, o dgovog aov elg tov almva tov almvog, is explained in the same way, Heb. 1: 8. Christ himself says expressly, Matf. 16. 18, niXai aSov ov xaziaxvaovai z^g ixxXi]Oiag, i. e. the society established by him should not decline and perish, like so many others ; but always endure. He said with great explicitness, Matt. 28: 20, that his as sistance and special care should extend to his followers tag zijg avv- xeXeiag zov almvog. His friends should enjoy his constant presence, support, and assistance, in every condition of life, until the end of the world that now is. (d) From what has been said, it appears, that the government which Christ as a man administers in heaven, will continue only while the present constitution of the world lasts. At the end of the world, when the heavenly state commences, the government which Christ administers as a man, will cease ; so far, at least, as it aims to promote the holiness and happiness of men ; since those of our race who labor for this end, will then have attained the goal, and will be actually blessed. So Paul says expressly, 1 Cor. 15: 24—28, in entire accordance with the universal doctrine of the New Testa ment respecting the kingdom of Christ as man. He is speaking of the kingdom of Jesus, or of his office as Messiah, and refers to Ps. 110: 1, " Sit on my right hand, until I subject to thee all thine en emies." The phrase, to sit on the right hand of the Father, he ex plains by (iuotXeveiv, and comprehends under this term all the offi- § 99. ORIOIN OF THE PHRASE, KINGDOM OF CHRIST. 217 ces of the Messiah, and the institutions which he has established for the" good of men, i. e. for their holiness and eternal blessedness. These offices (his kingdom) will cease at the end of the world when all the opposers of the advancement of his kingdom upon earth, and even Death, the last enemy of his followers, will be sub dued, and when his friends will be introduced by himself into that eternal blessedness, to which it is his aim to exalt them. Then will his great plan for the happiness of men be completed, and the end of his office as Messiah will be attained. Thenceforward the Fath er will no more make use, as before, of the intervention of the Mes siah to govern and bless men ; for now they will be actually blessed. Christ then will lay down his former charge, and give it over to the Father, who had entrusted him with it. For we cannot expect, that the preaching of the gospel will be continued in heaven, and that the other institutions of the Christian church, which relate on ly to the present life, will be found there in the same way as they ex ist here upon the earth. In the abodes of the blessed, the Father will himself reign ovfr his saints with an immediate government, and in a manner different from the rule which he causes to be exercised over them through Christ, his ambassador, while they continue upon the earth. Vid. Scripta varii argumenti, p. 60, sq. ed. II. The glory and majesty of Christ will remain, however, unaltered; and he will still far excel his friends and brethren, who enjoy a happi ness similar to his own. He will still be honored and loved by them as their Lord, and as the author of their salvation, John 17: 24. Rom. 8: 17. 2 Tim. 2: 12. § 99. Remarks on the form and sense of the scriptural represen tation respecting . the kingdom of god and of christ ; and on the signification of the phrase, to sit on the right hand of god, as applied to Christ. I. Origin and design of the formuhe respecting the kingdom of Christ. (1) We must begin with the principle, that many of the images, expressions, and phrases, which are applied to God and his govern ment, are borrowed from those applied to earthly kings. We re gard God as possessing every thing which is considered great, exalt- Vol. II. 28 218 ART. Xl § 99. THE PHRASE, KINGDOM OF CHRIST, ed, and preeminent among men ; but in a far higher degree. With us, every thing is small and limited ; with him, great, comprehen sive, and immeasurable. But now, again, we reason retrogressive- ly from the deity and from heaven to earth. God by his agency is the cause of every thing great and wonderful which takes place on the earth ; ovSiv avev -&eov. Even the government of kings is of divine origin ; and they are appointed by the Deity himself. Tifiij (JtoTQitplog (lomXijog) $' ix Jtog Ion, ipihl Si s fi7/zieTa Zevg, Horn. II. II. 197. " Jupiter bestows upon kings their sceptre, and the right to reign over others," V. 205. See also II. IX. 98, 99 ; and Callim. Hymn, in Jov. ix Aiog paaiXrjtg,x.T.X. They are ac cordingly the representatives and ambassadors of the gods, bear their image, govern and judge in their stead. Hence they are call ed gods, sons of God, dioyeveig, Siozgeqieig, fteloi, dvTi&tol, x. z. X. All these ideas and expressions were common with the Israelit ish nation, and were solemnly sanctioned by their prophets under direct divine authority. The God Jehovah was their proper king, supreme over their state and nation. He governea them through the instrumentality of human regents and deputed kings. Their constitution was theocratic, to make use of a happy term, first ap plied to this subject by Josephus. Hence the Israelitish state and nation are called the possession, and the peculiar people of Jehovah, and also the kingdom of Jehovah : as Ex. 19: 6. Ps. 114: 2. In the same way the later Jews applied the phrases, kingdom of God or of heaven, to the Jewish state and church, and to the whole relig ion and ritual of the Israelites. When a proselyte was received by them, he was said to be admitted into the kingdom of God or of heaven ; -vid. Schottgen, De regno coelorum (Hor. Heb. T. I. extr.) ; and Wetstein on Matt. 21: 25, Note. On this account the Jews called themselves vlovg (iaaiXelag, Matt. 8: 12 ; and Christ said, the kingdom of heaven (the rights of the people of God) should be taken from them, Matt. 21: 43. (2) The Jews, according to the instruction of their prophets, conceived of the Messiah as a ruler and religious reformer, like Moses and the pious kings of antiquity ; only far greater, more ex alted and perfect than they, vid. § 89 ; and so they speak of the eternal king, and the eternal kingdom of David, 2 Sam. vii. Ps. lxxxix. They therefore called the happy condition of the church and state under the reign of Messiah, and the subjects of his govern- NOT INVENTED BY CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES. 219 ment, by way of eminence, @aoiXela &eov or ovgavdJv. They be lieved that they exclusively should enjoy tljis kingdom, and together with the Messiah, should reign over all nations. After the Babylo nian exile, this appellation, applied in this sense to the kingdom of the Messiah peculiarly, became very common, and was probably taken from Dan. 7: 13, 14. It must have been common in Pales tine at the time of Christ ; but it occurs very rarely in the later Rab binical writings. (3) Jesus and his apostles did not, then, invent these words and phrases ; they only preserved the terms which they found already existing, and gave them a meaning more just and pure than the common one. This they did, however, with wise caution and for bearance. Christ admitted the expectations of the Jews of freedom in the kingdom of the Messiah ; but he showed that this freedom was not civil liberty, but freedom from the power of sin, John 8: 32. Luke 17: 20. He confirmed the opinion of the Jews, that the Sacred writings testified concerning the Messiah, and he agreed with the Jews as to the very passages containing this testimony ; but he taught them the more just and spiritual interpretation of these passages, vid. § 90, III. By receiving the kingdom of God, he means, believing in Jesus Christ, submitting to his guidance and obeying his precepts, and thus obtaining the right of enjoying the divine favors promised through the Messiah, John m. Mark 10: 15. The same is meant by being received into the kingdom of God, Col. 1: 13. Ephes. 5: 5. It was for this object that John the Bap tist had before labored, although he was ignorant on many points belonging to the new dispensation ; the essentials, however, he un derstood ; and his theme was, " Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand." He knew Christ to be the " Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world ;" and described the Messiah as the am bassador of God, a teacher and expiator, John 1: 29. 3: 27, 32, 34. (4) These attempts of Jesus and his apostles were very much facilitated by the fact, that the terms, kingdom of God and king dom of heaven, were used figuratively even by the Jews. They fre quently gave these phrases a moral and spiritual sense, denoting and comprehending all the divine appointments for the spiritual welfare of men, — for their happiness in this and the future life ; every thing, in short, which serves to promote the progressive holiness and pro portionate happiness of man in this life, and the life to come, which 220 ART. X. § 99. THIS FIGURATIVE PHRASEOLOGY is his true destination. Hence they conceived of a twofold king dom or state of God ; one,upon the earth, of which the dispensation under the Messiah constitutes the brightest and greatest epoch ; the other, in heaven. The pious worshippers of God, are trans lated from the former to the latter. Here they live as strangers in a land of pilgrimage ; there, they are at home, in their native land. So they called the latter place, the Father's house, the upper church, the heavenly or new Jerusalem. And so comprehensively, the entire sum of happiness after death and in the future world, was called the kingdom of God. Now Jesus and the apostles frequently use the phrase §aaiXtla ¦&eov or ovgavmi), in this sense ; and still more frequently do they connect the two senses together. One who is a member of the kingdom of the Messiah upon the earth, and obeys his precepts, has a title to citizenship in the kingdom of God which is in heaven (in the city of God, in the new Jerusalem), Phil. 3: 20, 21 ; coll. Matt. 25:34. James 2: 5. 1 Cor. 15: 50. 2 Thess. 1: 5. 2 Tim. 4: 18. 2 Pet. 1: 11. The remark made respecting (SaaiXeveiv avv Xgia- zdi, x. t. X. belongs in this connexion ; vid. § 98, II. 1. (5) From what has been said, it appears that images derived from a king and his subjects, and their mutual relations, are more proper and suitable than any other, to represent and describe the duties, benefits and privileges of the worshippers of God, and espe cially of the true followers of the Messiah. But the Jews, who had little taste for what is spiritual, 'were content with the mere image, and so forgot the thing itself, which the image was designed to in dicate. They imagined a king reigning visibly upon the earth. Jesus and his apostles preserved these same images, but showed in what way they ought to be understood and applied. They show ed that the Messiah, after his ascension, did not visibly and bodily reign on the earth, but that henceforward he reigned in heaven; and there, invisible to mortal eyes, would rule the inhabitants of heaven and earth, (the latter by his religion and visible support,) un til the end of the world. They showed, moreover, that this invisi ble and heavenly government was of far wider extent than the earthly government expected by the Jews, and would embrace not one nation only, but all nations without distinction ; because the kingdom of morality, of truth and happiness, is a kingdom for all, such being the destination of all, and God, as a father, being soli- IMPRESSIVE AND INTELLIGIBLE. 221 citous for the happiness of all his children, John 10: 16 ; dvaxe- (paXatojoaa&ai zd navza iv Xgiazm, Eph. 1: 10, also nXrjgovv navza (comprehendere imperio), Ephes. 1: 23. 3: 19. Col. 1: 18. They taught that the whole visible disclosure of the majesty of Christ, and his return to the earth, would not take place before the end of the present constitution of the world. Thus they preserved the ancient expressions and phrases respecting the Messiah and his royal office, which had been common among the Israelites ; but so defined and modified the meaning of them, as to give them an entirely different aspect, — a different and far more elevated sense, than was common, — a sense, too, which entirely agreed with the real mean ing of the Old Testament predictions. Kings are the sons of God; and the most illustrious kings, are the first born. And so the Messiah ; but he, in a far higher sense than all earthly kings, is vlog ¦d-tov, ngmzoz oxog, povoyevr\g, John i. Heb. 1: 6. Rom. 8: 29. Col. 1: 15, coll. v. 18. The sons of kings, especially the first born, are the heirs and possessors of the kingdom ; and among the Israelites, themselves ruled, as representa tives and deputies of the father over particular provinces of his king dom ; vid. Anmerkung zu Ps. 45: 17. So too the Messiah rules over the most important parts of the paternal or divine kingdom. Hence he is called xXtjgovopog, Lord, possessor of the kingdom, Heb. 1: 2. Kings decree justice, and hold judgment, in the name of God, as his ambassadors and deputies, Ps. 72: 1. So too the Messiah ; but he will hold judgment over the living and the dead, in the name of the Father, at the end of the world. In the same way, the other forms and expressions may be easily solved. (6) This kind of representation and mode of instruction is in a high degree intelligible at all times ; it possesses internal truth and reality. But it was particularly adapted to all the conceptions of the Jews, and even of the heathen at that age. It conveyed to them, when it was properly understood, the most exalted and proper ideas respecting God, and his designs in the establishment of the Christian institute and church. At the time of Christ and the apos tles, the belief universally prevailed among the Jews, and indeed appears to have been entertained even by the prophets, that God gov erned the world by means of angels, as the servants and instruments of his providence, vid. Vol. I. §§ 58, 60. The belief too of many sub ordinate deities, through whose instrumentality the supreme God 222 ART. X. § 99. SENSE OF THE PHRASE, governed the world, prevailed among heathen nations, cf. 1 Cor. 8: 5, 6. The apostles therefore showed, that God had now entrust ed the government of the world, and the care of our spiritual wel fare, directly to the man Christ ; and that these ministers of divine providence, as well as all the other instruments which it employed, were now subjected to him ; that all might trust in him alone, as the author of salvation ; vid. 1 Cor. ut supra. And so Paul, Heb. i. n. proves that Christ is far exalted above all the servants and min isters of God (angels), who are now indeed made subject and obe dient to him. This reference of the apostolical doctrine is very clear from Heb. 2: 5, ovx dyye'Xoig vneza^e tijv olxovpivrjv ztjv [xiXXovaav (i. e. the times of the New Testament), but to Christ only ; although he lived in humiliation upon the earth (vid. the verse following) ; which was always revolting to the Jews. Note. To say the whole briefly ; the phrase, kingdom of God or of Christ, in the sense in which John the Baptist, Jesus, and his apostles understood it, signifies, the whole work of Christ for the good of men, and every thing which is effected by this work. Hence the phrase denotes (a) all the benefits, rights, pri vileges and rewards, which his followers receive in this and the future life ; comprising the doctrine respecting Christ, forgiveness of sin, and all the bles sedness which we owe to him ; and sometimes comprising too, the followers of Christ themselves (cives), who enjoy these blessings ; (b) all the duties and the worship which we owe to God and Christ ; and so the conditions on which we obtain the blessings above enumerated. Thus are the comprehensive phrases, to enter into the kingdom of God, to see it, etc. to be understood. Vid. especial ly Morus pp. 184, 185. n. 3. Cf. Storr, " De notione regni crelestis in N. T." Opusc. Acad. T. t. n. V. II. Signification of the phrase, to sit on the right hand of God, as applied to Christ.* (1) The phrase is borrowed from Ps. 110: 1, which the Jewish teachers at the time of Christ must have considered to be a Messianic psalm, as appears from Matt. 22: 44, sq. [Vid. for the explanation of this psalm, the Note to the author's German translation, 3d ed.] The origin of this expression, too, is to be sought in a comparison of God with earthly kings. We conceive of kings, rulers, judges as sitting on thrones, when they exercise rule, pronounce judgment, or display all their splendor and majesty. Hence the verba sedendi (as " Vid. the Programm cited in the preceding Sections, in which the vari ous explanations which have been given to this phrase are enumerated and ex amined. Cf. Morus, p. 185, n. 6. TO SIT ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD. 223 ^a;"1) signify also to rule, to reign. God has his throne in the heav ens, and there Christ, after his ascension, seated himself with God, 1 Pet. 3: 22. Ephes. 1: 20. Heb. 1: 13. Now for any one to be appointed a place with a king, — to be seated with him, or at his right hand, is frequently, (a) A mere external mark of honor, showing that such a person is highly respected, esteemed and loved by the king. So 1 Kings 2: 19, sq. 1 Sam. 20: 25. 1 Mace. 10: 62—65. Standing at the right hand is the same thing, Ps. 45: 10. The Grecian and Roman wri ters furnish abundant examples of the same usage. But it denotes, (b) Participation in the government, and associated rule, though not full equality in rank and dignity. Sitting with the king is plain ly used in this sense, Matt. 20: 21, and frequently in Grecian and Roman writers, and in Grecian mythology. Minerva is represented by Homer as sitting beside Jupiter, and by Pindar, as sitting at his right hand, and as giving charges and commands. Apollo is repre sented by Callimachus as sitting at the right hand of Jupiter, and as rewarding singers and poets. In all these cases, participation in the government and associated rule are indicated, though not full equality. (2) Now when this phrase is applied to Christ, we easily see from this analogy what it must mean, and how it must have been un derstood by ancient readers and hearers. The phrase is never appli ed to Christ, except when his humanity is spoken of; or when he is mentioned as Messiah, — as {rcdv&gmnog. It is not spoken of his divine character ; though Michaelis so explains it, referring it to the seat of God upon the ark of the covenant. The language, " Christ left his seat at the right hand of the Father in order to become man," was first used by the fathers who lived after the fourth century. Such language never occurs in the New Testament. Sitting at the right hand of God, is always there represented, as the reward which the Messiah obtained from God, after his death and ascension, for the faithful accomplishment, when upon earth, of all his work for the salvation of man. It is the promised reward (reXelmoig, pgapelov,) which the victor receives after a long contest ; vid. Acts 2; 31 36. Heb. 12: 2. Hence the Father is said to have placed Jesus at his right hand, Ephes. 1: 20. This phrase, therefore, be yond doubt, implies every thing which belongs to the glory of Christ considered as a man, and to the dominion over the entire universe, 224 ART. X. § 99. SENSE OF PHRASE, ETC. over the human race, and especially over the church and its members, which belongs to him as a king ; vid. § 98. This is the reward which he receives from the Father ; he takes this place, as a man, for the first time, immediately after his ascension to heaven, 1 Pet. 3: 22. Mark 16: 19. Acts 2: 32, sq. etc. With this, his reign in heaven commences. Paul himself explains the phrase by fiaatXeveiv, 1 Cor. 15: 25, and opposes Xeizovgyelv, (which is applied to angels, vid. Heb. 1: 3, 4,) to xu&iCeiv ix de%Mv &eov, Heb. 1: 13, 14. One of the most decisive , texts is Ephes. 1: 20 — 22," God raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand," v. 20. The exaltation and dominion of Jesus, which extends over every thing in all the universe, is described, v. 21 ; and finally his reign over the church is particularly mentioned, xal auzov e'Smxe xeqiaXrjv inl ndvza (supreme ruler) rjj ixxXrjala, v. 22. Cf. 1 Pet. 3: 22. CHAPTER THIRD. On THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. § 100. Of the higher nature in Christ, and how it is proved. We have before shown (§ 93), that Christ was a true man, both as to soul and body ; but have now to show that, according to the rep resentation of the New Testament, he was not a mere man ; but that he possessed at the same time such exalted perfections, as can not be ascribed to any mere man, or indeed to any created being ; or, to speak in the language of the schools, that he possessed a di vine nature. Caution is necessary in the selection of the texts by which this doctrine is proved. (1) This doctrine cannot be proved, (a) By every text in which Christ is called vlog &eov, for this is frequently a name by which his work and office, and not his na ture are denoted. There are passages, however, in which vlog &eov and (xovoyivyg clearly indicate the higher nature of Christ, vid. § 73, 6, b. Such texts only must be chosen, as are determined by the context and predicates to have this reference ; e. g. John 5: 10, and the appellation fxovoyevtjg John i., also the texts in which Christ calls God his Father in a sense in which this name is never used by any created being ; those, too, in which he ascribes attri butes to himself, as Son, which never were, or could be predicated of a mortal or created spirit ; the texts, e. g. in which he says, that he works in common with his Father. It deserves however to be remarked, that many theologians, ever since the earliest ages, have considered the appellation Son of God, as denoting simply the divine nature of Christ. These remarks apply equally to the appellation Xoyog, in itself considered. (b) By those expressions, (when taken by themselves,) whichascribe to Christ resemblance to God in some high degree, e. g. tixtiv #fo,ii Vol. II. 29 226 ART. X. § 100. THE TEXTS IN PROOF dogdzov, Col. 1: 15, and dnavyaapa Sol^g and xagaxtt]g vnooiuai- wj avzov, Heb. If 3. ' ' Anavyaapa Soiijg signifies the radiance of the divine splendor or majesty ; yagaxxtjg vnoaxaaemg avzov, a vis ible image (imago expressa) of the divine substance. The sense, then, of these representations is this, "the Son is he through whom God hath clearly revealed, or visibly made known himself to men." So Paul himself explains it, 2 Cor. 4: 4, " As God, at the creation, gave light to the obscure earth ; so Christ, by his religion, gave light to men, and led them to a clear knowledge of God." Vid. John 1: 14, coll. v. 18. But other expressions in the passages just cited, clearly ascribing divine attributes to Christ, are proof of this doc trine, as may be seen below. (c) Nor is this doctrine proved by those passages, which treat of Christ's state of exaltation, and of the eminent privileges which were conferred upon him, as a man, when he entered upon that condition : e. g. a large portion of the passages Phil, ii., and Heb. 1: 6, sq., which are often improperly adduced as proof-texts of his divine na ture: One great evil of an incautious selection of proof-texts is this, that when one particular passage is found not to prove the point for , which it was adduced, the conclusion is readily made, that the whole doctrine is incapable of scriptural support. (2) This doctrine may be proved, (a) By the texts in which Christ is described as far exalted over all the creatures of God, — over men, angels, and every thing in the universe besides God himself; and indeed as the creator and pre* server of all things. Such texts are Col. 1: 15, 16, and others al ready explained, § 38. The proof in point is not derived so much from the term, elxmv titov, as from what is there predicated of Christ, ngmzozoxog naoyg xzlaemg, does not mean, the great est or first of all creatures; for we find immediately after, that he himself created all things; and we must therefore conclude, that he is not the first of all creatures, since he is himself the Creator. ngmxozoxpg must be rendered either king, ruler, Heb. 1: 6, and Rev. 3: 14, where we read «?ZiJ (i. e. dgymv) xzlaemg &eov ; or he who existed prior to all creatures, in which sense the Jews called God primogenitum mundi. (b) By the texts in which attributes are ascribed to Christ which can be predicated of no mortal, and which are never ascribed to an- OF CHRIST'S DIVINE NATURE. 227 gels, or to the prophets or other inspired teachers, whom God has employed for the accomplishment of his purposes upon the earth. Such texts are found most frequently in John. Among; them are those which contain the phrase, so often occurring, " he descend*- ed from heaven," John 3: 31. 6: 31, sq. v. 62. 8: 23. 13: 3. 16: 28. This phrase denotes superhuman, heavenly, or divine origin and nature; and is spoken of mannat John 6: 31 ; and of wisdom, James 1: 17; cf. 1 Cor. 15: 47. This language is never used with respect to any mere prophet or inspired teacher. Even John, whose bap tism was i'S ovgavov (of divine origin), distinguishes himself from Christ, who came from heaven, John 3: 31 ; and speaking of Christ's return to heaven, he says, " he returned thither 071011 »Ji> to ngoxi- gov, John 6: 62 and xvn. This text is so clear, that Socinus and others, who denied the superhuman nature of Christ, invented a rap ture of Christ into the heavens (raptum in cesium) ; or considered the text as referring to the pre-existence of the human soul; al though not a trace of such an opinion appears in the Bible. Here it might indeed be objected, ' that Christ is described as an exalted, heavenly spirit, but not as God ; he might still have been created.' So the Arians. The objection, however, is not valid ; because in these passages, and elsewhere, he is said to exist before any created things (i. e. ab aeterno), John 1: 1. and xvn. vid. § 37, in prin. Before the creation of the world, nothing existed be sides God. So that whatever had existence then, was God him self, belonging to his being and his attributes. This is the direct and incontrovertible conclusion of John, in the passage cited. Indeed, Christ is distinctly affirmed to have enjoyed su preme, divine glory in heaven. " Restore to me (by exaltation) the glory r\v tlxov ngo tov tov xoapov eivai nag a a 0 1 ," i.e. in heaven (referring to his divine nature), John 17: 5. Such language is never used in respect to any prophet, angel, or any created inteU ligence. Ao^a, in the last case, cannot refer to the office of Christ, or to his dominion, for he had none " before the creation of the. world." Hence he is called by way of eminence, 0 vlog ¦&eov, John 5:10; 0 povoyevrjg, John 1:14; because, among all who are elsewhere called the sons or children of God, he is alone in his kind, and bears this name in an exalted sense, in which no man, no angel, no created being can appropriate it, John v., vid. § 37. Christ also frequently alludes in his discourses to his divine na ture, in another way ; e. g. by the word tlpl, John 7: 29, 34, 36 ; 228 ART. X. § 100. TEXTS PROVING CHRIST DIVINE. " before Abraham was, I am," John 8: 58. This is the very lan guage in which the immutable God speaks of himself, in the pres ent time. So the Jews understood it ; and regarded it as blasphe my for Christ to apply it to himself, and on this account began to stone him, v. 59. For never had a prophet, or any created being, spoken thus of himself. Christ also frequently ascribed the miracles which be wrought to himself. He professed that he worked, or acted in common with God, John 5: 17. 10: 31. This again, was never said of any of the prophets. In the miracles of which they were the instruments, nothing indeed was done by them, but every thing by God. Ac cordingly, the Jews affirmed, that by this daim, Christ made him self equal with God, 'laov Seo), John 5: 18. 10: 31, sq. They per ceived that he used the term filius Dei in a sense, in which no mere man could use it with respect to himself; and that he made himself equal with God, by ascribing to himself what can belong to God only. And Christ does not disapprove, but rather authorizes their conclusion, John v. and x. There are many other expressions in the last discourses of Je sus to his disciples (John xin., sq.), which never are used in the Bi ble, and never can be used, in respect to any created being : as John 14: 6 — 9 ; also vs. 13, 14, where Christ ascribes to himself the hearing of prayer ; etc. These classes of texts prove clearly against Photinus and the Socinians, that the writers of the New Testament did not understand Christ to be a mere man, but that they supposed him to possess a higher nature, far exalted above that of men and angels. This the Arians concede. But they affirm that these texts are not suffi cient to prove his equality with the Father. Even these texts, how ever, go far towards proving this point. But it is proved more directly, (c) From the third class of texts, which show that Christ is represented by the writers of the New Testament as partaking of the divine nature as fully as the Father, and being as truly God (laog nazgi) as the Father ; and from texts in which he is called God. All the necessary considerations respecting these texts are found Vol. I. §§ 37, 38. § 101. UNION OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST. 229 § 101. Of the connexion between the deity and humanity of Christ, according to what the Bible directly teaches, and the consequen ces which may be deduced from its instructions. I. What the Bible directly teaches respecting the union of the two natures in Christ. \ (1) When we compare, without prepossession or prejudice, the various passages which treat of Christ, we clearly perceive that two parts, as it were, or two aspects, are distinguished in the same subject or person. This subject, called Christ, is considered as God, and as man ; divine and human attributes are equally ascribed to him, in one and the same context ; as in his own prayer, John 17: 5. It was for this reason, that even as early as the third century, the ap pellation fteavd-gmnog, or {liavSgog, was given him ; vid. § 102.— The clearest passages in point, are found in John ; especially 1: 3, coll. v. 18, which clearly teach, (a) that the same Xoyog, who cre ated all things, and existed from eternity with the Father, as his Son and confidant ; — the same Xoyog (b) became man (odg% iyiv- ezd), and lived among men. Hence the ivadgxmaig of the fath ers. The passage of Paul, Gal. 4: 4, agrees with the one last mentioned ; but, taken by itself, is not so clear. So the text John 16: 28, " he who came down from heaven, the same returns again to heaven." The same person who, as man, lived among men, came down from heaven, and existed previously in heaven. John 3: 13. 6: 62. 17: 5. Also, 1 Tim. 3. 16. John 8: 40, 57, 58, and ch. xiv. From these texts it follows, (a) that the Logos, who was from eternity with the Father, is the same person who afterwards ap peared upon the earth under the name of Jesus Christ ; (6) that this Logos became a real man (adg% iyivezo), or received a human nature ; and not merely assumed an apparent human form. Now, except we deviate arbitrarily from the words of the Bible, we can explain these facts only on the supposition, that in Christ deity and humanity are distinguished, and yet connected. (2) This connexion between the Son of God and the man Je sus, commenced, when Christ was conceived ; vid. § 93. For the supposition of the Gnostic sects, and of Cerinthus, that the higher nature was united with the man Jesus at some later 230 ART. X. § 101. MANNER OF THE UNION period, as at his baptism, is wholly unscriptural. John plainly de clares, 1: 14, that the Xoyog (the same to whom divine predicates had been ascribed, v. 1) adg% iyeveto. From this passage we are compelled to conclude, that the divine nature connected itself with the human, when the latter was conceived. Theologians illustrate this by the human soul, which in conception is united with the hu man body, and thenceforward animates and governs it. In the same way was the divine nature united with the human, thencefor ward composing with it one person, Christ ; as our soul and body united constitute one individual man, consisting of two very dissimi lar natures. (3) 2ag% must here be taken in its common scriptural sense, to denote not merely a man, but one infirm like others ; only with out sin. The theologians of the earliest ages, even of the second century, took occasion from this term to call Christ's becoming man, ivadgxmaig and ivav&gmnrjaig, Lat. incarnatio. In after times, they denominated the same event ngoaXrjipig, assumtio, the assuming of human nature ; since we must suppose that the superior nature condescended to the human and became united with it; and not the reverse. This mode of speech, although in itself unobjectionable, is not scriptural. For the phrase, anigpa- tog 'Afigadp iniXap§dvexai, Heb. 2: 16, means that he assisted, took care of the children of Abraham. Hpw could one'gpa 'Af3gadp de note human nature ? EniXapPaveo&ai and avriXapfiavea'dai «- vog literally mean, to take hold of any one, Acts 23: 19 ; then to assist, to take care of any one, Sir. 4: 12. Luke 1: 54. II. Conclusions from these scriptural statements ; and a more precise explanation of them. The connexion of deity and humanity in Christ was, (1) Not of such a nature, as that either the deity or humanity was deprived of any essential and peculiar attributes, or in any es sential respect changed. For, (a) The divine nature cannot be supposed to have changed. Such a supposition would contradict our very first ideas respecting God. It is not therefore just and proper to say, as some of the Fa thers did : The eternal Son of God, (i. e. the Deity,) left heaven, surrendered or renounced his glory, and condescended to suffer ing, indigence, etc. on the earth. Such language is never used in the Bible ; and the idea implied by it is inconsistent with the di- OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST. 231 vine glory. But for the Deity to unite itself with frail humanity is no more unsuitable, derogatory, or dishonorable, than for God to give proofs of his glory in the meanest of his works, to connect him self with them, and in and through them to exert his power and agency. (b) Nor could the human nature be altered in any essential re spect, by this its connexion with the divine. For Christ would then have ceased to be a true man. If one should say therefore, that Christ as a man, had, from the beginning of his existence, the possession and use of all divine attributes, — that as a man, he was almighty, omniscient, omnipresent, — and that, as many theologians suppose, he merely forbore the exercise of these attributes as a man ; he would thus, in reality, deify the human nature of Christ, vid. § 92, III. 2. Besides, the passages of the Bible, which speak of the in crease of his knowledge, Luke 2: 52 ; of his not knowing, Mark 13: 32 ; etc. clearly teach the contrary. For these representations do not bear the explanation which some have given them, that he merely pretended that he did not know, (simulabat se nescire, as Au gustine said,) that he pretended to increase in wisdom ; etc. In short, those who form such hypotheses, confess with the mouth the true humanity of Christ, — while in fact they deny it, and allow to Christ, only the veil of a human body and the external appearance of humanity. (2) The connexion of the two natures must rather be placed in the two following points ; viz. (a) in a close and constant connex ion of the deity of Christ with his humanity, from the commence ment of his existence ; (6) in a cooperation of the two natures in ac tion, where it was requisite and necessary, and as far as the nature and attributes of each admitted. The scriptural doctrine is this : ' the glory (eJdga) which Christ, in his superior nature, had with the Father from eternity (ngo xaxa^oXijg xoapov), was imparted to his human nature, and shared with it when he became man, so far as this human nature was susceptible of this glory ; and was manifested whenever and wherever it was necessary upon earth,' John 17: 5, 22, 24 ; ch. xiv. coll. Phil. 2: 9—11. By the following remarks, something may be done to elucidate this subject, and to render it as intelligible as the limitation of our conceptions will permit. 232 ART. X. § 101. MANNER OF THE UNION (a) The agency of God is not always exhibited with equal clear ness in his creatures. His influence, at certain times and in cer tain circumstances, appears more strikingly and visibly, than at oth ers. The nature of God, however, remains unchanged, amidst all these changes of things which are extrinsic to himself. He is in deed equally connected and united with all nature, at all times, and under all circumstances, from its first origin. In a similar way must we conceive of the relation of the divine to the human in Christ. In the state of humiliation, the divine in Christ supported his humanity, wherever and whenever there was any necessity for it ; especially whenever his Messianic offices required. The divine nature, however, did not impart to the human any attributes, of which the latter, especially in its earthly state and condition, was incapable, or of which it did not stand in need. Nor did the divine nature in itself suffer any alteration by the fate of Jesus while he was upon earth, — his sufferings, death, etc. But in the state of ex altation, the sphere of the agency of Jesus was infinitely ennobled and enlarged. There the influences and the effects of his divinity could appear more visibly. There, in heaven, he is far more suscep tible of its cooperation and support, in the government of the world and of the church, than in his humble life upon the earth, John 17: 5, .22, 24. Christ, as a man, could not have been raised to such a degree of dignity and glory, as to receive supreme dominion over the spiritual and material world, if his nature had not been so unit ed with that of the Lord of the universe, that the boundless perfec tions of the latter, became also the perfections of his nature. The Bible always regards the subject in this point of view : as John I. xvn. Phil. 2: 9, sq. Heb. i. Ephes. 1: 20, sq. (6) Writers who proceed with caution upon this subject, de scribe the manner of the connexion of the divine and human na tures in Christ, rather negatively than positively. Many, however, endeavour to explain the subject by supposing a praesentiam arctio- rem, or a peculiarem prcesentice gradum, and remark that a praesen- tia localis, or approximatio , cannot be understood. The subject has been frequently illustrated, ever since the fifth century, by a comparison of the union between soul and body ; and from this comparison the ideas and phraseology relative to this subject have been derived. According to this comparison, the human nature of Christ was the instrument and organ of the divine nature, as the OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST. 233 body is the organ of the human soul, with and through which it acts and operates upon things extrinsic to itself. The body could not act without the cooperation of the soul. The soul has a deep con cern in every thing which affects the body, and the reverse. And yet each of the two parts remains, as to its essential nature, unalter ed. Vid. Ernesti, Progr. Dignitas et Veritas incarnationis, Opusc. Theol. p. 395, seq. This comparison casts some light upon the subject, but is not entirely applicable, and must not be extended too far. In the union of soul and body, the question regards the state and actions of a spirit in a body. But in Christ, as a man, his deity does not act upon his body only, (as Apollinaris supposed,) but upon the human body and soul both; and indeed upon the human body principally through the human soul. Here, then, the question regards the un ion and cooperation of one spirit with another. But here we are destitute of clear conceptions and definite knowledge ; as we know not even how the human soul acts upon the body, and is united with it. And here we see the reason at once, why this subject is so obscure to us in our present condition, and why we are so little able to explain the modus. When we hear of the presence of a spirit, if we avoid considering it as material, we shall obtain only this definite idea ; that the spirit is present with us and acts upon us by thought. So we are present in spirit with an absent person, when we think of him. Farther than this, we know nothing. Vid. § 23, I. on the omnipresence of God. After these observations, we can form this general conclusion : that the deity of Christ, as deity, is indeed every where present ; i. e. acts in every thing ; but that it is present with the humanity of Jesus in a peculiar manner, in which it is not present with any oth er man, or any other created being ; that is, that his divinity acts in and through his humanity, so far as the latter is susceptible of this cooperation, in such a way that this deity and humanity united in Christ, must be considered as one person. This union is repre sented in a similar manner by Origen, negl Agydiv, 1. 2. This un ion or connexion of the humanity of Jesus with God, is not limited and temporary, as in other spirits with whom God is connected, John 5: 26. That here there is something peculiar, which does not take place with respect to others, is shown by the very peculiar expressions which are used in the Bible with respect to this union, Vol. II. 30 234 ART. X. §101. MANNER OF THE UNION and which are never used with respect to the union of God with his creatures in general. ' (c) These thoughts may afford us some conception of the union of the two natures ; but they are very insufficient to render the sub ject entirely intelligible, or to explain the manner of this union in a satisfactory way. Morus gives the right view of this subject, p. 138, § 10. Theologians call it, mysterium incarnationis, and the more judicious fathers are unwilling to give any farther distinctions re specting the modus, (ro' Titos,) than the Holy Scriptures warrant. But nothing more can be determined with certainty from the New Testament, than what has just been remarked. From the limita tion of all human conceptions, we cannot believe, that even the apostles or first Christians understood the subject better than we do. But they did not pretend to insist upon an explanation of things, be yond the reach of their senses, and the sphere of human knowl edge and science. They did not doubt or deny these things, be cause they could not be satisfactorily explained ; cf. 1 Cor. n. m. Such was the fact, only after men adopted the oracular decisions of an arbitrary metaphysical philosophy, as pronounced first by the Pla- tonists, then by the Aristotelians, and in modern times by other phi losophical schools. They now began to insist upon having every thing demonstrated ; by a natural consequence, they refused to be lieve any thing which could not be demonstrated ; and the direct consequence of this was scepticism. The union of soul and body in one person is as inexplicable to philosophy, as the union now under consideration. Indeed, if we were mere spirits, and did not know from experience, that a spirit, which is immortal and which belongs entirely to the moral and spir itual world, is, as a matter of fact, united with an animal body, which is dust and earth, into one personal J; we should consider it as highly improbable, and indeed contradictory ; and our metaphy sicians would perhaps make bold to demonstrate a priori its impos sibility from principles of reason. Note. Some have questioned, whether the ideas entertained upon this point might not be illustrated by a comparison of the religious opinions of othor nations. Wo find that many nations not only worshipped deities who had been men, and had lived upon the earth, but believed that certain deities khad nssumed bodies, and become incarnate. This is true especially of those nations which believed in the transmigration of the soul, and were extrava- OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST. 235 gant in their veneration for the founders of their religions; e.g. the Indians, Mon- goli, Tartars, Druses, and Persians. But these nations exhibit a rudeness and coarseness of conception, and a gross anthropomorphism, from which Christ is far removed, and which never appear among the first Christians, nor indeed in the whole ago in which they lived. Whatever distinct conceptions they had upon this subject, were evidently more refined and suitable to the nature of God, than those of other nations. The idea held by the Greeks of an attend ant Demon or Genius, who constantly abode in men, is also entirely differ ent from the Christian view. (d) Considering, then, how much there is in this subject which is obscure and inexplicable, we ought neither to prescribe any uni versal formula? respecting all the more minute distinctions of this doctrine, farther than they are clearly founded in the Scriptures ; nor, after the example of Cyril and Leo the Great in the fifth cen tury, to condemn those who are unwilling to assent to these human formulae.. One particular view may be very important to us, and contribute greatly to our satisfaction and conviction ; but we ought not for this reason to force it upon all other Christians, or to con sider them as less pious and devoted to Christ, because they differ on some points of this doctrine, from our creed and our phraseolo gy. In fact, the subject lies too much beyond and above our sphere. The opinions of men, therefore, respecting the modus of this truth, and their formulae of this doctrine, will always continue divided and various ; and the hypotheses of the learned will always be different ly modified, according to the different systems of philosophy and different modes of thinking which may prevail. During the first ages of the church, nothing was decided upon this subject ; the simple doctrine of the Bible was adopted ; and the more learned Christians were left at liberty, from the second cen tury, to philosophize upon this subject at pleasure. So it continued till the end of the fourth century. The creeds, only decided : Je- sum esse Deifilium e Maria natum. Even during the violent con troversies which began to rage in the fifth century, many of the more moderate concurred with the views just expressed. Melancthon remarked justly and excellently in his ' Loci Theologici,' that it is not worth while to bestow much laborious diligence on the mi nute developement of this subject ; that to know Christ, is to know the salvation which he has procured for us ; and not studiously to investigate his nature, and the manner of his incarnation : ' Christum — oportet alio quodam modo cognoscamus, quam exhibent 236 ART. X. § 101. MANNER OF THE UNION scholastici.' To scholars, indeed, the historical knowledge of these investigations is useful and necessary. But all these subtile inquir ies and distinctions are not proper for the instruction of the com mon people and of the young. This wise counsel of Melancthon was very much disregarded in the Lutheran Church at the very period in which it was given ; in the Formula of Concord, the theologians prescribed definite forms of doctrine, upon which the greatest stress was laid ; vid. § 102. (e) The instructions of the Holy Scriptures upon this subject, (1) are intended to show, that this exalted dignity of the person of Christ, confers a very high value upon all that he taught, performed, and suffered for men ; — that we are thus bound, according to his precepts, to believe his whole doctrine and work, and to apply these to our own benefit; — and that his doctrines are the doctrines of God, his works the works of God, his guidance and assistance, those of God. Morus gives some fine views to enable religious teachers to present this subject in a truly practical manner, p. 139, sq. §§ 12, 13. (2) But there is one more principal circumstance, to which the Scriptures often direct the attention, and by which the importance of this doctrine in a practical respect is still more illustrated. Al most all men feel the necessity of having a human God. It is diffi cult to love and heartily confide in that immeasurable, invisible, in accessible God, whom we learn from philosophy. But Jesus Christ, (the Logos become man,) is not merely the immeasurable, the in visible, the inaccessible God. He is a true man of our own race ; and we are his brethren. It is, therefore, easy to love him, and heartily to confide in him ; especially considering how much, as a man, he deserves of the human race, by suffering and dying for us. Thus our love to him and our dependence upon him, rest mostly upon the fact that he is man, and indeed, a man united with God, in such a sense, as no other man ever was ; vid. 1 Tim. 2: 5. Heb. 2: 14—18. 4: 15. (John 14: 1.) John 5:27. (/) There have been some theologians who have maintained, that the interposition of a divine person was necessary for the re covery of men ; — that men could not have been delivered in any other way. Some have carried this so far, as to seem to set limits to the divine freedom, and to force from God, by presumptuous de monstration, what was merely a free gift; vid. § 88, ad finem. It OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST. 237 were enough to show the suitableness of this means ; without at tempting to prove its absolute necessity. This plan of God is wise, and fully suited to the wants of men ; and therefore God has chosen it. The Bible always labors to exhibit this fact, as the greatest proof of the free and unmerited love of God ; John 3: 16. How opposite to this is the attempt to demonstrate this truth a priori ! So thought Athanasius ; and Augustine calls those stultos, who under take to demonstrate metaphysically, that God could not have saved men in another way. Still we find this mistaken wish to have ev ery thing demonstrated, even among the fathers. Tertullian said : " God must have become man, in order to unite God with men, and men with God." Anselmus of the eleventh century, argues thus : ' Without satisfaction, men could not be saved. To give this satisfaction to God, was the duty of men ; but the duty was too hard for them. None but God was able to give it. But to him, as the Judge of men, it must be given. Therefore the Son of God must become man, in order, as God-man, to afford this satisfaction' to God ;' vid. § 114, 2. Some theologians, even in modern times, especially from the school of Wolf, have pretended to demonstrate, that this was the only means of rescuing man, and was absolutely necessary for this purpose. Such demonstrations are entirely unsuitable for promiscuous popular instruction. Christ commissioned his disciples, not to de monstrate this truth philosophically, but to exhibit it (1 Cor. i — m) ; to teach it, from their own conviction and experience, with plain ness and simplicity, but still with sincere interest, and' then quietly to leave the consequences with God. This was surely very wise ; and this is the course which we should pursue. Besides, in this constant vicissitude of philosophical opinions and schools, there is this evident disadvantage, that the truth itself, which is demonstrat ed by the help of the philosophy of the schools, is either doubted or rejected, as soon as the school goes down. 238 ART. X. § 102. THE EARLIEST OPINIONS § 102. Historical observations explanatory of the origin and pro gressive developement of the ecclesiastical system, respecting the person and the two natures of Christ, until the eighth cen tury. I. Earliest opinions, from the second to the fourth century. As early as the third century, many points had been established by the Catholic councils respecting both the divine and human na ture of Christ, separately considered ; in opposition (a) to those who denied that Christ had a real human body (the Docetae), or (6) to those who either maintained that he was a mere man, or, allow ing his higher nature, yet denied his essential divinity and equality with the Father. From that period, the Catholic fathers introduc ed into their authorized symbols such distinctions and formulas, as were calculated to oppose the above named errors. But it was not until the fifth century, that any thing definite was established respecting the union of these two natures in Christ; and on this subject, the most various modes of thinking and speaking prevailed, even among the Catholic fathers themselves. Those dif ficult points in this doctrine, respecting which so much controver sy existed after the fourth century, do not seem to have occasioned much trouble to the earlier Christians, who had not as yet learned to apply the metaphysics of the schools to the doctrines of religion. And it is found to be precisely so with common unlearned Chris tians at the present day, who have not their heads filled with those metaphysical systems, in conformity with which, as their models, others adjust and square all their opinions. Hence, it does not ap pear, that any Christian teacher of the two first centuries made any attempt to elucidate the mysteries of this subject, and even the her etics of this period passed them by without taking offence. AH which was distinctly conceived of, during this early period, respect ing the manner in which God became man, was simply this, that God, or the divine nature of Christ, became visible in a true human body, and assumed real human flesh. Hence, the earliest fathers and symbols are satisfied with the term ivadgxmaig, without go ing into farther explanations : mate im elg vlov Otov aagxm&ivza. So Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian (Adv. Prax. c. 2), and even Orhren (negl 'Agymv). RESPECTING THE UNION OF NATURES 239 [The general truth of the above statement of our author, that the early fathers supposed that the Logos assumed only a human body, is confirmed by the testimony of Muenscher, Dogmatic His tory (Translation), p. 63 ; of Hahn, Lehrbuch.S. 456; ofNeander, Al. Kirchengesch. B. I. Ab. III. S. 1063.' But there is one ex ception to this statement in the opinions of Justin, which were formed under the influence of the Platonic philosophy. Adopting the three-fold division of man, into body, soul, and spirit, which was so common with the Platonic fathers, and of which a fuller account has been given in the first volume (§ 51, I. 1, Note), he supposed that Christ consisted, like other men, of these three parts ; except that in place of the erring human reason (Germ. Vernunft, in opposition to Verstand, or Gr. nvevpa as opposed to ijivxy), which is only a ray of the divine Logos, he had this Logos himself, as the higher controlling principle of his being. In these specula tions with regard to the manner of the connexion between the di vine arid human in Christ, Justin went before the age in which he lived, and furnished the germ of the system, which was after wards farther developed by Apollinaris, whose doctrinal predeces sor Justin may therefore rightly be considered. Cf. Neander, Allg. Gesch. der chr. Rel. und Kir., B. I. Abth. III. S. 1063.— Tr.] The systems of religion from which many of the earlier Chris tians were converted, appear to have contributed something to wards enabling them to receive without difficulty the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God. They were familiarized from their youth, in the midst of heathenism, with the idea of the visible appearance of the deity in human forms ; and although, when they afterwards became Christians, they considered the accounts of the incarnations of the heathen gods as fabulous, still, by having been familiar with such accounts, they were prepared to receive more easily the fact of the incarnation announced in Christianity ; they now had a seeming analogy for it. — But on this very account many of them conceived of the incarnation as a degradation of the deity, vid. § 93. — The converts from Judaism to Christianity had also some analogy for this doctrine in their previous system of belief, which very much facilitated their reception of it ; since they were taught by their ancient books, even by those of Moses, to believe in the appearance of angels, and of God himself, in human form. [The student may find many interesting views, illustrating the re- 240 ART. X. § 102. OPINIONS OF TERTULLIAN AND ORIGEN lation of the various systems of heathenism to Christianity, in Schlegel's " Philos. der Geschichte ;" also in Kreutzer's " Sym- bolik."— Tr.] But while, in opposition to the Docetae, the early fathers con tended zealously for the reality of the human body of Christ ; none in either of the contending parties, before the end of the second century, thought it necessary, to prove particularly, that he had also a true human soul. This was not indeed direct ly denied [except by Justin as just mentioned, Tr.], still the ne cessity of proving its existence was not at that time felt ; nor in deed was the essential distinction between the nature of the soul and body at all so obvious at that time, certainly it was not used in common practice, as it has since been: [Tertullian was the first, who distinctly taught the doctrine of a proper human soul in Christ. In his anthropology, he rejected the common division of man into body, soul, and spirit; and admitted only two distinct principles in all animated existences, viz. body and soul ; the latter of which, however, in man, he supposed en dowed with higher properties than in the inferior orders. He had not therefore the convenient resort of the Platonic theologians, of interposing an animal ipvxn between the Logos and the body in Christ ; but must either connect the Logos immediately and with out intervention with the body (which would be to attribute at once to the divine Logos the pain and sorrow, the progress in knowl edge, the ignorance, and all the other indications of an imperfect hu man soul, which appear in the life of Christ) ; or, he must ascribe to Christ a proper and entire human soul. With this necessity in view, he chose the latter part of the alternative, preferring the mys- tery and complexity attending the connexion between the divine and human, to the absurdities resulting from the former theory, though commended by its simplicity to the speculative reason. Cf. Neander, Geschichte, B. I. Abth. III. S. 1064.— Tr.] After the third century, Origen first [?] gave importance to this doctrine of the human soul of Christ in his Theology, and brought it distinctly into light ; though not on the same grounds by which the doctrine is now supported. [Although Origen agreed with Tertullian in maintaining an entire human soul in Christ, his views respecting the mode of union between the two natures, differed widely from those of Tertullian, and took their coloring from his RESPECTING THE UNION OF NATURES. 241 peculiar philosophical system. The union of believers with Christ furnished him with an analogy for the connexion between the Loo-- os and the human nature in Christ. If believers, he argued, are one spirit with their Lord, as Paul affirms, much more must this be true of that soul which the Logos had taken into inseparable union with himself. As the nvevpa in believers is the actuating principle, from which all their feelings and actions spring ; much more is it in Christ, the forerunner of believers, the actuating, con trolling, and pervading principle, by which his entire humanity is guided and filled. By urging this analogy he drew upon himself the objection, which has often been repeated against the same view, that he made Christ a mere man, distinguished from other believ ers only by a higher degree of the same participation in the divine nature which they enjoyed. Whether this objection fairly lies against the views of Origen, this is not the proper place to inquire. Tr.] [But the theory respecting the person of Christ advanced by Tertullian and developed and supported by Origen, was particular ly offensive to Arius and Eunomius, and to all who contended for the subordination of the Logos to the Father. According to the earlier doctrine of the Church, which they adopted, and which con nected the Logos immediately with the body of Christ, they had been able to allege all the appearances of limitation and natural imperfection which he exhibited, as proofs against the doctrine of the absolute divinity of the Logos, and in favor of their own views of his subordination. But of this argument they were deprived, when a human soul of which all these imperfections could be pre dicated, was ascribed to Christ, and his higher nature was allowed in no sense to infringe upon his full and proper humanity. On the theory of Origen, it was no longer possible for them to invali date the proofs of the absolute divinity of Christ, by opposing the numerous evidences of subordination appearing in his life and words ; since all these must of course be understood of his human ity, leaving his divine nature, though intimately connected with the human, unimpaired by the limitations of the latter. Hence Ari us and his followers strenuously opposed the doctrine of the pro per humanity of Christ, and insisted upon the older, indistinct, and undeveloped form of belief, by which the Logos merely animated Vol. II. 31 242 ART. X. § 102. VIEWS OF ARIUS, PH0T1NUS, ETC. the .body of Christ. Cf. Neander, Geschichte u. s. w. B. II. Abth. II. S. 904, ff— Tr.] [While on one side, the Arians at this period infringed upon the human nature of Christ; on the other side, Marcellus and Photinus, of whom we have before spoken (Vol. I. § 43, p. 307), infringed upon the divine nature and its personal union with the human. Marcellus, inclining, as he did, to Sabellianism, supposed there was a merely outward and temporary operation of the Logos upon Christ, though still, it must be allowed, in such a way, as to secure the being of God in him. Photinus went farther, and giving great prominence to the human in Christ, made nothing more of the di vine in him, than the general illuminating influence, which he enjoyed in common with the prophets and other ambassadors of God, though in a higher degree. This doctrine is properly called Photinianism. — Tr.] [Between these diverging tendencies of opinion, Arianism and Photinianism, the Catholic fathers (e. g. Gregory of Nazianz, Gregory of Nyssa, and others) endeavoured to reconcile the per sonal union of two natures in Christ, with the completeness of the human nature. We have thus all the elements of that violent con troversy respecting the person of Christ, which shortly followed. Tr.] Now, after the middle of the fourth century, Apollinaris arose, and denied the existence of a human soul in Christ, or at least of the higher power of the soul ; vid. § 93, II. [His theory was in general the same as that of Justin before mentioned, only more sys tematically developed. It seems to have resulted in a great meas ure from the speculative interest, which endeavoured to conceive clearly, and to explain, what had before been indistinct. And it has certainly the advantage in many respects, and especially in point of distinctness and consistency, over the older indefinite be lief, and over the Arian theory respecting the person of Christ, with which in general it agreed. It also sprung from the Christian interest, to see in Christ the full, immediate, undisturbed manifes tation of the deity, which, as it seemed to Apollinaris, could not be on the theory of Origen, where a human soul was made the organ of the divine operations. — The controversy against Apollinaris brought distinctly into view the necessity, in order to the purposes of man's redemption, of the entirenessof the human nature of our Redeemer. — Tr.] RESPECTING THE UNION OF NATURES. 243 After this period, the investigation of this point took a new turn, the first ground of which was laid in the Arian controversies of the same century. The endeavour now became to make every thing clear and determinate ; and since the metaphysics of the schools were becoming more and more common, the ancient simplicity was thought to be no longer sufficient. II. The two opposing systems having their origin in the fourth century, and appearing ia conflict in the fifth. The foundation of both of these was laid by the Arian and Apollinarian controversies. (1) Some of the Christians of the East, e.g. those of Syria, [and in general the disciples of the school at Antioch,] always made the most accurate distinction between the two natures in Christ, and in all their discourses used terms which indicated this distinction between the divine and human in his person, in the most definite and discriminating manner. This had been before done by some of the earlier teachers, e. g. Tertullian (Adv. Prax. c. 27), still more frequently by Origen, and by some of the earlier councils. But after the middle of the fourth century, when the Apollinarian controversies commenced, the Orthodox teachers in Syria and the other Oriental provinces became still more accurate in making these distinctions, and especially were more decidedly opposed to every theory which took from the humanity of Christ its peculiar prop erties. These were the precursors of the Nestorians. (2) Others observed no such accuracy, and often employed phraseology, which appeared to indicate an entire mixture of the two natures, and a deification of the human nature. This was oc casioned by the Arian controversies ; for many, in order to exalt Christ in opposition to the Arians, seemed almost to forget that he was also a true man.* This tendency exhibited itself more par- * There is reason to doubt the correctness of the reason here assigned by Dr. Knapp for this tendency of the Alexandrine school (for it was this school, which objected to the distinction of natures contended for by the school of An tioch). The Arians wholly agreed with the followers of Apollinaris, and with the theologians of Alexandria, in objecting to the distinction of natures in Christ, and in contending for their mixture and oneness, and the transfer of the attributes belonging to each. And it is easy to see, how this want of dis tinction should be promotive of their belief; since it enabled them to tranrfer 244 ART. X. § 102. SCHOOLS OF ANTIOCH AND ALEXANDRIA. ticularly in Egypt, and in the Western church, and was parried out into farther developement at the end of the fourth and commence ment of the fifth century. Those who opposed this tendency were of opinion, that by phraseology of the kind which the Alexandrine theologians used, the doctrine of Apollinaris was countenanced ; for his followers often used terms like the following ; viz. God is man, is born, suffered, died, etc. ; Mary is the mother of God (&eozoxog). But the Alexandrine teachers could plead in their justification the example of many of the older fathers, who had used similar phrase ology. Even Athanasius had spoken of a deification of the body of Christ after the resurrection. Eusebius of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa had said, that the human nature of Christ was swallowed up by the divine, etc. Sometimes even Origen had used similar ex pressions. — These were the precursors of the Monophysites. — In re ality, however, these parties were more agreed than they believed themselves to be, or than they seemed to be, judging from their dif ferent terminologies. Every thing was now ready and prepared for the controversy, which finally broke out in the fifth century. [Neander in his Church-History (B. II. Abth. III. S. 946, ff.) traces back these diverging tendencies, to the fundamental differ ence between the Alexandrine school and that at Antioch, as to the relation between reason and revelation. The Alexandrine school, in following its more contemplative and mystical direction of mind, was disposed to assert the unintelligibleness of the union of the two natures, and to magnify the mystery of this union, and to resist all attempts at definite conception and explanation. The school at to the higher nature of Christ the appearances of limitation in his life, and thus to obtain a proof of the subordination of the Logos, of which they would be deprived, were an accurate distinction of natures introduced, and the ap plication to the one of the predicates belonging to the other forbidden. It is a fact deserving of particular notice, that those who have contended most stren uously for the absolute divinity of Christ, have been also those who have insist ed most upon the rights of his humanity, and for a careful distinction between the predicates of the two natures; while those who have held, that the Logos is the most perfect among all created beings, but not God in the proper sense, have equally infringed upon the humanity of Christ, and have always oppos ed the distinction of natures. It was not then in opposition to the Arian, but rather to the Photinian form of doctrine with regard to the person of Christ, that the Alexandrine tendency found the occasion for its farther developement. Tr.] THEORY OF NESTORIUS. 245 Antioch on the contrary, in conformity with its more free and spec ulative bias, while it did not assume fully to explain the vnig Xoyov of this union of natures, still undertook to discover how much in it was xatd Xoyov. — Tr.] III. Theory of Nestorius, and the controversy relating to it. Nestorius, Patriarch at Constantinople, being born and educated in Syria, adopted the Syrian form of doctrine with regard to the person of Christ, and endeavoured to employ terms which would accurately distinguish between his divine and human natures. This, however, had never before been done in Constantinople. After the Arian controversies, the term &eozoxog had been used very frequently in application to Mary, the Mother of Christ, which was also a favor ite term with the followers of Apollinaris in Syria. But when in the year 428, Nestorius became patriarch at Constantinople, he was much surprised by this language. He objected to the term &eozo xog, on the ground, that it could not be said, that God was born or died ; and instead of this term he proposed to substitute Xgiazozo- xog. With this the controversy commenced. His doctrine as appears from his Homilies, was this ; ' Christ had two vnoaidaeig, a divine and human, (meaning by vnoa- taaig, as many of the ancients did, natura, qvaig, or as Ter tullian himself employed it, substantia,) and only ngoaomov pov- aSixov, one person. These two natures stood in the closest connexion (avvdqeia), which he considered as consisting prin cipally in the agreement of will and action; but were not mix ed or transformed. Each nature still retained its peculiar attri butes ; as is the case in man, who consists of two vnoaiaaeig, soul and body. All these attributes and actions were predicable of one person (ngoamnov), but not of both the natures ; the inferi or were predicable only of the human nature; the superior, only of the divine nature. Accordingly the terms, Deus natus, mortuus est, Mater Dei, deog i'vaagxog, were very unsuitable and unscriptu ral. These could be properly predicated only of Christ (the name of the person).' Hereupon Nestorius was openly attacked, at first, in Egypt. His chief opponent was Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, who maintained his own theory in opposition, and accused Nestorius of dividing Christ into two persons : because yvaig was the ward used 246 ART. X. § 102. DOCTRINE OF EUTYCHES. at Alexandria for what Nestorius called vnoaxaaig, and vnoaxaatg for what he called ngoamnov. They disagreed, therefore, more in words, than in reality. At length in the year 431, the followers of Nestorius were condemned as heretics by the council at Ephe- sus. The whole party separated from the Catholic church, and continues in the east to the present day. [For a more full account of the doctrines of Nestorius, with the original passages, cf. Gieseler, Lehrb. d. k. Gesch. B. I. § 85, ff— Neander, Gesch. B. II. Abth. III. S. 951. — As to the separate community of the Nestorians, cf. Neander in his Appendix to the History of this doctrine, B. II. Abth. III. S. 1171. Also Mosheim (Murdock's Trans.), Vol. I. p. 431, Note. Whether the whole dispute between Nestorius and Cyril was mere logomachy, is a matter of dispute. — Tr.] IV. The doctrine of Eutyches, and the controversy respecting it in the fifth century. Eutyches, an Abbot, and Presbyter in a cloister at Constantino ple, was one of the most zealous opponents of Nestorius. In order to oppose his doctrine more successfully, he affirmed, after the year 448, that Christ had only one nature (pla q>vaig) after his deity and humanity were united. He called this nature, tpvaig aeaagxmpivri, the nature made human. In this way, he supposed he could ex press the most intimate connexion between the two natures, which, in his opinion, were too widely separated by Nestorius, so as to make two persons in Christ. He meant, in fact, to say nothing more nor less, than that there was only one Christ. The whole ob scurity consisted in the word qvaig, which he understood to mean person ; as Athanasius himself did in the fifth century, and also Ephraem the Syrian. This controversy, therefore, like the former, was, in fact, mere logomachy.* Eutyches appealed, and with truth, * [The doctrine of Eutyches respecting the person of Christ has been more definitely stated by other writers on doctrinal history. The principal peculiar ity of it is placed in this point : while Eutyches admitted that before the in carnation (or, which was doubtless his meaning, according to conception and not in reality), there were two natures in Christ, yet after this, they did not re main distinct, but constituted one nature, not merely by a awdtpsia, as Nesto rius held, but by a real ovy%veig or pexapafa), so that his human nature could no longer be said to be consubstantial with that of other men. Briefly, it is j Eutychianism to say, that Christ is constituted of or from two natures, but does not exist in two natures (ix Svo tpiosoiv, not ii* Svo cpvosoi). Cf. Neandor, Gesch. B. II. Ab. III. S. 1078. Also Murdock's Mosheim, Vol. I. p, 433, Note.— Tr.] symbol of chalcedon. 247 to Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and other ancient, and especial ly Egyptian teachers, who appeared to abolish the distinction of the two natures. Eutychianism may therefore be truly said to have ex isted before Eutyches; to' prove which Salig published a treatise at Wolfenbiitel, 1724, 4to. Hence arose another unhappy division in the church. The Pa triarch of Constantinople joined with Pope Leo the Great in oppos ing Eutyches, and accused the latter of reviving the heresy of Apol linaris, and of denying the true humanity of Christ. He protested against this conclusion ; but they would not allow that his words ad mitted any other sense, and he was too obstinate to alter his term inology. At the Council at Chalcedon, in the year 451, his doc trine was condemned as heretical. Here arose the sect of the Mo- nophysites, which continues in the East to the present day. In order to render the difference between themselves and the Catholics and Nestorians clearly discernible, some of these Mono- physites employed paradoxical statements and phrases, like the fol lowing, viz. one of the Trinity suffered and was crucified ; the deity of Christ so penetrated his humanity, as to render his body incorruptible (dcp&agxov). This, however, was denied by others, because it favored the Docetae. Some also, even of the Monophy- sites, believed that the divine nature was omniscient, but not the human nature connected with it (Mark 13: 32). These were called Agnoetas. [Note. As Photinianism and Apollinarianism were the opposite extremes of this doctrine in the former period ; so now were Nestorianism and Eutychi anism. Bbtween these the Catholic Fathers took a middle course, and con demned on the one hand the awdcpua of Nestorius, as indicating a mere ex ternal and moral connexion between the two natures in Christ, and on the other, the ovyyvotg or jxeta^oXr) of Eutyches, as indicating such an entire inter- penetration of the two natures, as must destroy the peculiarities of each. The Catholic doctrine in opposition to these extremes is expressed in the following Symbol, established at the Council at Chalcedon, 451, under Marcian. 'Enofievot roivvv zolg dyioig izazqdaiv , %va xal tov avzov opoXoyeiv viov t6v xvqiov i/pio/v 'Irjoovv Xqiotov avftcpu'/voig ditavTig ixSiSdaxo/iev, t iXsiov tov avzov iv ¦d'eottjT i xal t iXsiov tov avzov iv dv&QOJTroTijzij •d'eov dXv- So"jg xal dv&ciam~ov dXnSwg tov avrov ix ipv jti/g Xoy ixij g xal aujfiarog, ofio- oxaiov T ijjiuv xard ri/V dv- &cium6T7]Ta, xazd itdvTa ofioiov r/fiiv j;cu(>Js dfiaoriag • wpo alolvviv phi ix tov itazeog ysvvw&ivTa xazd vffv &t6tnzai in io%aTu>v Si t&v fipsqiuv tov avzov, SI «JiB«t xal Std zrp> fjpeziqow oiarvqlav, ix Maqlag Tijg itaq&lvov Ttjt&soToxov 248 ART. X. § 102. THEORY OF THE MONOTHELITES. xaza Trpi dv&oomoTrjTa, 'iva xal tov alzov Xqiotov, viov, xvqtov, povoyevy, i x Svo (p v a s at v [iv Svo tpvoioi] davy/vTOjg , aTQitzzojg , aSiatgizoig', djrojoloTOjg yvojpiiopivov • oiSapov vi/s tow ipvocojv Statpoqdg avr/ovfilvvg Sid Tt/v 'ivotoiv , ooitofilvng Si /xaXXov r?/S IStozijTog ixariqag tpvotojs xal tie i'v itqooomov xalpiav inoaTaoiv owrgtyoiorjg, ovx tig Svo neoooma pcqitopsvov rj Siaiqovpsvov, dXX' iva xal tov avzov vlav xal /xovoyevij, ¦friov Xo yov, xvqtov 'Irjoovv Xqwtov • xa&dntQ dvoi&tv ol trqoifijzai iregi avzov xal avzog ijfidg o xvgiog ^Itjoovg Xqiorog i^tnaiStvot, xal t6 tow ttazigajv ijfiiv •wagaSiSwxe oipfloXov . There can be no reasonable doubt which of the two readings ix Svo epvoeojv or iv Svo tpvosot ought to be preferred. The whole force of the Symbol, as far as it is directed against Eutychianism, lies in the latter reading, since Eutyches would allow that Christ was constituted ixSvo ipiatoiv. The reading iv Svo cpvoEoi is supported by good authority, probably from the whole course of events at the Council of Chalcedon, and more consistent than the other with the context, as the word yvwcuto/xsvov is of difficult construction with ix, and on the contrary reads naturally with iv. Cf. Neander, B. II. Abth. III. S. 1110.— Tr.] V. The theory and sect of the Monothelites. This sect arose in the seventh century, from the attempt of some who were rather inclined to the side of the Monophysites, to unite the Nestorians and Monophysites with the Catholic church. They persuaded the emperor Heraclius to enact, that Christ, after the union of his two natures, had only one will and one action of the will. To this, it was thought, all parties might assent, and thus be come united. At first, many were inclined to adopt this opinion, and among others the Patriarchs at Constantinople and Rome. But a number of Councils were held upon the subject, and the Catho lics at last came to the conclusion, that this opinion would introduce only a different form of the doctrine of Eutyches. They therefore maintained a twofold will in Christ, i. e. one for his divine, and one for his human nature ; but at the same time, that these were never opposed and always agreed. The other party maintained, that there was but one will ; since the human will of Christ did not act separate ly, but was subject to the divine will, and governed by it. Both par ties were right in opinion, and only misunderstood each other. The latter, however, was outvoted, and at the third Council at Constan tinople in the year 680, was condemned as heretical ; and thus the sect of the Monothelites arose in the East. [Cf. Hahn, S. 464.— Gieseler, § 162.1 § 103. ANCIENT TERMS EXPLAINED. 249 Note, Another controverted point, was the relation of Christ to the Father, in the union of his two natures. The ancient fathers had commonly used the appellation Son of God, as a name of the divine nature of Christ, and not as a name of his person and office. They found some texts of Scripture, howev er, in which the human nature of Christ is also plainly designated by this name; as Luke 1:35. In order to relieve themselves from this difficulty, without relinquishing their position, they said : ' Christ, as God, was the nat ural Son of God, (i. e. he was, in a literal sense, eternally generated by the Father, he received his deity communicated to him from eternity, Ps. ii.) but as man, he was Ihe Son of God by adoption (i.e. by the communication of the divine nature at the time of his conception, he was raised as a man to this dig nity). And in this there is no heresy. But as these terms and representa tions respecting adoption were frequently employed by the Nestorians, they were gradually omitted by the Catholics. This doctrine was, however, reviv ed in Spain in the eighth century, 783, et seq. by Felix, Bishop of Urgel (Ur- gelitanus), and was approved by many in the West. Others regarded it as a revival of Nestorianism ; — councils were held upon the subject in Italy and Germany ; ahd at length the opinion of the Adoptionists was condemned as heretical. Respecting all these controversies, vid. Walch, Ketzergeschichte. These unhappy dissensions should serve as a warning to every Christian who loves peace, not to take upon himself to define and decide respecting sub jects which the Holy Scriptures have left undecided ; as Morus truly observes, p. 138, § 10, coll. § 101. § 103. Historical observations continued ; the ancient ecclesiastical terminology respecting this doctrine explained. I. Terminology of the Fathers, The ecclesiastical terminology on this subject came gradually into use, and originated, partly before the controversies of the fifth century, partly at the time of these controversies, and in conse quence of them. Many ancient terms were differently defined and understood after that period. This indefiniteness of phraseology, and the various use of terms, were the principal occasion of these controversies. The terms employed ought, first of all, to have been explained and understood. (1) Some ancient general terms respecting the person of Christy and the relations and actions of his deity and humanity. Vol. II. 32 250 art. x. § 103. explanation of ancient terms (a) The ancient fathers were in the habit of calling the mutual relation of the deity and humanity united in Christ, otxovopia, which signifies, arrangement, institution, regulation ; also, the fash ion and manner in which any thing is done or arranged. So it is used by Polybius, and Cicero in his Letters to Atticus, and by Paul, Ephes. 1: 10. In the same way Tertullian (Adv. Prax. 2) used the word aconomia, and rendered it dispensatio. (b) They endeavoured to find some term, which should appro priately designate the whole person of Christ, as composed of deity and humanity. As the New Testament contains no single word of this kind, they at last decided upon the word ftiavSgog or {redv- &gmnog, God-man; as Tertullian had been accustomed to say, Deus et homo, and Origen, &eog xal dv&gmnog. (c) They called the power which the deity and humanity of Christ had of working in common, ivigyeia ¦&eavSgixrj, vis, sive operatio deovirilis. This phrase first occurs in the P^eudo-Diony- sius Areopagitus, Epist. 4. Theologians, therefore, afterwards call ed the particular actions of Christ as God and man, or his Mediato rial works, operationes deoviriles ; also, anozeXiapaxa, vid. § 105. (2) Various terms were originally used to denote the two sub jects (ngdypaza, res, as Cyril of Alexandria calls them) connect ed in Christ. In the Latin church the oldest term was substantia. So Tertullian, " substantias duae, — caro et spiritus," Adv. Prax. 27. They had previously been contented with the simple formula : " Christum esse Deum et hominem verum." The word substantia was still used in this sense by the Latin church in the fourth centu ry ; and sometimes even by Leo the Great in the fifth century. It signified as they used it, ens singulare, or individuum. It was, however, regarded as ambiguous, since it also signified, existence it self, and that which really is. The word natura was gradually found to be more appropriate and definite. It had been early used by Ambrosius ; but after the Council at Chalcedon, in the fifth cen tury, it became, by means of Leo the Great, the usual and character istic term of the Catholic Fathers. In the Greek church, also, many terms were originally in use. (a) ' TnoOTaaig. This word answers exactly to the Latin substantia. It was used by Nestorius, and before him, by many whose ortho doxy was never doubted, (b) vaig. This word was used at the same time in Egypt, and was one cause of the controversy between respecting the person AND NATURES OF CHRIST. 251 Cyril and Nestorius ; vid. § 102, III. (c) Ovaia. This word was early in frequent use ; but through the efforts of Cyril and the Ro man Bishop, in the fifth century, the word qjvaig became current as orthodox. (3) The terms used to denote the whole Christ, as consisting of two natures. The Latin church used the word persona for this purpose ; and this being very definite and unambiguous, has been retained. Re specting its definition, etc. vid. § 104. But the Greek church had a great variety of terms to express the same thing, which occasioned the greatest confusion. (a) ngoamnov. This word was in fact the least ambiguous, and answered exactly to the Latin persona (a suppositum intelligens, which has its own proper subsistence). In many churches, this was originally the most common word. It was so even among the Syrians, who derived their word parsopa from it. Accordingly Nestorius said, ngoamnov ev, xal Svo vnoazdaeig (natures) iv Xgiazqi. But the word was uncommon in Constantinople, Egypt, and else where. In these places they used instead the word (6) ' Tnoazaaig. Among the Greeks this word means the actual existence (vnaglig) of a thing, the existing thing ; also an individ ual. It was therefore a far more ambiguous word than the other. Cyril used it to denote the whole Christ ; but Nestorius, his sepa rate natures ; vid. § 102, III. Cyril and the Roman Bishop said : elg Xgiazog, pla vnoazaaig, Svo iu^ or Jnaiifr is derived from $•&•* , Hiph. S^ifjin , which answers to omfeiv, (as aojzijgia does to 5>"&?,) and signifies, according to Hebrew and Greek usage, not merely a deliverer, but in general a benefactor, one who bestows blessings. (2) Zmz-tjQ. This word agrees in signification with 'Itjaovg, and answers to the old German word, Heiland (Saviour). For o-cu- trig denotes one, who has not only saved a person from extremity and wretchedness, but translated him into a happy condition. Cicero says, (in Verr. II. 63,) "Is est Soter, qui salutem dcdit," and remarks that it is, " ita magnum, ut latino uno verbo exprimi non possit," vid. Ernesti, CI. Cic. in h. v. In this sense the Greeks applied it to their gods, e. g. to Jupiter ; (so also it is applied to God, Luke 1: 47 ;)¦ also to their rulers, e. g. Antiochus, Ptolemy Soter. So Philo names the emperor. The LXX. give this name to Moses, and other Jewish Leaders. Christ, now, is called in the New Tes tament, by way of eminence, amttjg zov xoapov, the Saviour of the world, the Benefactor of the human race ; Luke 2: 11. John 4: 42. Vol. II. 34 266 ART. X. § 105. TITLES OF CHRIST. So when the word om&iv is spoken of Christ, it signifies to bless ; and am£6pevoi, the blessed, is a name given to pious Christians, 2 Cor. 2: 15 ; and auxrigla signifies all the blessedness which Chris tians receive from Christ, not only in the life which is to come, but in that which now is, 1 Pet. 1: 10, sq. (3) Meoixng. This word was used in various senses by the ancients. Among the Greeks it meant conciliator, (a negotiator, or peace-maker between contending parties,) sponsor, arbiter. When this term is applied to Christ in the New Testament, it is taken from Moses, and implies a comparison of Moses with Christ. Moses is called by Philo (de v. Mos.), and by Paul, Gal. 3: 19, pealxt;g, in the sense of mediator, ambassador, negotiator (internun- tius, interpretes), as mediator between God and the Israelites ; be cause he spoke and acted in the name of the Israelites with God, and in the name of God with the Israelites. The passage, Deut. 5: 5, where Moses describes himself as standing dvd piaov Kvglov xal Xaov, affords the origin of this appellation. With this, the works of Christ were compared ; he was called, 1 Tim. 2: 5, peaizrig Seov xal dv&gmnov, partly inasmuch as he treats with God in the name of men, and does with God every thing which is possible for our good ; and partly because he treats with men in the name of God, and as his ambassador founds a new institute, and assures to men the complacency and favor of God. In this respect he is called, Heb. 8: 6, peaizrig x g e ixz ov o g Sia&rjxrig- 9: 14, x aivij g Sia- •&i]xrig, the founder of a new and more excellent dispensation, than the ancient Mosaic dispensation ; cf. 12: 24. (4) 'O ngoqjrjzrig, N^J , the prophet, an ancient Jewish appella tion of the Messiah ; since he was conceived to be the greatest of all the messengers and teachers sent from God. This term is de rived principally from the passage, Deut. 18: 15, which is referred to Jesus by Peter, Acts 3: 22, sq ; and by Stephen, Acts 7: 37 ; vid. § 91. (5) 'O dnoazoXog. This apellation occurs Heb. 5: 1, dnoazo- Xog — rjje opoXoylag tjpmv, i. e. the messenger, ambassador of God, whom we (Christians) profess. Christ frequently, especially in John, applies to himself the phrase, ov dniaxeiXev 6 -Qeog, John xvn. The various other titles which were given to Christ, from the particular benefits which he conferred upon men, including the § 106. WHAT BELONGS TO REDEMPTION ? 267 figurative names, dgxiegevg, dpvog, apneXog, &vga, will be noticed in their proper places. § 106. What is considered in the Scriptures as properly belonging to the work which Christ performed for the good of men ; ex planation of the word, redemption, as used in the Bible ; and what is the most conveniant andnatural order and connexion for exhibiting the doctrine of the entire merits of Clirist. I. What belongs to the work of Christ, or to redemption ? (1) The declaration of his doctrine, and instruction respecting it. To this, many of the titles applied to him refer ; as 6 ngoqjtj- tijg, d anoazoXog ( § 105), SiSaaxaXog, x. z. X. Respecting the discharge of his office as teacher, vid. § 94. It needs only to be re marked here, that instruction in this divine doctrine is by no means mentioned in the New Testament as the only object of the advent of Christ ; still it is represented as a great object, and as an essen tial part of his work upon the earth, «or of the work of redemption. So he himself represents it. In John 17: 3, 4, he expresssly men tions instruction in the true religion (" that they should acknowl edge thee as the true God,") as belonging to the egyov which was given him by the Father to do ; and in John 18: 37, he says, " that he was born and had come into the world, in order to propagate the true religion {dXyQeiav). He every where taught that he was law giver and king, so far as he was a true an infallible teacher ; that he reigned over the minds of men, not by external power and con straint, (like the kings of the earth,) but by the internal power of the truth which he preached. Cf. John 3: 34. 12: 49, 50. (2) The sufferings and death which he endured for the good of men. This, too, Christ himself always mentions as an essential part of this work : e. g. John 3: 14, sq. In the allegory, John 6: 51 , where he compares himself with the manna, he means by the bread of heaven the doctrine respecting his person, and especially respecting the sacrifice of his body for the good of men (vnig (mrjg tov xoapov) ; which he inculcates as a doctrine of the first importance. 268 ART. X. § 106. DID CHRIST DIE In John 12: 27, he says, " For this purpose, (to die for the good of men, vid. v. 24,) God had brought him into such distress, and therefore he would readily and cheerfully endure it." Cf. John 14: 31. The institution of the Lord's Supper, was designed to com memorate " his blood shed for the remission of sins," Matt. 26: 28. That Christ died for the good of all men, is the universal doctrine of all the apostles, Heb. 2: 9. Paul calls this suffering of Jesus vnaxon, Rom. 5: 19, coll. Phil. 2: 8. Heb. 5: 8 ; because he en dured it in obedience to the will of God. He contrasts it with the nagaxor\ of Adam, and says that by it we have obtained forgiveness and the remission of sins. If then we would adhere to the declara tions of the Scriptures, we shall not separate this part from the oth er ; but consider them both, one as much as the other, as belonging to the work of Christ. Many indeed maintain, that the annunciation and diffusion of his dactrine was the only object of the life of Christ upon earth, and that his death is to be considered merely as a martyrdom, by which he gave an example and pattern of steadfastness and devotion to the will of God, and a confirmation of the truth of his doctrine. But, (a) The assertion that this was the only object of his life, is inconsistent with the declarations of Scripture. We do not find that the Scriptures particularly mention his death as an example of steadfastness ; at least, they do not dwell upon this view, or regard it as the principal point. Remission of sins and eternal life are mentioned by Christ himself as the principal object which he had in view, John 3: 16. Matt. xxvi. (6) As to the other assertion, that his doctrine was proved and confirmed by his death, we find not a single passage, among all that speak of eoig nuganzmpdzmv is represented as belong ing to the dnoXvzgmaig Sid aipaxog Xgiazov, and as a consequence of it; cf. Col. 1: 14. Heb. 9: 15, "Christ died tig dnoXvzgmoiv zmv inl zrj ngmzrj Siu&rjxri nagafidaemv." Rom. 3: 24, " We are pardoned, Sixatoiipevoi Sid dnoXvzgmaemg z-ijg iv Xgiazm," etc. The principal terms are the following : viz. (1) KazaXXayy, reconciliation (Germ. Versbhnung,) and xa- zaXXdaaoppti. Cf. Morus, pp. 113 — 166, §§ 9 — 11. This phra seology was primarily used with respect to enemies, who were rec onciled, or who became friends again, 1 Cor. 7: 11. Matt. 5: 24. Then it was transferred to God. The first origin of this phraseolo gy with respect to him, is to be found in the fact, that men had gross conceptions of the subject, and supposed the manner of the ilivine conduct, to be like that of men. Whoever transgressed the law of God, provoked him to anger, i. e. to displeasure and to a strong expression of it. (Hence the judgments of God are called °Q7ri> : ixSlxriaig &eov.) God must now be appeased, and the trans gressor must endeavour to make God again his friend. Such was the common and popular language on this subject; — language which was universally intelligible, and which is always used in the Holy Scriptures in a sense worthy of God ; vid. § 86. Thus when it is DENOTING FORGIVENESS. 293 said in the New Testament, &eog ypiv xazaXXdzzezai, the meaning is, that through Christ he withholds the expression of his displeas ure, the punishment of sin. Thus Paul uses this phraseology, 2 Cor. 5: 19, and explains it by the addition, ptj Xoyi£6pevog nuga- nzmpata' like the Hebrew y\y aiBH , Ps. 32: 1,2. In Rom. 5: 11, he uses the phrase xazuXXaytjv iXajioptv, in the same sense, i. e. we obtain from God the forgiveness of sin. The latter passage shows clearly that xazaXXayt] does not denote the moral improvement of men, as Eberhard, Gruner, and others explain it. On the contrary, the term always implies the idea of the mutual reconciliation of two parties, by which two or more, who were not previously on good terms, become friends again. KazaXXayij, then, as Morus remarks (p. 165, ad finem), means the restoration of friendship, and the means of effecting this, through Christ ; and xazuXXdaativ, is to bring about, or restore harmony and friendship. This harmony does not subsist between God and men, as long as men are consid ered as transgressors, and God is compelled to punish them as such. They do not love God as their father, and he cannot love them as his children. That they learn how to love him, and that he is able to love them, they owe to Christ. He therefore is the peace-maker, the restorer of friendship, 6 xazaXXdaamv. Cz)"Aq>eaig dpagzimv, dqiiivai, and the similar phrases xa&agi- £eiv, xagl£ea&ai apagzlag, nageaig, x. t. X. (a) Explanation of these terms and of the sentiment contained in them. "Aqieaig and dqlevai are used literally to denote release, as from captivity, Luke 4: 18; also remission of debt (debiti), Matt. 6: 12. Now sin was very frequently compared both with capti vity and with debt ; and hence, probably, this term was first used by the LXX. as correspondent with ]is> Nto:. This phrase was always opposed to the inflicting of punishment, or the wrath of God, and denotes remission, forbearing to inflict punishment ; Ex. 34: 7. In Mark 3: 29, e'xetv dqieatv is contrasted with JVo^o'g *ff- tiv xglaeotg. To take away sin, and take away punishment, were thus one and the same thing with the Hebrews, Is. liii. And so it comes to pass that the words which stand for sin, also stand for punishment. Thus to forgive sin, and to heal sickness (pana pecca- ti), were frequently the same, Matt. 9: 2, 5, 6, coll. Ps. 103: 3. Similar to these are the other popular terms : as, nageaig which is the act of overlooking, Rom. 3: 25. God does not look upon sins, 294 ART. X. § 109. SCRIPTURAL TERMS he forgets them, does not think of them ; in opposition to thinking of them, placing them before his countenance (Ps. 90: &)> i. e. pun ishing them, etc. Also, xaQ'&a0-ac naganxmpata, Col. 2: 13, spoken of the remission of guilt ; ii-aXeiqjeiv dpagziag, Acts 3: 19, answering to the Hebrew rtrra , Is. 43: 25 ; used also by Lysias. The figure in this case is taken from an account book, in which the name of the debtor is obliterated when he has paid his debt, or when it is remitted to him. The phrases, xa&aglCea&ai aq> dpagzimv, gavzi£ea&ai, x. t. X. to be purified, washed, to purify one's self, occur very frequently. They were derived from the very common comparison of sin with stains and impurities. Hence Moses ordained purifications and washings, as significant or symbolical rites. These phrases were Used, first, in respect to men, and denoted self-purification (xa&' ietvtov), i. e. moral reformation, 1 John 3: 3. 2 Cor. 7: 1. Heb. 10: 22 ; which however could not be done independently of God, but by his assistance ; secondly, in respect to God. He is said to puri- fy men from sin, i. e. to consider them as pure, innocent, — not to punish them. So Ps. 51: 4, " Wash me from mine iniquities;" 1 John 1: 9. 2 Pet. 1: 9, xa&agiapog zmv ndXai dpagzimv. (b) Some are not content with making the forgiveness of sins to consist in the removal of the punishment of sin ; but would have it extend to the removal both of the guilt (culpa), and punishment of sin ; since both belong to the imputation of sin. This statement, understood in a popular sense, is not objectionable ; but strictly un derstood, it is. The established theory respecting the remission of sin, has been transmitted from the time of Anselmus (§ 101, ad fin.), who brought the whole doctrine of justification into a judicial form, and arranged it like a legal process. Thus, when a thief has stolen, he must both restore the property stolen, and suffer punishment. The guilt, in this case, is not removed by the punishment. The advocates of this opinion, therefore, comprehended under justifica tion, a special acquittal of guilt, different from the acquittal of pun ishment. This acquittal of guilt they considered as the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, imputed to men by God, in the same way as if it had been wrought by them. In this way, as they thought, was the guilt of sin removed ; vid. § 115. But, First. This distinction between the guilt and punishment of sin is never distinctly made in the Bible, when the forgiveness of sins DENOTING FORGIVENESS. 295 is spoken of. Some have considered this distinction as implied in the passages which speak of the purification, or washing away of sins, or in which sins are compared with debts ; but without suffi cient reason. The Bible makes justification the mere forgiveness of sins, i. e. removal of the punishment of them ; without any spe cial acquittal of guilt connected with it : as Rom. 6: 7, sq. vid. §110, " De obedientia Christi aotiva," from which the doctrine " De obedientia Christi passiva," must not be separated. The obe dience of Christ shown in acting and suffering, is one and the same. The fruits of this obedience we enjoy, as will be seen from the texts cited below. The Bible does not separate one kind of obedience from the other ; neither should we ; vid. § 115. Secondly. The remission of the guilt of sin is not essential, and does not contribute to the real tranquillity of the sinner. The guilt of a sin once committed cannot be effaced. The conscience of the transgressor can never be made to pronounce him innocent, but will always regard him as having sinned. It is enough to compose his mind, to know and be convinced, that the punishment of sin has been remitted. But how can he be made to believe, and be happy in believing, that he is innocent, when, according to the testimony of his own conscience, he is guilty. Thirdly. The theory which teaches that the guilt of sin is re moved, is founded upon a comparison of the conduct of God towards men, with the conduct of men among themselves ; which is here en tirely inapplicable. A criminal (e. g. a thief) who sins against his fellow men, does them an injury. He must, therefore, make good their loss, besides suffering punishment. But men, by sinning, do not injure or rob God. They wrong only themselves. Now if men fulfil the prescribed conditions of obtaining pardon, God remits the punishment of sin ; but God himself cannot remove the guilt of sin, in its proper sense. For God cannot err, and consider an action which is actually wrong, and consequently involves guilt, as right in itself. He, however, can forgive us, or remit the punishment which we deserve. He can regard and treat us, on certain condi tions, as if we were innocent. (3) Aixuimaig, Sixaioavvij and Sixaiofia&ui, Xoyl&a&ai elg Si- xaioavvtjv, x. t. X. These terms of the Grecian Jews can be explained only from the Hebrew usage. p'lS , in Hebrew and Arabic, in its primary 296 ART. X. § 109. MEANING OF JUSTIFICATION. and physical sense, means rectus, firmus, rigidus fuit ; then, in a moral sense, rectus fuit, in various modifications, degrees, and re lations : e. g. verus et verax fuit, bonus, sc. benignus fuit ; severus, aquus, Justus, innocens /w#, right, such as one should be, Vs. 143: 2, " No man is right in the sight of God." Hence we can explain the significations of p^sn , Sixaiovv, facerejustum; and of Sixai- ovo-dai, fieri jusiurn. A man may be justified in two ways : viz. (a) By perfect holiness, virtue, or uprightness of conduct ; by being actually just, or, such as one should be. Hence the phrase to justify, or to consider, pronounce, treat, reward one, as right, ac cording to the above mentioned sense. In this sense, it is used by the LXX. Ps. 143: 2, ov Sixaim&ijaexai ivmniov aov nag £mv, and Ezek. 16: 51, 52. This is called justificalio interna. In this sense it is understood, in the important passage respecting justification, Rom. v., both by Socinians, who reject the doctrine of satisfaction, and by those of the Romish Church, who advocate good works as the procuring cause of salvation. But this interpretation does the greatest violence to the words in this passage. In connexion with this meaning, Sixaiovv sometimes signifies emendare, probum reddere, Ps. 73: 13 (in the Septuagint), and Rev. 22: 11, seq. Some of the schoolmen call this justificalio physica. (6) One who is guilty is said to be justified, when he is declared and treated as exempt from punishment or innocent, or when the"pun- ishment of his sins is remitted to him. This is called justificatio externa. The terms justification, 'pardon, accounting righteous, occur in the Bible much more frequently in this sense than in any . other, and so are synonymous with forgiveness of sin. This sense is founded on the judicial meaning of the word p"«r£!-|, to pardon, acquit, pronounce innocent, spoken of the Judge, (p"HS, innocens) ; and of the opposite, y,lB*iri , damnere, pro reo declarere, (sas, reus) ; e. g. Ex. 23: 7. Prov. 17: 15, sq. This is transferred to God, who is conceived as the judge of the actions of men. Here, however, we must be careful not to carry the comparison too far, and must abstract from our conceptions all the imperfections which belong to human conduct. He condemns, or judges, i. e. he pun ishes ; — antecedens (the part of human judges), pro consequente. The opposite of this, to acquit, pardon (Sixaiovv), is then to re move punishment. This is done, however, as the Bible every where teaches, not propter justitiam internam hominis, as at human tribu- MEANING OF JUSTIFICATION. 297 nals ; for no one is innocent and pure from sin, Rom. 3: 19, seq. According to the gospel, God bestows favor upon men gratuitously, on account of faith in Christ, on condition of holiness and of perse vering in Christian confidence. The principal texts which support this doctrine, and in which Sixaimaig and Sixatoovvr] stand in this sense, are Rom. in. iv. v., in opposition to the Jewish doctrine of the desert of works. These passages will be examined in the following sections. In Rom. iv. the term Sixaiovv is used v. 5 ; Xoyi&aQat Sixaioavvrjv (to pardon, the opposite of Xoy!£ea&ai dpagxlav, to punish) v. 6 ; and dqievai dpagxluv v. 7. In Rom. 5: 9, 11, Sixaiova&ai and xaxaXXazxea- &ai, are interchanged in the same way ; and Sixaioavvt] is explain ed by iXev&egia dno — dpagxtag xal ¦Qavdzov. The words Sixai ovv, Sixaioavvt], are also opposed to ogyrj {leov, Rom. 1: 17, 18; to xazdxgiaig, Rom. 5: 16, 18 ; to iyxaXtxv, Rom. 8: 33. Cf. Storr, " De significatione vocis Sixaiog in Nov. Test." Opusc. Academ- ica, T. I. Note. The writings of theologians present great diversity and difficulty in determining the idea of Sixaimaig and Sixaiovv. Most of the ancient Luther an theologians, with whom Doderlein and Seiler agree, consider justification as being merely the removal of punishment ; while Koppe, Zacharia, Less, Dan ov and others, comprise in this idea the whole purpose of God to bless and save men, of which the removal of punishment is only the commencement. These theologians maintain, that justification is the same as predestination, on ly that justification is the less definite word of the two. Vid. Zacharia, Bibl. Theol. IV. S. 548, sq. and especially Danov, Drey Abhandlungen von der Rechtfertigung, Jena, 1777; in answer to which Seiler wrote, " Ueber den Unterschied der Rechtfertigung und Pradestination," Erlangen, 1777, 8vo. Those who hold the former opinion, consider the conferring of good as a consequence of justification, and appeal to the obvious texts, Rom. 5: 1, 18, 21. Gal. 3: 11. They remark, that exemption from punishment, and bestowment of blessing, are not one and the same thing ; since one who is acquitted in Court, is not, of course, promoted and rewarded. Those who hold the latter opinion mention the fact, that p "is frequently means, benefit, blessing, recom pense, and construe the phrase np-tsV SffifJ > Xoyitea&at eig Stxaioovvrpi, which is first spoken of the faith of Abraham, Gen. 15: 6, to mean to reckon as a mer it, to reward; in the same way Ps. 106: 31, and Rom. 4: 4, where Paul himself explains p7,3 by pio&as. The declaring Abraham righteous, did not consist in the simple forgiveness of his sins, but in the bestowment of blessing and re ward. Cf. James 2: 31. The following considerations may help to settle the controversy. (1) The purposes of God to forgive the transgressor his sins, and to make Vol. II. 38 298 ART. X. § 110, SINS ARE FORGIVEN him happy, are one and fhe same ; but they may be distinguished in our con ceptions of them, and then his bestowing reward is the immediate consequence of his granting forgiveness. For when God forgives one his sins, the bestow ment of the promised good immediately succeeds. And when God sees one incapable of this good, he does not forgive his sins. (2) The sacred writers do not, in their terms, so carefully distinguish and so logically divide these two ideas, which are so nearly related, as we do in scientific discussion. This is the less strange, as the words Sixaiovv and Si- xaioioig have very many and various senses, one of which frequently runs into the other. The words are sometimes used in the Bible exclusive, beyond a doubt, of the idea of blessing, and sometimes also inclusive of it. (3) But this should not hinder us from distinguishing these ideas, and con sidering them separately, for the sake of clearness in scientific discussion. Here, however, as in respect to all the divine purposes, we must guard against the idea of succession ; and also against mistake from a comparison with hu man tribunals, where one may be entirely acquitted, without however receiv ing reward, or any farther provision for his welfare. The accused is absolved ; and then left to seek his fortune where he pleases. But this is not the man ner of God. Upon everyone whom he forgives, or whom he counts right eous, God immediately bestows, on the ground of faith in Jesus Christ, all the good and blessing, which the subject of his grace is capable of enjoying. This is the reason why the sacred writers frequently connect these two ideas in the same word. Cf. Noesselt, Pfingstprogramm, De eo quid sit, Deum condonnare hominibus peccata, pamasque remittere ? Halae, 1792 (in his Exer- citt.). Morus (p. 151, §5) has therefore well defined and explained the scriptural idea of the forgiveness of sins in the wide sense in wliich it frequently occurs in the Bible, as including (1) exemption by God from the fatal consequences of sin, i. e. from fear of the suffering or punishment consequent upon sin, and from this suffering and punishment itself (ftij dnoXsa&at, John m.) ; (2) the bestowment of blessings (tori/v i'y,£iv), instead of this deserved punishment. For both we are indebted to Christ. The ground and motive however, of the forgiveness of sin on the part of God, is his unmerited goodness and benevo lence. This is the uniform representation of the Holy Scriptures, John 3: 16, seq. 'Morus p. 152, § 6. §110. Illustration of the Scriptural statement, that men owe it to Christ alone, that God justifies them, or forgives their sins. Since sin consists in transgression of the divine law, it is the prerogative of God alone to forgive sin. So the Bible every where teaches, Ps. li. James 4: 12, coll. Luke 5: 21. The Gospel teach- THROUGH CHRIST ALONE. 299 es, that we are indebted for this forgiveness to Christ alone, — that God forgives sin, on account of Christ. It every where magnifies this, as one of the greatest divine favors, and as the foundation of all our blessedness ; John 3: 16. ch. vi. Heb. 9: 15. Rom. 5: 1. Ac cordingly the doctrine of forgiveness through Christ, is always enu merated by the apostles among the principal doctrines and elemen tary principles of Christianity, which were never to be withheld in religious instruction ; vid. 1 Thess.- 1: 10, 'irjaovg 6 gvopevog rjpdg- and tijg ogyrjg igxopivt]g, et alibi. The Acts of the apostles and their epistles show, that they always commenced with this doctrine, and referred every thing to it, both with Jews and Gentiles, enlight ened and ignorant ; because it is equally essential to all. The following classes comprise the principal proof-texts relating to this point. (1) The texts which -declare that Christ has atoned for us ; and that to procure the remission of sins, was the great object of his ad vent to the world ; and that he accomplished this object, 1 John 2: 1,2. Heb. 1: 3, At iavxov xa&ugiapov noitjaapevog tmv apagzimv r\pmv. Heb. 9: 26, " He has appeared before God (necpavigmzai, v. 24) with his offering (Sid &valag avxov), to take away sin (elg d&eztjaiv dpagxlag ;" i. e. he sacrificed himself for us, he died for us, to free us from the punishment of sin (vid. v. 14). (2) The texts which require from us an unlimited confidence (ntazig) in Christ, for the reason, that we are indebted to him and to his person for our spiritual welfare and our acceptance with God. Acts 26: 18, Xaj3eiv dqjcoiv dpagzimv — nlaTti Tt) elg ipe. 2:38. Rom. 5: 1, Aixaim&ivieg ix nlotemg, elgt]vr]v e'xopev ngog &eov (the favor of God and peace of mind) Sid XgiOTOV (which we owe to Christ). Ephes. 1:7, ' Ev m (Xgiarm) e'xopev dnoXvzgmaiv Sid a'tpazog avzov, i. e. ztjv dqjeaiv naganzmpazmv. (3) The texts which teach, that there is no other way besides this, in which the forgiveness of sin can be obtained. Heb. 10: 26, " For those who apostatize, contrary to their better convictions re specting Christ (ixovaimg d'pagzavovzmv, v. 23. 3: 12, 13), there remains no atoning sacrifice (&vala negl dpagzimv) ;" i. e., there is no way for them to obtain the forgiveness of their sins ; since this is the only way, and this way they despise ; cf. Heb. 6: 4, sq. The discourse of Peter, Acts 4: 12, Ovx i'axiv iv aXXat amztjgla, x. z. X. Hwzrjgla, in this passage, is good, happiness, here and 300 ART. X. § 110. SINS FORGIVEN THROUGH CHRIST. hereafter. This happiness can be obtained through no other person. The name (person) of no other man under heaven, is given to us for this object. "Ovopa here is connected iv av&gmnoig, no name among men, The meaning is : ' We are directed by God to no other man, however holy, through whom to obtain safety and happiness, besides Jesus Christ.' (4) The texts which teach clearly and expressly, that God for gives men their sins, or justifies tbem, and frees them from the pun ishment of sin, solely on accountof Christ. Acts 10: 43, " To him gave all the prophets witness, that whoever believes in him, should through him (Sid ovopazog avzov) receive remission of sins." (Cf. Ps. xxn. xl. ex. Is. liii.) Acts 13: 38, Aid Tov tov vpiv dqe- aig dpagzimv xazayyiXXezui, even of those, from which you could not be justified according to the Law of Moses." 1 John 2: 12, 'Acpt'mvzai vpiv at dpagziai Sid to ovopa avzov, propter Chris tum. Rom. 5: 10, KaTtjXXayrjpev to) &em Sid xov ¦&avdtov tov vlov amov, coll. v. 18, and 1 Thess. 1:' 10. 2 Cor. 5: 21, "God treated him, who had never sinned, as a sinner, in our stead, that we might he forgiven by God ; yevmpe&a Sixaioavvt] tfeov (i. e. Slxaiot ivm- niov &eov) iv ai'zm," on his account, v. 19. But the passage which exhibits the mind of Christ and the apos tles most fully and clearly, is Rom. 3 : 21 — 28. Cf. Noesselt, Ab- handlung, Opusc. T. II. Paul here opposes the prevailing mistake respecting the merit of good works, and of the observance of the Law, and the opinion that God loved the Jews alone, and compara tively disregarded every other people. Paul shows that, on the con trary, God feels a paternal interest in all men ; and is willing to for give all, since all, as sinners, need forgiveness ; but that men can never obtain a title to this forgiveness by their own imperfect obe dience to the Law, but only by faith in Christ, to whom they are in debted for this favor, and in a way exclusive of all personal desert. " Now (in the times of the New Testament) we- are -aw- made ac quainted, by the Christian doctrine, with the purpose of God to for give us (Sixaioavvt] ¦deov, vs. 22, 24), without respect to the observance of the Law, as any thing meritorious (xmglg vo- pov) ; of which purpose, frequent indications appear, even in the Old Testament. This is God's purpose to forgive men, on account of their faith in Jesus Christ, without their own desert. This forgiveness is extended to all (Jews and Gen tiles), who believe in Christ. All are sinners, unworthy of the di- HOW THIS IS EFFECTED. 301 vine favor, and deserving of punishment. But God, in the exercise of his impartial, paternal love, desires to make all men happy ; and accordingly intends this to be the means of the happiness of all. But this forgiveness is bestowed upon them, without their deserving it (Smgedv), from the mere mercy (xdgig) of God, through the atone ment of Christ. God hath appointed Christ to be an atoning sac rifice (lXaazr]giov), or a propitiator through faith in his blood (i. e. God forgives us on his account, if we place our whole reliance upon his death, endured for our good). He now indulgently forgives us our past sins (committed before our conversion to Christ ; cf. Heb. 9: 15). He now shows, (in these times of the New Testament,) how merciful he is to all men, by forgiving (Stxaiovvza) every one (Jew or Gentile) who believes in Jesus Christ (zov ix niatemg)." The question arises, how and by what means has Christ pro cured for us pardon from God, or the forgiveness of sins ? We find many clear declarations upon this point in the discours es of Jesus himself; especially in the Gospel of John, where he fre quently speaks of his death, and of the worth and advantages of it ; John 3: 14. Matt. xxvi. We find passages of the same kind even in the discourses of John the Baptist, John 1 : 29 ; and in the prophecies to which Christ appeals as referring to himself, Ps. xxn. xl. Is. liii. But this doctrine is more clearly explained, developed, and applied, in the instructions of the apostles. While Christ was visibly upon the earth, he laid the foundation for this doctrine ; but left it for his disciples to make a more full developement and appli cation of this, as well as of many other doctrines, after his sufferings and death should have become facts which had already taken place. That the views which they give upon this subject, did not originate merely in the conceptions then prevalent among the Jews and heathen, but are exactly suited to the universal necessities of man, is cleat from § 108. But there have always been some in the Christian Church, and many in modern times, to whom this doctrine, so clearly taught in the New Testament, has been offensive, as it was formerly to many Jews and heathen ; 1 Cor. I. n. And so they endeavour to give a different view, from that given in the New Testament, of the nature of the benefits which Christ has conferred upon the human race, confining them to his doctrine, and the results of it. So Socinus, 302 ART. X. § 110. FORGIVENESS OBTAINED and many of the same opinion in other parties. Sometimes they endeavour to deduce their opinions, by a forced interpretation, from the Bible. Sometimes they hold that the subject should not be definitely stated, at least in popular discourse ; — that it is sufficient to say, in general, we obtain forgiveness of sin through Christ, or through faith in Christ, leaving every one to understand this state ment in his own way. But the meaning of this indefinite phraseol ogy must certainly be explained in theological instruction. Should it then be withheld from the people ? and is it honest, to refer the common people and the young to the Holy Scriptures, by the lan guage employed, and at the same time to teach them something widely different from what is contained in the Bible 1 If the con science of any one does not pronounce such conduct inexcusable, he should renounce the idea of being a Christian teacher. The question here is not, how the doctrine may be understood by learn ed men, judging independently of the authority of Revelation ; but how the doctrine is taught in the New Testament ? Since this book lies at the foundation of religious knowledge ; the doctrines and ideas which it contains should be explained, and in a way which will be intelligible to those who hear. And considering how adapt ed to the wants of man the Scriptural doctrine of forgiveness is ; what a powerful influence it exerts ; how much it does to tranquil lize the mind, to purify and elevate the character ; it would be an act of rashness and cruelty to destroy the faith of men in it ; and to rob them of a belief, in place of which nothing can be substituted at once so plain to the reason, so beneficial to the character, and so consoling to the heart. The Bible ascribes the forgiveness which is procured for us by Christ, principally to the following points: viz. (1) his sufferings and violent death ; which is often called, according to the Hebrew idiom, aipa Xgiazov and azavgog. This is the principal thing. In connexion with this it places (2) his resurrection, and (3) his intercession. On these grounds, God justifies or forgives men. These three parts will therefore be separately considered, §§ 111, 112. Note. We should not stop with one of these particulars, and overlook the rest. The resurrection of Christ, according to the New Testament, assures us of the validity of his atonement; and his intercession imparts a deep con viction, that although he has ascended into the heavens, he is still mindful of THROUGH THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 303 us, and cares for our welfare. These three points together compose the en tire meritum Christi. Persons are said mereri, or bene mereri de aliquo, when they assist another to obtain possession of any advantage. Sometimes these advantages themselves, which are obtained by the assistance of a benefactor are called merita. But the custom of the schools, ever since the time of the schoolmen, has been, to call the death of Christ, so far as we are indebted to it for pardon and eternal happiness, the meritum Christi, by way of eminence ; meaning that we owe these spiritual blessings to the death of Christ, without denying that ho has deserved well of the human race in other ways. Consid ering that this phraseology has now become established in systematic theolo gy, Morus (pp. 171, 172, § 5.) justly thinks that it should be preserved ; as a deviation from it might produce confusion. § 111. Of the sufferings and death of Christ ; how far we are indebted to them for our justification or pardon ; together with observations on some of the principal attributes (affectiones) of the death of Christ. ' We shall adhere, in this place, simply to the doctrine and repre sentations of the New Testament ; and hereafter (§ 114) treat of the various explanations which have been given in later times of this doctrine, and of the various ecclesiastical opinions de satis faction. I. The sufferings and death of Christ; and how far men are indebted to them for their jus tification or forgiveness. By the sufferings and death of Christ, according to the Scrip tures, many objects and ends, which God had in view, were attain ed ; and they may therefore be considered in various lights, all of which are important and full of instruction. Thus the death of Christ furnishes a proof of the great love of God and of Christ to us. It is an example of the greatest steadfastness, confidence in God, and patience ; etc. And these views of it are often presented in the New Testament ; but by no means the most frequently. The sufferings and death of Christ are mainly considered, as the ground or procuring cause of our forgiveness and of our spiritual welfare. " All men are sinners, and consequently deserving of punishment. The ground on which God pardons them, or forgives their sin, is, 304 ART. X. § 111. FORGIVENESS OBTAINED the sufferings and death of Christ, or his blood shed for them. He endured the misery which we should have endured as the penalty of sin, in order that we might be saved from deserved punishment." Such is the uniform doctrine of the Bible ; the reason and object of it are plain from what was remarked in §108. Without this doctrine, the Bible is not consistent. Our forgiveness, then, does not depend upon our reformation and holiness, by which we deserve nothing from God (Gal. 2: 21) ; but upon the death of Christ, of which our holiness is the result. The death of Christ is the antece dent ; our holiness the consequent. This doctrine is briefly and summarily taught in the following passages, part of which have been already explained, and the re mainder of which will be hereafter : viz. Matt. 26: 28. Rom. 3: 25. 5: 8, 9. Eph. 1: 7. Heb. 9: 12, 15, 28. 1 John 1: 7. The death of Christ, however, is not here mentioned, exclusive ly of his other sufferings ; vid. § 95. All together constitute that which Paul calls the vnaxoi] of Christ, Rom. 5: 19 ; because he endured them from obedience to God, Phil. 2: 8. Theologians call them all obedientia passiva. But death, especially a violent death, most deeply moves our sensibilities, and comprises, as we regard it, the sum and substance of all other sufferings and punishments. For this reason the New Testament makes more frequent mention of the death, blood, and cross of Christ. The following passages clearly and distinctly teach, that Christ has effected the deliverance of man from the deserved punishment of sin, by means of his sufferings and violent death ; viz. (1) The texts which teach that Christ suffered or died for all sinners, or for all the sins of men ; Sid (naganzmpata), n e g I (ngXXmv), but more commonly vneg (dpagzmXmv or navzmv or dpagTimv rjpdiv), Hebrew, \» . E. g. Matt. 26: 28, " The blood shed for many, for the remission of sins." Rom. 4: 25. 5: 6. 1 Cor. 15: 3. 2 Cor. 5: 14, 15. 1 Pet. 3: 18. Is. 53: 5, sq. It has been objected against this proof, that to do a thing vnig tivog sometimes means simply to do it for the good of any one, to instruct him, improve him, or to give him an example. So Col. 1 : 24, where Paul speaks of his sufferings for the good of (vne'g) the Colossians and of the whole Christian Church, because he was per secuted by his enemies, and then imprisoned at Rome. But the sense even here is : 'he congratulates himself that he can undergo THROUGH THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 305 in his own person, what would otherwise have befallen the whole Church ; while the general hatred lights upon him, others escaped.' When now this phraseology is used in the New Testament with re ference to Christ, it never means that he died to teach men, etc. ; but always, instead, in the place of men, to deliver them. He suffer ed, what we should have suffered ; endured the penalty of the Law, which we should have endured. This is confirmed by the passage, Is. liii. from which these terms are so frequently borrowed in the New Testament. And this is decisively proved by the passage, Rom. 5: 6, where it is said that Christ died for (vnig) sinners. This cannot mean, that by his death he gave men an example of firm ness, or sought to reform them. For in v. 7, we read : " There are but few instances among men (like that of Damon and Pythias) of one dying for an innocent friend ; and indeed the examples are rare of one dying (as Peter was willing to do vnig Xgiazov, John 13: 37) even for a benefactor (dya&og). But there is no example of one dying for rebels and criminals, to rescue them from the death which they deserved ; and yet so did Christ die for us." Paul could not have expressed his meaning more clearly. Accordingly he says, 2 Cor. 5: 14, " Did one (Christ) die for all, then were all dead." Farther, if this phraseology meant nothing more than is contend ed for by the objector, it might be used with reference to the death of the Apostles and other martyrs. But this is never the case in the New Testament. No one of them is ever said to have died for the world, for sinners, or sin. It is said respecting Christ exclusive ly, ozl — £ Tg vnig ndvtmv dne&ave, 2 Cor. 5: 14, 15, coll. 1 Cor. 1: 13, ' Was Paul crucified for (vnt'g) you V The meaning then of the phraseology, " Christ suffered for us, or in our place," is this : ' Since Christ suffered for our sins, we ourselves are freed from the necessity of enduring the punishment, which they deserved. It is the same as if we had ourselves endur ed this punishment ; and therefore it need no longer be feared.' The epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians and Hebrews, are full of texts of this import. Cf. Morus, p. 151, and Storr, Doc- trina Christ, p. 254. •» (2) The texts which teach, that Christ was treated as a sinner; and this, in our stead, that we might be considered as forgiven by God. 2 Cor. 5: 21, where dpagtla or dpagtmXov noieiv, is, to treat one as a sinner, to punish him ; as the opposite Slxuiov notetv or Sixai- Vol. II. 39 306 ART. X. § 111. FORGIVENESS OBTAINED ovv, is, to treat as innocent, to forgive. Jesus was treated in this way vnig z]pmv, which is explained by what follows, " that we, on Christ's account, might be treated by God as just or innocent," i. e. might be saved from deserved punishment ; ytvmpi&a Sixaioawtj S-eov, i. e. Slxaioi ivmmov &eov. So also Gal. 3: 13, ' Christ hath redeemed us (who as sinners must fear the threatnings of the Law) from the threatened punishment of the Law (xazdga vopov), ye- vopevog vnig t\pmv xazdga,' for inixazdgatog (as in v. 10) ; i. e. by enduring for us a cruel capital punishment (to which, according to the Law of Moses, only the grossest offenders were liable). Cf. Is. 53: 4—6, from which the Apostles frequently bor row these and similar expressions. (3) With the passages already cited belong those which teach, that Christ took upon himself and bore the sins of men ; i. e. endur ed the punishment, which men would have endured for their sins. In Hebrew the phrase is, liy JMJ3 , or ±10 ; in the Septuagint and the New Testament, qnguv or aigeiv apagziag. It occurs in the text, Is. 53: 4, which is always referred by the New Testa ment to Christ. Also John 1: 29. I Pet. 2: 24. Heb. 9: 28, etc. Some would render ye'geiv or a'igeiv dpagzlav by auferre peccatum, to make men virtuous, to reform them in a moral respect. The only passage in the New Testament, in which the phrase will bear this interpretation is 1 John 3: 5, where it is equally capable of the oth er rendering. The phrase commonly has the meaning first given, and a different interpretation does the greatest violence to the pas sages in which it occurs ; the comparison being so clearly derived from sacrifices. But what is the origin of this signification of the term ? In the Old Testament, sin is frequently compared with a burden, which oppresses any one, and which he is compelled to carry, when he feels the unpleasant consequences of sin, or is punished. So in Ar abic, to bear one's own or another's burden. Hence the phrase was used in reference (a) to the victim, which was sacrificed for the atonement of sin. The victim was supposed to have the sin or pun ishment laid upon it; Lev. 16: 21, 22. (6) In reference to men; and first, to such as were punished for their own sins, Lev. 20: 19. 24: 15 ; and secondly, to such as were punished on account of the sins of others, Lam. 5: 7, " We must bear the sins of our fa thers." Ezek. 18: 20. Also Is. liii., " The punishment lies on him, THROUGH THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 307 he bears our sins." This sense holds in the passages cited from the New Testament. John 1: 29, " Behold the (sacrificial) lamb ac ceptable to God, which bears the sins of the world !" — a compari son drawn from sacrifices. This comparison is inapplicable, ac cording to the other interpretation, — the Lamb, which makes us pious and virtuous. In Heb. ix. the figure implied in ngooevex&elg is taken from sacrifices. In l.Pet. 2: 24, the two ideas are distin guished ; first, " he bore our sins on the cross" (i. e. suffered on the cross the punishment of our sins) ; then " that we might die to sin (spiritually), and live wholly to holiness (Sixaioavvt])." (4) The passages which teach, that the death of Christ was a ransom for us (Xvrgov, dvtlXvtgov), 1 Tim. 2: 6, and even in the discourse of Christ, Matt. 20: 28. ' The term Xvtgov denotes any thing by which one is freed, delivered; vid. § 106, II. The mean ing of the proposition, then, is this : The death of Christ was the means of delivering and rescuing us from the greatest misery, from the punishment of sin ; or, according to Heb. 9: 12, " Christ, almvl- av Xv'zgmaiv evgdpevog, effected our eternal liberation from misery and punishment ;" Is. 43: 3, 4. (5) All the texts which compare the death of Christ with the sacrifices and Levitical ordinances of the Old Testament ; also the texts which teach that the death of Christ obtained, once for ally ' and in a far more perfect manner, the advantages which men- had hoped to obtain from their sacrifices and expiatory rites. This doc trine was indeed founded in the ideas prevalent at that period, and was particularly evident and convincing to the Jews then living, and to such of the heathen nations as were accustomed to- the rites of sacrifice. But it was by no means intended for such exclusive ly ; since it is also founded in a feeling, which is universal among men, that some means of atonement are necessary ; § 108. The apostles, therefore, in their instructions to Jews, heathen and Chris tians, derive their expressions and comparisons from sacrifices ; and only in their instructions to Jews, from the particular services of the Mosaic ritual. The idea which lies at the foundation of this comparison is this : ' Christ, by his death, liberated us from death (punishment of sin), which we should have suffered ; and we should see in him, (a) what dreadful consequences our sins incur, and (6) how gracious God is,, in forgiving us for the sake of Christ.' Ephes. 5: 2, nagidmxev iuv~ 308 art. x. § 111. Christ's death atoned tov vnig i]pmv &em ngoaqtogdv , &va tav , 6 ff prjv evmSiug. Rom. 3: 25 (IXaazrjgiov). Heb. 9: 7, 11—28. 10: 1—14. Acts 13: 38, etc. Hence the term alpa (cades cruenta), which so frequent ly stands for the death of Christ, is to be understood in its full sense. It frequently stands in such a connexion as shows, that the figure is derived from the blood of the sacrificial victim, and from the quali ties ascribed to it. E. g. Heb. 9: 13, 14, alpa zavgmv xal zgdymv, in opposition to alpa Xgiatov-^-xa&agiel. 1 John 1 : 7, " The Wood of Christ cleanses, etc." 1 Pet. 1: 19, " The blood of Christ, a lamb, without spat or blemish." Taking all these texts together, there is no room to doubt, that the Apostles entertained the opinions respecting the death of Christ and its effect, which were ascribed to them at the commencement of this Section. These opinions have been shown (§ 108), not only to correspond with the particular circle of ideas with which they were familiar at that period, but to meet a universal necessity of man. This is a necessity, indeed, which is but little felt by the learned, and least of all by the merely speculative scholar. Vid. 1 Cor. i — in. • II. Universality, and perfect and perpetual validity of the Atonement. (1) Its Universality. Two points must here be noticed. First. According to the clear testimony of the Bible, Christ en dured death for the whole human race ; 2 Cor. 5: 14, 15, vnig ndv- tojj' ane&dvt]. V. 19, " God reconciled the world to himself through Christ." 1 Tim. 2; 6, Sovg iavtov avxlXvzgov vnig ndvzmv. 1 John 2: 2, " He is the propitiator, not only for our sins (i. e. those of Christians), but also for the sins oXov toO xoapov," etc. But the passages which are most explicit upon this subject are found- in the Epistle to the Romans, where Paul controverts the mistaken opinion of the Jews, that the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom be long exclusively to the posterity of Abraham. He shows, Rom. 5: 12 — 19, that as one man was the Author of sin in the world, and of the consequent punishment, which all now endure ; so one man is the Author of salvation and forgiveness for all. In Rom. 3: 9, 22, he shows, that as the moral disease is universal among men, the remedy must needs be universal ; and in v. 29, that the benevo lence of God is not confined to a small portion, but embraces the whole family of man. FOR ALL THE SINS OF OUR WHOLE RACE. 309 In such passages of the New Testament, the term noXXoi or ol noXXoi frequently stands for ndvzeg. E. g. Rom. 5: 19, ol noXXoi stands for all men who are obnoxious to punishment and need forgiveness ; as it reads vs. 12, 18. The same in v. 15. Cf. Matt, 20: 28. 26: 28. 1 Cor. 10: 33, etc. The Hebrews used the word tpa^ , in the same way, Is. 53: 12. All involves the idea of many, and hence in the ancient languages, the words which signify many are often used to denote universality ; — so many ! such a multi tude ! This was the case especially, where only one was pointed out in contrast to the, many ; one for so many ! Note. The question has been asked, whether Christ died for the ungodly,. The strict Particularlsts and Predestinarians answered this question in the ne gative, on the ground that the death of Christ does not actually secure, the. sal vation of the wicked, and is of no advantage to them. But because some, by their own fault, derive no advantage from the death of Christ, we cannot say that the death of Christ does not concern them, and that Christ did not die for them ; any more than we can say, that divine instruction has no power in it self to reform mankind, because many will not allow themselves to be reform ed by it. Moreover this opinion is inconsistent with the New Testament. In 2 Pet. 2: 1, the false teachers and deceivers, whom a dreadful destruction await ed, are said expressly, to deny the Lord who bought (redeemed) them. Misun derstanding and logomachy may be obviated by attending to the just remark of the school-men , that the design of the death of Christ, and the actual results of it, should be distinguished. Actu prima, Christ died for all men ; but actu se- cundo, not for all men, but only for believers ; i. e. according to the purpose of God, all might be exempted from punishment and rendered happy, by the death of Christ ; but all do not suffer this purpose actually to take effect with regard to themselves ; and only believers actually attain to this blessedness. Secondly. Christ removed the whole punishment of sin ; his death atoned for all sins. So the apostles declare. 1 John 1:7,' The blood of Christ cleanses from all sin.' Rom. 5: 16. 8: 1, ovSiv. xuzaxgipa tolg iv Xgiazm. Acts. 13: 38, etc. But an apparent difficulty is here suggested, which must be answered, from, the dis cussion respecting punishments (§§ 86, 87), and can therefore only be touched here. Now there are two kinds of punishments; viz. natural, such: as flow from the nature and character of the moral action itself (e. g. debility and disease from luxurious excess) ; and positive, such as do not result directly from the nature and character' of the moral action, but are connected with it by the free will of the Lawgiver. God actually threatens, tq inflict such positive punishments upqn the. 310 ART. X. § 111. ARE ALL PUNISHMENTS wicked, especially jn the future ^vorld ; just as he promises, on the other hand, to bestow positive rewards in the future world upon the righteous, § 87. Again ; the natural punishments of sin are of two kinds : viz. (a) physical, as sickness in consequence of immodera tion ; and (6) moral (by far the worst !), such as disquiet of mind, re morse of conscience, and dread of God ; § 86, II. 2. Now has Christ redeemed us from all these punishments? Those who mean to speak strictly and logically reply, no ! Christ has redeemed us, properly speaking, only from positive divine pun ishments in the future world, and from that kind of natural punish ments which may be called moral, or the evil results of sin in a mor al respect. Even the man who is reformed still retains the con sciousness of the sins which he has committed, and reflects upon them with sorrow, shame and regret. But the pardoned sinner knows that God, for Christ's sake, has forgiven his sins ; and so is no longer subject to that disquiet of mind, pain of conscience, dread of God and despair, — the pana moralis of sin, which render the wicked miserable. The physical part of natural punishment indeed remains, even after the transgressor is reformed. If any one, by his extravagance has made himself sick and poor, he will not, in consequence of be ing pardoned and renewed, become well and prosperous. The phys ical consequences of sin continue, not only through the present life, but probably through the life to come. They can be obviated only by a miraculous interference of God, which is nowhere promised. But these very physical consequences of sin, whose evil is so last ing, are like a bitter medicine ; they have a good effect, and secure us from turning again from the right path. Although one who is pardoned has, therefore, no right to expect that the physical evils resulting from his transgression will be counteracted by his being subsequently forgiven ; yet he may hope both from what has now been said and from common experience, that these evils will be very much diminished, will lose the terror of punishment, and con tribute to his good. Such is the case exactly with bodily death. The same truth is taught in the Bible, not indeed in a scientific manner, which would be unintelligible to men at large, but in the popular manner in which it should always be taught. (1) The Bi ble never says, that Christ has entirely removed the physical evils, which naturally result from sin. (2) When the sacred writers say, REMOVED BY CHRIST'S DEATH ? 311 that Christ suffered punishment for us, they mean principally the positive punishment, from which he has liberated us by his suffer ings and death ; vid. § 87, No. 2. They also teach, (3) that one who trusts in Christ can take courage, can love God and Confide in him, without dreading his anger, and without distressing himself in view of his past guilt, which is now forgiven him for the sake of Christ. The remission of the moral punishments which naturally flow from sin, is thus set forth in a manner, which ought to be fol lowed by the public teacher ; vid. § 109, ad finem. (4) But the terms pardon and forgiveness of sin, are frequently used in the New Testament in a wider sense, comprehending all the divine favors which the pardoned receive from Jjod ; they denote the whole amount of the blessedness — the salvation — which the pardoned en joy; vid. § 109, Note. If, therefore, (5) the natural physical con sequences of past sins are not removed, they still lose their severity ; they are rendered mild and in many respects beneficial ; they are vastly overbalanced by the various blessings bestowed, and thus cease, in their actual effects, to be punishments. The Holy Scrip tures, therefore, declare with truth, that the blood of Christ atones for all sins. Cf. the programm of Noesselt, above cited. Note. Theologians have been divided on the question, whether the apos tles held that the sins committed before Christ, or during the Old Testament dispensation, were forgiven by God on account of the atonement to be after wards made. Doederlein and others take the negative side. They say that the iiqpeaig itQoyeyovarzow d/iaQTi/pdTOJV, Rom. 3: 25, may denote the remission of the sins which the Jews and gentiles of that age had committed before their conversion to Christianity. The itaqafldoeig inl Ty ¦Kqiuzr] Sia&T/XJ], Heb. 9: 15, may be understood in the same way, or may denote the sins which were irremissible during the Old Testament dispensation ; vid. v. 9. But the con text of this passage is more favorable to the common interpretation.' Besides, the affirmative of this question is supported, (1) By the whole anal ogy of Scripture. The Jews of that age agree with Christ and the apostles in teaching, that men of the earliest times hoped for the Messiah, that the divine ordinances of the former dispensation referred to him, and pointed him out, and that all the pious of antiquity confided in him. Vid. John 8: 56. Luke 10: 24. 1 Pet. 1: 10, 11. Cf. § 90. (2) By the passage Heb. 9: 26,. where this doctrine is plainly implied. " God appointed that Christ should suffer and die for all sins, and once for all. Otherwise, it would have been necessary that he should suffer more than once (tzoXXdxis) from the beginning of the world; since there were always sinners in the world." This plainly involves the sentiment, that Christ died for the men who lived before him. The opinion of Loeffler and other modern writers, that pardon through the death of Christ related only to 312 ART. X. § 112. CONNEXION OF1 THE RESURRECTION the new converts from Judaism and heathenism, is entirely false and contra dictory to the New Testament. Yid. Gal. 3: 21, sq. Rom. 1: 18, sq. ; coll. 1 Thess. 1: 10. John 3: 13—16. Rom. 5: 18, 19, and especially 1 John 2: 1, 2. (2) The other attribute of the atoning death of Christ, is its per manent and perfect validity (perennitas, perennis valor meriti Christi). This doctrine is held in opposition to those who believe, that the expiatory sacrifice of Christ is not valid and sufficient for the atonement of some particular sins, and who therefore seek for other means of obtaining pardon, such as penances and satisfactions. This opinion has not only prevailed in modern times, especially since the middle ages, throughout the whole body of the Romish Church, but formerly, though in different forms, even in the times of the apostles, among Jews and Gentiles; vid. § 108, No. I. Paul therefore shows, especially inahis epistle to the Hebrews, that Christ had sacrificed himself once for all («7ia£) for all sins, and that now no more sacrifices, penances and expiations are necessary for men. Heb. 7: 27, 7bt7ro inolnaev iqidnal;, iavzov dveveyxag. Heb. 9: 25, 26 — 28, ' He appeared at the close of this age anal- elg d&eTij- aiv apagziag ' and then dna'§ ngoaevex&elg elg to TtoXXdtv dvevey- xeiv apagziag. So also, 10: 14, pia ngoaqjoga texeXelmxev elg ro' Sitj-vexig zovg dyiagopt'vovg. Accordingly Christ is said, 9: 12, by his once entering into the heavens, to have procured eternal Redemption (almviav Xvzgmatv). § 112. Of the influence which the resurrection of Christ, and his subsequent exaltation and intercession, have upon our forgiveness or justification. It was observed (§ 110, ad finem), that the New Testament points toithree particulars in the justification procured for us by Christ. The first of these, the death of Christ, was considered, § 111. We come now to treat of the two remaining particulars. WITH OUR JUSTIFICATION. 313 I. The influence of the resurrection and exaltation of Christ upon our justification. We have before examined (§ 97), what is uniformly taught in the Bible respecting the resurrection of Christ, and the great im portance of this event ; and all this is here presupposed." The res urrection of Christ is mentioned in connexion with our justification, with the most distinctness in the two following texts : viz. 2 Cor. 5: 15, " Christians should not live ' for their own pleasure (iavzm £tjv), but for the honor of Christ, and according to his will, zm vnig avrcuv ano&avovTt xal iyegO-ivzi"(sc. vnig avtrnv) ; and Rom. 4: 25, ' He died (according to the divine purpose) Sid id naganTmpaTat]pmv,t] y i g ¦d- 1] Sid ttj v Six aioavvrjv t\ pmv' What is meant by his being raised for our justification, must be gathered from other passages. 1 Pet. 1:3," God has made us, by means of Christianity, reformed men (born again), that we might cherish a firm hope (elg iXnlSa £diaav, sc. of future happiness, v. 4)', through the resurrection of Christ." 1 Pet. 1: 21, " God has rais ed Christ and rewarded him with glory (the state of exaltation in the heavens), that he — the risen and glorified Christ — might be your confidence and hope in God," i. e. that you should consider him as the person, to whom alone you are indebted for the confidence which you now are enabled to repose in God. 1 Cor. 15: 17, " If Christ were not risen, then the confidence (nlatig) which you feel in him, would be vain ; Jit ioTi iv dpagzluig vpaiv," i. e. you could not be certain of that forgiveness which you now hope to obtain from God through Christ. Cf. Rom. 8: 34. From these passages taken together, we can easily gather the relation and connexion, in which the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, stand to our justification and forgiveness. The resurrection of Christ, then, cannot be considered to have any desert in itself alone, nor can it be supposed, separately considered, to have freed us from the punishment of sin. But according to the Bible, the resurrection of Christ, and his subsequent reward in heaven, give attestation and confirmation to all that he taught and suffered. For since God raised and rewarded Christ, we must conclude that He fully approved of every thing which Jesus taught and perform ed ; and that Christ must have accomplished His designs. Did Christ suffer and die with the intention of liberating us from the Vol. II. 40 314 ART. X. § 112. CONNEXION OF CHRIST'S INTERCESSION punishment of sin ; we may be sure, since his resurrection and ex altation, that he fully attained this object, and that we can now through him lay claim to reward and eternal happiness. This is what Peter means by niazig xal iXnlg vpmv. In the passage cited from 1 Cor., Paul means to say, that if Christ were not risen, we might be led to suspect that he had not performed, what he promised and undertook to perform. We are now prepared to understand the meaning of the declar ation in the Epistle to the Romans, r,yig&ti elg Sixaioavvt]v ijpav, viz. in order to afford us certainty of our forgiveness, of which we could have no certainty if Christ had remained in the grave ; vid. Acts 13: 37, 38. Accordingly, the resurrection and exaltation (Soi-a, as Peter has it) of Christ, are the confirmation and assurance Of our justification ; while the sufferings and death of Christ are properly the procuring cause of it. II. The influence of the intercession of Christ upon our justification. (1) Sketch of the history of this doctrine. Many theologians, and some of the ecclesiastical fathers, repre sent intercession, as a continued external action of Christ, different from his atonement, by which blessings are not only imparled to us, but likewise procured for us. Among the fathers who held this opinion, were Gregory of Nazianzen, Gregory the Great, Paulus of Aquilia, and others ; among modern theologians, Calvin, and of the Lutheran Church, Chemnitz, Baumgarten, and others. These writers regard the intercession of Christ, as a distinct work perform ed by him, in his state of exaltation in heaven. They have very different conceptions, however, respecting the manner of this work, some of which are very gross! Many of them contended for an intercessio verbalis, e. g. Cyprian and Augustine ; and their opinion was adopted in the Romish Church. Accordingly Luther renders ivzvyxdvei, Heb. 7: 25, " Er bittet fur sie" (he prays for them). So Petavius, Hollaz, Quenstedt, and many others, among the Lutherans. They also differ widely from one another respecting the nature, object and continuance of this intercession. Some con sider it as belonging to the sacerdotal office ; in which case the comparison is drawn from the Jewish High Priest in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Nothing definite upon the subject appears in the Symbols, except in the Augsburg Confession ; and even there no distinct explanation is given. WITH OUR JUSTIFICATION. 315 Another theory which entirely divests the subject of its materi al dress, and which has therefore been more generally approved in modern times, was first distinctly stated by Philip Limborch, the Arminian theologian, and by Mussus in the seventeenth century. They consider the intercession of Christ to be merely the relation in which he, in his state of exaltation, stands to sinners, as their Redeemer ; and not as a continued action, by which he still promotes the welfare of men, and by which salvation is still procur ed for them. The same opinion is found in Ballhorn's dissertation, De intercessions Christi sacerdotali (among Walch's Vorsitze), Got- tingen, 1774. This opinion however does not exactly correspond with the doctrine of the Bible. (2) Explanation of the texts relating to this subject, and an elucidation of the ideas contained in them. These texts are, (a) 1 John 2: 1. " When a Christian has committed sin, (let him not despair of pardon, but encourage himself with the thought, that) we have nag dxXtjT ov ngog zov naTiga, in Jesus, the righteous." Here, nagdxXt]Tog is patronus, advocate, defender (Fursprecher, Luther). This name is given by Philo to the minis ters and favorites at court, who promise to any one the favor of the king ; and also to the High Priest, the expiator of the people ; vid. Programm, De Christo el Spiritu Sancto paracletis, in " Scripta va- rii argumenti," Num. iv. In this respect it is, that Christ is call ed nagdxXt]zog. He is our expiator, IXaapog negl dpagttmv, v. 2. Accordingly the meaning of this passage is, that since Christ is ex alted to heaven, and while he continues there, we may be firmly convinced that God will be gracious to us, and for Christ's sake, will remit the punishment of our sins ; and that Christ, in his state of exaltation, continues without intermission his cares for the wel fare of men. (b) Rom. 8: 34. Here Paul says : " No one can condemn (xa- tuxgivetv) the friends of God (Christians). They are exempt from punishment. Christ died for them ; and indeed (what might add to their comfort), had risen again, was seated on the right hand of God, 6g xal ivtvyxdvet vnig tjpmv (vertritt uns, Luther). ' Evtvyxdr veiv, joined with the dative, means occurrere alicui ; then adire, convenire aliquem, Acts 25: 24 ; joined with xaza (tivog), accusa- re, Rom. 11: 2 ; with vnig (tivog), medium se alterius causa inter- ponere, to interpose in behalf of one, to intercede for him ; as here, 316 Aib x. §112. Christ's intercession, etc. intercedere pro aliquo, deprecari, causam alicujus agere. From this text it does not appear, that this intercession was performed by words. The principal idea is : ' Christ is now, as it were, our patron with God : his being with God in heaven, gives us the consoling assur ance, that through him we are forever reconciled with God and freed from the punishment of sin ; and that, as the advocate and patron of the pious, Christ still prosecutes in heaven his labors for their welfare.' (c) Heb. 7: 25, sq. Here the case is the same. " Christ (be ing an eternal High Priest) can forever bless (aw£eiv elg zo nav- teXig) all those who seek the favor of God through his mediation ; since he ever lives elg zo ivzvyyaveiv ," i. e. since Christ ever lives with God in heaven, we can always be sure of forgiveness and of every divine blessing ; for he is not in heaven in vain, but even there continues to be engaged for our welfare. The phrase inter cessio sacerdotalis, is taken from this passage. For the figure here, as in the whole chapter, is borrowed from the Jewish High Priest, who on the great day of atonement entered into the most holy place, and made expiation for the sins of the people (pro populo intercede- bat apud Deum). He did not do this, however, by words (he spake no word, vid. Ex. xxvni. and Lev. xvn.), but by action, namely, by offering the blood of the victim. The object of this compar ison then is, to show that Christ performs with God in the heavenly world, what the Jewish High Priest did yearly for the people up on the earth. It refers then, both to the permanent validity of the atonement of Christ, and to his continued labors in heaven for the salvation of men. Respecting this figure, cf. Morus, p. 155, sq. (d) Heb. 9: 24, — a parallel passage, which confirms the above explanation. " Christ did not enter into an earthly temple, like the Jewish High Priest, but into heaven itself, vvv i pcpav ta drj- vai zm ngoamnm ¦deov vnig tjpmv," — the very phrase applied to the High Priest, when he presented to God in the temple the blood of atonement for the people. It means, therefore, " in order to procure for us a firm assurance of being expiated, or of the forgive ness of our sins, and of the enjoyment of all the spiritual blessings connected with forgiveness." The intercession of Christ before God in the heavenly world de notes, then, both the lasting and perfect validity and efficacy of his §'113. UNIVERSALITY OF JUSTIFICATION. 317 atonement, of which we obtain consoling assurance by his abiding with God in his state of exaltation ; and also the continued wakeful care which Jesus Christ exercises in heaven over his followers on the earth. In short, the intercession of Christ is one of the chief employments which Christ, prosecutes in heaven in his state of ex altation, as the King and Patron of men, and especially of the Christian church, and its individual members ; § 98. He is our paracletus and patron, therefore, not merely in respect to what he formerly did for men, while upon the earth, but also in respect to the efforts which he still continues to make for our welfare. The Bible no where teaches, that this intercession consists in words. But considering that Christ must still be regarded as a man, though in heaven ; there is no objection to representing the thing under the figure of actual intercession. In brief, Christ does for us all and more, than could be done among men through verb al intercession, or other kinds of interposition, by a powerful human advocate. The passage Heb. 12 : 24, may here be compared : " The blood of Christ speaks better (for us), than the blood of Abel." The blood of Abel cried to God for vengeance upon Cain. The death of Christ moves God, not to punish, but to bless and for give. § 1 13. TVie Scripture doctrine of pardon or justification through Christ, as an universal and unmerited favor of God. I. The universality of this benefit. It is universal as the atonement itself; vid. § 111, II. If the atonement extends to the whole human race, justification must also be universal ; i. e. all must be able to obtain the actual forgiveness of their sins and blessedness, on accountof the atonement of Christ. But in order to obviate mistakes, some points may require explana tion. Justification, then, is universal, (1) In respect to the persons to be pardoned. All men, according to the Bible, may partake of this benefit. It was designed for all ; vid. especially Rom. 3: 23. 5: 15 (§ 111), 318 ART. X. § 113. UNIVERSALITY OF JUSTIFICATION in opposition to Jewish exclusiveness. It is bestowed however con ditionally ; certain conditions are prescribed which are indispensa ble. Those who do not comply with these conditions, are excluded from the enjoyment of the benefit. Justification and forgiveness are not, therefore, universal in effect (actu) ; and this solely through the fault of men.* Another conclusion from the universality of justification is, that every one may be sure of his forgiveness. This certainty, however, must not be founded upon inward feelings, which are frequently de ceptive ; but upon an actual compliance with the conditions on which God will forgive sins. If any one finds in himself the signs of true faith, of sincere love to God and Christ, of a renewed heart, and of a virtuous Christian disposition, he is justified. Rom. 8: 16, " The holy, Christian temper (nvevpa) wrought in us by God, gives us the clearest and surest proof, that we are the children of God." 1 John 3: 7. 2 Pet. 1: 9, 10. This certainty is in the high est degree necessary to our tranquillity and happiness. 1 Tim. 1 : 16. 1 Cor. 6: 11. 1 John 5: 18—20. (2) In respect to sins and the punishment of sin. (a) As to sins ; the position that all sins, without exception, are forgiven for Christ's sake, is proved partly from the power and effi cacy of the atonement of Christ, which is extended to all sins (vid. § 111, and the texts there cited) ; and partly from the texts which promise forgiveness of all sins, even the greatest and blackest, to those who comply with the prescribed conditions of pardon. Ezek. 18: 21, 22. Ps. 103: 3. 1 Cor. 6: 11. Ephes. 2: 5. 1 Tim. 1: 15. The sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be regarded as an excep tion ; vid. § 84. (b) As to the punishment of sin ; the answer to the question whether the pardoned are exempt from all the punishments of sin, whether therefore justification is plena et perfecta, may be learned from § 111, II. The natural and physical evils which result from past sins, indeed, remain ; but they are mitigated and rendered more tolerable, and are divested of the terror of punishment, by the ces- * [This is very conveniently expressed by the terms objective and subjective justification. Objective justification is the act of God, by which he prof fers pardon to all through Christ; subjective, is the act of man, by which he accepts the pardon freely offered in the Gospel. The former is universal, the latter hot. Tr.] AS TO SINS, PUNISHMENTS, AND TIME. 319 sation of the moral evils which result from sin ; which takes place in consequence of the entirely different relation in which men stand to God, after they are once pardoned. The positive punishments of sin are entirely removed ; and man receives, even here, the expecta tion of positive divine rewards, and of the full enjoyment of them in the life to come. (c) In respect to time and lasting continuance. First. The Scriptures uniformly teach that forgiveness extends through the whole life of man. He may receive pardon at any time, while life continues, so soon as he fulfils the requisite conditions of forgiveness. This last clause should be carefully and expressly an nexed, in order to preserve men from security and carelessness in sin. Formerly many teachers, especially in the Lutheran Church, were incautious in the use of language on this subject. They used the general phrases, the door of mercy stands ever open, man can ob tain favor (forgiveness) in the last moment of life, without suitable explanation and cautious limitation. But while it is important on the one hand to show, that God is indeed ever ready to forgive ; it ought, on the other hand, to be observed, that man is not always ca pable of forgiveness ; that forgiveness is necessarily connected with repentance, as an indispensable condition (not implying by any means, that repentance is the procuring cause of forgiveness) ; that repentance and holiness are important things, which cannot be ac complished in a few moments ; and that, therefore, it is extremely dangerous to delay them to the end of life, especially considering that we do not know that we shall then have our reason, or that we shall not die suddenly. The sincere Christian teacher will render such considerations as impressive as possible, in order to disturb se curity in sin. He should guard, however, with equal caution against the mistake of those, who represent repentance and holiness as the meritorious ground of forgiveness. The frequent perversion of the doctrine of justification gave rise, at the end of the seventeenth, and commencement of the eighteenth century, to the terministic controversy. Joh. Ge. Bose, a Deacon at Sorau, in endeavouring to avoid one extreme, fell into another. He held that God did not continue to forgive, even to the last, such persons as he foresaw would harden themselves in impenitence ; but that he established a limit of grace (terminum gratiae sive salutis peremptorium), to which, and no farther, he would afford them grace 320 ART. X. § 113. UNIVERSALITY OF JUSTIFICATION for repentance. He appealed to the texts which speak of God as hardening or rejecting men ; some of which have no reference to conversion and forgiveness, and some of which are erroneously ex plained by him ; vid. § 85. Ad. Rechenberg at Leipsic, and others, assented to this opinion, though with the best intentions. But Ittig, Fecht, Neumann and many others, opposed this opinion, and wrote against the work of Bose, " Terminus peremptorius salutis huma- iiae," and against Rechenberg. They were in the right. This opinion is not taught in the Holy Scriptures, and is calculated to lead the doubting and anxious to despair, and to place them, as many sorrowful examples teach, in the most perilous condition both as to soul and body, especially on the bed of death. The doctrine that repentance and holiness are the meritorious ground of salvation, would have equally terrible consequences. Ac cording to this doctrine, we should be compelled to deny all hope of salvation to one who had lived an impenitent sinner, till the last part of his life ; which the Bible never does, and which is, in itself, cruel. The conscience even _of the good man, must say to him, on his death-bed, that his imperfect virtues are insufficient to mer it heaven. In neither of these instances, then, would there be any consolation ; but despair would be the result of this doctrine in both. Secondly. If one who has obtained the forgiveness of his sins is guilty of new transgressions, he forfeits the blessing of forgiveness, and all its salutary consequences ; and by new offences, incurs new punishments, which, after his fall, are justly more severe and intoler able, than before. Still it cannot be said, as it has been said by some, that in case of apostasy, God considers the sins once forgiven at the time of repentance, as not forgiven, and that he still imputes them to the transgressor. There is no reason for this supposition ; and such is not the case in human courts. The Bible uses the terms, sins are blotted out, no more remembered, Ezek. 18: 22. 33: 16. Ps. 103: 11, 12. So Paul says, Rom. 11: 29, that God will never recall, or take back, the gifts which he has promised and be stowed (dpezapiXt/za xaglapaza). Vid. Wernsdorf s Dissertation on this subject in Coll. Dissertat. T. I. p. 607, sq. Thirdly. Even those, who, after their reformation and the be stowment of forgiveness, fall away and transgress anew, may again obtain the forgiveness of their sins, as soon as they repent and be lieve in Christ. So the Bible every where teaches, both in the Old AS TO TIME. 321 and New Testament ; Ezek. 33:11. 1 Thess. 5: 9. Christ com mands us to be forgiving to our neighbor who has wronged us, since in this we shall resemble God, who is easily reconciled, and who will ingly forgives sin. Therefore the precept, Matt. 18: 21, 22, is ap plicable to God. This position is confirmed by the examples of many apostates in the Bible, who, after the commission of great of fences, were again received into favor ; e. g. David, 2 Sam. xn. ; Peter, Matt. xxvi. ; etc. The condition of repentance and faith, however, is indispensable ; vid. Ps. li., Morus, p. 211, sq. But from the earliest ages, Christians have entertained various erroneous opinions upon this subject. The opinion prevailed, even during the earliest ages, that great sins, committed after baptism, (by which ordinance the Christian was supposed to receive the re mission of sin,) could not be pardoned without great difficulty, if indeed, at all ; on which account many delayed baptism till the end of life. The excommunication of great offenders had been common among Christians from the time of the apostles, (as it was among the Jews, which indeed at that time was necessary). But now, in the second and third centuries, Montanus,' Novatian, and many others, began to exercise this prerogative very severely, and in order to invest it with more terror, insisted that the excommunicated should never be restored, in opposition to those who were too len ient in readmitting them. Montanus, however, declared expressly, that they might still obtain forgiveness from God (Tertullian) ; and even Novatian was willing to leave it undetermined how God would deal with them. But afterwards some particular teachers and some whole sects, maintained, that one who is excluded from the Christian Church, is excluded from the favor of God, and placed beyond the reach of pardon. This opinion prevailed extensively in the Romish Church. It was based on the principle, Extra ecclesiam nulla sa ins. In opposition to this error, the ancient Creeds prescribed the declaration Credo remissionem peccalorum. This same error is controverted in the Augsburg Confession, Art. 13. The ancient apostolic Church was far removed from such an opinion. In the second epistle to the Corinthians, Paul advises that the incestuous person, whom he had required to be excommunicated in his first epistle, should now be restored, since he had repented of his crime Vol. II. 41 322 ART. X. § 113. FORGIVENESS OF SIN and had pnt away his offence. And even there, where he advises his excommunication, and even undertakes to punish him, 1 Cor. 5; 5, he will by no means have him excluded on this account from the favor of God ; but declares on the contrary, that he inflicts pun ishment with the very intention of saving his soul, 'Iva nvevpa aw- ¦&$ iv t]piga xvgiov. II. Justification or forgiveness is an unmerited divine- favor. That man can merit the divine favor and forgiveness by good works or virtues, is an old mistake, which continues to be widely prevalent, and is ever appearing again in some new form. Against this mistake, which prevailed among the Jews and the Christian converts from Judaism, the Apostles labored incessantly, in entire accordance with that reasonable declaration of Jesus, Luke 17: 10, " When we have done every thing which we are bound to do, (al though no one can ever pretend, that he has,) we are still servants who have deserved nothing (dygeloi) ; for we have done only our duty." All our good works do not confer favor upon God, or lay him under obligation. The observance of his laws is our duty, and tends to our own good merely. In Rom. in., Paul particularly illustrates this doctrine. V. 24, he says, " Through Christ we are justified Smgedv, tt] xdgizi &eov," i. e. from mere free grace, which we have not deserved and which we cannot repay ; vid. Matt. 10: 8. Paul therefore calls justifica tion, Smgov Qeov, Ephes. 2: 8. But the Jews and the Christian converts from Judaism, in that age, were particularly inclined to the opinion, that the external observance of the divine law, especial ly of the Mosaic ceremonial law, the most perfect of any, was meri torious, and more than any thing else procured forgiveness from God. This mistake is controverted by Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. He shows that man is justified by God, oux #£ e'g- ymv vopov, or ^wpts egymv vopov, (not because he observes the Law, Tit. 3: 5. 2 Tim. I: 9,) Rom. 3: 20, 21, 28. ch. VI. Gal. 2: 16, 21, seq. Nopog has frequently indeed in these chapters a special reference to the divine law given by Moses, because this was reo-ard- ed by the Jews as the most perfect. But it is by no means to be limited to this sense. Paul affirms the same in respect to obedience to all the divine precepts; since this obedience is always imperfect, Rom. 3: 28. 6: 14. Gal. 3: 17, 29, 23 ; and ol dno vopov are not AN UNMERITED FAVOR. 323 merely the Jews, but all who subject themselves to the divine laws, thinking to merit the favor of God by obedience. The Jews con sidered their observance of the Law as meritorious, and many Chris tians hoped to be justified on the same ground. Paul opposes this opinion, and proves that Christians cannot consider obedience as the meritorious ground of justification, for which they are indebted to Christ alone. But what Paul says respecting works, applies equally, in his opinion, to obedience to all laws, to works in gener al, even to Christian works. He does not speak exclusively of the law given by Moses ; his positions are general, applying equally to all the laws of God, whether given by Moses, by Christ, or in any other manner ; vid. Progr: ad Rom. 7: 21, in Scripta Varii argu- menti, No. XII. Our obedience to the divine law is not, and can not be, in itself meritorious. That this is a general doctrine, is per fectly clear from Rom. iv. e. g. v. 4, " He that works for hire (igyu- £ea&ui, 1 Thess. 2: 9, sq.) receives his wages, not through the grace of him for whom he labors, (as we all receive pardon from God,) but from the obligation of his employer to recompense him." Now if we receive the reward through grace, our works contribute noth ing to this end, — they are not the meritorious ground of our pardon. Paul also employs the argument, that if we by our obedience to the Law could merit pardon, the atonement of Christ would be en tirely in vain. The fact that we do not obtain forgiveness in this way, renders the atonement necessary, Gal. 2: 21. But why is this doctrine taught in the-Holy Scriptures ? If God made our works of legal obedience the measure by which he bestowed pardon and reward, we should have but a poor prospect. For how imperfect is our obedience, especially during the early sta ges of the Christian life ! How defective is it, even in the best and most advanced Christians ! The greater advances a man makes in holiness and in Christianity, the more he sees and feels his imper fection. What feeble hope would the good man then have, if his own works, (which his conscience pronounces very imperfect,) should be the procuring-cause of his pardon ! The Christian teacher who inculcates such an opinion, knows not what he does. Melancthon expressed this very well in the Augsburg Confession, Art. 4. For a farther consideration of this subject, and an account of the controversies respecting it with the Romish Church, vid. infra, §§ 124, 125. 324 ART. X. § 114. VARIOUS THEORIES § 114. Of the various theories respecting the nature and manner of the atonement of Christ ; and a notice of some of the most impor tant works on atonement and justification. The common word authorized by ecclesiastical usage for de noting the atonement, is satisfactio (Germ. Genugthuung). This word is not indeed found in the Bible, but is in itself unobjectiona ble, taken in the large sense in which it was formerly understood in the Church, and' freed from the false opinions sometimes connected with it in later times. This word was originally a judicial term, and was applied for the first time (with many more of a similar na ture) by Tertullian, who was himself a jurist, to the atonement of Christ. " Chrislus* peccata hominum, omni satisfactions habitu expiavit," De patientia, c. 10. It has since been retained in the Latin Church ; though it occurs but seldom in the Latin fathers, and did not become general until the time of the schoolmen, and es pecially of Anselmus. The words satisfaccre and satisfactio relate originally to mat ters of debt ; — the payment of debt, debiti solutio. They are then applied figuratively to other things, which have, or are supposed to have, some resemblance to debt. Hence we find them used in the following senses ; viz. to discharge a debt for any one (satisfacere pro aliquo debit ore), to make him content, to comply with his wishes, to fulfil his desire, to do what he was bound to perform, to beg him off, and obtain his pardon. Hence the phrases satisfacere officio, muneri, expectationi, promissis ; satisfacere populo (to comply with its wishes), Ixavov noielv, Mark 15: 15; accipere satisf actionem (to accept the payment or apology offered, or the request for par don). Satisfacere often denotes not merely payment with money, though this is the ground of this usage, but every other mode of dis charging debt or obligation. Now when Tertullian and other ancient writers found the words Xvzgov and avziXvzgov applied in the Bible to the Atonement of Christ (§ 106), they were very naturally led to adopt the word sat isfactio. The two former words properly denote a ransom, pretium redemptionis. These writers retained the figure, and compared the unhappy, sinful condition of man, sometimes with captivity, some times with debt ; both of which comparisons are scriptural. Sins RESPECTING ATONEMENT. 325 are frequently called in the Bible 6qpeiXt]paza. From these Christ freed men by his death. This death of Christ was, therefore, com pared with the sum, which is paid as ransom for captives or debtors, to liberate them from captivity or release them from debt. At first, this was considered only as a figurative mode of speech, denoting that God was by this means satisfied or appeased. But afterwards this phraseology came to be understood literally, and many hypothe ses dishonorable to God were suggested in explanation of this idea. But as Morus has justly observed, there is no injury to be appre hended from retaining this word, which is now authorized by eccle siastical usage, if it is only so explained as to convey the same mean ing as Xvzgov, dnoXvzgmaig, and similar scriptural terms. The phrase, Christ has made satisfaction for us, should therefore be explained to mean, that Christ by his death has procured for us from God, perfect forgiveness and the remission of sins ; so that now, we have no punishment to fear, but rather blessings to expect. The following are some of the principal methods of explaining this subject, and the ecclesiastical theories respecting it. (1) During the two first centuries, most of the ecclesiastical fa thers adhered, in a great measure, to the simplicity of the scriptur al representation of this subject, and attempted no definite explana tion of the manner of the atonement, beyond what is given in the Scriptures, and in doing this made use for the most part of scriptur al phraseology. They represented the death of Jesus as a sacrifice. But a theory, some traces of which had appeared even during the second century, became prominent during the third and fourth centuries, and continued a long time the prevailing theory among the learned in the Greek and Latin Churches. The advocates of this theory took the word Xvzgom in its primary and literal sense, denot ing release from captivity or slavery, by the payment of a ransom (Xvzgov, § 106). With this they associated the idea of the power and dominion of Satan over the whole human race, in a sense not warranted by the Bible. They referred to the texts affirming, that Christ freed us from the power of the Devil. Thus originated the following theory. Ever after the fall, the Devil had the whole hu man race in his power ; he ruled over men, like a tyrant over his vas sals, and employed them for his own purposes. Thus far they had the support of the Bible. But here they began to philosophize be yond what is written. From this captivity God might indeed have 326 ART. X. § 114. THEORIES OF THE FATHERS rescued men, by the exercise of his omnipotence. But he was re strained by his justice from doing this with violence. He therefore offered Satan a ransom, in consideration of which he should release mankind. This ransom was the death of Christ (as a divine Be ing). In accordance with this theory, Origen interpreted the text, Matt. 20: 28, " He gave his life a ransom for men," as denoting the ransom paid to the Devil, not to God. Satan had consented to the compact. But he wished fraudulently to retain Jesus, whom he considered only as the best and most pious man, under his own power, and so slew this innocent being. He was now, therefore, justly compelled to liberate the human race. This theory was first adopted by the Grecian church, and es pecially by Origen (Comm. in Matt. xx. et alibi) ; through whose influence it became prevalent, and was adopted at length by Basilius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzen, Nestorius, and others. From the Greeks it was communicated to the Latins, among whom it was first distinctly held by Ambrosius, and afterwards by Augus tine, through whose influence it was rendered almost universal in the Latin Church. In this church they endeavoured to perfect the theory. Satan, they added, was deceived in the transaction ; for taking Jesus to be a mere man, and not knowing that he was also the Son of God, he was not able to retain even him, after he had slain him. And it was necessary for Christ to assume a human body, in order to deceive the Devil, as fishes are caught by baits. This view occurs frequently in the writings of Leo the Great, in the fifth century. Cf. Semler, Geschichte der Glaubenslehre, prefixed to Baumgarten's " Polemik ;" Dosderlein, Diss, de rederaptione a potestate diaboli, in his " Opuscula ;" and Cotta, Hist, doctrine de redemptione saguine Christi facta, in his edition of Gerhard's " Loci Theologici," prefixed to Th. 4. So prevalent was this theory in the Latin Church before the twelfth century, that Abelard declares, ' Omnes doctores nostri post Apostolos, in hoc conveniunt ; and Bernhard of Clairvaux was so firmly persuaded of its truth as to declare that Abelard, who held that the Devil never possessed in a literal sense such power as was ascribed to him, ought rather to be chastised with rods, than rea soned with. But after the twelfth century, this theory gradually lost ground, through the influence, principally, of the schoolmen who lived after RESPECTING ATONEMENT. 327 the age of Anselmus and Abelard ; and another theory was substi tuted in its place ; vid. No. 2. Peter of Lombardy, however, still continued more inclined to the ancient theory. In the Greek Church too, this hypothesis was gradually abandoned, and was op posed even earlier than in the Latin Church. John of Damascus attacked it as early as the eighth century, and maintained (De fid. Orthod. L. 3), that Christ brought his blood which was shed as a ransom, not to the Devil, but to God, in order to deliver men from the divine punishments. So the Scriptures, " He offered him self to God for us, a spotless victim." This is implied in the whole scriptural idea of sacrifices, which were offered only to God. (2) The other theory, of which also some traces appear in the early ages, is the following. Proceeding on the idea of debt, the authors of this theory maintained, that the relation of all sinful men to God, is the same as that of a debtor to his creditors. We find it distinctly said, as early as the fourth century, that Christ paid what we should have paid, or what we owed. The idea of sacrifice and of his offering up himself, was still associated with this. The learn ed now began to carry out the former idea, at first, indeed, in a manner not inconsistent with the Scriptures. The debt was sin ; and could not be cancelled, or the punishment remitted, unless satis faction or payment were made. Since men were unable to do this of themselves, Christ did it for them ; and God accepted the ransom (the death of Christ), and forgave men, as if they themselves had made satisfaction. We find very clear traces of this theory as early as the fourth century in the writings of Athanasius, of the Grecian Church; and still more clear, in the writings of John of Damascus, who expressly rejected the theory stated in No. 1. At the same period in the Lat in Church, we find indications of the same theory in the writings of Hilarius of Poictiers (Comm. in Ps. liii). But the schoolmen of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, gave this theory a greater cur rency than it had had before, and spun it out to a finer subtelty. They attempted to determine the idea of atonement with philosoph ical and dialectical accuracy. But they could not do this, if they confined themselves to the plain and popular phraseology of the Bi ble ; they therefore selected the judicial word satisfactio, which had been already used by the older writers. The idea on which they began, in this case as in others, was itself scriptural ; but - by phi- 328 ART. X. § 114. THEORY OF ANSELMUS losophizing upon it, they gradually declined from the simple doctrine of the Bible. This was the case particularly with Anselmus, whose system has been generally adopted, even by Lutheran theologians. He defined satisfactio to be debiti solutio. His system is exhibited most fully in his work, Cur Deus Homo ? He maintained the ab solute necessity of satisfaction, in the metaphysical sense. His whole theory is derived from the civil process respecting debt among men, transferred to the tribunal of God. But such is not the rep resentation of the Bible, where the compassion and undeserved love of God, is made the ground of this transaction, and not any judicial notions of this nature. God is compared with a ruler who forgives from his forbearance and his compassionate love, and does not pro ceed according to stern justice, Matt. 18: 26, 27. The following is the system of Anselmus. Man owes reverence to the character of God, and obedience to his laws. Whoever withholds this reverence and obedience due to God, robs God of what belongs to him, and must not only restore that which he withheld, but pay an additional amount, as amends for the dishonor brought upon God. Thus it stands with sinners. The payment of this debt is the satisfaction, which every sinner must make to God, according to the nature of his offence. For God cannot, in justice, remit the debt (or punishment), unless satisfaction is made. This man could never do, nor indeed any other than God himself. And yet to him, as judge, must this satisfaction be made. The expedient was then devised, for the Son of God, as God-man, by his death to make this satisfaction. He was able to make this satisfaction, only as God. But as man, he was also able to be surety for men, and then himself actually to pay the debt, or make satisfaction for them. Cf. § 101, ad finem. This fine-spun juridico-philosophical theory, was exactly in the spirit of that age, and was almost universally adopted by the school men, though with various modifications ; e. g. by Alexander of Hales, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Gabr. Biel, and others. Among these, however, a controversy arose respecting the value of the blood of Christ in cancelling the debt of the human race. Thomas Aquinas maintained, that the value and worth (valor) of the blood of Christ were in themselves infinite, on account of the infinite dignity of the person of Christ ; and that this ransom not only balanced, but outweighed all the sins of all men. He was fol lowed by the Dominicans. This appears too, to have been the RESPECTING ATONEMENT. 329 opinion of Anselmus. Duns Scotus, on the other hand, maintained that God was satisfied with this ransom, although it had not in itself any infinite value or worth. God however accepted it as sufficient and equivalent. He thus endeavoured to approximate to the doc trine of the Bible, which always represents justification as a free gift, and a proof of the entirely unmerited love of God. He was followed by the Franciscans. But even this statement was found ed upon the judicial doctrine of acceptilatio, when any thing insuf ficient is accepted as valid and equivalent. Cf. Ziegler's Essay, Historia dogmatis de redemptione inde ab ecclesiae primordiis usque ad Lutheri tempora, Gottingen, 1791, 4to. (3) On the theories and explanations of this doctrine which have prevailed since the sixteenth century. (a) The system of Anselmus had been extending through the Romish Chureh, ever since the twelfth century, through the influ ence of the schoolmen, who added to it various new subtleties, dis tinctions, and terminologies. This same system was adopted, in main, though with the slight alteration of some terms and representa tions, by a considerable number of Protestant theologians. Lu ther, Malancthon, and the other early Reformers, adhered to the simplicity of the Bible, and avoided these subtelties. But after the death of Luther, the theologians of the Lutheran chureh took sides in great numbers with Anselmus and Thomas Aquinas. They now introduced many of the unscriptural hypotheses and distinctions established by the schoolmen, and thus deformed the doctrine, and rendered its truth doubtful in the minds of many. Their great er ror consisted, in representing this subject too much after the manner of men, and of course, unworthily of God. The symbolical books of the Protestants have, in the mean time, adhered to the simple bibli cal representation ; and these exaggerated opinions have been held rather by particular teachers and schools, than by the Protestant church generally. The following are examples of these faulty representations and expressions. God, it is said, was actually injured by the sins of men ; he was angered and enraged / in the strict sense ; it was necessary that he should be propitiated, and thai his robbed hon or should be restored ; that he could not be moved to compassion till he saw blood flow. These figurative expressions ought either to be wholly avoided in the scientific statement of the theory, or to be Vol. II. 42 330 ART. X. § 114. THEORIES OF ATONEMENT justly and scripturally explained. God cannot be injured in the literal sense ; his honor cannot be destroyed or diminished. But those who used these inconvenient expressions, did not mean by them what they really imply. The proper idea which lies at the founda tion of such phraseology is this : that the laws of God must be kept holy and inviolate ; that God does, and must strongly express his displeasure at the transgression of his wholesome laws ; and that therefore punishments are necessary for their maintenance. Again ; many held that the guilt of sin is infinite (infinitum debitum,% 81, ad finem); and that consequently Christ endured infinite punishments, the pains of hell itself (Morus p. 169, No. 4), to the same amount as all sinners taken together would have been compelled to suffer ; that the satisfaction of Christ was absolutely necessary, and the only possible way for the restoration of the hu man race ; that some particular sins were atoned for, by each part of the sufferings of Christ ; that the blood of Christ had a physical efficacy ; etc. etc. (6) These false representations, and others like them, which are so dishonorable to God, gave rise to various controversies. Re flecting persons rejected much of this phraseology and this mode of representation, as contrary to reason and Scripture. Many also disapproved of the harmless term sactisf actio, and of all the figura tive expressions relative to debt and the judicial processes respecting it, which had been introduced by Anselmus ; because they were so often perverted. At the Same time, they did not deny any essential part of the doctrine itself, but only wished to simplify the subject, and to adhere closely both to the principles and words of the Bible. This scholastic system, and this technical phraseology, were, on the contrary, defended with great zeal. (c) But since the sixteenth century, there have not been want ing persons, who not only disliked and rejected the ecclesiastical form and phraseology of this doctrine, but who opposed the doctrine itself, on philosophical and theological grounds. Among these were Lalius Socinus and Faustus Socinus, in the sixteenth centu ry, and their numerous avowed or secret adherents in the same and the following centuries. They made the desert of Christ to consist merely in his doctrine and instruction. By his death, he only con firmed his doctrine, and gave an example of patience, firmness in suffering, and obedience to God. The followers of Socinus en- SINCE THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 331 deavoured to show that there are no positive divine punishments ; since if this were true, the atonement, which principally relates to the removal of these, would fall away of itself (§ 111, II.). These views were embraced by many of the Arminian and English theolo gians and philosophers, who were followed, in the eighteenth centu ry, by great numbers of German Protestants. Vid. the Essays on this subject in Eberhard, Apologie des Socrates ; and Steinbart, System der Gliickseligkeitslehre ; etc. Philosophers are at liberty to speculate upon this subject, ac cording to their own views and their favorite theories, variable and transient as they are. If they please, they may investigate the sub ject independantly of the Bible, and propose the results of their in vestigation for the examination of the learned. They ought how ever, to avoid the error, so frequently committed ever since the time of Socinus, of thinking that the Bible must necessarily contain the doctrines approved as true on the philosophical principles of their own particular schools ; — the fault of interpreting the Bible, not ac cording to its own spirit, and the spirit of the age in which it was writ ten, but according to the views of particular sects of philosophers in their own times ; — a fault which has been often repeated of late by the adherents of Kant, and his successors. Let any one consid er the various and contradictory theories of the different philosoph ical schools in our own age. Now each of these schools attempts to support its own theory by the authority of the Holy Scriptures. But all of these theories cannot possibly be founded in the Bible ; and who can say, which of them all is so ? What is essential in the common ecclesiastical system respecting the atonement, is clearly revealed in the Scriptures, and is entirely adapted to the spirit of the sacred writers and their whole mode of thinking, to the wants of the age in which they wrote, and to the wants of mankind at large ; vid. § 108, sq. Morns has briefly ex hibited the essentials of this doctrine, pp. 150 — 155, §§ 4 — 6. (4) Many Protestant theologians began as early as the seventeenth century, to depart by degrees from the theory of Anselmus, which pre sents so many difficulties and is liable to so many weighty objections, and to bring back this doctrine to the simplicity of the Bible. The book of Grotius, " De satisfactione Christi" (Leiden, 1617 ; Hals, 1730, ed. Joach. Lange), was the first thing done towards under mining the system of Anselmus. Grotius indeed made the ec- 332 ART. X. § 114. 'THEORIES of atonement clesiastical system the ground of his work ; but he deduced the ne cessity of satisfaction, not so much from the injury done to God, as from the holiness and inviolableness of the divine laws, which ren der punishments necessary for the good of men. In this he ex actly accorded with the Bible. He showed, that there was no in ternal and absolute necessity for this satisfaction ; but that the ne cessity was only moral or relative. These and other views of this scholar became gradually more current among theologians, who sought both to bring them into a still nearer agreement with the Bi ble, and also to reconcile them with the established system of the Church. Some Protestant theologians have made use of the new systems of philosophy which have become successively prevalent in modern times, to illustrate and defend the doctrine of the Bible and of the church. Thus Carpzov, Baumgarten, and others, made use of the Leibnitz-Wolfian philosophy. Vid. also Reinbeck, Tract, theol. de redemptione per lytron, Halle, 1710, 8vo ; Theod. le Blanc, Erweis der Genugthuung Jesu Christi, with the preface of Rambach, Gies sen, 1733, 8vo; — one of the best of the older works. Staudlin and others have made the same use of the philosophy of Kant ; as Kant' himself has done in his " Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft." But others, with equal zeal, have employed these very same philosophical systems in opposition to this doctrine of the Bible. One of the most zealous opponents of the doctrine of the atonement inl modern times is Dr Loffler, in his work, " Ueber die kirchliche Genugthuungslehre, Ziillichau, 1796, 8vo. (5) The frequent attacks made in our own age both upon the ancient ecclesiastical system and upon the doctrine of the Bible it self, have made it necessary to state this doctrine more accurately than was formerly done. Many moderate theologians have.endea- voured so to exhibit this doctrine, that it should agree both with the decisions of Revelation, and with the acknowledged principles of sound Reason, thus rendering it intelligible, and obviating the most important objections against it. Since the middle of the eighteenth century many have labored to effect this object, though not with equal success. Among these are Ernesti, Tollner, Danov, Nresselt (Vom Werth der Moral), Less, Griesbach (Praktische Dogmatik), Doderlein (Dogmatik), Michaelis (Gedanken von der Siinde und Genugthuung, Gottingen, 1779, 8vo), and Seiler (Ueber den Ver- SINCE THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. ' 333 sohnungstod Jesu, with some essays, etc. 2d ed., Erlangen; 1782, gr. Svo ; in connexion with which the doctrine of justification is treated).' The last mentioned writer endeavours to refute the objec tions of Eberhard and Steinbart. Among the latest writers on this subject is Dr. Gottlob Christ.- Storr (Pauli Brief an die Hebraer er- lautert, Tubingen, 1789, 8vo; 2d Ausg. Tubingen, 1809. Second part, Ueber den eigentlichen Zioeck des Todes JeSu, SS. 363 — 692). He holds that the object of the death of Christ is not directly the reformation of men, and that their exemption from punishment is not the effect of their reformation ; but that' the direct and imme diate object of his death is, to procure the forgiveness of sin,' and to make atonement. Another writer is Schwarze (in Gorlitz), " Ue ber den Tod Jesu, als ein wesentliches Stuck seines Wohlthatigen Plans zur Begluckung der Menschen, Leipzig, 1795, 8vo. The discourse delivered by Dr. Reinhard, at the Reformationsfeste, on the text, Rom. 3: 23,;sq., containing a brief and practical statement of the scripture doctrine of the atonement, excited much attention, especially from the unusual manner of its publication, and led to many writings for and against the doctrine of the Bible. Among these the following work is in many respects favorably distinguished ; " Der Widerstreit der Vernunft mit sich selbstin der Versohnungs- lehre, dargestellt und aufgelost, von Krug," Ziillicb.au, 1802, 8vo. - The essential points in the theory adopted by the moderate the ologians of the Protestant Church may be thus stated. God had a two-fold object in view : viz. (a) to preserve inviolate the authority of his law given for the good of man. How could this be effected otherwise than by the punishment of transgression, threatened and actually inflicted 1 (b) But as a slavish fear of God is utterly in consistent with pure religion (q>6(iog ix§aXXei xt]v dydnrpi, 1 John 4: 18), some means must be chosen to free men from their reasona ble fear of punishment, and to give them a certain assurance that God would forgive them, be gracious to them, and count them wor thy of his favor ; in siich a way, however, as not to occasion indif ference with regard to sin. Both of these objects were attained by the sufferings and death of Christ ; the first, by the proof given through the sufferings of Jesus, that God abhors ¦ sin and will not leave it unpunished ; — the second, by the declaration of God that Christ had suffered these punishments for our good, in our stead, and on our behalf. Death is the consequence of sin, and is 334 ART. X. § 114. ESSENTTALS OF ATONEMENT. in itself a great evil. We must regard it as the sum of all evils and terrors. (Hence in the Bible death stands for every kind of misery.) Especially is this the case with a violent and excruciating death, which is the punishment of the greatest criminals. Such a death did God himself inflict upon Christ, who was himself entirely guilt less (ay tog xal Sixaiog). God, however, could not be so unjust and cruel, as to inflict such a punishment upon an innocent person with out object or design. Hence we may conclude, that Christ endur ed his sufferings and death for men, who should properly have en dured these punishments, in order to inspire them with confidence in God, with gratitude and love to him, and to banish all fear of the divine punishments from their hearts. It all comes back there fore, at last, to this, that God chose this extraordinary means, from the impulse of his own sincere love and benevolence to men. Thus the Scriptures always represent it, and on this view we should al ways proceed in our religious instructions. Vid. Morus, p. 152, sq. § 6. But if men would be certain, that they have in this way obtained the forgiveness of their sins, they must place their entire dependance on Christ; they must repent of their sins ; by the help of God lead a holy life, and punctually observe all the divine laws. This is an indispensable duty and an essential condition of salvation through Christ ; and to one who has sincere love to God and to Christ, this will not be difficult. Obedience to God, being prompt ed by love and gratitude, will be yielded with cheerfulness. No one, however, must consider his repentance or holiness as the meri torious ground of forgiveness. For forgiveness is not the effect and consequence of our holiness, but flows from the death of Christ. This doctrine thus exhibited cannot be injurious to morality ; on the contrary, it produces the most beneficial effects upon those who believe it from the heart (§ 108, II.). So experience teaches. We see the most convincing proofs of the beneficial tendencies of this doctrine in those Christian communities, both of ancient and modern times, where it has been faithfully taught and cordially be lieved. [Cf. Tholuck, Lehre von der Siinde und vom Versohner, S. 104, ff Hahn, Lehrbuch, S. 475—500. Bretschneider, Dog matik, B. II. S. 245—355. Neander, B. I. Abth. II. S. 70—78. Flatt's Magazine, B. I. S. 1—67, Ueber die Moglichkeit der Siin- den-Vergebung. — Tr.] § 115. Christ's active obedience. 335 § 1 15. Of the active obedience of Christ. I. What is meant by active obedience ; and a history of this doctrine. Christ's cheerful discharge of the commission given him by God, is called, his obedience (vnaxorj) ; according to the example of the Bible, e. g. Phil. 3: 9. Rom. 5: 19. Morus, p. 161, § 7. Morus justly defines the obedience of Christ to he,peractio eorum, quaeper- agere debuit, et in peragendo summa virtus. Christ exhibited this obedience in two ways : viz. (a) by acting (agendo), i. e. by keeping and observing the divine laws ; (6) by suffering ( patiendo), i. e. by cheerfully undertaking and enduring suffering for the good of men, in accordance with the divine determination. Cf. § 93, III. and § 95, ad finem. The former way is called, obedientia activa (not active in the sense of busy, which would be actuosa, but in the sense of acting, Germ, thuender) ; the latter, obedientia passiva. These two ways may be thus distinguished in abstracto. But they ought not to have been separated from each other. Christ's active obedience is not properly different from his passive obedience. His obedience is one and the same in all cases. Suffering, in itself con sidered, so far as it consists in unpleasant sensations, is not obedi ence. A person may suffer and not be obedient, but impatient, disobedient and refractory. But for one to suffer obediently, or to show obedience in suffering, this is an acting, a fulfillment of duty, or that virtue which is called patience ; — one of the greatest and most difficult of virtues ! But how can a virtue, which consists en tirely in acting, be called passive ? In truth then, the obedience of Christ is one and the same thing, consisting always in acting. It is that virtue by which Christ fulfilled not only the moral laws of God, but.also the positive divine commands which were laid upon him, to suffer, to die, etc. Obedience is never wholly passive, and what is simply passive is not obedience. But a person shows obe dience by acting in suffering. Theologians commonly hold, that the active obedience of Christ was as much a part of his Atonement or satisfaction, as his passive obedience. This opinion might be more clearly and definitely ex pressed as follows : the satisfaction which Christ has made, consists both in his enduring the punishments incurred by men, and in his 336 ART X. § 115. HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE yielding a perfect obedience to the divine laws. This is what is meant by theologians. This opinion is derived from the two-fold obligation of men, (a) to keep the divine laws, and (b) when they have failed, to suffer punishment for their sin. In this way the sat isfaction of Christ came to be considered as consisting of two parts, active and passive. This view was then connected with the theory of Anselmus, respecting the removal of the guilt and penalty of sin. The suffering of Christ removes the penalty, and his active obedi ence, the guilt of sin; and the perfect righteousness of Christ or his fulfillment of the Law, is imputed to us, in the same way, as if we ourselves had fulfilled the Law, and thus our defective obedience is made good. Respecting this doctrine de remissione culpa; et poena, vid. § 109, II. 2. This is in brief the common theory, which will be more particularly examined, No. II. We subjoin a brief history of this doctrine. Good materials for this history may be found in Walch's Inaugural disputation, De obedientia Christi activa, Gottingen, 1754, 4to. Passages are found even among the ancient fathers, which teach that the fulfillment of the divine law by Christ is to be considered as if done by us ; vid. the passages cited by Walch. Many of these passages, however, appear very doubtful and indefinite, and this doctrine was by no means universally established in the early Ghurch. Even Anselmus, who built up such an artificial system, did not make this application of the two-fold obedience of Christ. This, however, was the tendency of his theory, especially of the doctrine, de remissione culpa et poena. But after his time, this ex planation of the satisfaction made by Christ by means of his two-fold obedience was adopted by several schoolmen, who now looked up texts for its support. But it was never, very generally adopted by theologians of the Romish Church. In the Protestant Church, on the contrary, it has been almost universally taught by our Theologi ans since the sixteenth century, and even introduced into the " Form of Concord" (Morus, p. 169, n. 5) ; which however never received an universal symbolical authority in the Lutheran Church. This explanation is not found in the other symbols. One reason, per haps, of the reception of this explanation in the Protestant Church, is the supposition that the theory de obedientia activa could be used to advantage against the Catholic tenet of the value of one's own good works. Another reason is, that the imputation of the active of Christ's active obedience. 337 obedience of Christ was denied by the Socinians and Arminians. For these reasons, most of the Lutheran and Reformed theologians accounted this doctrine essential to sound orthodoxy. But doubt ing whether the active obedience of Christ constitutes a part of his satisfaction, has no influence upon the plan of salvation through repentance, faith and godliness. Baumgarten and Ernesti have, therefore, justly enumerated this dispute among those of secondary importance. And, in fact, the difference among theologians upon this subject has often been more apparent than real. There were, indeed, some Protestant theologians, even in the former century, who denied the desert of the active obedience of Christ. E. g. the Lutheran theologian Karg, or Parsimonius ; also the Reformed theologian, John Piscator, who had many followers ; more lately Jo. la Placette, and others. The same was done by many of the English theologians, who in general adopted the Arminian views. But from the end of the sixteenth to the middle of the eighteenth century, the opinion was by far the most prevalent in the Lutheran Church, that the ac tive obedience of Christ is of the nature of satisfaction or vicarious. This opinion is defended even by Walch in the place just referred to. But since the time of Tollner the subject has been presented in a different light. He published a work entitled, " Der thatige Gehorsam Christi," Breslau, 1768, Svo. In this he denied, that the active obedience of Christ is of the nature of satisfaction. Upon this a violent controversy commenced. Schubert, Wichmann and others wrote against him, and he, in reply, published his " Zusatze," Berlin, 1770. The best Critique of this matter is that of Ernesti, Theol. Bibl. B. IX. S. 914, f. For the History of the whole contro versy, vid. Walch, Neueste Religionsgeschichte, Th. III. S. 311, f. The subject is considered, also, in Eberhard, Apologie des Soc rates, Th. II. S. 310, f. Of late years, a great number of Protestant theologians have declared themselves in behalf of the opinion, that the active obedience of Christ is properly no part of his satisfaction, which is the effect solely of his passive obedience. Among these are Zacharia, Griesbach, Doderlein. II. The worth and uses of the active obedience of Christ. That Christ did render this perfect obedience is clear, both from the fact of his being sinless (§ 93, III.), and from the express Vol. II. 43 338 ART. X. § 115. value and uses declarations of the Bible, Matt. 5: 17. John 4: 34. 8:29. Phil. 2: 8. Cf. likewise the text Ps. 40: 7, cited by Paul, Heb. 10: 5. This perfect obedience is useful to us in the following respects. (1) This obedience of Christ stands in the most close and inti mate connexion with his whole work for the good of mankind. His sufferings and death could not possibly have the worth and the salutary consequences ascribed to them in the Scriptures, if Christ had endured them otherwise than as innocent and perfectly holy. His innocence and perfect virtue are therefore frequently mentioned by the Apostles, when they speak of the worth of his sufferings and death, Heb. 9: 14. 1 Pet. 1: 19. 3: 18. In Heb. 7: 27, Paul shows that the death of Christ was so infinitely superior to all Jewish sac rifices, because Christ was sinless, and was not compelled, like the Jewish Priests, first to purify himself by offering sacrifice for his own sins. (2) Christ's obedience to the divine laws is useful and instruc tive to us, in furnishing us with a perfect example of holiness and spotless virtue. Christ explained the divine laws not merely by in struction, but by action. His whole conduct was a living recom mendation of the purest and most perfect morality, and powerfully plead in behalf of virtue. To this the New Testament frequently alludes, 1 John 3: 3. 1 Pet. 2: 21. Heb. 12: 2. (3) But besides this, the active obedience of Christ, taken by itself, is considered by many a separate part of his satisfaction, as well as his passive obedience ; vid. No. I. They suppose it to be vicarious, in itself considered ; or that it will be imputed to us ; i. e. that merely on account of the perfect obedience yielded by Christ to the divine law, we shall be regarded and treated by God, as if we ourselves had perfectly obeyed. Accordingly they suppose that Christ, in our stead, has supplied, or made good, our imperfect obe dience to the divine law. To this view there are the following ob jections : viz. (a) Christ never spoke of an imputation of his obedience and virtue, as he frequently did of his sufferings and death. The same is true of the Apostles. Christ frequently speaks in general of his doing the will of his Father for the good of men, and teaches that this obedience will be for the good of those who believe on him. He does so very frequently in the Gospel of John, in. iv. vr. xm, sq-xvu. But here he refers to his whole obedience both in acting of Christ's active obedience. 339 and suffering, and does not separate one from the other. Indeed, there are passages where the apostles must necessarily have spoken of the active obedience of Christ as vicarious, if they had held any such doctrine. E. g. Rom. vn. vm., where Paul laments the weakness and imperfection of human nature, by which man is unable, even with the best intentions, perfectly to fulfil the divine commands. In this connexion, nothing would have been more consoling than the mention of the vicarious obedience of Christ, by which our im perfect obedience is made good. But nothing of all this ! For the consolation of the pious, he mentions only the death, resurrection, and intercession of Christ, Rom. 8: 33, 34. The active obedience of Christ, however, is not excluded. In Rom. 5: 19, the Apostle makes mention of it. In this passage, which is cited as one of the most important proof-texts, we read, " As through the disobedience of Adam, many became sinners ; so through the obedience of Christ, many are made righteous," or are pardoned. In v. 18, the nagdnxmpa 'ASdp and Sixalmpa Xgiazov are contrasted. Now according to the uniform scriptural usage, this obedience of Christ does not refer simply and exclusively to his active obedience ; but principally to his obedience to the divine command to suffer and die for us, Phil. 2: 8. Heb. 5: 8, 9. But in the passage cited, the Apostle clearly comprises under the word vnuxot], the whole obedience of Christ, and teaches that this, espe cially as shown in suffering for us, is for our good. Cf. Rom. 10: 4. On the whole, then, our position, that the perfect obedience of Christ to the divine commands, separately considered (i. e. discon nected from his death), is never mentioned in the Bible as meritori ous, is confirmed. The Scriptures declare, that the whole obedi ence of Christ, exhibited both in acting and suffering, is for our good. But they never divide this obedience, as theologians have frequently done. The whole obedience of Christ is useful to us, principally on account of his obedience shown in suffering. (b) The perfect obedience of Christ, it is asserted, must needs be imputed to us, in order to make good our defective obedience to the law, since the justice of God demands perfect obedience. But to this it may be answered, (a) That it is difficult to see how this is necessary. For our imperfect obedience to the divine law is either guiltless on our part, in which case there is no imputation of guilt, and consequently no reason why another's righteousness 340 ART. X. § 115. VALUE AND USES should be imputed to us ; or, it is guilty and deserving of punish ment. But this punishment is already removed by the sufferings and death (the passive obedience) of Christ. But that the guilt, as well as punishment of sin, is and must be removed by Christ, can not be proved ; vid. § 109, II. 2. (/?) It is inconsistent with many other principles and declarations of the Bible; e. g. with the princi ple that man will be rewarded or punished, xazd zd e'gya avzov, Rom. 2: 6. Here the imputation of the merit of another's works is entirely excluded. The ancient prophets, and all the teachers of the New Testament, from the time of John the Baptist, contended strenuously against the opinion of the Jews, respecting the imputa tion of the vicarious righteousness of Abraham ; vid. § 108, I. 3. We should not therefore expect such a doctrine as this from them. But the scripture doctrine of the merit of the whole obedience of Christ, is fully secured against perversion, by the frequent inculca tion of diligence in holiness ; vid. § 114, ad fin. It has as little resem blance to the Jewish doctrine of the merit of the good works of Abraham, as it has to that of the Romish Church, respecting the desert of the good works of the saints. (c) Many questionable conclusions may be deduced from this doctrine, which would indeed be rejected by its advocates, but which cannot be easily avoided. (a) We might conclude from the doctrine, that the obedience of Christ is imputed to us, and that on account of it we are rewarded by God, that the long continued and high virtue of a confirmed Christian, is of no greater value in the sight of God, and will receive no greater reward, than the imperfect virtue of a beginner. For the deficiences of the latter in personal holiness, will, according to this doctrine, be made up by the perfect obedience of Christ, im puted to him, i. e. considered as his own obedience. But this is contrary to the fundamental principles both of reason and revelation. (/?) However much this doctrine may be guarded against per version, by saying that the personal virtue of the Christian is not excluded or dispensed with, it must doubtless weaken the motive to holiness of life, and thus prove injurious to the interests of morality. Why was it necessary for Christianity to point out so many means of holiness, in order that we might attain perfect happiness, if in this way it could be at once attained, with so little difficulty and labor ? of Christ's active obedience. 341 Note. It may help to settle the controversy on this subject to consider, that it has originated solely in mistake. Two things have been separated, which never can be put asunder, and which never are in the Bible, but on the con trary are always connected. All that Christ did and suffered for our good, re ceives its peculiar worth from the fact, that he did it from obedience to the di vine will. This is the virtue or obedience of Christ. If we would partake of the salutary consequences of his sufferings, we must, under divine guidance and assistance, follow his example. This is an indispensable condition. The two things are always connected in the Bible, aud should be in our instruc tions ; and then this doctrine cannot be abused. The remarks made by Morus, pp. 170, 171, are directed to this point. The Bible indeed justifies us in saying, (1) that every thing which Christ actively performed during his whole life, in obedience to God, is salutary to us, was done on our account, and for our good. But (2) we therefore truly affirm, that our whole happiness (oojzijQia) is the fruit in a special manner of his obedi ence to the divine command, both in his suffering and in all the actions of his life. Had he not shown this obedience, we should not have attained to this happi ness. So the Scriptures everywhere teach. The obedience of Christ in suf fering is, therefore, the foundation, and imparts to us the assurance that all his other obedience, in respect to all the divine commands, will be for our benefit, John 6: 51. 3: 14—16. 12: 24. 1 John 4: 9. 1 Thess. 5: 9, sq. No inju ry to morals need be apprehended, if the Scripture doctrine is followed, and things which belong together are not separated; vid. § 114, ad finem. PART SECOND OF CHAP. IV. ON REDEMPTION FROM THE POWER OR DOMINION OF SIN. § 116. Of the importance of this doctrine; its conformity with Scripture ; and the manner in which we are freed from sin through Christ. I. Importance of this doctrine. In treating of the Work of Redemption, writers have commonly considered only the first part, — the atonement or freedom from the punishment of sin. But deliverance from sin, belongs as really to the redemption of Christ, as deliverance from punishment, which indeed Ernesti and others have before remarked. By the death of Christ, we are indeed, as the Scriptures teach, delivered from the punish ment of sin. But since 'the disposition to sin is so strong and uni versal among men, and this is the whole cause of their degeneracy and unhappiness ; some means must needs be pointed out, in the proper use of which they may, under divine assistance, overcome this bias and propensity to sin, and may attain to true holiness and the practice of virtue, acceptable in the sight of God. If Christ had not shown us such means, his work of redemption would have been incomplete, and his atonement in vain. For we can participate in the blessings of redemption, even after we have obtained forgiveness, only by avoiding sin and living righteously. And had not Christ furnished us with means to do this, his atonement would be of no avail. The reason why this has not been commonly considered in the systems of Theology, as making a part of the Work of Redemption, REDEMPTION FROM THE POWER OF SIN. 343 is, that the Socinians have regarded it as constituting the whole of this work, exclusive of the atonement of Christ by his sufferings and death. Evangelical writers, therefore, though they did not entirely omit this important part of Christ's work, passed it by in this con nexion, in order to avoid all fellowship with such an opinion, and to afford no appearance of diminishing in the least from the influ ence of the atonement or satisfaction of Christ. But in conformity with the Bible, even the ancient fathers considered both of these things as belonging to the work of redemption. E. g. Cyril of Al exandria, Leo the Great, and Gregory the Great. The latter says : " Christ became man, not only to atone for us by his sufferings and death ; but also to instruct us and to give us an example." This is the full Scriptural idea of dnoXvzgmaig, cf. § 106, II. Therefore redemption (dnoXvzgmaig) comprises the two following parts : viz. (1) Deliverance from the punishment of sin (IXaapog, atonement, xazaXXayt]) ; (2) from the power and dominion of sin. The form er is effected by his sufferings and death, and is confirmed by his resurrection and intercession. The latter is effected by his doc trine, accompanied by divine power (the assistance of the Holy Spirit), and by his example. The connexion of these two parts, as we learn it from Scripture and experience, is this : when an individual is assured of his for giveness through Christ, he is filled with the most sincere love and gratitude to God and to Christ. " He to whom much is forgiven, loves much," Luke 7: 47. These feelings render him disposed and desirous to obey the commands of God and Christ. This obedi ence, flowing from love, is not burdensome ; but easy and joyful, 1 John 5: 3, sq. The actual participation in the benefits of this second part of Christ's Work, belongs, therefore, in all its extent, to those only who have experienced the benefits of the former part. A Christian teacher, therefore, proceeds preposterously and contra ry to the example of the Holy Scriptures, when he exhibits and inculcates only the second part, either passing the first in silence, or exciting doubts with regard to it, or casting contempt upon it. He ought to connect the two parts, and to exhibit them clearly and scripturally, as the apostles have done. The method of the apos tles has been proved the best by experience. Whenever the atone ment of Christ, or the first part of the work of redemption, has been omitted, little has been effected by preaching morality, and holding 344 ART. X. § 116. TEXTS TEACHING REDEMPTION FROM SIN. up the example of Jesus. Men may be taught in this way what they should be ; but are left ignorant of the means of becoming so. II. This doctrine true and scriptural. It. is the doctrine of the Bible, that Christ became man, not on ly to free us from the punishment of sin, but from sin itself. Jesus himself says this, John 8: 32, 36, sq. Cf. John vi. The writings of the apostles contain passages of the same import ; e. g. Tit. 2: 1 1 — 14. Here Paul shows Titus what he ought to teach. He says (vs. 11, 12), that Christianity makes men pious and virtuous, and gives them the most cheerful anticipations of the future. Now (v. 14), he mentions the redemption of Christ, implying (a) that he died for us (eSmxev iavzov vnig t]pmv) ; (b) that he designed to deliver us (Xvzgmatjzai) from all unrighteousness (and naatjg avo- plag), and make us the friends of God, and ready for all good works (Christian virtues). Here plainly dnoXvzgmaig implies both the particulars above mentioned. So 1 Pet. 1: 18, Christ delivered us (Xvtqovv) ix puraiag dvaozgocprjg, from a sinful, heathenish, vicious life. Ephes. 2: 9, 10, " We are XTia&ivTeg iv Xgiazm inl igyoig dya&oig," i. e. renewed, placed in a situation in which we can act virtuously. Gal. 1:4, " Christ gave himself negl dpagzimv tjpdiv (to deliver us from sin), and to rescue us from our former condition in the service of sin (onmg ii.i'Xt]zai ix tov — almvog novtjgov)." The two things are connected still more clearly, 1 Pet. 2: 24, " Christ suffered on the cross the punishment of our sins ; we ought therefore to die to sin, and live entirely for holiness. For to his sufferings are we indebted for all our blessedness (this twofold good); by his stripes we are healed." In order deeply to impress the mind with the close connexion and the practical use of both of these parts, the apostles frequently transfer the terms relating to the death of Christ, to the moral im provement or holiness of men, effected by him. E. g. We ought to die spiritually to sin, as he died for it bodily ; to rise, etc. Vid. the texts already cited ; also Rom. 6: 4. 8: 10, etc. More important still are the passages which teach that Christ de livered us from the power and dominion of Satan, as Ephes. 2: 2 ; that he has destroyed the power of the Devil, etc., John 12: 31, sq. This phraseology is best explained by the passage, 1 John 3: 8, d MANNER IN WHICH THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED. . 345 noimv dpagtlav ix SiafioXov iazlv (diaboli filius, or diabolo similis, v. 12. John 8: 44) ; for he sinned of old (an dgxng). Again, Elg xovzo iqjavegto&t] 6 vlog deov, 'iva Xvatj e'gya SiafioXov. The latter clause, e'gya SiaftoXov, is clearly synonymous with dpagziai. Sins are thus described, because the devil is regarded*as the author of them, and because by committing sin, we resemble him, and are instruments in his hand ; as on the contrary, 'dgya &eov are virtu ous and pious actions, — such as flow from likeness to God, or love to him. III. The manner in which Christ delivers us from sin. If we would obtain definite conceptions upon this subject, we must come down to the simplest possible ideas, and avoid the vague and obscure expressions, with which mystics are wont to darken their own views. In representing the matter briefly, writers are often content with saying, that neio power and ability to do good is afforded us by Christ. This representation accords perfectly with the Holy Scriptures, with the promise of Christ, and with Christian experience. From this language, however, we are not to under stand, that any miraculous assistance is furnished by Christ. This power is usually afforded in a natural manner, and the Scriptures themselves clearly point out the means by which it is obtained. That Christ frequently and distinctly promised his aid and support, at all times, to all his followers, if they, on their part, performed the requisite conditions, is made certain from the Scriptures, Matt. 28: 20. The term Svvapig Xgiazov occurs frequently in John and in the Epistles ; vid. John 15: 1, sq. 2 Cor. 12: 9. 2 Pet. 1: 3, 4. This assistance of God and Christ which is promised to Christ ians in connexion with their use of the Christian doctrine, does not act in a manner inconsistent with the powers and constitution of hu man nature, but wholly in accordance with them. According to the wise constitution of our nature, all our actions are principally de pendant upon the fixed determination of the will, which is again dependant upon the strength and clearness of the motives present to the understanding. Now we are frequently hindered by external circumstances which are beyond our controul, from the practice of virtue. In this case, we are without guilt, and the omission cannot be imputed to us. (Here, however, we are liable to deception by Vol. II. 44 346 ART. X. § 116. HOW WE ARE REDEEMED FROM SIN. thinking we are without fault, when this is not true.) But often, the fault is in ourselves. We allow sense to rule our reason. We refuse properly to consider the motives placed before us, or we neg lect opportunity of instructing ourselves respecting duty ; or are chargeable, perhaps, with both of these faults. If now in this case, we disobey the law of God, we are apt to bemoan our weakness and want of power for doing good. Such faults and weakness of the un derstanding and will, cannot be corrected by any miraculous power afforded by Christ. And the virtue which should be effected, by such a miraculous power, would cease to be a personal virtue of the one in whom it was wrought, and consequently could not be im puted to him. There is no other way, but for man to learn the mo tives to piety and the avoiding of sin which are presented in the Christian doctrine, and to form the fixed resolve, that, under divine guidance and assistance, he will govern his own will by what he knows to be the will of God and Christ. Only then, when he has done every thing on his part, can he count upon the divine assist ance. Until man has done his part, he is incapable of that assist ance which God and Christ have promised to afford. If we are wanting in this thankful love to God and Christ, which has been be fore insisted upon, we must also be wanting in the disposition either to learn or obey his will ; and in this condition, we are of course disqualified for his assistance. These remarks lead directly to the answer of the question, How are we delivered by Christ from the power and dominion of sin. When we derive the motives for obedience to the divine pre cepts from the instructions and example of Christ, and suffer these to control our affections, and when we do this from grateful love to God and to Christ ; we then fulfil the conditions, which are essential on our part, in order that we may rely upon this promised guidance and assistance. We shall show in the following section, what is taught in the Bible respecting the efficacy of the instruction and ex ample of Christ, in overcoming the power of sin. By the instruc tion of Christ we obtain exact and distinct information respecting the nature of sin and its consequences, etc. His instruction and example show the means and motives for avoiding sin, and leading upright and pious lives (Sixalmg xal evoefimg). § 117. SANCTIFYING EFFICACY OF CHRIST'S DOCTRINE. 347 § 1 17. Of the deliverance from the power and dominion of sin, for which we are indebted, under divine assistance, to the instruction and example of Christ. I. Scriptural doctrine respecting the efficacy of Christ's instructions in subduing sin. (1) The doctrine of Christ informs us distinctly what are the requisitions of the divine law, and how we should order our life in conformity with them ; it teaches us to notice every deviation from this law, and the dreadful consequences of disobedience ; and it gives these instructions in a manner which is plain and intelligible to every mind. This comprehensive and complete instruction as to the whole extent of Christian duty, gives the Christian doctrine a great advantage above other moral codes, in which only the more violent outbreakings of sin are at all noticed. The apostles every where exhibit, with great earnestness, this advantage of the Christ ian doctrine, and Christ himself declares it to have been one great object of his coming into the world, to give this instruction. Ac cordingly, Matt. 5: 21, sq. he gives examples of this more complete instruction about the duties of man, as drawn from the divine com mands. Those religious teachers, therefore, mistake very much, who make the doctrines of faith the only subjects of discourse, entirely omitting Christian ethics, and perhaps speaking contemptuously of them. These moral instructions constitute a most valuable portion of the Christian System. Even the enemies of Christianity, both in ancient and modern times, have done justice to the morality of the Gospel. But our own age does not need to be warned so much against this fault, as against the opposite one of inculcating the mere morality of the Bible, and of speaking disrespectfully of the evangelical doctrines. The teachers of religion should connect the two togeth er, as the sacred writers do, and should draw the motives to holi ness, virtue and moral purity from the doctrines of the Christian re ligion ; vid. § 116, I. ad finem. It was not the manner of Christ, to teach1 the duties without the doctrines of religion. Neither he nor his apostles separated the one from the other. The Gos pel contains both. The doctrine respecting Christ, and the oth er great doctrines of faith, afford a powerful support to moral lessons ; and so they are uniformly employed by the apostles. 348 ART. X. § 117. SANCTIFYING EFFICACY This method, however much disregarded at present, deserves to be seriously recommended to every teacher of religion, who is desirous of promoting the true and lasting interest of his hearers. Christian ethics teach us our duty ; and Christian doctrines open the sources from which we must draw strength to perform it. In popular dis course, then, instruction in morals should always be connected with, and derived from evangelical doctrines. (2) The Christian doctrine gives full instruction respecting the manner of suppressing our sinful inclinations, and the means we should use to overcome temptation to sin, to weaken the power of sense, and to make constant advances in holiness. Tit. 2: 11, sq. " The saluta ry system of Christianity is designed by God for all men. It teaches us (naiSevovoa) to renounce all irreligion (uee'peia), and all the sinful passions that prevail among men (xoapixal ini&vplai) ; and, on the contrary, to live wisely, piously, and virtuously on the earth." 2 Pet. 1 : 3, 4, sq. This passage contains the following truths. " God gives us power to lead a virtuous life (£mrj xal evaifieia), and shows us the means of doing this, by the knowledge of God" (i. e. the Chris tian scheme, whose author is God). V. 4, "By this knowledge we attain to pious and God-like dispositions (delag xoivmvol qvaemg, as children resembling our Father), and distinguish ourselves from the great mass of mankind, who live in immorality." " Thus we are placed in a situation to practise all the Christian virtues (vs. 5 — 7), and are not apyol ovSe axagnoi" (i. e. are always employed in works of virtue, and disposed to whatever is good). Christianity therefore justly requires of its friends, to whom it gives such perfect instruction as to the observance of the divine pre cepts, to maintain the most unsullied purity of character. John is fully justified in declaring (1 John 2: 4), that he is a liar, who profes ses to be a friend and follower of Christ, and does not keep his com mandments. The same writer justly remarks, that the Christian who is in earnest in overcoming his sins, and who acts out of pure love to God and to Christ, will not find it difficult to fulfil the commands of "God, al ivzoXal avzov (iugelui ovx elalv, 1 John 5: 3, coll. Matt. .11: 30. He therefore assures us, in entire conformity with experi ence, that a true Christian, by his obedience to Christian rules, and by constant exercise, can advance so far, that virtue will become his confirmed habit, and the preponderating disposition to sin will become subordinate, ov Svvazai dpagzdvttv, 1 John 3: 8, 9. of Christ's doctrine. 349 Note. Paul and the other apostles were accustomed to connect the history of the person of Jesus Christ, in his humiliation and exaltation, with his doc trine. From this history they deduce some of the advantages which we en joy as Christians, and also some of our duties and the motives to the discharge of them ; or they refer to this history in inculcating these duties, in order to render them more impressive. 'Thus they frequently ascribe to the sufferings and death of Christ a power to subdue sin, and to excite pious affections. An example of this is Heb. 9: 14, sq., " If even the blood of beasts took away exter nal impurity, and rendered those who were expiated externally clean, according to the Law of Moses ; how much more must the blood of Christ purify us from sin" (dead works), i. o. render us holy ; " that we may be placed in a sit uation to worship God in a manner acceptable to him." Still more clear is the passage 2 Cor. 5: 15, " He died for all; that they should not live according to their own choice (lavzia), but according to the will and commands of Christ, who died for them." The love of Christ in offering up himself for them, should incite them to grateful love, and to willing obedience to his commands. 1 Pet. 1: 18, 19, " Christ delivered us by his blood, from an idolatrous and sin ful course of life." There are many more passages of the same nature. From a comparison of these texts it is easy to see, that no director miracu lous physical agency is here ascribed to the death of Christ, nor any power de rived from it which is peculiar and distinct from the influence of the doptrine respecting Christ. The influence of the death of Christ in promoting a reform ed and holy life, takes place in the following way. The consideration of the death of Christ promotes, (a) Abhorrence and dread of sin, and regard for the divine law, while we see so severe a punishment inflicted upon Christ., In the death of Christ, then, we see sin, in all its dreadful consequences, and the inviolable sanctity of the divine law. (6) Love, gratitude, obedience to God and. Christ, and zeal in obeying his commandments, are also effects of contemplating Christ's death. Thus 2 Cor. 5: 15, coll. Gal. 2: 20. 1 John 5: 3. Rom. 8: 3, 4, " Because Christ was punished for our sins, we ought, from grat itude, the more carefully to obey the precepts of the law" (Sixalojpavofwv). Here, then, the effect is produced upon our affections through our understand ing. The apostles ascribe a similar influence in promoting reformation and ho liness, to the resurrection of Christ and his exaltation in the heavens, 2 Cor. 5- 15. Col. 3: 1. Heb. 12: 2. By the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, his whole doctrine and all which he did for us, receive new importance and are rendered clear and certain ; and if we confide in him and obey his precepts, we may now look forward with cheerful anticipations to a reward in heaven. For (1) he has gone before to the place whither we shall follow him, if we love him and seek to resemble him, John 14: 2, 3; and (2) while we continue upon the earth, he still cares for us, and is active in promoting our welfare. Christ himself frequently connects these two things, John xv. xvi. xvn. Vid. § 112, II. What a powerful influence in promoting piety and- holiness must these considerations exert upon the heart of every man, who cordially believes and embraces them ! 350 ART. X. § 117. SANCTIFYING EFFICACY II. Influence of Christ'B example in aiding the practice of virtue. There is a propensity to imitation implanted in all men. Good and evil examples often exert an influence upon the heart, indescri bably great and sometimes almost irresistible. This propensity, as well as the love of distinction, ought therefore to be turned to ac count in education. Good examples do far more to improve and en noble the character, and to perfect holiness, than mere lessons and rules. Longum et difficile iter est per pracepla, says Seneca, breve et efficax per exempla. Such examples act more strongly and direct ly upon the senses, and excite the heart to virtue and every thing no ble and great. The example of Jesus is held up for imitation every where in the New Testament, as the most perfect model of every virtue. It is made the indispensable duty of all his followers to conform to it, in all their conduct. Vid. 1 John 2: 6. 3: 3. 1 Pet. 2: 11, " He has left us example (pattern, vnoygappov), that we should follow his steps." But the example of Christ is recommended to us for imitation, not only in respect to his general integrity, purity of morals, and entire blame- lessness (in which he was perfectly exemplary, and the only one in deed, who ever was so, vid. § 93, III) ; but also in respect to particu lar virtues, especially those which are more high and difficult, which require a great struggle and effort, such as patience, trust in God, firmness in suffering, the practice of humility and self-denial. In these respects, Christ himself commends his example to the imitation of his followers ; vid. 1 Pet. 2: 21—23. Phil. 2: 5, sq. We have still farther encouragement to imitate the example of Jesus, by the re ward bestowed upon him, the man Jesus, in consequence of his piety and virtue, which we also may expect to receive, so far as we are ca pable of it, if we follow him ; vid. Phil, ubi supra, and Heb. 12: 2, 3. It is an excellent rule which is given by some of the ancient Greek philosophers, that in our whole life and in all our actions, we should have the example of some great, wise, and virtuous man in view, and that we should imagine him to be the witness and overseer (custos et padagogus) of all our conduct. They advised, that we should do every thing under the notice, as it were, of such an inspector, and in quire at every step, what he would do or recommend in this case ;— would he approve or disapprove ? Could I do or say this thing, if he were present, without blushing ? etc. Epictetus (Enchir. c. 51) re- of Christ's example. 351 commends Socrates and Zeno for models; Seneca (Ep. 11. Extra.), Cato and Lslius. Christians can select no greater and more per fect man, to be the witness of their conduct and guide of their morals, than Jesus. And we know too, that we may not only imagine him to be the witness and judge of our conduct, but that he actually is so. He knows all our thoughts and actions, and will be the sole Judge of the living and the dead. So we are taught by Christ himself in his discourses recorded in John, and by all the Apostles. Both Christ and his Apostles require Christians, to do every thing iv ovopaxi Xgiazov. The passage Heb. 12: 1, 2, deserves to be noticed among the many, which speak of imitating the example of Christ. Paul first compares the firm and pious sufferers of antiquity, whose exam ple in suffering the Christian ought to imitate, with spectators and witnesses, who look upon our race and contest, and encourage us to perseverance. Among these witnesses is Jesus, who far surpasses the rest, who is the best example of confidence in God, and of every virtue ; and who constantly observes us, and will finally reward us, if we follow him. But those only who possess the character described, § 116, 1, ad finem, are properly capable of imitating this example of Jesus. Men who have not felt the consciousness that their sins were forgiven, and have not been renewed in the temper of their mind, have no taste or capacity for this imitation of Christ. Nor can we properly require of them, what they, in this situation, are incapable of performing. We can make them feel, however, if their moral sensibility is not entirely deadened, how far below this example they stand, and how good and salutary it would be for them to imitate it. PART THIRD OF CHAP. IV. ON THE PRESENT AND FUTURE CONSEQUENCES OF THE WORK OF CHRIST. § 118. Scriptural titles of the salvation procured by Christ for men ; its general nature ; the doctrine of the New Testament respect ing the abolition of the Old Testament dispensation by Christi anity, and the advantages resulting from it to the world. I. Scriptural names of the blessings of Christianity ; and their nature. Some of these names are literal, others figurative. The most common are the following: viz. EvXoyla, fOia, denoting every kind of benefit, Ephes. 1: 3. Gal. 3: 14. Xagig, ]ft, lojn , John 1: 16, " Through his infinite love we have obtained x^9lv """ %dgizog," an undeserved benefit superior to the other, in opposition to the Mosaic dispensation,, v. 17, which could not secure this forgive ness of sin, and the blessings connected with it, which are here in tended by the word jfapti/. The word fto?} is also frequently used, vita vere vitalis, happiness. Also £monoieia&ai, £tjv, x, t. X. in opposition to dnmXeia and ddvazog, unhappiness, John 3: 36. 10: 11. Ephes. 2: 5, where the figure is continued, "Through Christ he has vivified and raised us up," etc. The Jews had anciently very diverse opinions respecting the nature of the blessings to be expected from Christ. Only a few of the better instructed conceived, that these benefits were entirely of a spiritual nature. For such blessings the great mass had no taste. They expected, for the most part, temporal blessings, and hoped, un der the Messiah, to be rich, honorable, and mighty ; vid. § 89. And these expectations have prevailed in a large portion even of the BLESSINGS OF- CHRISTIANITY. 353 Christian world. Accordingly many, in direct opposition to the spirit of Christianity, have associated the promises of earthly good and temporal welfare, made under the Mosaic institute, with the precepts of the New Testament. We may indeed hope and expect to obtain from God all that good, even of a temporal nature, of which we are capable, and of which we stand in need. But through Christ, and observance of his precepts, we cannot hope to obtain earthly good. For the design of his religion is to withdraw us from earth and sense, to improve and ennoble the heart, and to procure the enjoyment of high spiritual blessedness, Phil. 3: 14, 17, 20. On this ground therefore, the Jewish idea of the coming of a millen- ial kingdom of Christ upon the earth, is entirely objectionable. The apostles never indulge in such expectations, but take every op portunity to contradict them. They call those who entertain such ideas aagxixol, persons who adhere to what is sensible and exterior, have no taste for what is spiritual, and are not therefore real disci ples of Jesus. Hence Paul says, Ephes. 1: 3, "God has blessed us, through Christ, ndat\ evXoyla nvevpaxixt] iv inovgavloig." Hvevpazixog is here opposed to aagxixog, and implies that the blessings spoken of are not designed for the body and the senses, but for the mind. The phrase ' Ev zolg inovgavloig (sc. zonoig' vid. v. 20 and 2: 6, 12), does not signify in the Christian Church, but denotes literally, the blessings which we shall enjoy in heaven, which is our home, where we are citizens, (not in the visible world). Hence in Heb. 8: 6, he calls the blessings which are bestowed upon us through Christ, in comparison with the promises made under the Mosaic dispensation, xgetzzova dya&d. In Heb. 7: 19, he says, that there is through Christianity, ineiaaymyr] xgelxxovog iXnlSog, (i. e. it inspires the hope of more great and distinguished divine fa vors,) since the Mosaic institute is removed. The blessings bestowed upon us through Christ are commonly divided into general or public (such as relate to the whole human species), and particular, privata (such as relate to each individual Christian). Among the former is, as the New Testament every where shows, the abolition of Judaism (the ancient institute), and the establishment of a new dispensation and institute, by which all the nations of the earth might be united in one common religion. We shall first treat of the removal of the ancient church of God, Vol. II. 45 354 ART. X. § 1 18. ABOLITION OF THE MOSAIC INSTITUTE. and of the establishment of the new ; and then of the particular ben efits of Christianity. II. The abolition of the Mosaic institute, and the union of Jews and Gentiles in one common religion. (1) The Israelitish constitution and religion (vopog) were only temporary and national. They were designed, in their first origin, only for a barbarous and rude-people, destitute of moral cultivation. But the human race was not destined to remain always in a state of infancy. And as soon as men were prepared for a more high, per fect, and spiritual instruction, that more imperfect kind, intended for beginners, would of course be omitted. The Jewish institute was designed to be only preparatory ; such is the uniform doctrine of the Apostles, especially of Paul; vid. the Introduction, § 12, where we have cited the most important texts, which are principally con tained in the Epistles to the Galatians and Hebrews. Now there fore, according to their instruction, Christ had abolished the Law. (Christ himself, for good reasons, gave at first only hints which led to this conclusion. E. g. John 4: 21—24. 10: 16. He left the full developement of this doctrine for his disciples.) Rom. 10: 4, xe7.og zov vopov Xgiazog, i. e. ziXog e'qege zm vopm. Heb. 7: 18, 19. Gal. 4: 4, 5. Ephes. 2: 14, 15. According to these and other pas sages, Christ has freed his followers from obligation to observe the law of Moses ; and the punishments threatened in it, do not relate to those who believe in Christ. Vid. Gal. 3: 13, Xgiazog i£t;y6gaaev tjpug ix zijg xazdgag zov vopov , i. e. from the punishments which the Mosaic law threatens. Here two questions arise ; viz. (u) How are we to understand those texts which teach, that the Mosaic law and institute are removed and declared to be null, by the crucifixion? Such texts are Gal. 3: 13. Ephes. 2: 16. 3:15, and especially Col. 2: 14, " He took it away, and nailed it to his cross," —by his crucifixion he declared it invalid. The Apostles every where teach, that the new dispensation through Christ (xaivij Sia- ¦&r]xt]) commenced at his death, and was, by that event, solemnly sanctioned and introduced. Ephes. 5: 25, 26. Heb. 13: 20. 9: 14, 15, where the preparatory economy of Moses, consisting in sacrifi ces, is compared with the preparatory economy of Christ, consisting in the sacrifice of himself. Christ himself calls his blood which was ARE ALL THE MOSAIC LAWS ABOLISHED ? 355 shed, alpa xaivijg Sia-^tjxtjg, Matt. 26: 28. Consequently the an cient Israelitish dispensation ceased with the death of Christ, be cause at that event the new dispensation commenced. We see by this, what value was attached to the death of Christ, and how every thing in this new dispensation through Christ proceeds from it. The day of his death is the Consecration-day of the new covenant. The new covenant is not dated from the time when he began to teach, but from the time of his death. (6) Are all the Mosaic laws abolished by Christ, and no longer obligatory upon Christians ? From the passages cited, we must cer tainly answer in the affirmative. But the laws of Moses are of dif ferent kinds ; and many of the older theologians maintained, that Christ abolished only the ceremonial and civil law of the Israelites, and not the moral law, especially that contained in the decalogue. But in the passages of the New Testament which treat of the abo lition of the law, there is no allusion to this three-fold distinction. Paul includes the whole under vopog, Rom. 6: 14. Gal. 3: 19, 25. Besides, many of the laws of Moses which are truly moral, are ex pressed and stated in such a way, as to show plainly that they were designed, in that form, only for the circumstances and wants of the Israelites at the time being. E. g. " Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land" (Palestine) ; and the law respecting the Sabbath. The mistake upon which this limitation is founded, may be point ed out. Moral laws are in themselves universally obligatory, and unalterable as the laws of nature.} There are doubtless many such moral laws in the code of Moses, as well as of Solon, Lycur- gus and others. But they are not binding upon Christians because they are parts of the Mosaic code, and stand in the decalogue ; but (a) because they are founded in the constitution of human nature, which God himself has given us, and are therefore laws of nature ; and (2) because Christ has commanded us to obey them. In the same way, we observe the moral laws which stand in the codes of heathen legislators, Confucius, Solon, Lycurgus, etc. ; not because they have given them, but because these laws are universal, and founded in our very nature. When a ruler introduces a new stat- ' ute-book into his dominions, the old book, after its rejection, is no longer the rule by which right and wrong are determined, although much in it still remains true. Just such is the case here. Morus 356 ART. X. § 118. IS THE DECALOGUE STrLL OBLIGATORY 1 well observes (p. 243, infra), that Christians observe the moral pre cepts in the Mosaic code, quia ratio dictat, et Christi doclrina pro- ponit, proponendoque confirmat. Judmi vero tenebantur ea observa- re, quia ratio dictabat, et Moses, jussu divino, preescripserat. In this way we may understand the declaration of Christ, Matt. 5: 17 — 19, " that he was not come to destroy the law and the pro phets (vopov xal ngoqrjxag), and that all the divine commands con tained in them must be punctually obeyed." This does not conflict with the doctrine of Paul. Christ was neither able, nor willing, to abrogate these universal laws, because they were given by God for all men ; not, however, because they were given by Moses. It was on the contrary the design of Christ still more to illustrate these laws, and to recommend obedience to them by his doctrine and example. The question, Whether the ten commandments of Moses should be retained in the moral instruction of the common people and of the young, has been much controverted of late. (Cf. Thom. Boclo, Etwas iiber den Decalogus, oder, von der Verbindlichkeit der zehn Gebote fur die Christen, Schmalkalden, 1789, 8vo ; Hufnagel, Ue ber den Religionsunterricht, nach den zehn Geboten ; Zacharia, Bibl. Theol. Th. 4; Less, Doderlein, Reinhard, in their Christian ethics.) From what has been already said, it is plain, that the Ten Commandments are not obligatory because they are laws given by Moses. They are not therefore, of necessity, fundamental in Christian instruction. No injury, however, is to be apprehended from making them so, any more than in the first Christian Church, if the manner in which Christ and the apostles allude to the moral precepts of Moses and the Old Testament, be only made our model. The intelligent and conscientious teacher will be very cautious in declaring to the common people and the young, that the Ten Com mandments are abrogated ; since he might be easily understood to mean, that the duties enjoined in them are no longer obligatory. The instruction which God has given through Jesus, respecting the moral law and our duties, is much more perfect and extensive than that which was given, or could be given, through Moses. Our hear ers should, therefore, be led directly to this more copious fountain of knowledge. This will not prevent our connecting instruction from the Old Testament with that from the New, as Christ and the Apostles did ; especially since the history of the Old Testament so well elucidates and explains many points of duty. Christ's object to unite all. 357 In those churches in which the Decalogue is incorporated by their very constitution, into the system of instruction, it is neither ne cessary nor advisable for the teacher to urge the discontinuance of this custom. By this course, he would do more hurt than good. He will proceed more properly and judiciously by confirming, com pleting, and enlarging from the New Testament all the particular moral precepts contained in the Decalogue ; making the Decalogue, in this way, serve only as a guide to Christian instruction. He will do well also to connect with, or append to, the Catechism, a good outline of Christian doctrines and morals, exhibited in a natural or der, and in an intelligible and practical manner, according to the Holy Scriptures. (2) It was the great object of Jesus to establish an universal re ligion, by which all nations of the earth might be united in one com mon worship of God. Vid. John 10: 16, " One fold and one Shep herd." Cf. Reinhard, Ueber den Plan des Stifters der christlichen Religion. But this plan in its whole extent could not be carried into effect, nor indeed was it designed to be, until after his depar ture from the earth ; vid. John 12: 32. In order to render this plan practicable, it was essential that the Mosaic institute should be abrogated, and declared to be thenceforward abolished. With out this, Jews and Christians could never be brought together, or united in a common religious society. The Jews were distinguish ed by national pride and contempt for all the rest of mankind. They considered themselves exclusively as a holy people, beloved of God. All other nations seemed to them to be desecrated, and hated by God. They exhibit, as Tacitus says (Hist. V. 5), Odium hostile adversus omnes gentes ; and as Paul says, 1 Thess. 2: 15, a universal misanthropy, ndaiv dvSgmnoig ivavzloi. And what was the occasion of this hatred and separation 1 Their misunderstand ing the Mosaic laws, and putting a false interpretation upon them. In opposition to this, the great principles of Christianity, are the love of God and universal philanthropy, and that all upright and true worshippers of God, of whatever nation they may be, are equally acceptable to him, have equal rights, and an equal share in the blessings of Christianity, John 4: 21 — 24. Acts 10: 35. Rom. 10: 12. Gal. 5: 6. This assimilation and union, by which all dis tinction between Jew and heathen would cease, could not be brought about except by the abrogation of the Mosaic institute, which was 358 ART. X. § 119. THE CHRISTIAN'S HAPPINESS IN THIS LIFE. designed by God to be only a preparatory economy. One of the principal passages relating to this subject, is Ephes. 2: 12 — 19, coll. Col. 1: 21, seq. Ephes. 2: 10, seq. " Christ has united the two (Jews and heathen), has done away the cause of their enmity, has esta blished harmony, brought them both together into one society, and given them citizenship in the kingdom of God ; this he did by re moving the wall of partition (peaozoixov tov qpgaypov, v. 14), that separated between heathen and Jews, and prevented their becoming one people." This wall of partition was the Mosaic law, as he himself explains it, v. 15, vopog ivzoXmv. This he calls in v. 14, i'x&ga, the cause of enmity. § 119. The happiness which Christians obtain in this life from Christ. We treat now of the particular benefits of which every professor of Christianity partakes, when he performs the prescribed condi tions ; vid. § 1 18, 1, ad fin. As our existence is composed of two very unequal portions, these blessings are likewise of two kinds. We enjoy some of them even in the present life, and others, not before we enter the future world, § 120. It must always be borne in remembrance, that the apostles derived all these spiritual advan tages, of whatever kind, from Christ, and that they connect these, as well as the rewards of the pious (natural and positive), in such a way with the history of Jesus, that they represent him as the pro curer of them all. This method of instruction is perfectly suited to the wants of mankind. General truths become much more in telligible, clear, and certain by being placed in connexion with true history, from which they receive a positive sanction. We find that the ancient teachers of religion among the heathen, pursued the same course. And this is a proof that they better understood the constitution of man, than those Christian teachers who would separate every thing historical from the exhibition of Christian truth ; vid. § 108. The spiritual blessedness which believers in Christ receive IDEA OF SONSHIP. 359 through him even in the present life, consists, according to the doc trine of the New Testament, in the following particulars. I. Assurance of the undeserved benevolence, the constant favor, and paternal love of God. The apostles place this class of spiritual benefits in the closest connexion with the whole history of Christ, representing them al ways as the fruit of the atonement. Their doctrine is, that whoev er is sure of the forgiveness of his sins (and this assurance he re ceives through the atonement of Christ, or through faith in Christ as a Saviour and expiator), and under the guidance and assistance of God and Christ, lives conformably to the divine precepts (which he learns from the Christian doctrine and from the example of Christ) ; such an one is capable of receiving the divine blessings which are promised to such, and he can at all times be assured of the favor and paternal love of God ; he will be treated by God and Christ as a friend, and made partaker of their happiness, so far as he is susceptible of it. Various figures and expressions are used in the Scriptures, to represent these fruits of the atonement and of faith in it. But they all convey one and the same idea. They ought not therefore, in sys tems of theology, to be separately considered, in different chapters or articles. The following expressions are some of the most com mon ; viz. sonship, the right of adoption, election, access to God and union with him. We shall now briefly explain these terms. (1) Tio&eoia &eov. This is a term which was originally bor rowed from the Israelitish Church. In the ancient languages the phrase, children of God, denotes the peculiar friends, the favorites of the deity. The Israelites received this name, and also that of first born, to denote their preeminence above other people ; vid. Ex. 4: 22, 23. Hence in Rom. 9: 4, the Israelites are said to pos sess vlo&eala, i. e. the rights of the favorite people of God. This term is transferred to true Christians, in order to denote the relation which subsists between them and God. Those who endeavour to resemble God in their conduct, and who faithfully obey his com mandments, have a higher capacity for happiness and reward, than others who are wanting in these traits of character. We hence conclude with reason, that God loves and favors them, more than oth ers who are unlike him. One who loves God, as a son loves his 360 ART. X. §119. IDEA OF SONSHIP. father, and seeks to resemble him, as a dutiful son seeks to resemble his father, will be loved by God in return, as a dutiful son is loved by his father. All the advantages and spiritual benefits, therefore, which we obtain through faith in Christ, and obedience to his pre cepts, are considered as belonging to vlo-aeala, because they are all proofs of the paternal love of God. Vid. Gal. 4: 4, 5. 3: 26. Rom. 8: 15 (nvevpa vlo&eaiag, a filial disposition), and v. 23 (the reward of Christians), Ephes. 1: 5. 1 John 3: 1, 2. This right of adoption we owe to Christ, as the author of Christianity and our Saviour. Those only possess this right who believe in him as Xgiatog and ZmTtjg. Hence John declares (1: 12), " He gives to all who believe on him, the privilege (i'iovaia) of considering themselves the chil dren of God;" which privilege they obtain, according to v. 13, not by descent from pious ancestors, according to the Jewish prejudice, but solely by true faith in Jesus Christ, and from the holiness and likeness to God arising from and connected with faith. The apostles give this appellation to the sincere worshippers of God the more readily and frequently, on account of the name of Christ, wo's &eov. God treats Christians as his peculiar friends, on account of Christ, who is his most beloved and chief favorite, ngm- TOTOxog, povoyevr]g. Vid. Gal. 3: 26, 27. 4: 4 — 7. Pious Christians are thus called the children of God in a two fold sense : (a) because they love God as their Father, and obey him from love ; (b) because they, on account of this disposition, are loved in return by God, as obedient children, and so obtain from him forgiveness of sins and other Christian blessings. Both of these ideas are sometimes implied at the same time in this term. [In the older writers of the English Church, (as well as in the ancient Fa thers, and the most devout and spiritual writers of other nations,) we fre quently meet with the idea, that the relation existing between man and God, denoted by sonship, is not merely a relation of feeling, but also of nature. This is sometimes illustrated by saying, that we are not adopted by God into his family, in the same manner in which a wealthy benefactor sometimes adopts a destitute and orphan child, conferring upon him great privileges, and giving him the name of son, to which he has no natural title. In such a case, this name would denote only, that the person on whom it was conferred, held the same place in the affections of the benefactor, and exercised in return the same feelings of gratitude and dutiful reverence, as an own son would in sim ilar circumstances. And this seems to be the more general sense in which this appellation was used in reference to the friends and worshippers of God before IDEA OF THE TERMS CHOSEN, ETC. 361 the Christian dispensation, and to those few, who like the devout Cornelius, are found fearing God even in the midst of heathenism. But this term when applied to believers in the New Testament has a superior meaning, and points to the gift of the Spirit of adoption, which in the highest sense, is peculiar to the Christian dispensation, and consequent upon the completion of Christ's work. By being born of God, and receiving this peculiar grace, the Spirit of adoption, believers become partakers of " the divine nature," and possessed of an internal principle, the fruits of which are the love and obedience in which the essential nature of sonship is sometimes placed, but wliich are in reality only the signs or effects of thai new life in which it really consists. The possession of this Spirit by Christ, though in a far higher degree of inti macy, seems to be one of the grounds of his bearing the title of Son. And the manner of the Spirit's presence and operation in believers, is compared by the sacred writers with the hypostatical union of the divine and human na tures in Christ.— These ideas may be, indeed, carried so far as to involve error. But it is an important question, whether they have not a scriptural basis. Is the comparative infrequency, in our later theological writings, of these ideas which were so current in the Fathers of the English Church, the result of an advance or a decline in theological science ? — Tr.] (2) All the words which literally signify to choose and elect, are frequently employed in order to denote the distinguished favor and love of God to his people. We are accustomed to select from many things, that which is the best, most desirable and valuable. Hence to say a thing is chosen is often the same as to say, it is valuable or useful; e. g. axevog ixXoytjg, Acts 9: 15. Now because our love rests upon those objects which appear to us good and valuable, the words which in the oriental languages signify to select, signify also to love, to wish well to any one, to benefit him, in a distinguished manner. In the same way is iris used in Hebrew ; e. g. Deut. 4: 57, where srtN is added. The LXX. sometimes render it by the word ixXiyea&ai, as in the passage cited, and sometimes by evSox- eiv and dyandv. The New Testament employs the words ixXiy- ta&ai and ixXextog in the same manner. In the Old Testament the Israelites were denominated, by way of eminence, the chosen or beloved (t^-prp) of God. This term was then transferred to Christians who become worthy of the love of God by faith in Jesus Christ, and by conduct conformed entirely to the divine will : e. g. Matt. 24: 24. 1 Pet. 2: 9. ' ExXiyea&ai is therefore Christianum facere, as 1 Cor. 1 : 27, 28. In the same way the verba cognoscendi in the ancient languages mean to love, to be friendly to any one, Vol. II. 46 362 ART. X. § 1 19. CHRISTIAN'S ACCESS TO GOD Thus Christians are said to be yvma&ivzeg vno &eov, amid Deo. Gal. 4: 9. 1 Cor. 8: 3, coll. Ps. 55: 14. (3) The terms which denote the drawing near of God to men, or, union with him. God was conceived of by the ancient world as corporeal and as resembling man. Thus many believed, that he was literally and actually more present in one place, than in anoth er, and that he approached the place where he wished to exert his power, and that otherwise he withdrew or absented himself; vid. § 23, II. From such conceptions a multitude of figurative expres sions have arisen in all the ancient languages. These expressions appear very gross and unworthy of God. At first, however, they were literally understood by the great mass of mankind. But after wards, as the views of men became enlarged and improved, they were understood figuratively, and were interpreted in such a way as to be consistent with the divine perfections. The terms, the ap proach, or coming of God to any one, the connexion of God with any one, denote a high degree of his favor and love, and of the ac tive display of these feelings, — his assistance and agency ; and so the loithdrawment of God, and his forsaking any one, denote, on the other hand, the withdrawing of his love and the benefits result ing from it. Thus ra"iP denotes the friendship of God, Ps. 73: 28, coll. Zech. 2: 10, 11. And thus Christ promises to his disciples, that he and his Father would come and make their abode with them, i. e. would be always connected with them, and never withhold from them their special assistance and protection ; in short, would be to them, what one friend is to another, in guiding and upholding him; v. 21, ipqmvl£etv. Thus Jesus consoles his disciples who were lamenting his departure. Cf. Rev. 3: 20. and Matt. 28: 20. The terms, tjpe'ig iapiv (or pivopev) iv dem, -Qeog eazlv (or pevei) iv vpiv, which occur John 17: 21, and 1 John 3: 24, etc. denote in the same way, a high degree of the special favor and friendship of God, agreement of disposition with him, and his assistance connected with his favor. Cf. John 15: 1, " whoever is and remains faithful and devoted to him, shall be treated by him in the same manner in return ; he shall be united to him, as the branch is united to the vine." From these and, similar passages the mystics have taken occasion to speak of a secret union' (unio mystica) with God and Christ. They commonly express this by the terms, the indwelling of God AND UNION WITH HIM. 363 in the heart, sinking down into God, the communication of God, the enjoyment of him, etc. etc. Some of them associated very gross conceptions with these phrases ; cf. Vol. I. § 23. After the eleventh and twelfth centuries, such language became more com mon in the Western church. It was understood by some in a liter al manner, and in a sense unworthy of the character of God ; by others in a manner entirely conformed to the Bible, but yet some times too indistinctly. Luther, Melancthon, and other Reformers retained the phraseology of the ancient mystics, and it was adopted into the systems of theology. Some made a special article on the subject of the mystical union ; though Melancthon and others, took pains to controvert the gross ideas of the fanatical mystics. Hence it came to pass that this phraseology was thus used mostly in homi- letical and catechetical discourses, and that formerly many sermons and books were written upon this subject. In the Holy Scriptures these terms denote sometimes the agree ment of the dispositions of the pious with the law of God ; sometimes the peculiar favor and friendship of God towards them, and the spe cial proofs of it, and also their enjoyment and feeling of the tokens of this friendship. There is no reason, therefore, for making a particular article in the systems of theology upon this subject. Caution however should be used in Christian instruction to prevent the notion, that there is any thing properly miraculous in this matter, which is not according to the Bible. This caution is the more necessary, as many enthusiastic parties frequently employ such expressions with regard to these divine influences, and give them such a meaning as implies an immediate illumination independant of the Holy Scrip tures. So the Quakers and Bohemians. And it has sometimes happened that well meaning, though unenlightened Christians, have received the doctrine of these sectarians as scriptural, because it was expressed in scriptural phraseology. Another reason for calling these proofs of the love of God, and the experience of them, unio mystica, is, that they are inward, and enjoyed by spiritual fellowship, and are unseen and disregarded by those who have no taste or capacity for such experiences. A sat isfactory and full explanation of these feelings cannot be given to those who have no experience of them, as is the case with all mat ters of experience. Paul said very truly, Col. 3: 3, " Your (the true 364 ART. x. § 119. christian's prospect of the future. Christian's) life in God, (i. e. your divine life, which is acceptable to God,— your happy life, as Christians), like the present life of Christ in heaven, in the full enjoyment of happiness, is concealed (xixgimzai) from the great multitude of men ;" they do not regard it as happy or desirable, because they have no taste for it. II. Happiness and peace of mind, and a joyful iprospect of the future. We owe to Christ, according to the doctrine of the New Tes- ment, (1) Inward peace and happiness. These spring from the firm conviction, that through Christ we have obtained from God the for giveness of sin, and from the joyful consciousness of the power of God, and his approbation of our feelings and conduct. This state of mind is frequently expressed in the New Testament by naggtjuia, cheerful confidence in God, in opposition to an anxious and slavish fear of punishment. Thus Heb. 4: 16, ngoaegxmpe&u peza nag- grjolug zm {rgovm ztjg xdgizog, " We may now with joyful confi dence, expect unmingled good from God and supplicate him for it." 1 John 4: 17, nuggrjoidv e%eiv iv tjpiga xglaemg, to be able to look forward to the day of Judgment with cheerfulness ; cf. 1 John 3: 20, 21, peace of God, or with God. Rom. 5: 1, 2, Elgtjvijv ngog zov &eov e'xopev, Sixaim&e'vzeg, — ngoaaymytjv elg yagiv tfeov, etc. V. 11, " We can at all times rejoice in the assurance of divine fa vor (xavxmpe&a iv &ed>) ; and this, Christ by his atonement has enabled us to do." By this assurance and confidence, the soul of the true Christian comes to such a firm, steadfast and composed frame, as enables him to endure unmoved the greatest trials. He is deeply convinced, that the greatest adversities contribute to his highest good, and are the means which God, as a kind father, em ploys for the welfare of his children, whom he is educating not merely for this short life, but for eternity, Rom. 5: 3. 8: 28, 32. (2) The most cheerful prospect of the future, or a certain hope of our future blessedness. One great object of Christian instruction is, to awaken, confirm, and cherish this hope. It is always used as a motive to diligence in holiness, to self-denial, and to steadfastness in all the sufferings and adversities of the present life. Rom. 5: 2, iXnlg So'iijg &eov, i. e. of the divine rewards. Rom. 8: 17, 18, 24, sq. 1 Pet. 1: 3. 2 Cor. 7: 1. 4: 8, sq. All this is every where con- § 120. christian's happiness hereafter. 365 nected with the history of the person of Jesus in his humiliation and exaltation ; and confirmation of the views now given is drawn from his sufferings and death, as Heb. 9: 15 ; from his resurrection and subsequent exaltation, as John 7: 28. 17: 24. 1 Thess. 5: 8 — 10. By his death we are delivered from death. His resurrection and his exalted station are pledges to us, that he will actually per form all that he promised, and will bring us to that place to which he has gone before, — to our proper home, and our Father's house. We ought not, however, in hope of the future world, to forget the present. We should remember, that God designs that we should live for the present world, and that our happiness hereafter depends upon our good improvement of the time now allotted us. Faith in Christ, and grateful obedience to all his requirements, should render us happy even here. 1 Tiin. 4: 8, evai§eia — inayyeXlav (*'#«) £mzjg zijg vvv xal zt]g peXXovatjg. This cheerfulness and joy which so visibly distinguish the pious Christian, and more than ever, in the midst of sufferings and adversities, often compel those who are without, to wish that they were as pious and as enviably happy as they see him to be. Many are in the case of King Agrippa, Acts 26: 28, who confessed that but little was wanting to persuade him to become a Christian. But they stop here, because they are un willing to employ the simple means necessary for obtaining the Christian character, and dread to sacrifice their sinful propen sities. § 120. The happiness which Christians obtain through Christ in the future life. This subject also is placed in the New Testament in the most intimate connexion with the history of the person of Jesus Christ, and is deduced from it. He is the procurer of this happiness. This subject needs only to be briefly and summarily stated here ; since the Scripture doctrine respecting the happy and unhappy con dition of men after death, will be more fully exhibited, § 147, et sq. 366 ART. x. § 120. christian's deliverance from death I. Our deliverance from Death, obtained through Christ. Death is always represented in the New Testament as the effect and consequence of sin. Now since Christ has delivered from the consequences and punishment of sin, he must also be regarded as the cause of our deliverance from death. The resurrection of the dead, i. e. the complete restoration of the whole man, both as to soul and body, is a blessing for which the human race is indebted, according to the New Testament, to Christ; vid. John 11: 25. 1 Cor. 15: 22. The resurrection of the dead was generally believ ed among the Jews at the time of Christ and the Apostles ; and only the Sadducees denied it. But Christianity gave to this doc trine a new support and sanction. It now became intimately con nected with the religion of Jesus and with the history of his person, like every thing else relating to the deliverance and welfare of man. (1) Christ and the apostles have the merit, which is unquestion ably great, of casting new light upon the doctrine of life beyond the grave, and the future restoration of the whole man, and giving it a certainty it never had before. They exhibited this truth in such a way, that on one side it serves for the comfort and consolation of mankind, and on the other to urge powerfully to the practice of goodness and holiness in the present life ; vid. Heb. 2: 15. 1 Thess. 4: 13, 18. 1 Cor. 15: 30, 57, 58. Acts 24: 14—16. Paul therefore says very truly, 2 Tim. 1: 10, that Christ is q>d>ziaug Cmtjv xal dcp- ftagoiav Sia zov evayyeXlov, i. e. by his instructions he brought to light, and clearly and infallibly revealed the doctrine of a happy im mortality. (2) But this doctrine is intimately connected in the New Tes tament with the history of the person of Christ. According to the New Testament we are indebted for our hope of a future restoration to life by the resurrection, (a) To the death of Christ. For the deliverance of man from every kind of misery, and from all the punishment of sin, and con sequently from death, is always derived in the New Testament from the death of Jesus; vid. § 111. The clearest passage of this kind is Heb. 2: 14, " Christ became man in order to take away (Yva xaz- agytjatj) by his death the power of him who is the author of death, through Christ's death and resurrection. 367 the Devil " (from whom death and every calamity is derived, since he is regarded as the author of sin, which brought death in its train ; vid. 1 Cor. 15: 56). Here belongs also the passage, Rom. 5: 14 — 19, where Christ is compared with Adam. Adam brought death into the world by his disobedience ; Christ brought in life by his obedience (vnaxotj, willing obedience to the divine will, es pecially to the divine purpose, that he should suffer and die for us). The same thing is briefly expressed, 1 Cor. 15: 21, thus : "As Adam was the cause of the death of all men ; so all owe it to Christ that they shall be raised at the last." This corresponds with the language v. 55, &dvazog xazeno&t] elg vlxog, death overcome (by him), henceforth ceases ; and also with 2 Tim. 1: 10, xazdgyrjaag tov &dvazov, taking away the power of death, vanquishing it, i. e. freeing men from it, and awaking them to eternal. life. And in the Revelation of John, the victory of Christ is made to consist princi pally in the fact, that through him Death ceased to be ; Rev. 21: 4, fiavazog ovx e'aziv exi, or was cast into the lake of fire, 20: 14, i. e. was removed and able no more to hurt. Note. The Bible mentions it as one of the blessings resulting from the work of Christ, that all mankind will be raised by him ; e. g. 1 Cor. 15: 21, 22, coll. John 5: 21, sq., and consequently the wicked as well as the good. Some theologians indeed have objected to considering resurrection in the case of the impenitent as a blessing, and have rather regarded it as a punishment. But a great value is ascribed in the Bible to mere existence, even in the pres ent life, where we live in the midst of so many evils and adversities. Life in itself is always more valuable than nonexistence or annihilation ; although it seems that for some men it would have been better never to have been born ; as Christ himself says, doubtless in the language of a current proverb, Matt. 26: 24. Now although the wicked are to be punished in the future world through their own fault, the preservation of their life does not on this account cease to be a blessing ; still less is it changed itself into a punishment, by the punishments which will be consequent upon it. The ancient fathers, Athan- asius, Augustine, Theodoret, Hilarius, and others understood the subject very much in this way. (6) To the resurrection of Christ. Morus p. 175, § 3. The New Testament teaches, that from the resurrection of Christ, we may and should argue the possibility and reality of our own. Was God able to raise Christ, and did he actually raise him from the dead ; he is both able to raise us, and will actually do so. The resurrection of Christ is therefore a sensible confirmation of the doctrine of our res- 368 art. x. § 120. christian's deliverance urrection. So Paul argues 1 Cor. 15: 12—20. In Acts 4: 2, it is said, that the apostles taught through Jesus the resurrection of the dead, i. e. by his example. As God raised up Christ in order to confer upon him a reward in heaven ; we are to share in the same reward and happiness, and to be with Christ. We can therefore be certain of our resurrection; 1 Thess. 4: 14. 2 Cor. 4:14. 1 Pet. 1:21. Christ is therefore called dnagytj xexoiptjpivmv, 1 Cor. 15: 20, 23, and ngmzozoxog ix zuv vexgmv, the first that rose, Col. 1: 18, be cause he must be iv ndai ngmzevmv. Cf. progr. " de nexu resur- rectionis Jesu Christi mortuis et mortuorum," in Scripta varii argu- menti, N. IX. (c) To the more perfect condition of Christ in heaven. Christ and the apostles every where teach, that it is the will of God, that Christ should continue and complete in heaven the great work which he commenced on earth for the restoration of the human race. He has therefore empowered Christ to raise the dead, and to hold a day of judgment, with which Christ will accomplish his great work for the good of man. He himself declares this, John 5: 21, 25 — 29, and represents this charge as entrusted to him by the Fa ther. In John 11: 25, he says, iym elpi r] dvaazaoig xai t] £mrj, i.e. the cause of the resurrection and vivification of men, he to whom they are indebted for this ; cf. v. 26. Paul says Rom. 14: 9, that by his death and resurrection he has shown himself to be Lord (xvgieveiv) of the dead and living ; and 1 Cor. 15: 25, 26, he will conquer and disable Death, the last enemy of the human race. Cf. §§ 98, 99. II. Our deliverance from punishment after death, and our happiness in the future world obtained through Christ. The consequences and punishment of sin continue even into the future world. And it is there first, according to the Scriptures, that the positive punishments of sin are completely inflicted. Now Christ has not only freed us from these punishments (eternal con demnation), on certain conditions to be fulfilled by us, (vid. Rom. 5: 9. 1 Thess. 1: 10, gvopevog tjpdg dno zijg ogyrjg zt]g igyope'vtjg); but we owe to him our whole welfare and blessedness in the future world (£mt] alaiviog). There the happiness begun in the present life will continue and be perfected, and every thing by which it is FROM FUTURE PUNISHMENT BY CHRIST. 369 now interrupted, will be removed. Besides, according to the New Testament, we may expect that God will there confer positive bless ings and rewards. Paul says, 1 Thess. 5: 9, e&ezo t]pdg 6 '{reog ovx elg ogytjv, aXX' elg negmoirjaiv omztjg'tag (the attainment of happiness) Sid Xgiazov. But how do we attain this happiness through Christ ? (I) By the doctrine of Christ. This gives us (a) Information respecting the nature of future happiness, so far as we are now ca pable of understanding it ; vid. 1 Tim. 1: 10. 1 Cor. xv. (b) Di rection how we may obtain the possession of it. The religion of Christ derives motives to piety and godliness from the blessedness of the future world, shows us the means by which we may attain it, and prepares us for it. John 3: 16. 6: 51. 1 John 2: 25, the great end of the Christian religion (inayyeXia) is to give men fojjj almvi- og. By the Christian doctrine, and obedience to it, we are made (through divine assistance) to resemble the holiness and righteous ness of Christ, in this world, in order that we may hereafter be re warded, as he is; 1 John 4: 17. 2 Thess. 2: 13, 15. 4: 14. Hence the Christian doctrine itself is called £mr) and £mt\ almviog, because it shows 6Sov £mtjg, John 17: 3. But, (2) Our enjoyment of this happiness is described as principally owing to Christ's death and subsequent exaltation, (a) Our entire freedom from misery, and our being placed in a happy condition, is ascribed to the death of Christ (vid. No. I.), and consequently the happiness of the future state must also be a consequence of this event; Heb. 9: 15, "We obtain through the death of Christ inayyeXlav almviov xXtigovopiag." 1 Thess. 5: 10, " He died for us, Iva avv avzm £tjampev. (b) Since Christ is exalted in heaven, he cares for the good of men. He is a'iziog amztjglag almviov tdlg vnaxovovaiv avzm ndat, Heb. 5: 9, coll. 7: 25. And as he has received power from the Father to raise the dead and hold a day of judgment ; he has also received charge from him to distribute re wards to the righteous and to introduce his followers into the abodes of the blessed ; vid. Matt. 25: 32, sq. John 10: 28, 29, £mt]v alm viov SISmpi avtolg, 17: 2. 2 Tim. 4: 18, et sq. Vol. II. 47 ARTICLE ELEVENTH. ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION. This Article, and the following, exhibit the manner in which Christians may attain to the promised happiness. The Eleventh Article treats of the conditions which the Christian doc trine prescribes to men, and which must be performed by them, if they would actually enjoy this blessedness. These conditions are repentance and faith. The Twelfth Article treats of the assistances by which God enables men to perform the prescribed conditions; or, technically speaking, De operationibus gratits, sive de aconomia gratia. §121. Of the Christian doctrine of faith, as the only condition of salvation ; together with remarks respecting the salvation of the heathen and of infants. I. Outline of the Christian doctrine respecting faith ; the origin and ground of the same. (1) Jesus and the apostles, in the instructions which they give to adults, who are acquainted with the Christian doctrine, always insist chiefly on faith in Jesus Christ as the great condition of ob taining the salvation purchased by Christ. The whole happiness of the Christian (his Sixaioavvt] and amrrigiu) is derived from this single source ; and the unbeliever (dniaxtjaag) loses this happiness, and brings upon himself misery (dnmXeta, xaxdxgiaig), Mark 16: 16. Rom. 1: 17. 3: 21, 22, "The Gospel makes known the deter mination of God to forgive all who believe on Jesus Christ, on ac count of their faith (ix or Sid ztjg nlazemg). Heb. 10: 38, 39, sq. FAITH, CONNECTED WITH THE ATONEMENT. 371 (2) The doctrine of faith is, therefore, inseparably connected with the doctrine of the Atonement and of justification. The latter can be obtained only through faith. Therefore, cf. § 108, where the plan of this doctrine is stated. We are led even by natural religion to the following points : " Man must regard himself as morally imperfect, and in such a way too as to imply guilt on his own part ; or, which is the same thing, he must acknowledge himself to be a sinner, — a transgressor of the divine precepts. He must acknowledge, that he ought to avoid and abhor sin, place his confidence in the mercy of God, hope for par don and forgiveness from him ; and that he ought to form and exe cute the serious purpose of obeying the divine precepts and living acceptably to God." This might be called the faith of reason. But this philosophical faith is wanting in that certainty and evidence which is necessary to tranquillize the mind ; it is insufficient to sat isfy those whose consciences are awakened ; as we have before shown, § 108. Experience teaches that a faith of this general na ture is not able to answer those feelings which rise in the inmost soul even of the best of men. There must be something positive and historical, upon which they can rely, — some express assurance from God of his forgiveness, or they will be left in the most distres sing uncertainty. The greater part of the human race, in all na tions, are therefore united in believing, that something must be done in order to conciliate the favor of God to sinners, antl to in duce him to forgive their past offences ; and also that their mere reformation, and their living in the practice of virtue, imperfect as their goodness will always be, is insufficient to secure the divine forgiveness, and can afford no quieting assurance that pardon is ob tained, vid. § 108. Now Christianity rejects all the means of con ciliating the favor of God, in which the great body of men place their confidence, and which were common among Jews and Gen tiles at the time of Christ. It regards them, as affording false grounds of peace, and as being injurious to morality ; and in place of them inculcates faith in Jesus Christ, and the atonement made by him ; and makes this, exclusive of the personal deserts of believ ers, the sole ground of all the benefits which they enjoy. In this manner, the doctrine respecting the conditions of salva tion is brought into the closest connexion with the other positive doctrines of Christianity, and especially with the history of the per- 372 ART. XI. § 121. FAITH, THE ROOT OF OTHER GRACES. son of Christ. To the greater part of mankind this scriptural faith possesses far more interest, evidence and certainty, than a merely philosophical faith can ever give. The latter must be forever at tended with uncertainty, doubt, and fear of the reverse of what is hoped for. And this uncertainty and fear may become, in moments of suffering and adversity, extremely disturbing, and perhaps lead to obstinate despair. For we cannot obtain from philosophy any express assurance of the will of God relative to our forgiveness. Again : the scriptural account of faith in Christ, as the only condi tion of salvation, excludes wholly all the false motives to duty which are so injurious to true morality. The essentials of the scriptural doctrine on this point, and their connexion with each other, may be clearly seen in the following statement. The Christian should strive after the greatest possible moral perfection (likeness to God). This effort should result from willing obedience to God, and this again from thankful love to God, and confidence in him, and not from slavish fear of punishment, 1 John 4: 18, 19. But this love, this grateful confidence, cannot exist, unless man is convinced, that God is graciously disposed towards him, 'and will forgive his sins. God does not forgive sins, however, on account of good works, self- inflictions, sacrifices, etc. ; but on account of Christ ; § 108. We must, therefore, believe that Christ, by his death, has procured for giveness and salvation. But would we come to the actual enjoy ment of the promised forgiveness, we are under indispensable obli gations to live henceforward in the strictest observance of the divine commands from grateful love to God and to Christ. Consequently we must become familiarly acquainted with the divine precepts and must regulate our whole conduct according to them ; and how to do this, we are fully taught in the Christian doctrine. And thus faith as much involves our doing the divine will, as it does our knowing it. The personal enjoyment and possession of forgiveness and saving grace, and of the whole sum of Christian blessedness which God has promised to bestow, is called applicatio gratia, and the condition on which we obtain these blessings (conditio gratia), is faith. Vid. Morus p. 197, sq. §§ 1, 2. Those who enjoy these blessings are called in the Scriptures by different names, vid. Morus, p. 197, n. 3. Cf. Tollner, Wahre Griinde warum Gott den Glau- ben an Christum will, in his " Vermischte Aufsatze," Th. II. St. 2. SALVATION OF THE HEATHEN. 373 II. On the salvation of heathen and of children. (1) When treating of the conditions of salvation established in the Christian scheme, we speak in reference to Christians, i. e. those who have opportunity and capacity to become acquainted with Chris tianity, and to convince themselves of its truth ; without undertak ing to say, what means for attaining salvation God may give those who are ignorant of Christianity, or who remain unconvinced of its truth through unintentional mistake, and without criminality on their part. God is not limited to one single method, which he is compelled to employ equally at all times and among all men. The Bible says, indeed, that God will punish the heathen on account of their sins : not, however, because they did not believe in Jesus Christ, if this was not their fault, but because they did not act agreeably to the knowledge which they possessed, and the law of nature with which they were acquainted ; Rom. 1: 21, sq. Ephes. 2: 1, 2. The Holy Scriptures, therefore, never regard the heathen merely as such, as excluded from salvation. Such passages as Mark 16: 16, do not relate to the heathen, who are innocently ig norant of the Gospel. The word dniaxelv does not signify not to believe, but to Disbelieve, and always implies guilt. The conclu sion sometimes drawn from such passages is as improper, as it would be to conclude from 2 Thess. 3: 10, that the child, and the infirm man, should be left to perish by hunger ; as Heilmann well observes. No one will ever be condemned for guiltless ignorance, or for unin tentional and innocent mistake ; but only for guilty rejection and contempt of the truth, or for living Contrary to the truth when once known. What Mark expresses by dmazelv, John expresses by pt] niazeveiv (to be unbelieving), John 3: 18. 12: 47, 48 ; and these two modes of expression are synonymous, vid. John 3: 36. Hence dniazia and dneifreia were frequently interchanged as synonymous, Rom. 3: 3. 11: 20, 23, 30. Now the dnei&ovvzeg or dmazovvzeg are (a) the unbelieving, those who do not receive the words and de clarations of another as true, who do not give them credit; (b) the disobedient, obstinate (contumaces) ; in which sense Xenophon and other classical writers use the word dmazelv. Now the terms, dnei&elv XgiOTm, dmazelv, pt] niazeveiv, a-&etelv Xgiatov, are used in the New Testament, to designate those who are disobedi- 374 ART. XI. § 121. DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE AND THE CHURCH ent to Christ, and do not follow his precepts, always implying guilt on their part. — This is done in two ways ; (a) by despising and re jecting Christianity, when it is once made known, or when opportu nity is given for understanding and examining it, Rom. 3: 3. 2 Cor. 4: 11 ; (/?) by living in opposition to Christian truth when it is un derstood and embraced, and by neglecting its precepts, vid. Tit. 1: 16. In both of these cases there is guilt ; and hence punishment (xazdxgiaig) ensues. The word unbelief, therefore, often desig nates at the same time these two kinds of guilt; e. g. Mark 16: 16. John 3: 18—21. 12: 47, 48. Those heathen, now, who do not belong to one or the other of these classes, are not disbelievers, though they may not believe in Christ. Upon such, therefore, condemnation is not pronounced in these passages. They are not indeed obedient to Christ, nor yet disobedient. Thus one who is not the subject of a certain king, may not indeed be obedient to his laws, either because he is ignor ant of them, or not bound in duty to obey them ; but he cannot on this account be called disobedient. Disobedience always presuppos es an obligation to obedience. ' (2) God has not seen good, as yet, to bring all nations to the knowledge of Christianity. And, little capable as we are of under standing the plan of God in this respect, we ought not to conclude from this circumstance, that the Christian revelation is unnecessary and may easily be dispensed with. It has pleased God to leave many nations for thousands of years in a barbarous and savage state. But can we conclude from this fact, that intellectual cultivation and moral improvement, are superfluous and useless, and therefore mis sions are unnecessary 1 Nor, on the other hand, can we conclude from this circumstance, that God cannot save the heathen, because they have not enjoyed the light of Christian revelation. Human happiness has as many degrees and gradations, as human cultiva tion and refinement of manners ; and all men are not capable of one and the same degree. They cannot all, therefore, be treated by God in the same manner. One thing may be indispensable to the happiness of some persons, and of some nations ; while to others the same thing is quite superfluous, because they are as yet incapa ble of enjoying the happiness arising from it. It is not said in di rect words in the New Testament, that God will make the heathen eternally happy. If this were said, there are many who would per- CONCERNING THE SALVATION OF THE HEATHEN. 375 vert it. But it is expressly asserted, that God does not demand more from any one, than he is able, with his knowledge and abili ties, to perform, Luke 12: 48, sq ; and also, that he who faithfully serves God according,to the knowledge and means which he enjoys, and does what he considers to be his duty, is acceptable to him, Acts 10: 35, cf. Morus, p. 129, n. 9. According to the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, God will have reference in determining the character and conditions of men to the knowledge they have had, the dispositions they have cherished, and the actions they have per formed. We may confidently expect from the goodness of God, that since he has heretofore given to so many nations only the light of nature, he will not make them miserable for the want of that higher knowledge of which they are innocently destitute. And since there is a future life, we may trust that he will there lead them to that higher degree of happiness and clearness of knowledge which they did not attain in this life, {because, without fault of their own, they were here incapable of receiving it. To such a dispen sation in the future world, there is at least an allusion in Rev. 22: 2, in the tree of life, by the river of life, whose leaves serve elg &ega- ¦nelav zmv i&vmv. The great body of the Jews, from the earliest ages, denied sal vation to the heathen, on the principle : extra ecclesiam non dari salutem. But this is entirely opposite both to the Old Testament and to the spirit of Christianity. Even Mahommed did not goto this degree of exclusiveness. Nor did the more ancient Grecian fathers deny salvation to the heathen ; although they philosophized about it after their manner. E. g. Justin the Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, held that the Xoyog exerted an agency upon the heathen by means of reason ; and that the heathen philosophers were called, justified and saved by philosophy. But afterwards, es pecially after the third century, when the false Jewish notions re specting the Church (§ 134) were introduced into the West, and the maxim was adopted, Extra ecclesiam non dari salutem (which was the case after the age of Augustine), they then began to deny the salvation of the heathen ; though there were always some who judged more favorably. Thus Zwingli, Curio, and others, believed that God would pardon the heathen on account of Christ, although, in this life, they had no knowledge of his merits. Cf. the histori cal account in Beykert's Diss. " de salute gentium," Strassburg, 376 ART. XI. § 121. SALVATION OF INFANTS. 1777, and a short statement of the opinions of others in Morus, pp. 128, 129, where he justly recommends to our imitation the exem plary modesty of the Apostles when speaking on this point. The whole subject was investigated anew on occasion of the violent at tack which Hofstede, a preacher in Holland, made upon the Beli- saire of Marmontel. This gave rise to Eberhard's " Apologie des Socrates." Cf. also Tollner, Beweis dass Gott die Menschen auch durch seine Offenbarung in der Natur zur Seligkeit fiihre, Zuilich- i au, 1766, 8vo. Many modern writers have treated this subject in such a way, as to lead to a feeling of indifference towards Christian ity ; but this result need not be feared from the scriptural represen tation here given. (3) We must apply these same principles to the subject of the salvation of Infants. None have ever really doubted respecting the salvation of those, who have died in infancy, before they attain ed to the full use of their understanding. For since there is a fu ture life, we may expect with certainty, that God will make such provision there, that both children in the literal sense, and those who are children in understanding and knowledge, will be able to obtain what they were here deprived of, without their own fault ; and that in his goodness, wisdom, and justice, he will bestow upon them that degree of happiness of which they are capable. Theologians have pursued two different methods in treating of this subject. (a) Some are content with saying, that God will pardon and save infants on account of the merits of Christ, which extend to all, although they may not have believed in Christ during their life time ; and that their being born with natural depravity will not harm them, because they themselves are not to blame for it. These writers re fer to Rom. 5: 15 — 17 for an analogous proceeding. This is the most simple and the safest view. (b) Others, misunderstanding the passage, Mark 16: 16, sup pose that faith in Christ is an indispensable requisite for salvation in all men ; and have therefore (together with some schoolmen) em braced the doctrine of a faith of infants, which they have variously explained and described, as fides prasumpta, implicita, per baptis- mum sine verbo (some say, sine cognitio/ie) infusa ; talis affectio in infante qualis deo placet. The schoolmen describe it as dispositid adjustitiam. But none of them succeed in conveying any intelligi- § 122. MEANING OF THE TERM, FAITH. 377 ble idea. Nothing is said in the New Testament about such a faith. Faith always presupposes knowledge, and power to exercise the unr derstanding. Now since children have neither of these requisites, faith cannot be ascribed to them ; nor indeed disbelief, unless the word is used very improperly. The mere want of faith is not dam nable ; but unbelief only, or the guilty destitution of faith. Those who have adopted this view, have thus been compelled, (as appears from the preceding remarks,) to vary the idea which is uniformly at tached to the word faith when adults are referred to, as soon as they speak of children, and to call something in them by this name, which is nowhere else so denominated. The passage, Matt. 18: 6, does not bear upon this point, since the disciples of Christ are there meant. Cf. the Article on Baptism, § 142, and Morus p. 249. From the words of Christ, however, Matt. 19: 14, " Of such is the kingdom of God," it is clear, that he considers children as belong ing to his kingdom. And this is enough. § 122. Of the various significations of the word, faith, as used in the Bible ; some of the principal passages relating to faith ; the parts of which faith is made up ; and some of the most important theological divisions of faith. I. Significations of TZlOTig ; and explanation of the principal texts relative to faith. The terms, faith, the faithful, etc. frequently occur in the reli gious dialect even of the Hebrews. They were originally taken from the language of common life, and transferred into the religious phraseology of the Jews, where they express various nearly related ideas. From this Jewish dialect, Christ and the apostles borrowed these terras. The Hebrew words ]»«, fMtJTj, flJI^N, were trans lated by the Hellenistic Jews (e. g. the LXX.) by the words niazev eiv, nlozig, and were also rendered in the same way by Christ and his apostles. ¦JXJN primarily signifies, to be firm ; and then to be certain, sure, confident. Hence FlJiaN signifies, as nlazig does, aside from its religious use, truth, faith, integrity, honor, proof (Acts 17: Vol. II. 48 378 art. xi. § 122. various senses 31), and conviction (Rom. 14: 23). When things are spoken of, ¦paNri and niazeveiv signify to hold them (whatever they are, events, doctrines, laws) as certain ; when persons are spoken of, they sig nify, to trust in them, to rely on their words, declarations, works. These words were used in the same sense, in reference to persons and things, in the language of common life among the Jews. In He brew they were construed with the particles, a or i» . Hence in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, niazeveiv is construed with tig and iv, frequently too, as in pure Greek, with the dative ; e. g. elg or iv Xgiazto, tcjJ Xgiazm, evayyeXlm, etc. The term occurs for the first time in the religious sense, in reference to Abraham, Gen. 15s: 6, inlazevoe Seep, i. e. considered his promise as sure, re lied on it, and acted accordingly. It frequently occurs afterwards in the Old Testament, e. g. Ex. 14: 31. Ps. 78: 22, 32, etc. To believe, therefore, (a) when commands, promises, doctrines, events, are spoken of, signifies, to consider and regard them as fixed and certain ; (b) when God is spoken of, it denotes our whole duty to him, love, confidence, and obedience to his commandments, because every thing which comes from him is certain and infallible ; (e) when prophets and the messengers of God are spoken of, to believe them, means to receive and obey what they make known, as of divine origin and infallibly certain. This term is employed in the Koran in the same way. These main ideas are differently modified, ac cording to the different objects which are received by us as certain. And hence we can easily derive the strictly religious senses, in which this word is used in the New Testament. (1) niang frequently signifies religion itself, and the particular doctrines of which it consists (fides, qua creditur, or fides objec- tiva); like Iman, in the Koran, and M3HN in the Talmud. It is thus used for Christianity in general, Jude vs. 3, 20, dyimzdzt] nla- tet, Gal. 3: 23. Also in the phrases vnaxot) nlaremg, fides apostoh ica, nicana, etc. Nopog niazemg, is the doctrine which requires faith. (2) It is more frequently used subjectively , denoting the appro bation which one gives to a teacher, and the obedience which he yields to his instructions, after being convinced of the truth of his doctrine, and the divinity of his mission. This approbation is call ed in the schools, fides qua creditur. Thus John 5: 46, maze veiv Mmvatj, Matt. 21: 25, 32, 'fmdvvtj. When used in the Gospels in of the word, nlazig. 379 reference to Jesus, it denotes the acknowledgment of him, and obe dience to him, sometimes as a prophet, and indeed the greatest mes senger of heaven ; and sometimes, as Messiah.1. Hence Christians are called niazevovzeg, niazol. Synonymous with niazeveiv are nei&ea&ai, opoXoyelv Xgiazov 'itjaovv, eivai Xgiazov or iv Xgia zm, Kvgiov elnelv ltjaovv, inixaXelv ovopa Xgiazov. The opposite terms are antaztiv, dnei&tlv, pt] vnaxoveiv tvayyeXim. Closely connected with this is, (3) The sense, trust, confidence, nenol&tjaig, which arises from the conviction of the truth and divinity of a doctrine, and is man ifested in different ways. (a) When one is convinced of the power and goodness of anoth er, and therefore confidently hopes for help and assistance at his hand, and this not only because he is able, but also willing to help and befriend him. This use is common in profane writings, in He brew (fit32 and 'paNrt), in the Septuagint, and in the New Testa ment. Is. 28: 16. Matt. 19: 2, etc. This confidence is therefore sometimes expressed by the word iXnig, Rom. 5: 5, by iXnl£eiv, with iv and tig, and by other similar terms. For the same reason, the confidence one may feel, that God will enable him in an extra ordinary manner to work a miracle, is called nlazig, e. g. Matt. 17: 20. Acts 6: 5, 8. 1 Cor. 13: 2. This faith is technically called, fides miraculosa, the faith of miracles. (b) When one is convinced, that another will do what he says (is veracious and faithful), he depends entirely on his promises and certainly expects their fulfilment in every case, and, from this confi dence, complies with every thing which the other requires. Thus Abraham's faith in God is described ; and thus the terms niazeveiv &eo) and Xoym &eov, are often used, Ps. 106: 12. Hab. 2: 1. From this wider meaning has arisen the proper Christian sense of saving faith, which Paul frequently uses in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, where he controverts the mistake of the meritoriousness of observing the divine law. Here niazeveiv Xgia- toj and nlazig denote the firm persuasion, that we owe our whole spiritual welfare to Christ, or to the free, unmerited mercy of God on Christ's account, and our trust in God and Christ arising from hence, Gal. 2: 16. 3: 6. Rom. 4: 16, sq. This kind of Christian faith is compared with that of Abraham. He confided in God in the same manner, according to the measure of his knowledge. He relied on the promise (inayyeXia, Rom. 4: 20) of God respecting a 380 ART. XI. § 122. REMARKS ON HEB. XI. numerous offspring, and on the other great promises connected with this (although he saw the good, as Paul says, only noggm&ev), with out doubting (ov Siexgl&t], and nXijgoqjogti&elg, firmly convinced), though the thing promised was apparently improbable (Trap' iXnlSa, v. 18). Now as Abraham confided in the promise of God (iniazev- ae -9eaj), Christians should also confide in the promise of God and Christ, and look to God for salvation and blessedness in this life and the life to come, in and through Christ, and not on their own ac count, or on the ground of their own merit, of which they have nothing to boast. This is what theologians call justifying and sav ing faith. The two former senses of faith are not excluded from this third signification ; but are always presupposed and included in it. One who would obtain forgiveness through faith in Christ, must (a) have an acquaintance with the Christian religion, and a persuasion of its truth ; he must regard it as of divine authority, and embrace it with all his heart ; and (6) he must actually rely on the divine promises contained in this religion, and prove the reality of his confidence by his feelings and actions. The latter sense springs out of the form er. How could Abraham have confided in God, if he had been destitute of the knowledge of God, of his attributes, and promises? Hence when Paul would give a complete description of true Christian faith ; he often comprises both these ideas quite distinctly under the word nlazig, Rom. m. iv. and James 2: 19 — 24, where niazeveiv refers sometimes to knowledge and the assent of the un derstanding, and sometimes to the confidence which springs from them. Note. The passage Heb. 11:1, has always been considered one of the most important with regard to the subject of faith, and so indeed it should be, though its sense has been frequently perverted. The meaning of this passage needs to be distinctly exhibited. Paul here speaks of faith, or confidence in the di vine promises or declarations, in general, especially of that exercised in suf ferings and persecutions, (in order to preserve Christians from apostasy,) not exclusive, however, of the peculiar' saving faith of the Christian, as he also hopes to obtain forgiveness and salvation through Christ. This is taught by the examples of Rahab, Samson, Jephthah, and others, which are mentioned. Paul does not undertake to give a logical definition of faith ; but only distinct ly to describe its characteristics, without which one cannot lay claim to the possession of faith. But this is the very reason, why the passage is so worthy of note, and so practically useful. For it shows what is requisite to faith in EXTERNAL AND SAVING FAITH. 381 general, according to Paul's ideas of it, and what traits it must always possess, however different may be the objects to which it is directed. A person shows his faith, by being firmly and unhesitatingly convinced, on the mere testimo ny of God, (1) with respect to things, which are not actually present with us, and in our possession (iXmtopeva), e. g. future deliverance, future blessedness, promised by God, of whatever kind it may be, temporal or spiritual ; (2) with respect to things beyond the reach of our senses (pi pXenopeva). 'T-Tzoaraoig and i'Xeyxog are synonymous in this passage, and signify firma persuasio. Paul himself explains his meaning in v. 6: the pious man must believe that God exists (although he does not see him) ; and that he will reward his worship pers (although the reward is not immediate). Here therefore both knowledge and assent to the truth, and the confidence which is the result of them, are re quisite, in order to the existence of faith in the wider sense in which it is here used. II. Theological divisions of faith ', and the parts of which it is composed. (1) The Bible frequently says respecting one who professes Christianity, that he has faith in Christ. Vid. No. I. But this faith is two-fold. One may understand and externally profess the doctrines of Christianity, without obeying them, or feeling their transforming influence upon his heart ; or he may apply them, ac cording to their design, to the improvement of his-heart and the sanctification of his dispositions ; in short, he may do all that God requires of him in the Christian doctrine. The faith of the former is called fides externa, historica, or theoretica; that of the latter, fides interna, habilualis, salvifica (salutary, saving, amxtjgiog). The former kind of faith, disconnected with the latter, is sometimes called dead faith, because it is ineffectual, and contributes nothing to our improvement or salvation. The phrase is taken from James 2: 17, 20, 26. The latter is called living, viva, actuosa, because it exerts a salutary influence in promoting our happiness and true welfare. Christian faith, in its whole extent, is therefore, a conviction of the truth and divinity of the Christian scheme of salvation, and a con duct conformed to this conviction. One who believes the Christian religion in such a way as to act in accordance with it, and who al lows his affections to be governed by his belief, is' a true Christian, and possesses jWes salvifica. As to one who willingly and cheer fully follows the commandments of God and 'Christ, and sedulously 382 ART. XI. § 122. KNOWLEDGE, ASSENT, AND TRUST conducts himself by the rules which they have prescribed, the Bible says, either that he is obedient to God and Christ, or he believes in them. Hence these two terms are synonymous ; Morus p. 201, n. 3. The definition therefore which Crusius gives in the passage be fore cited, is just : saving faith is a cordial approval of, and com pliance with the divine plan of salvation. (2) On the different parts of which faith consists. Faith is made up of different parts, all of which however must belong to it, in order to its being perfect. The different objects of Christian instruction, to which faith refers, form the ground of this division. There is a faith in events, in doctrines, commands, and promises. These objects will be particularly considered in the fol lowing Section. Now Christian faith, in a general view, embrac ing all these objects, is considered by 'theologians as consisting of three parts, knowledge, assent, and trust or confidence (notitia, as- sensus,fiducia), which will now be considered. Whenever entire Christian faith is spoken of, as comprehending all the objects just mentioned, this division is perfectly applicable. But all these parts do not belong to Christian faith as directed to each particular ob ject. They all belong only to the faith in promises. Knowl edge and assent merely, are requisite to the faith in events and doc trines ; and a will and inclination to obey, to faith in the divine commands. To avoid this inconvenience, faith might be made to consist in two particulars, knowledge, and a disposition of heart cor respondent to this knowledge, (inlyvmaig xal ala&tjaig, Phil. 1: 9), according to which one would be inclined to obey the divine com mands and confide in the divine promises. Many theologians pre fer this division. But in what remains, we shall follow the common three-fold division. (a) Knowledge of the subject to be believed, is, from the very nature of the case, an essential part of faith, of whatever kind it may be. Paul asks, How can men believe, if they are not instruct ed? (if they do not possess knowledge of the things to be believed), Rom. 10: 14. This knowledge cannot indeed, in every case, be equally thorough and comprehensive. In many of the early Christ ians it was at first very general, and confined, as indeed it is often still, to some of the great, elementary truths. But however limited and imperfect this knowledge may be, it always implies certainty, and must amount to a firm conviction ; otherwise from the very na- BELONG TO THE NATURE OF FAITH. 383 ture of the human mind, it can produce no effect on the will, and it ceases to he faith. For we believe only that of which we are cer tain. Cf. the terms vnoazaaig and e'Xeyxog, Heb. 11: 1, and nXtjgo- qogeia&at, Rom. 4: 21 , where it is contrasted with doubting ; also James 1: 6. But this conviction should be effected by reasons which enlighten the understanding, by instruction intelligible to the human mind ; not by authoritative and compulsory decisions. The mere reception of a doctrine on the word or command of anoth er, without being ourselves convinced of its truth, is not faith, but credulity. Christ and his apostles therefore prescribe instruction (xtjgvaaeiv), and make faith a result or effect of instruction ; e. g. Mark 16: 16. And Paul derives nlazig from dxot), Rom. 10: 17, etc. From these remarks we can easily see, how far to admit the fides implicita of the schoolmen. They mean by this, faith in such doctrines as we do not understand, and of which we are not con vinced by reason, but must receive on the mere word and authority of the church. From these remarks, too, we can easily form an opinion respecting the faith of children, for which some contend. Vid. § 120, ad finem. (b) Assent. This is divided into general (assensus generalis), by which is meant the general reception of known truth as credible and sure ; and into particular (assensus specialis), by which is meant, the special application of certain general truths of the Christ- - ian doctrine to one's self; e. g. Christ died for men, and also for me. It is this latter kind, which more frequently produces salutary feelings and emotions in the soul. Vid. the examples, Rom. 8: 31 —39. 1 Tim. 1: 15, 16. Morus p. 201, § 6. This is commonly expressed in the New Testament by Sixeadat and nagaSixea&at, as Mark 4: 20, where dxoveiv implies the knowledge of the truth, nagaSixea&ai, assent to it, from whence the result xagnoq>ogttv. 1 Thess. 2: 13, where nagaXapfidveiv Xoyov, merely to hear in struction, is distinguished from Sexea&at. 1 Cor. 2: 14, the carnal man, obedient only to his passions, does not assent (Sixta&ai) to the divine doctrine, etc. Although assent should always be connected with the knowl edge of the truth, because the will should be governed by the understanding ; yet we find that it is often withheld from truths which cannot be doubted, from the prevalence of prejudice or passion. So it was with the contemporaries of Jesus in Pales- 384 ART. XI. § 122. SCRIPTURAL MODE OF TEACHING. tine.' They could not deny that the miracles which he wrought were real miracles, and yet they did not yield him their assent. Like to these are all who at the present day, from love to sin, refuse obedience to the truth which they know. Such persons commonly endeavour to persuade themselves and others, that the cause of their unbelief has some other ground besides their own will ; hence they give ready credit to every semblance of reason for doubting the truth and divinity of Christianity. If this assent, therefore, is genuine, it must act on the heart of man. The will must be controlled and governed by the truths which the understanding acknowledges and embraces as true. Otherwise this assent resembles that which, according to James 2: 19, we allow even to devils. Cf. James 1: 22. Luke 8: 13, and Heb. 4: 2. It will be understood, of course, that this assent has different degrees ; respecting which we shall say more hereafter. (c) Trust or confidence. Knowledge and assent become, in re spect to the divine promises given to Christians, confidence, i. e. a firm conviction that the promises given by God will surely be fulfil- ed. Morus p. 202, n. 2, justly says, " that to the assent of the un derstanding, there must be added a trust in that grace (of God) by which one conducts himself comformably to this gracious prom ise." All the three parts, therefore, of which faith consists, are comprised in that faith which relates to the divine promises ; while, from the very nature of the case, only knowledge and assent belong to the faith relating to events, doctrines, and commands. • Here on the contrary from the very nature of the subject, all the three parts must consist together. This state of mind in Christians, is called in the New Testament nenol&tjaig, naggtja'ta, iXnig, x. t. X. Ephes. 3: 12. Heb. 3: 6. 1 John 2: 28. Note. On the method pursued by J 'esus and the apostles in teaching the doc trines of faith. They do not confine themselves merely to enlightening the understanding (SiSdoxsiv) ; but in connexion with this, they would always have an appeal made to the heart (izaQaxaXuv). So 2 Tim. 4: 2. 1 Tim. 4: 13. 2 Cor. 5: 20, etc. They always employ the effect produced in the un derstanding by truth, to move and excite the affections of their hearers or read ers. Thus their instruction is always perfectly practical. The beginning must indeed be always made, by informing the understanding. For how can a man believe or perform any thing, with which he is unacquainted ? vid. Rom. 10: 14. But the Christian teacher, who is content, as is often the case, with giving § 123. RELATION OF FAITH TO DOCTRINES. 385 lifeless instruction to the understanding, and who supposes that the approval of the affections will follow of course, betrays great ignorance of human nature. For experience proves, that the state of the heart exerts a great influence on the attention paid to truth, and on the whole activity of the understanding. If the heart is wanting in love for the truth, the understanding will bo very slow in coming to a clear knowledge, just discernment, and proper estimation of it ; and the reverse. According to the method of Christ and his apostles, therefore, which is adapted to the very nature of the human soul, the teacher who labors to promote the conviction and conversion of men, must begin at the very outset by inculcating the most clear, practical truths, in order that the heart may first become favorably disposed to the truth, and that the under standing may thus become more susceptible of what is taught. He must then employ again the truths, which he has thus communicated, to excite and move the affections. And whatever knowledge is conveyed to the mind, should al ways be so directed by the Christian teacher, as to excite and move the af fections. § 123. Of the different objects of Christian doctrine to which faith refers ; and the relation of faith to the same. These different objects were enumerated, § 122, II. 2, and will now be separatety considered. The truths of the Christian religion, which faith embraces, may be reduced to the following classes. I. Doctrines, and historical facts. Historical facts are here classed with doctrines, because the Christian religion is founded on facts ; such, for example, as that Christ died, rose again, etc. The firm conviction that these doc trines or events are true, is called, with regard to the former, fides dogmatica, with regard to the \atter, fides historica (in the more lim ited sense). For examples of the former kind, vid. Heb. 1 1: 2, sq. ; of the latter kind, Rom. 10: 9, 10. John 20: 29. 1 Cor. 15: 3. The Apostles always placed the doctrines of Christianity in the most in timate connexion with the person and whole history of Christ, and in this way gave general truths, such as the paternal love of God, and his readiness to forgive, the authority of positive Christian doctrines ; vid. Vol. II. 49 386 ART. XI. § 123. RELATION OF FAITH TO DOCTRINES. Art. x. Christ and the apostles teach no Christianity independant of the person and history of Jesus Christ. Their whole system is founded on the fact, that Christ is the great Messenger promised by God, and that life everlasting may be obtained through faith in him ; and to these truths they constantly refer ; John 20: 31. To extend and perpetuate the knowledge of these facts, all the gospels were written, and all the apostles labored in their oral and written in structions. As soon as the doctrines, laws, and promises of Christ ianity are separated from the history of Christ, they lose that posi tive sanction, which they must have, in order to answer the de mands of the great mass of mankind. The apostles therefore, al ways built their instructions on the history of Christ ; cf. 1 Cor. 15: 2, 3, 14. And the teacher, who regards the directions and example of Christ and of the early Christian teachers, and who is convinced of the importance of these peculiar doctrines of Christianity, will follow their example in this respect, that instead of withholding these doc trines from the youth whom he is called to instruct, he will place them before their minds in a manner adapted to their comprehen sion. And he must disapprove the course of some, who confine their instructions to the truths of natural religion. But even suppos ing that the teacher should doubt in his own mind respecting the importance of these peculiar Christian doctrines, he ought to know, from the mere principles of human nature, that the dry exhibition of the truths of reason, without the vehicle of history, is ill adapted for the instruction of the common people and of the young. He ought to know too, that there is no history which can be used to more advantage for the purpose of rendering the great truths of re ligion evident, impressive, and practical, than the history of Christ. In neglecting this method, or objecting to it, he has considered only one side of the subject, and while he supposes he is proceeding very philosophically, his conduct is, in fact, exceedingly otherwise. Hap py the teacher, who knows from his own experience the salutary ef ficacy of the positive doctrines of Christianity ! Supposing him, however, not to. have this experience, he ought, for the reasons above given, to adopt this most reasonable method of instruction. Cf. Miiller, Vom christlichen Religionsunterrichte, Winterthur, 1809, 8vo. But in order that the general doctrines of Christianity may ex ert an influence on any one's feelings and dispositions, he must ex- RELATION OF FAITH TO PROMISES. 387 ercise the assensio specialis (§ 122, II.), i. e. he must be convinced of the applicability of these doctrines to himself; he must appropriate and apply them to himself; he must feel, for example, that Christ died not only for all men, but also for him. For our confidence in the divine promises given through Christ and on his account, must de pend on our conviction, that they relate personally to ourselves, — that they are given to us. To produce this conviction, should be the great object of the teacher. For religion should not be so much the concern of the head, as the interest of the heart. II. The divine promises. The divine promises constitute a very important part of the Christian doctrine. The faith in them which is required of us as Christians, has not so much respect to the promises of temporal good, as to those of spiritual and eternal good, which we may ob tain through Christ and on his account. The following particu lars may be noticed with respect to this faith : viz. (1) True faith in the divine promises, consists in a confident and undoubting hope, that God will fulfil them, and will actually be stow upon us the good which he has promised. All the three parts of which faith consists, (knowledge, assent, and confidence, Rom. 4: 16) belong to this kind, § 122. Paul illustrates the nature of this kind of faith by the example of Abraham, Rom. 4: 20. Gal. 3: 8, 16. Abraham had great promises made to him (inayyeXiai), the fulfillment of which, at the time they were given, was quite im probable ; and yet he maintained a firm faith. We may mention here the examples of the faith of the Israelites, John 3: 14, coll. Num. xxi., and Heb. 4: 1. In the last cited passage, faith in Christ ian promises is not, indeed, the particular subject of discourse. But all which is true of faith in other promises of divine favors, is also true of faith in Christian promises. The only difference in the two cases, is the difference of the objects upon which faith fixes. The signs and characteristics of it are the same ; vid. Heb. 11: 1 (§ 122, ad finem). Hence Paul calls all who believe in the divine promises (ol ix niattmg), Abraham's children ; i. e. like him and capable of a similar reward. ~ (2) The promises given to Christians, as such, have all reference to Christ ; Morus p. 203, § 7. They are placed in the most inti- 388 ART. XI. § 123. RELATION OF FAITH mate connexion with his person and history. Christ is therefore al ways described as the ground of our faith (fundamentum fidei). We are taught every where, that Christ died for us, that on his ac count God remits the punishment of sin, and bestows upon us ever lasting happiness. It is in these divine promises that we are requir ed to believe ; i. e. we must be persuaded that God will fulfil them for us; vid. Rom. 3: 15. 8: 12, 17. 4: 24. Theologians call this kind of faith, or this firm conviction that God will perform his prom ises to us, and for Christ's sake be gracious to us, the application or laying hold (apprehensionem) of the merits of Christ. Both the theory itself and this term, rest upon the authority of the New Tes tament, although the term, nagaXapfiaveiv Xgiazov in Col. 2: 6, signifies to be informed respecting Christ and his religion, to hear Christian doctrines. This idea is commonly denoted by the terras, niazeveiv zm Xoym tov azavgov, elg vipm&evta, x. z. X. Vid. Mo rus p. 203, n. 1. But in John 1: 12, the term Xapfidvtiv Xgiazov is used to denote this self-applying faith, for it is directly explained by. the term niatevtiv. (3) The result of this confident faith in the divine promises, is the possession or enjoyment of the promised good, or the reward. God is not only able to perform his promises ; he is likewise true and infallible. But he never makes promises to men on the ground of their desert ; for they have none ; but all his promises are undeserv ed. He gives them, indeed, on condition of faith (Sid nlaTemg), Rom. 4: 4, 16 ; but yet Smgedv and xaza xdgiv, and not as dqjtlXtjpa. This truth is thus expressed in the same connexion (v. 3) ; a man's observing the divine law cannot be imputed to him as a merit, but faith only Xoyi^etai elg Sixaioavvtjv. Cf. Gen. 15: 6. For obedi ence to the divine law, is what we owe. Nor can we find any where, even in the greatest saint, an obedience so perfect as to satisfy con science. Now since Christians are to have good bestowed upon them through Christ, and on account of faith in the divine promis es ; and since this good is commenced in the removal of punish ment, or the forgiveness of sin (justification, pardon) ; this faith is called justifying (justificam) ; as Paul says, in the passage cited, Sixaiovpevoi Smgeav Sid zr]g niazemg. Paul illustrates .this by the example of Abraham. His faith in the divine promises was imputed to him by God as a*merit ; i. e. he was rewarded on account of his faith. The promises made to him of a favored posterity, and the TO PROMISES AND PRECEPTS. 389 possession of Canaan, were fulfilled to him, as a reward. In Heb. 11: 31, Paul illustrates this by the example of Rahab. Her faith (a firm conviction that the God of the Israelites is omnipotent, and would fulfil his promises to the Israelites, and give them the land of Canaan,) was the occasion of her being pardoned, and not perishing with the rest of the Canaanites, ov avvanmXezo zolg dneidtjaaai, or as James says (2: 25), iSixaim&tj. In this case, indeed, the object of faith, is different from the object of Christian faith. But the re sult (reward) is the same ; and the characteristics of it are the same. In the case of Rahab, the good bestowed was earthly and temporal ; in the other, spiritual and eternal. III. The divine laws or precepts. Since to believe, in the large sense, is the same as to receive and obey the Christian doctrine in all its parts ; its laws and rules of action must be as perfectly acknowledged and received, as its promises. (1) Statement of the doctrine of the New Testament on this sub ject. One who believes the divine promises, receives the good promised, on account of his faith ; but it is not optional with him to receive this part only of the Christian doctrine, and to refuse obe dience to the laws which it prescribes. No one can say, I will hold fast to the promises, and leave the observance of the law to others. These two thing cannot be separated ; and they are both implied in believing in Christ or the gospel. Christ and the apostles every where teach, that the observance of the precepts of Christianity, or holiness, cannot be separated from faith in Christ. Obedience is the fruit of faith. Matt. 7: 21 , " He only who does the will of my Fa ther, can enter into the kingdom of heaven." John 15: 14. Luke 6: 46 — 49. 1 John 2: 3 — 6, which is the most decisive text. Paul expresses himself in the same manner on this subject, Gal. 5: 6. Ephes. 4: 22, and here certainly he does not contradict James. The latter is very explicit on this subject, especially in the second chapter of his Epistle, where he remonstrates against the perversions of the doctrine of faith, as if a mere knowledge and cold assent to the truth, a dead faith in Christ, disconnected with the practice of holi ness, could be sufficient. This disposition of the Christian, to live in entire conformity with 390 ART. XI. § 123. SCRIPTURAL AND SCHOLASTIC USE the precepts of the Christian doctrine, is called cpgovtjpa nvevpazog, Rom. 8: 6, 7, 18, i. e. the renewed temper produced by God, by means of Christianity, — the holiness, love, and zeal for virtue produc ed in the Christian by the Holy Spirit. It is opposed to ygovrjpa aagxog, i. e. the disposition to live according to sinful propensi ties. This disposition is every where ascribed to God, or to the Holy Spirit, as the author of Christianity, the guide of the pious, and the promoter of all Christian perfection. In Rom. 8: 1, this state is described by the phrase negtnazeiv xaza nvevpa, and in v. 9, by nvevpa' Xgiazov, a Christian state of mind, a disposition like that of Christ, and for which we are indebted to his assistance and instructions. In 1 John 3: 24, the same term is used. In Gal. 5: 22, the term xagnog nvevpazog is used, -denoting Christian vir tues, actions proceeding from a heart renewed by the Holy Spirit, through the influence of Christianity. In Rom. 6: 6, etc. this char acter is called, metaphorically, xaivog dv&gmnog, and the renuncia tion of the previous love and habit of sinning is called pezavota, the putting off of the old man, etc. which will be farther considered hereafter: Faith in the divine promises, thus connected with obedi ence to Christian precepts, or holiness, is called living or active faith, viva, actuosa, operosa, practica. Paul himself speaks of a faith (Si dydntjg) ivegyovpe'vtj, Gal. 5: 6. (2) On the use of the words, law and gospel, in the Bible and in theology ; and inferences from it. Morus treats this subject as an Appendix to c. 3, pp. 238 — 244. (a) When the words vopog and ygdppa are used in the New Testament in opposition to evuyyt"Xiov and nvevpa, the former do not mean precepts respecting the conduct of men in general ; nor the latter, merely the promises (i nayyeXiai) given to Christians. But vopog and ygdppa frequently denote the Mosaic law, or the whole Old Testament institute and religion ; evayyiXiov, nvtvpa, and other similar terms, the whole Christian doctrine, its commands, as well as its promises. Thus, e. g. the sermon on the mount, Matt. v. is purely evangelical, even in the precepts respecting conduct which it contains. John 1:17. Rom. 8: 2. 2 Cor. 3: 6. 4: 6, sq. Morus p. 240, § 4. This will help us to explain many of the texts, in which the apos tles speak of the great advantages which the gospel has over the law ; where they say the law was imperfect, was not designed for all men OF THE TERMS LAW AND GOSPEL. 391 in all ages, is not obligatory on Christians, and is supplanted by Christianity. Much like this is found in Rom. in. iv. vn. vm, and Gal. in. But the schoolmen and many theologians who followed them, did not distinguish accurately between the various senses of the words vopog and euayyiXiov in the New Testament. And notwithstand ing it is clearly asserted, that the whole Mosaic institute, as such, is superseded by Christianity (vid. § 118, II.) ; yet many held the opinion, that the law given on mount Sinai, was designed, as far as its moral part is concerned, for the whole world, and is obligatory at all times, even on the ground of its having been there given. They understand the Christian law, and the law of Moses, to be synony mous, and believe that the Mosaic law as such, (the Ceremonial part only excepted,) is obligatory upon Christians. On the other hand, they always understand evayyeXiov, according to its etymolo gy (joyful news), to mean, not the whole Christian doctrine, but on ly that part of it which contains the promises. This departure from the scriptural usage gave occasion to adopt the division into law and gospel in the theological sense. Such, then, is the state of the case. Gospel, in the wider sense, is the whole Christian doctrine, as composed both of precept and promise. This is the most common sense in the New Testament. In the narrower sense, it is the promises of the Christian doctrine, especially those of pardon through Christ. In this sense it sometimes occurs in the New Testament, Rom. 10: 16, coll. vs. 3 — 15. Rom. 1: 16, 17. 3:21. Acts 13: 32. 20: 24, tvayyiXiov ydgitog &eov, 1 Cor. 9: 23. In this sense theologians have always used it. Law gene rally signifies in the New Testament the Mosaic Law ; but some times, the precepts' of God and of Christ, Gal. 6: 2, etc. (6) By Law and Gospel, as used in theology, the whole sum of the doctrine of salvation is meant. By the law is understood, the sum of all the divine precepts given to man in the Old and New Testament ; or, the whole moral law ; Morus, p. 238, sq. § 2. From this we learn what God has commanded and forbidden, and of course what sin is. By gospel is understood all the promises relat- ino- to the salvation of man through Christ, whether contained in the Old or New Testament. These assure men of grace and for giveness, and thus comfort and encourage the sinner ; this is what is more properly called evayyeXiov xdgirog. 392 ART. XI. § 123. SCHOLASTIC USE This definite theological use, which is not in itself unscriptural, was common before the Reformation in the Romish Church, and was employed by the schoolmen in their systems. Because the Dec alogue contains moral precepts, and is called, by way of eminence, law, and because vopog occurs sometimes in this sense in the New Testament, they called all moral precepts, the law ; and because evayyiXiov signifies etymologically a joyful message, and occurs sometimes in this sense in the New Testament, they called all the promises of God, inasmuch as they are of a joyful nature, gospel. This was proper in itself. The fault lay in their regarding this as the only scriptural use, and accordingly endeavouring to adapt it to all the passages in which law and gospel occur. Luther and Me lancthon, and also the Swiss Reformers, retained the established usage of these terms ; and from them, it has been adopted by other theologians of the Protestant Church into their systems. The Ar minians in the seventeenth century made the first attempts to show, some of them, that this is not to be found in the Bible, and others more justly, that it is not the only scriptural use. They taught, that the gospel comprehends laws as well as promises, and that one as well as the other must be comprised in faith in Jesus Christ. But the old division was for a long time retained by Protestant theologians, even in their homiletical and catechetical instructions ; nor was there any thing objectionable in this. Although this use of these words is not the only, nor even the common scriptural usage, yet there is good reason for this distinction (Morus, p. 240, § 4), if it is only properly explained. The truth which is designated by it, cannot and ought not to be passed over. For it is plain, that rules for conduct and promises of blessing are of altogether a different nature, have dif- ferent ends, and produce different effects, and that both therefore must have different predicates. The Christian doctrine contains both. Fromjthe nature of the human soul, promises of a great good awaken pleasure in the mind, and incite to willing effort to do every thing which can secure the enjoyment of this good. But this very nature of the soul, makes rules for feeling and conduct necessary. Precepts and promises must be most intimately connected. And the promises must be made to serve as a spring and motive to obey the divine commands. This obedience is an indispensable condi tion, and unless it is fulfilled, the promised good cannot be bestowed. This is the doctrine of the New Testament. The Christian teach- OF THE TERMS LAW AND GOSPEL. 393 er must therefore make use of the law, in order to promote the knowl edge of sin and repentance, and to show the unhappy consequences which, according to the Christian doctrine, result from sin both in this life and the life to come ; and that he may employ for this pur pose every thing, as well in the Old as in the New Testament, which bears on this subject. Vid. Morus, p. 242, § 7. Note. The passages, Rom. in. and Gal. in. and iv. relating to the law and its abolition, have been misunderstood in two different ways, which should be carefully guarded against. (a) Some have taught, that believers have nothing to do with the law, since Christ lias fulfilled it for them ; and they appeal to these passages. They would embrace only one part of the gospel, its promises, and would gladly be relieved of the other, and thus overthrow all morality. Such were the doctrines of many of the fanatics at the time of the Reformation and afterwards ; Morus, p. 241, § 6. The same thing was charged upon Agricola in the sixteenth century, and his followers, the Antinomians. Hence the fifth and sixth Arti cles were introduced into the Form of Concord. (ft) Others have supposed, that the Mosaic ceremonial or civil law ex clusively, is intended in those passages where it is said, that man deserves nothing of God by observing the law; e.g. Rom. m. and Gal. in. and iv. They maintained accordingly, that although the favor of God could not be con ciliated by obedience to the ceremonial law, it might be by the observance of the moral law. Thus the Socinians and many others. But Paul knows noth ing of such a distinction, and what he says, he says of the whole Mosaic law, moral as well as ritual. The observance of the one, is as little meritorious as of the other. And what is true of the moral law of Moses, is true, according to his express declaration in these passages, of the whole moral law, whether learned from nature, or from the Christian doctrine. Vid. Progr. in Rom. vn. et vm., in "Scripta varii argumenti," Num. xn. The following is the doc trine of the apostles : Obedience to the divine law is not the ground, or the procuring cause, of our forgiveness and salvation. (And happy is it for men that it is not; for were it so, no man of an enlightened and tender conscience could ever be sure of salvation.) Faith in Christ who died for us, is the only ground of our acceptance. Still obedience to the divine law is an indispensable duty, in connexion with this faith. Indeed it is practicable and easy, only while this faith exists. The strict requirements of the moral law causo us to see clear ly, how deficient and imperfect we are, since while we allow that the law re quires only what is right, we are yet unable to conform to it. They also ex cite in us a deep feeling of our need of a different dispensation, coming in aid of our imperfection. And by seeing our need, we become disposed to embrace the provisions for salvation which God offers. Thus the law leads us to Christ, Rom. m. vi. vn. and the Epistle to the Galatians. Vol. II. 50 394 ART. XI. § 124. CONNEXION OF THE PARTS OF FAITH. § 124. Of the connexion of the parts of which faith is composed; the characteristics and degrees of faith ; and the conditions on which it is saving. I. The relation in which the parts belonging to faith stand to each other. Here the following cautions should be observed ; viz. (1) We should not separate one part of faith from another, or insist more upon one than another, or imagine that the different parts may exist at different times. This mistake has been made by some with respect to the promises (gospel), and the rules of conduct (law). Some insist wholly or disproportionately on the latter, and thus alarm one who is just beginning a religious life, and who feels himself to be still weak. This is the fault of those who preach on ly the law or morality, who are always telling men, (though they generally know it sufficiently without being told,) what they ought to be, without showing them the proper means of becoming so, and how they may acquire the requisite power. Others dwell entirely on the promises, and neglect the law ; instead of deriving from the promises the motives apd power to obey the law, as the Bible does, 1 John 4: 10, 19. 3: 3. Gal. 2: 20. Vid. § 123, ad finem. At the present day, the former mistake is the more common one ; and therefore needs to be guarded against more carefully than the other. (2) We should not consider the manner in which faith arises in man, and in which one part of it follows another, to be uniformly the same in all cases ; nor should we prescribe the same order and succession as essential to all. The physical and moral constitution of men is so different, and the circumstances under which they be gin to amend their lives are so unlike, that the same form and meth od cannot possibly be prescribed to all. The neglect of proper at tention to this difference among men, gives easy occasion to un charitable judgments, to hypocrisy, anxiety, and scrupulous doubts. The common representation is that which Melancthon has giv en in his "Loci Theologici." Reformation is commenced by means of the law, which convinces man of his sins. Then follows the distressing sense of the merited divine displeasure, and the de sire of obtaining pardon. Here the Gospel comes in for man's re lief, and imparts comfort and consolation. Hence arise faith and SIGNS OF TRUE FAITH. 395 the fruits of it; and from faith, forgiveness of sin and the assurance that it is remitted. In this way does the moral change in men frequently, but not always take place. The order is not important, provided all the es sential parts of faith are exhibited. Faith can no more be wrought in all Christians in the same manner, than the sciences and arts can be learned by all in the same manner. With one, the terrors of the divine threatenings and punishments must be used in the first in stance ; with another of a more mild and gentle disposition, the in finite love of God, and his promises must be used. Though begin ning in different ways, both may come to the same result. When we compare the accounts of conversions recorded in the Old and New Testament, we observe this very difference. They all exhib it the great essential of faith ; but the manner in which they came to the possession of it, is different. Books containing accounts of the conversion of particular men, are very useful. But we should beware of making the experiences of individuals, and the way in which they may have been led to faith, a rule for all. Vid. Toell- ner, Theologisehe Untersuchungen, St. I. II. [Note. Neander has illustrated this important point very fully in his " Denkwflrdigkeiten," and also in his " Gelegenheitsschriften." The Fifth Article in the latter collection of Treatises, entitled, " the manifold ways of the Lord in the work of conversion," is worthy of the careful study of all engag ed in promoting religion in the world. — It is a deep saying of Origen, that wh^t, Paul, said of his becoming all things to all men, that he might gain some, is applicable in a far higher sense to the Saviour himself, in the methods he employed while on the earth, and still employs in Heaven, to bring men to saving faith. — Tr.] II. Signs by which we can discover the existence of true faith. To every Christian it is of the first importance to know whether he possesses true faith, that he may be sure of his being accepted by God. These signs may be reduced to two classes, which cor respond with the instructions of the New Testament. (I) Christian dispositions. These are called in the New Testa ment qjg6vt]pa nvevpazog, or nvevpa, vid. § 123. Rom. 8: 14, 16, " The renewed Christian temper (nvevpa) produced in us by God, by means of Christianity, affords us inwardly the surest proof (ovp-* paozvgel), that we are the children of God," — that we resemble him, 396 ART. XI. § 124. SIGNS OF TRUE FAITH. that we love him, and that he loves us, as a father loves his chil dren. Ephes. 1: 13, 14, " Ye are sealed by the Holy Spirit, i.e. the Christian disposition, for which you are indebted to God, is a sure proof to you, that God loves you and will bless you ; it is a pledge (dggafimv) to you of future reward." Thus too 1 John 3: 24, "By the spirit, (that renewed temper for which we are indebted to Christ and the Holy Spirit,) we know that we are true Christians, and beloved by God." The Christian may, therefore, be sure that he has faith, when he is conscious of hatred to sin, sincere love to God and Christ, to the good and pious, and of a constant effort to in crease in holiness or moral perfection. (2) But these dispositions must be exhibited in the external con duct, by actions which flow from grateful love to God and Christ, and from other religious motives (xagnol nvevpazog). These, therefore, are infallible signs of faith. Vid. 1 John 2: 29. 3: 7, sq. Christ said, Matt. 7: 16, " By their fruits ye shall know them." Entire reliance cannot be placed upon evidences drawn from mere internal feeling. One may easily deceive himself with regard to his own feelings. And if a certain degree of feeling is insisted upon as necessary, those who do not come up to this standard, while yet they may have faith, will be easily led into mistake, and involved in doubt and distress. Nor can we properly demand, that every one should give the time and hour, when he began to believe. For faith is not always instantaneous, but, from the very nature of the human soul, is sometimes gradual. Vid. Spalding, Vom Werth der Gefiihle. Note. The common theological phrase, internum testimonium Spiritus Sanc- ti, is derived from Rom. 8: 16. (The passage, 1 John 5: 6, 8, does not relate to this point.) (1) This passage treats directly of the inward conviction which Christians obtain of their being forgiven by God, from the new disposition which he has produced in them by means of Christianity. By this they are sure, (a) that they are now free from the divine punishments, which they had reason to fear, while they continued unrenewed, and followed their sinful desires ; and also (ft) that they have a share in all the rights and privileges of believers, and shall be partakers of the promised blessedness in future. (2) But under this phrase, theologians include the internal conviction which Christians have of the divinity of the Christian doctrine. But this conviction arises only by way of inference. The Christian reasons thus : because more is effected for the moral good of men, by means of Christianity than by all other means (as he can say from his own experience) ; it follows that this doctrine DIFFERENT DEGREES OF FAITH. 397 is divine, or that we must believe what Christ and his apostles say, when they declare it to be divine. John 7: 17, " One may be sure from his own experi ence, that what Christ affirmed is true, that he did not speak of himself," etc. Cf. 1 Thess. 2: 13. This conviction depends, therefore, on the experience of each individual Christian. He himself must have felt the efficacy of the Christian doctrine in his own heart. Hence this is called the experimental proof of the divinity of the Christian religion ; and Christ himself insists upon it, John 7: 16, 17. 1 Thess. 2: 13. Every true Christian must have this expe rience. But it cannot be used to convince one who is not a true Christian, because he has never felt in himself the better influence of the Christian doc trine. Still less can this experience be brought in proof of the divinity of the books of the Bible. It only proves the divinity of the doctrine contained in them. Vid. Less, in the Appendix to his " Wahrheit der christlichen Relig ion," and Noesselt, Diss, de Sp. S. test. Halle, 1766. Cf. § 7, II. ad finem. III. The different degrees of faith; the possibility of losing faith and of falling away. (I) The knowledge, intelligence, and whole mental state of men are very different, as well as their natural constitution, tempera ment, and faculties. Hence we infer, that faith cannot have the same degree of perfection in all. We are not responsible, however, for the weakness and imperfection of faith, any farther than it is criminal; — a subject the consideration of which belongs more pro perly to theological Ethics. The Bible accordingly distinguishes between a weak, imperfect, incipient faith, and a strong, perfect, confirmed, and assured faith. It compares the state of one just be ginning to exercise faith, to childhood, and that of the more confirm ed Christian, to manhood ; vid. Rom. 4: 19. 2 Thess. 1: 3. Ephes. 4: 13, 14. 1 Cor. 3: 1. (2) But no Christian can make pretensions to the highest possi ble degree of perfection in faith, although he should constantly strive after it. Great imperfections and innumerable defects always re main even in the best' Christians, partly in respect to their knowl edge, partly, and indeed mostly, in respect to their practice of known duties. Vid. Ps. 19: 13. Phil. 3: 12. James 3: 2. This ought frequently to be noticed by the teacher, in order to humble the pride of men, and to excite more zeal and effort in the pursuit of holiness, and more watchfulness against sin. This consideration leads us to say, (3) It is possible that even the best and most perfect Christian, should lose his faith and apostatize. The Bible clearly teaches that one may lose his faith, and therefore fail of the blessedness 398 ART. XI. § 124. POSSIBILITY OF LOSING FAITH. promised on condition of faith ; vid. 1 Tim. 1: 19. 6: 21. Christ himself mentions, Luke 8: 13, the ngoaxalgovg, who indeed possess ed true faith, but did not remain steadfast. And for what purpose are the frequent exhortations to constancy in faith given in the Holy Scriptures, if there is no possibility of its being lost 1 Cf. Gal. 2: 2. Heb. 6: 4, sq. Still the way of recovery stands open even to the apostate, while he lives; Luke 22: 32. Ps. 51: 2— 19, cf. §113. But from the very principles of our nature it is plain, that reforma tion and the recovery of faith must be more difficult, the oftener one who had begun to walk in the way of holiness, returns to unbelief and sin, 2 Pet. 2: 20—22. 2 Tim. 2: 26. Notel. Many have held, that true faith can not be lost. Against this opin ion the above paragraph is directed, (a) Some fanatics have held, that faith could not be lost or destroyed, even by living in sin and vice. So taught the Valentinians, according to Ireneeus ; and more lately, the enthusiastic Ana baptists, Munzer, etc. at the time of the Reformation. They are condemned in the 13th Article of the Augsburg Confession. (6) The advocates of abso lute decrees also held, that he who had once attained true faith, could not lose it, because God could not alter the irrevocable decree he had once formed re specting his salvation. And as faith is made in the Bible an indispensable condition of salvation, one predestined to salvation could not, in their view, lose faith. Cf. § 32, ad finem. Augustine was the first who held this doc trine. He was followed in the fifth century by Prosper of Aquitania, and in the ninth century by Gottschalk, although the latter expressed himself doubt fully on this subject. Calvin and Beza, in the sixteenth century, adopted this doctrine, which, together with the doctrine de decreto absoluto, was establish ed by the Synod at Dortrecht, 1618, as an article of faith, in opposition to the Arminians. [Note 2. On the doctrine of the Saint's Perseverance there has been much needless debate. To prevent this, and to arrive at a just and satisfactory con clusion as to this doctrine, it is important to dismiss whatever does not pro perly belong to it, and to make the subject of inquiry as specific and simple as possible. First, then ; it is no part of this question, whether it is, in itself, possible that believers should fall away ; or whether they are liable, or exposed to this, or are in danger of final apostasy. The advocates of this doctrine may admit all this, as really as its opponents. Indeed, it is often asserted by them, (e. g. in the Articles of the Synod of Dort,) that believers not only may, but if left to their own strength, certainly will draw back to perdition. Secondly. It is admitted on both sides, that Christians are to be warned of their danger, after the example of the Scriptures ; and that this danger should be set before them, as a means of awakening them from slumber, inciting to duty and watchfulness, and making them faithful unto death. Thirdly. It is admitted also on both sides of this question, that tlie belief in ATTRIBUTES OF SAVING FAITH. 399 the doctrine of perseverance will probably have a, bad influence upon those who think themselves Christians, when they are not, and even upon true Christians, in a state of declension. Fourthly. All too will admit, that many who appear for a time to have Christian faith, and belong to the visible Church, do in fact apostatize. When these conceded points are dismissed from the question, what remains at issue between the advocates and opponents of this doctrine ? Merely this, Whether God will actually preserve all true believers from final apostasy, and keep them through faith unto salvation? In arguing this point, nothing is ne cessary for the advocates of this doctrine, but to prove from Scripture, that God has purposed and promised to preserve all whom he has renewed by his Spirit. If this can be shown, the warnings and exhortations contained in the Scriptures, so far from being inconsistent with the promise and purpose of God, are the most suitable means of securing their fulfilment ; since no mo tive tends so powerfully to keep Christians, as intelligent and moral agents, from apostasy, and to secure their perseverance, as the exhibition of their dan ger. As to the power of God to employ such means, and exert such an influence on' Christians, in perfect consistency with their moral agency, as shall hinder the hurtful tendencies of the world and their own hearts, and bring them to heaven, there can be no reasonable doubt. It may be proper to ask, in conclusion, whether the objections commonly urged against this doctrine do not derive their chief strength from misappre hension, and misstatement, and from a vague use of terms? Let the simple inquiry be made, whether believers will in fact fall away and perish; and let this question be answered in a purely scriptural manner ; and the common ob jections will lose their force, and the doctrine of perseverance be acknowledg ed to be adapted to glorify God, and to comfort and animate the pious. Tr.] IV. The attributes essential to saving faith, (1) Constancy to the end of life (perscverantia). This is called by Paul vnopovr,, Heb. 10: 36, coll. 3: 14. 1 Cor. 15: 58. (In Matt. 24: 13 the subject is not salvation, but temporal deliverance.) This constancy must extend to all the parts which belong to faith. One must neither renounce the Christian doctrine in general, and apos tatize from it, Luke 8: 13. 2 Pet. 2: 20 ; nor may he give up parti cular doctrines which are essential to the Christian system, 1 John 2: 24. He must remain unshaken in his reliance upon the divine promises, Heb. 6: 12. Col. 1: 23. He must avoid most cautiously all disobedience to the divine commands, 1 Tim. 1 : 18, coll. Ezek. 18: 26. (2) Growth and increase in faith (incrementa fidei). (a) We must endeavour to extend and perfect our knowledge of Christian 400 ART. XI. § 124. VARIOUS MEANINGS doctrines and duties, Heb. 5: 12. 6: 1, sq. Phil. 1: 9, sq. (b) We must make constant advances in holiness, and in the practice of all Christian virtues. We must strive daily to be freed from our re maining faults, and to cherish and deepen our hatred to sin (pani- tentia quotidiana), 1 Pet. 2: 1, 2. Holiness and the practice of Christian virtue must become habitual with us, 2 Cor. 7: 1. The observation often made by theologians, that there is no pausing here, — that we must either advance or recede in goodness, is true from the very nature of the human mind. (3) The evidence of faith by good works. A. The various meanings of the word e'gya in the Holy Scrip tures. A careful examination of these would have prevented many mistakes and controversies. (a) "Egyov denotes an action, in the widest sense, whether mor ally good or bad. E. g. God rewards man according.to his works, Rom. 2: 6, etc. Hence i'gyov also signifies an employment, business, office ; an office in the Church, for example ; as in 2 Tim. 2:21, sq. (b) The phrase e'gya aycc&u or xaXa, or e'gya simply, frequently denotes particular actions which are conformed to the law of God, or Christian virtues which God has promised to reward ; in opposi tion to dpagzlai or e'gya novtjgd, Matt. 5: 16. Rom. 2: 7. 1 Tim. 5: 24, 25, etc. In this sense the word e'gya is used by James throughout the whole of the second chapter of his Epistle. Cf. James 3: 13. With James then, good works are pious actions, such as are done with reference to God ; i. e. such as flow from love to God and a spirit of obedience. Such actions only, are pro nounced by the Scriptures to be true virtues, because they flow from religious motives. They are Christian good works, whenever they are done with a particular reference to Christ. But this term came to denote, in a narrower sense, particular works of love, such as alms, etc. Acts 9: 36. 1 Tim. 6: 18, etc. During the middle ages the Roman Church made this particular sense the prominent one, and accordingly ascribed great merit to almsgiving, presents to cloisters, churches, etc. § 125. But ,such works are called good in the Holy Scriptures, only so far as they are an active exhibition of love and obedience to God, and as they flow from religious motives. (c) Quite different from this is the meaning of the term e'gya vo pov (sometimes simply e'gya), when used by Paul in opposition to of the term egya. 401 niattg, Rom. n. in. iv. Gal. n. in., etc. Vid. Progr. " De dispari formula docendi, qua Christus, Paulus et Jacobus de fide et factis disserentes usi sunt, itemque de discrimine egymv vopov et egymv dyaxrdiv" (1803), in " Scr. Var. Argum," Num. xm. (Translated in the Bib. Repository, Jan. 1833.) Correspondent to this phrase is that in the writings of the Rabbins, rji-i -pnri tniUl>a , which de notes the fulfilment and observance of the divine law and of its par ticular precepts, whether they are of a moral nature or not, and whether they are given by God through Christ, Moses, or by the law of nature. Vid. § 113, II. and § 123, and fin. in the Note. Paul allows, and frequently expressly declares, that whoever should perfectly obey this law, in whatever way made known to him, should actually live by it, or enjoy the blessedness promised by God as a reward, not because he could demand this, as something which he had earned, but because God had promised it. But no man, in his present condition, can boast of such an obedience as this, and therefore none can hope to be accepted with God and blessed, on the ground of his obedience to the divine commands (it egymv vopov). Paul expresses himself very clearly on this point, Tit. 3: 5, coll. v. 3. 2 Tim. 1: 9. Ephes. 2: 8. The reason, there fore, why he excludes obedience to the divine commandments as a ground of our forgiveness, or why he holds that obedience is not the meritorious cause of forgiveness, is that we do not in reality obey the divine law in such a manner, as to enable us to rely on the di vine promise above mentioned. And yet God has declared, that he will show mercy to us ; this must, therefore, be done in some other way, and by some other means ; namely by faith. It is on this ac count, that he excludes the e'gya vopov, or our supposed obedience to the divine commandments, from faith in Christ and from the for giveness and salvation to be attained through faith, Rom. 3: 20, et passim. But as to egya dya&d, i. e. the virtues performed from love to Christ, Paul would no more exclude them, than Christ and James did. On the contrary he derives them, as they did, from faith, and insists strenuously upon them, and in the' very passages in which he denies merit to egya vopov, e. g. Rom. 2: 7—10. Ephes. 2: 10, sq. Cf. §§ 108, 123, ad finem. Paul and James are therefore agreed in fact. And there is no difference in the meaning of the words niazig and Sixaiova&at as used by them, but solely in the use of the word egya. Paul Vol. II. 51 402 ART. XI. § 124. EXHIBITING FAITH BY WORKS. speaks of the foolish mistake, by which one would obtain life and salvation from God, by his supposed fulfilment of the divine law, while in reality he does not keep the law. James speaks of the pi ous, unpretending exercise of virtue, which is the first fruit and the evidence 'of faith, and therefore rewarded by God. Paul and James, as well as Christ, disapprove of the former ; while both of them, as well as Christ, require the latter, with great seriousness and earnest ness. B. What Christ and the apostles teach as to showing faith by good works. They are all agreed in saying, that an indolent and inactive faith (vexgd, James n.) is of no advantage, and is en tirely contrary to its object. For faith is designed wholly for active life, and must be manifested and proved, so often as there is oppor tunity, by the practice of holiness. This is what James so well in sists upon in the second chapter of his Epistle. His doctrine is, that every Christian must possess faith in God (the knowledge of God, and that trust in him, resulting from this knowledge) ; but that this faith must be exhibited in works (fruits, Chap. hi.). What good does it do for one to say, I know and honor God, and confide in him, if he does not prove this by his pious actions? If Abraham had professed faith with his mouth, but had not obey- •ed when God commanded him to offer up Isaac, would that have pleased God ? No ! He did not receive the divine approbation and blessing, until he proved in fact that he had right concep tions of God, and that he placed unlimited confidence in him. In the same way Christ shows, that man must be known by his works (xagnol), and prove by them that he truly fears God, Matt. 7: 16—24. John 14: 15. 15: 14. And Paul, too, teaches, that God will reward men for the uniform practice of virtue (vnoptvn egyov dya&ov), Rom. 2: 7 ; and that, while Christians are indebted for their salvation to the mere grace of God, and not their own works, they are yet placed by the divine commands under obligation to practise these e'gya dya&d, Ephes. 2: 8 — 10. Thus he calls the virtues xagnovg nvevpazog (the fruits of a heart renovated by the influence of the gospel), Gal. 5:22, 25. In Rom. 8: 1, 13, he says, that one is not a Christian, who has not nvevpa Xgiazov. Vid. other passages in Morus p. 212, Note. The uniform doctrine of the Holy Scriptures is, therefore, brief ly this : " faith is the condition of salvation. (Hence so high a val- § 125. NATURE OF GOOD WORKS. 403 ue is placed upon it, from the beginning to the end of the Scrip tures.) But this faith cannot exist unless the heart is truly renew ed and made holy ; and this inward renewal is evidenced by good actions or works. Now this faith, and the holiness inseparably connected with it, and the exhibition of it by good works, is re warded by God. This faith and what is connected with it, is, therefore, the condition of salvation (conditio salutis), but not the meritorious cause (causa meritoria) ; for salvation is an unmerited favor." Vid. Rom. 3: 24, 25. 6: 22, sq. Cf. § 125. §125. Of the nature of Christian good works or virtues ; the rela tion in which they stand to salvation ; and tlicir meritorious- ness. 1. The true nature of Christian good works. Their worth or capability of being rewarded, (not their merit,) consists partly in their conformity to the rules of conduct which God has given to Christians (materiale actionis), James 2: 11 ; and partly in the end to which they are directed, and the motive by which they are performed (formale). An action, therefore, is not a good work, although it may be right and lawful in itself, when it results from impure and unworthy motives, such as vanity, ambition, the gratification of inclination, etc. The Christian performs good works only when he acts from thankful love to God and Christ, and in unconditional obedience to their requirements, in short from mo tives drawn from the Christian religion, Rom. 12: 2. 2 Cor. 5: 15. Phil. 1: 11. John 14: 15, 21, and almost the whole of the first epis tle of John. We can here distinguish three cases ; viz. (1) In acting, the Christian maybe conscious of this motive, and act solely on account of it. (2) But it is neither possible, nor requisite, that he should at all times, and in every action, be distinctly conscious of this mo tive. For one acquires, from long exercise in virtue as well as in 404 ART. XI. § 125. CHRISTIAN GOOD WORKS vice, a habit of action. And since this habit presupposes a high degree of perfection, the value of actions performed under the force of this principle is not less, but often greater. For they imply a prevailing feeling of piety and love to God. (3) Filial obedience to God, or religious motives, are not al ways the single and only motives to good actions, even in Christ ians. Their own advantage, reward, fear of punishment, the main tenance of a good reputation, etc. influence them to action. These motives, in themselves, should not be entirely banished, as some rigorous moralists, who are ignorant of human nature, would do. For God makes use of these very means, to hold men to the observ ance of his laws. They may, therefore, be used by us as assist ances. But it is clear that an action which results from such mo tives merely, cannot be called a pious Christian action, or a good work, although in itself it may be useful, commendable, and even acceptable to God, vid. Rom. 2: 14, 26, 27. Acts 10: 4, 34, 35. The teacher, therefore, should beware, in Christian education, of drawing the principal motive from ambition and selfishness. For these principles will exclude every good and religious feeling, and introduce manifold evil into the youthful heart. In Christian good works, therefore, every thing depends upon the state of mind, the disposition (nvevpa, Gal. 5: 22), with which they are performed. That man only is capable of good works (in the Christian sense), who has a pure and prevailing love to God and Christ, and whose principle it is, to practise all known good and to avoid all known evil, because such is the will of God and of Christ. God and Christ estimate the worth of an action, therefore, not according to the external appearance, upon which men look, but according to the disposition of the heart, which men do not see. Hence an action may frequently appear to men to be trifling, insig nificant, or even blamable, while in the sight of God it is com mendable and of great price. Such was the act of Mary in anoint ing Jesus, which his disciples blamed, Mark xiv. Christ, however, called it a good work, because it was a pious deed, i. e. because it resulted from sincere and grateful love to him ; and such actions only are, in his judgment, good works. Vid. Tollner, Ueber die Beschaffenheit eines guten Werkes, in his " Theol. Untersuch." Th. II. Note. 1. Good works are required from every Christian, so far as he is able DEPEND ON THE MOTIVE. 405 to perform them, Gal. 5: 25. 1 John 2: 6. 3: 7. Cf. § 123. The last clause contains a necessary limitation. For sometimes he finds no opportunity, or is placed in circumstances unfavorable for exhibiting, by his outward actions, the pious dispositions concealed in his heart. Moreover, those just commenc- , ing a religious life, and who, though they have real faith, have it in a less de gree (§ 124), cannot exhibit that perfect and mature fruit, which is expected from advanced and confirmed Christians. But God judges of the goodness of actions according to the inward disposition and the sincerity of the heart. In a good work, this rectitude of motive is indispensable. Ephes. 4: 20. 1 John 2: 6. We cannot, therefore, say that faith is always rich in virtues; for it cannot always be so. Nor will his unfruitfulness be charged against any one as a sin, unless he himself is to blame for it. In this matter, God is the only infallible judge. Note 2. When the Bible speaks of the necessity of Christian good works, it refers only to Christians, and to what is required of them according to the Christian doctrine. No one who is destitute of the knowledge of Christian ity, without his own fault, can be required to live according to its rules, or be punished merely because he does not. Nothing will be required of any one, which has not been given him. Christian actions, may indeed be more per fect and noble in themselves, than others ; because they flow from more per fect, pure, and elevated motives. But the good actions of those who are not Christians, do not cease to be good and acceptable to God, because they do not flow from Christian motives. Cf. the example of the centurion Cornelius, Acts x., and the declaration of Paul, Rom. 2: 6—11. In the former passage (v. 35), Peter ascribes cp6{lav &sov, to the.heathen centurion Cornelius ; and in the latter, Paul calls the actions of heathen i'ctya dyadd ; and both teach that truly religious actions in heathen, are acceptable to God, and will be reward ed by him. The doctrine of Augustine, therefore, virtutes ethnicm esse splen- dida vitia, is false. He taught that all which man does as man, without su pernatural and irresistible grace, is sin. Hence he affirmed, that the heathen were condemned, because they could not but sin; viol. § 121, II. [Cf. "Bib. Repos." Jan. 1833. Art. Augustine and Pelagius. — Tr.] II. Tho relation which exists between the good works of Christians and their Balvntion. There was a controversy in the Lutheran church in the six teenth century on the question, Whether good works are essential to salvation. Ge. Major, a theologian of Wittenberg, and some of the disciples of Melancthon, held the affirmative. Flacius and others, the negative. Nic. Amsdorf of Raumburg, went so far as to say (1559), that they stood in the way of salvation, — a horrible position, if it is understood to mean, that obedience to the divine law is dam nable. But this was not his meaning. He only meant to affirm, that the opinion that good works could merit salvation, is dangerous 406 ART. XI. § 125. HISTORY OF OPINIONS to the soul. And in this he was right ; but so was Major in his position. The difficulty may be removed by considering in what the salva tion of Christians consists. (1) It is begun, the foundation of it is laid, in the forgiveness of sin, or justification in the narrower sense. This is the free gift of God, and cannot be merited by good works, § 113, II. But this blessing is forfeited by one who omits good works, and commits sin, vid. 1 John 3: 6. Gal. 5: 19. 1 Cor. 6: 9, 10. Good works, there fore, are necessary for the continuance (conservatio) of this benefit. They are, when they can be performed, the condition of pardon, though not the meritorious cause of it. (2) Salvation consists in the divine rewards, or proofs of the di vine favor ; partly those which are natural, such as quiet of soul peace with God, etc. ; and partly positive, bestowed both in the present and future life, as we are taught by the Scriptures. These rewards cannot be merited by good works in themselves, any more than the forgiveness of sin. But faith, and the good works connect ed with it, are the conditions on which alone these rewards are ob tained ; and the degree of reward is regulated, by the degree of zeal in holiness which is exhibited, Matt. 25: 20 — 29. 2 Cor. 9: 6. Gal. 6: 7, etc. For obedience to the divine law is as essential a part of Christian faith, as to trust in God through Christ, § 123. Good works are, therefore, always described in the Bible as the effects and fruits of Christian faith, James 2: 26, sq. We may therefore justly say, as Major did, that good works are essential to the attainment of salvation, as a condition, and we may also say, as Flacius and Amsdorf did, that they are not to be re garded as meritorious, or the procuring cause of our salvation. Cf. F. T. Riihl, Werth der Behauptungen Jesu und seiner Apostel, Leipzig, 1791, 8vo. especially the 4th Essay, " Seligkeit beruht allein auf Glauben," u. s. w. Also Storr, Commentar zum Brief an die Hebraer, Th. II. III. History of opinions respecting the meritoriousness of good works. God has determined and promised, to reward the good actions of men. But this reward is not something earned by men (§ 108, II.), which God is bound to pay them ; it is given to them of his free, undeserved goodness. Hence these rewards are called in the New RESPECTING THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKS. 407 Testament, /apt?, Smgea, enaivog (approbation), S6'£a, aziqiavog, terms which imply gifts and undeserved rewards. These rewards are intended to excite men to love God more sincerely, and to yield a cheerful and willing obedience to the divine commands, notwith standing the difficulties with which this obedience is attended. But obvious as this doctrine is to sound and unprejudiced rea son, the great mass of mankind, of all ages and religions, have re garded certain external actions as meritorious and propitiatory. This error, as far as it is theoretical, results from false notions re specting God, and our relations to him. This is the reason why it is so prevalent, in one form or another, among the Jews, the heath en, and Christians ; vid. § 108, II. But this theoretical error would have been easily escaped or exploded, if it were not connect ed with the depraved inclinations of the human heart. Love to sin makes men quick in inventing theories, which will allow them to in dulge in it at pleasure, and yet assure them of the favor of God. We shall here briefly exhibit the false opinions which have prevail ed on this subject among Christians. (1) Many Christians, (especially the converts from Judaism,) even in the times of the apostles, cherished the opinion, that their acts of supposed conformity to the law, such as alms-giving, sacrifi ces, ceremonies, circumcision, and obedience to other particular precepts of the ceremonial and moral law of Moses, were meritori ous. They even believed, that the good works of their ancestors were imputed to them. Hence Paul shows in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, that man deserves nothing of God for his supposed obedience to the divine law ; that the opinion of the meritorious- ness of our own works, is in the highest degree injurious; and that God forgives and rewards us solely on account of faith, without any desert on our part (Sixaiovv Smgedv, Sia niazemg Xgiazov). But here again a mistake was made on the other side, and Paul was understood to speak lightly of the observance of the divine law. He himself complains, that he was thus misunderstood, Rom. 3: 8. 6: 15. Gal. 5: 13. The same thing has happened to Luther, Arndt, Spener, and other Christian teachers of ancient and modern times, who have followed in his footsteps. Even in the age of the Apostles, there were some false Christians, and even false teachers. They lived a sensual, disorderly life, and justified this on the ground, that Christians are free from the Law. Against such a sentiment 408 ART. XI. § 125. HISTORY OF OPINIONS _ — — — — — — , , there is much said in the Epistles of John, Peter and Jude. Oth ers believed, that an inactive faith would suffice, and that works are not important. They were content if they were only orthodox in head. James, in the second chapter of his Epistle, is strenuous in opposing this sentiment. He shows that true Christian faith cannot exist, unless it is exhibited by Christian virtues. Cf. the Essay above cited in " Scripta varii argumenti." (2) Notwithstanding these clear instructions of the New Testa ment, these two mistakes, respecting the merit of works, and the sufficiency of an inoperative faith, have always prevailed among Christians. The mistake respecting the merit of works, was adopt ed into the whole system of the Latin church. This will now be shown from history. A. During the dark ages, after monastic principles became prevalent in the Western church, the worship of God, piety, and ho liness were supposed to consist almost wholly in external rites. They believed that God would be induced by certain external ac tions, to bestow favor on mankind. They thought they could merit his approbation, somewhat as the day-laborer earns his wages by toil. Much importance was attached to works of beneficence, to alms-giving and presents, especially to cloisters and churches. They thus kept to the sense in which egya dya&d is sometimes used in the New Testament, viz. opera benefica, stopping, however, with the outward action, and leaving the disposition of the heart out of account, vid. § 124, ad finem. They also insisted upon self-inflic tions, fasts, and other external punishments, arbitrarily imposed ; just as the Jews formerly did. They even relied, like the Jews again, upon the virtues of the saints, and upon their treasure of good works. These views led to great corruption in morals, and a wide remove from the genuine spirit and true nature of Christianity. B. After the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the schoo'men, and especially Thomas Aquinas, began to admit these views into their theological systems, and to defend them by logical arguments. They reasoned (a) from the term pia&og, which is frequently used in the Bible to denote wages earned, as 1 Cor. 3: 8, where the Vul gate has meritum ; and also from many of the old Latin fathers, who had said, merere hominem salutem, etc. But by such language, they meant nothing more than consequi, impetrare, in which sense merere is used by Cicero and other Latin writers. And in general RESPECTING THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKS. 409 in all the ancient languages, and in the Hebrew and Greek, the terms which denote wages, recompense, are used for reward of any kind, whether deserved or not. The meaning in every case must be determined by the context. In the New Testament, what is called pia&og is also called #«p«s and Smgea in the same context. We are said to receive pia&ov Smgedv. Thomas Aquinas taught, that when man, of his own accord, performs benevolent actions, gives alms, endows churches, etc. ; God considers this as done to him, and sees fit (aquum, congruum) to recompense the act. This he called meritum de congruo. (b) Again, he appealed to the doc trine of Augustine De gratia supernaturali spiritus sancti. This grace produces good works in the regenerate, which therefore merit salvation, because they are derived from the Holy Spirit. He called this meritum de condigno. The unregenerate cannot perform any such meritorious works, because they do not possess this grace. He was followed in his opinions by other teachers. And in the sixteenth century this doetrine was confirmed by the council at Trent. C. This false theory, so greatly injurious to morals, was veher mently opposed by the German Reformers of the sixteenth century. Luther especially argued against it from the principles contained in Paul's epistles to the Romans and Galatians, which were directed against similar mistakes made by the Jews. But, in the heat of the controversy, Luther frequently went to the other extreme, and some times expressed himself with too little precision and distinctness. He sometimes appeared not only to deny merit to those works which the monks regarded as meritorious, and to all self-righteous works (Paul's works of the law) ; but also to speak slightingly of Christian virtues, and rather to depreciate than recommend them ; though this was far from his intention. But afterwards, when his doctrine was misapplied by some who appealed to his authority, he became more guarded, and expressed himself more definitely. Melancthon espe cially took pains to guard against these perversions in the Augsburg Confession (Art. iv.), in his Apology, and in his ''Loci Theologici." After the death of Luther, Melancthon and some of his associates, endeavoured to analyse the subject still farther, and to obviate all mistake. But they were poorly rewarded for their pains, since they were charged with departing from Luther, and adopting the errors of the Romish Church. Hence much controversy arose in the Lu- Vol. II. 52 410 ART. XI. § 125. WAY OF TEACHING FAITH AND WORKS. theran Church in the sixteenth century, which ran out for the most part into mere logomachy, as in the case of Major and Amsdorf. It was hoped that the Formula of Concord would put an end to this strife, Morus, p. 214. But the adherents of the Romish Church still appealed to the second Chapter of James in opposition to Lu ther. He and his associates did not know how to defend them selves against this argument, and did not sufficiently understand the difference between e'gya dya&d and the egya vopov, which were regarded as meritorious. This is the reason why he, and the au thors of the "Magdeburg Centuries," and some other theologians, so spoke discreditably of this Epistle. Note. The circumstances of the Christian teacher in our days are fre quently such, that after the example of Christ and the apostles, he must some times insist more upon faith, as the ground of pardon and salvation, and some times more upon the fruits of faith, or pious Christian actions. He should take the former course, when he has to do either with sinners who are sorrow ful and truly penitent on account of their sins, or with those who have a self- righteous disposition, and hope that they shall be forgiven and saved on ac count of their supposed obedience to the Law, and their virtuous conduct. Vid. Luke 23: 40, sq. 18: 9. Rom. 4: 5. Acts 16: 30. He must do this in order to show, that salvation depends entirely upon a disposition of sincere and unwa vering confidence in God ( i. e. upon faith) ; since God and Christ, who know the heart, have regard solely to the disposition. In this way one who is proud of his virtue, self-righteous and pharisaical, will learn wherein he is deficient. He must take the latter course, that of recommending good works or the fruits of faith, when he deals with those who undervalue or neglect the pursuit of holiness, either through levity, indolence, or the love of sin ; who persuade themselves that a mere external profession of faith will be sufficient ; who say Lord, Lord ; but obey not his commandments ; and who pervert the doctrine of justification through faith, to excuse a life devoid of goodness, perhaps openly sinful. Such persons must be made to see, that their sentiments are false, and that there are some infallible signs by which it may be known whether a per son possesses truo faith ; as a tree may be known by its fruits. These signs are pious actions, which are the invariable attendants of faith, and which the true believer will never fail to perform, whenever he has opportunity. Matt. 7: 16. 25: 31—46. 19: 21. Rom. 2: 6. 1 Tim. 6: 18. James ii. MEANING OF THE TERM, inlOTgOCptj, X. T. X. 41 1 § 126. Explanation of 'the terms which are used in the Scriptures to denote both the external profession of Christianity (fides exter na) and internal moral improvement and sanctification. It is the general custom to treat of repentance, conversion, renew al, regeneration, sanctification, in separate and distinct articles (lo ci) ; but this was not the case anciently. Neither the ecclesiastical fathers, nor the schoolmen, treated these topics separately. It was not until the sixteenth century, that this method was adopted ; and the chief object of this at first was, to explain more fully these scrip tural terms, and obviate different errors relating to them. But af terwards the distinction was more finely drawn, these doctrines were more separated, and particular proof-texts were sought for each. But many of these distinctions are not to be fouud in the Bible. All of these terms denote the improvement of men, and imply the same divine agency ; although sometimes the gradual progress and the different degrees of moral improvement are distinguished. The better plan is, therefore, to bring all these topics together, and to treat of them in one and the same Article, as indeed most theolo gians now do. So Morus, p. 220, sq. § 6. The case is the same with respect to calling, illumination, and similar expressions, which will be explained in Art. xn., De operationibus gratiae, § 130. I. Scriptural idea of the words denoting conversion (eltlOTOOtpti, flZlOZpicpElV , by which the LXX. translate the Hebrew iillli). 'Eniazge'qieiv frequently stands alone, sometimes connected with inl or ngog tov &eov, to ttirn to God. This term is derived from the very frequent comparison of the actions and conduct of man with a way, and with walking in it; whence the religion itself which one adopts, is itself called *p5_ . But this term is used in two different senses ; viz. (1) It denotes the moral improvement and holiness of men, when they repent of their sins and forsake them. In this sense is the term commonly used in theology, Ezek. 3: 19. Joel 2: 12, 13. Matt. 13: 15. Acts 3: 19. This turning is produced by God, or the Holy Spirit, by means of revealed truth. The same is expressed by the word ptzavoeiv, by which also the LXX. render the Heb. 412 ART. XI. § 126. MEANING OF THE TERMS 1W. These two forms of expression are frequently interchanged as synonymous, as Acts 15: 3, coll. 11: 18. " The heart is turned away from the love of sin, and inclined to efforts after what is good and right, under the assistance of God and the Holy Spirit." Vid. 2 Cor. 7: 11. Jer. 3: 12, 13 (an exhortation to the Israelites to re turn to God, from whom they had departed). (2) It denotes sometimes the external transition from a false re ligion to the true, — the renunciation of idolatry, Hos. 3: 5. Ezek. 14: 6. Hence it is applied in the New Testament (a) to Gentiles who enter into the external Christian community, Acts 20: 21. 26: 18. 1 Thess. 1: 9 ; (6) to Jews becoming Christians, Acts 9: 35. 14: 15. 2 Cor. 3: 16. These two senses ought to be distinguished in the explanation of this term. For though conversion of the former kind is the object of the latter, yet it is not always attained. But sometimes the two meanings are connected together, because the first is the object of the second, and with many is actually attained. Thus when the Apostles preach conversion to Jews and Gentiles, they mean both. For neither Christ nor his apostles encouraged a merely external introduction into the Christian church. Still they require men to enter into the external Church, because there are the means of con version found. II. Scriptural idea of the words denoting Regeneration tTtaXiyyevloia, yewao&at avot&sv or Sevzspov, dvaysvvdo&at. Also the synonymous terms dvaxaivOJOig, dvaveovv, xaivog dv&pojwog, xatvf] xrioig, x. c. X). ¦ The word naXiyyeveala denotes frequently any entire alteration of state, by which one is brought into an entirely new and reformed condition, or placed in a better situation. The change indicated by this term is, however, as Morus justly observes, in every case, mutatio in melius, p. 223, Note at the top. Vid. " Scripta Varii Argumenti," Num. VI. Thus Cicero (Att. IV. 6) calls his restora tion from exile, naXiyyeveala' and Josephus (Ant. XI. 3) calls the restoration of the Jewish land after the captivity naXiyyeveala na- zglSog. The Stoics spoke of naXiyyeveala tcuV oXmv. In Roman Law, the manumission of a slave was called his regeneration. In Matt. 19: 28, it denotes an introduction into a new and happy situ ation, whether the resurrection, or the establishment of the Messiah's kingdom be understood. naXiyyeveala, dvaxalvmaig, x. t. X. 413 When the Israelites spoke of a person changing his religion, they used the phrases birth, neio birth, etc. When a Gentile passed over to Judaism (became a proselyte), he was regarded by the Jews as new born, a new man, a child just beginning to live. As such he was received into their Church, and obtained civil rights. Even in the Old Testament, the term "iV^ is used in reference to proselytes, Ps. 87: 5, coll. Is. xlix. li. liv. This might be called external re generation. The term was afterwards used by the Rabbins in a moral sense ; since it became the duty of one who had been admit ted into the Jewish Church, to live according to Jewish laws, and to have a better moral disposition. This is internal, moral regener ation. The term was used in both of these senses by the Jews at the time of Christ and the apostles. Now it was not the manner of Christ and the Apostles to invent new terms, but to borrow terms from the ancient Jewish phraseol ogy, and transfer them to Christianity. Hence we find all these words used in the New Testament in three different senses ; viz. (1) To denote one's passing over externally from Judaism or heathenism to the Christian society, and making an external profes sion of the Christian, in opposition to the Jewish or a heathen re ligion, which the Christian renounces. Thus Paul says, Ephes. 2: 15, " Christ has united Jews and gentiles into one Church" (elg xai- vov dv&gmnov, which cannot here denote internal reformation, as this could not be predicated of all). Cf. James 1: 18. Thus Peter says, 1 Pet. 1:3," God hath brought us to the profession of Chris tianity (dvayevvtjaag vpag), in order to enable us to obtain salva tion." Paul frequently says of those whom he had induced to make profession of Christianity, that he had begotten them (yevvav), Philem. v. 10. 1 Cor. 4: 15 ; and mSiveiv, Gal. 4: 19. (2) To denote the internal or moral renewal of the heart and of the whole disposition of man. This is the object of one's becoming a Christian, to renounce the love of sin, and love what is good, and to practise it from motives of love to God and Christ. This state is effected in Christians by God, or the Holy Spirit, through faith in Christ. The creation of a new heart (reformed disposition) is men tioned in this sense, even in the Old Testament, Ezek. 36: 26—28. Ps. 51: 12. In other passages the term circumcision of heart is us- [ ed, Deut. 10: 16 ; elsewhere a new heart, a new spirit, a new mind, which has God for its author, Ezek. 11: 19, 20. Ps. l. li. Is. i, etc. 414 ART. Xl. § 126. SCRIPTURAL IDEA In this sense Paul speaks of putting on the new man, and putting off the old man, of a new creature, after the image of God, Ephes. 4: 22, 24, and Col. 3: 9, 10, and dvaxaivmaig voog, Rom. 12: 2, and dvaveova&ai zm nvevpazi, Ephes. 4: 23, sq. Here belong all the texts in John and elsewhere, which teach that man must be born of God, or the Holy Spirit, i. e. become his child, love him, in dispos ition and conduct resemble him, that he may be loved by God in return ; for all which he is indebted to God or to the Holy Spirit, 1 John 3: 9. 5: 1. John 1: 12, 13. Cf. the remarks respecting vlo&eala, § 119, 1. 1. These different terms, therefore, refer to one and the same thing. (3) In many passages these two senses are combined ; because internal regeneration is the object of external regeneration ; exactly as in the case of iniozgiqpeiv. Among other texts is John 3: 3, 5, " Whoever is not born of baptism and the Holy Spirit (i. e. does not consecrate himself by baptism to the profession of my religion, and does not become, through divine assistance, a reformed man, — a child of God, a friend of God, like him in moral character), cannot be considered a member of the Messiah's kingdom (fiaaiXela &eov)." Hence baptism is called, Tit. 3: 5, Xovzgov naXiyyeveaiag, because we are not only solemnly admitted by this rite into the Christian so ciety, but are likewise thereby obligated, according to the precepts of Christ, to become reformed in character ; and on this condition have all the rights and rewards of God's children granted and assur ed to us. So the Rabbins expressed themselves with regard to the baptism of Proselytes. And for this reason the most ancient fa thers, Ignatius and Justin, call baptism dvayivvtjaig. III. Scriptural idea of the term pszdvoia. This word is used by the Greeks to designate a change in a per son's opinions, aims, dispositions, with respect to particular things. Thus the phrase, tig pezavoiav dyeiv signifies to induce any one to alter his opinion, and to adopt another. Polybius uses the word pezavoelv in relation to a general who designed to stake battle, but afterwards determined differently. Plato contrasts ngovoeiv (to use forecast), and pezavoelv (to reconsider when it is too late). In Heb. 12: 17, it is said that Esau could not obtain the alteration of his fa ther's opinion (pezavoia). In the classical writers, however, this term OF THE TERM ptzdl'Oia. 415 is not used to denote particularly an alteration in the moral state of the mind or heart. This use first prevailed among the Grecian Jews, and was derived by them from the Septuagint. The Hebrew ilia , is commonly expressed in the Septuagint Version by pezavo elv, as Is. 30: 15, though sometimes also by iniazgeq>eiv. The He brew Wm is rendered in the same way, Jer. 4: 28. These signifi cations run together ; since we determine not to repeat that which causes us sorrow. Hence the words pezavoelv and pezapeXea&ai are connected as synonymous, 2 Cor. 7: 8, coll. Luke 17: 4. This word, accordingly, like iniatgocpv and other similar terms, is used in the New Testament, in a wider and a narrower sense ; viz. (1) It denotes the forsaking of a religion which one had former ly professed, and his professing a new (the Christian) religion ; (be cause there is in this case a change of view and opinion with respect to religion ;) Acts 20: 21, where it is said that perdvoia elg &eov is preached to Jews and to Gentiles, in connexion with niazig elg Xgiazov. Thus Luke 24: 47, and other texts, vid. Morus, p. 222. In the same way as the return of the Israelites from idolatry to the true religion was called pezavoia, could the conversion of Jews or Gentiles to Christianity be so called. (2) It more commonly denotes a moral change. And (a) it ex presses the entire moral renovation or conversion of men, in the widest sense ; and (b) the commencement of this change, when one begins to abhor the evil which he loved, and to form the sincere purpose of forsaking it. It is frequently used in this narrower sense in the Holy Scriptures, and this is its most common use in theology, as will be farther shown, § 127. This change always presupposes an entire revolution in the views and feelings of the subject of it ; he begins thenceforward to love and practise good, instead of evil. This was the great subject of the preaching of John the Baptist ; Mexavoelze was his continual theme, Matt. 3: 2, 11. Luke 3: 8. The same may be said of Christ, Mark 1: 15. It here denotes a radical alteration, or a change by which an entirely new direction is given to one's life and efforts. Hence the phrases which occur so frequently, pezavoelv ano zmv dpagzimv or egymv vexgmv, Acts 8: 22. Heb. 6: 1. Hence, too, pezavoelv and intatge'qjeiv are inter changed as synonymous, Acts 3: 19, 26. Rom. 2: 4. (3) The writers of the New Testament frequently connect the two meanings of the word pttdvoia together ; since the object of 416 ART. XI. § 126. SENSE OF POENITENTIA. an external change of religion is always the improvement of the heart. Acts 11: 18, "God hath granted even to the heathen pezd- voiav elg £mrjv. The ancient ecclesiastical fathers, even in the La tin Church, also connected with this word the idea of repentance and reformation in the moral sense ; and Lactantius proposes well (Inst. Div. VI. 24), to render it by the word resipiscentia. But the word commonly employed in Latin theology was panitentia, by which the Vulgate renders pezavoia ; which is not indeed incor rect in itself, but often rather ambiguous, and sometimes quite in appropriate ; cf. Morus p. 224, § 2. After the fourth century wri ters began to understand this word according to the Latin etymolo gy, and to vary from the usage of the Bible. The influence of Au gustine contributed to the wide diffusion of this error. He insisted upon the derivation of the word panitentia from punio or poenio ; because man himself punishes his own sins, and therefore receives forgiveness. Panitentia est quaedam dolentis vindicta, semper puniens in se, quod dolet commisisse, De Pcenit. c. 8. He was fol lowed by other Latin teachers, especially by Peter of Lombardy and other schoolmen. The unscriptural idea that panitentia is not only repentance for past sins, but punishment, self-inflicted, on account of them, has prevailed widely not only in the Romish, but also in the Protestant Church. This sort of panitentia is expressed in the Roman Church by the German terms, Busse (penance, punishment, in the shape of a fine or mulct), Busse thun (to do penance), bixssen (to atone), the last of which terms expresses more clearly the false associated idea. Many Protestants have therefore wished, that when the error of the Romish Church implied in this term was abandoned, this term it self, which so easily leads into mistake, had also been given up. Christ has freed us from the punishment of sin, and an atonement on our part is not possible. Even when we repent (pezavoelv), i. e. alter and reform, we make no atonement, but we receive great bles sings. Vid. the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, C. V. and VI. But there is no word in German, [and the same is true in En glish,] which answers fully to the Greek pezavoia. And if the scriptural idea of this term is explained in the early catechetical in structions, the inaptness of the terms by which it is rendered, need not be so much regretted, since people in common life are not ac customed to take words in their etymological sense. SENSE OF TERMS DENOTING HOLINESS. 417 IV. Scriptural idea of terms denoting holiness or sanctity (dyiojovvv, dyiao/log, X. T. X. also OOlOZrjg, batog' Heb. tilj; , with its derivatives.) The words dyiog, dyidCeiv, tfh|3 designate primarily, whatever is singled out, selected, or best in its kind; vid. Vol. I. § 29. It was first applied in the ancient languages to external excellencies and privileges ; afterwards, to those of an internal and moral nature. Hence arose the twofold use of these terms in the Bible, which must not be overlooked ; they denote sanctitas externa, and interna. (1) All the Israelites are called by Moses d^iimp , and holiness is ascribed to them without respect to their moral conduct, but merely from the circumstance that they were (externally) separated from the gentiles, and (external) professors of the true religion. The same way of speaking became common in respect to Christians, who are frequently called in the New Testament dyioi, tjyiaapi- voi, merely from the circumstance that they profess externally the Christian religion, and belong externally to the Christian commu nity, and thus are distinguished from Jews and gentiles. Hence all who were received into the visible Christian Church, by baptism, were called dyioi, Christians, without respect to their moral dispo sition as appears from the Epistles to the Corinthians. (2) These terms are also evidently used by the sacred writers in a moral sense. Lev. 19: 2, " Be ye holy, for I am holy." Cf. 1 Pet. I: 14 — 16. So dyiaapog, in Rom. 6: 22, is the same as Si xaioavvt] in vs. 18, 19, virtue, righteousness ; dyimavvt], 1 Thess. 3: 13, and dyidSeiv, 5: 23. 'Ayiaapog, in Heb. 12: 14, is that without which no man shall see the Lord. The same is true of boiog and oaioztjg, Ephes. 4: 24. Luke 1: 75, oaioztjg xal Sixaioavvt]. It here denotes that blamelessness of feeling and conduct, which is requir ed, according to the divine precepts, from a true worshipper of God, and especially from a Christian ; and also the habitual abhorrence of sin and love of moral excellence. Cf. 1 John 3: 7, Sixaiog iazi xa&mg ixelvog Sixaiog iazi' Rom. 6: 18, SovXevetv Sixaioavvt], coll. v. 19, "He is dead to sin, and lives entirely for virtue." In this way, the Christian becomes like God, and loves him from simi larity of disposition, and in return is loved by God ; as a dutiful son who resembles his father, is loved by him. Man is destined for holiness, and the happiness proportionately connected with it, vid. Vol. II. 53 418 ART. XI. § 127. KNOWLEDGE AND HATRED OF SIN Vol. I. §51, II. ; and when any one is admitted into the commu nity of the Saints, (the Jews under the Old covenant, and Christians under the New,) his holiness is the great object aimed at. The Church is designed to be schola sanctitatis. Otherwise his admis sion into the Church, and his fellowship with the saints, will be of no advantage to him ; indeed his condemnation will be aggravated in consequence of these privileges. Holiness is, therefore, the evi dence and result of conversion, or of repentance and regeneration. One who is destitute of holiness, or who is negligent in the pursuit of it, is not converted, or born again, or has not repented. — For an account of the nice dictinctions and technical ' definitions of the words, conversion, regeneration, repentance, renewal, sanctification, which theologians formerly introduced into their systems, vid. Morus, p. 223. [Also cf. Hahn, S. 523, ff. Tr.J § 127. Statement of the doctrine of moral reformation ; its com mencement ; on putting off repentance ; and on late conversions. I. Scripturaldoctrine respecting repentance and conversion ; inferences from it; and an explan ation of technical terms. (l)Two things are justly considered as essential to the com mencement of reformation ; viz. the knowledge of sin, as sin, and the sorrow of soul arising from it, or bitter penitence on account . of sin and abhorrence for it. Christian repentance is therefore, a lively knowledge, agreeably to the precepts of the Gospel, of the sin which we have committed, as a great evil. This knowledge is call ed lively, when it is efficacious, and influences the will ; in opposi tion to a dead knowledge; which has no influence upon the deter minations of the mind. These two things must belong to reforma tion of every kind, and to whatever object it relates ; for they are founded in the very nature of the human soul. Whenever a change takes place in human views and feelings, whether entire or partial, it is always effected by the same laws, and involves the same gener al feelings. In order that a man may renounce a particular vice, (suppose drunkenness,) his understanding must first apprehend it ESSENTIAL TO CONVERSION. 419 as a fault, and must see its injurious consequences. The first effect is therefore produced upon the understanding, and next, through that, upon the will. The lively conception of the evil consequen ces of past transgression or of habitual vice, awakens sorrow for sin aversion to it, and a determination henceforward to avoid it. But Christian reformation does not consist in the giving up of particular sins and vices, but in renouncing sinful dispositions and principles, in the turning of the heart from the love of sin to the love of goodness. Particular outbreakings of sin may be compared with particular symp toms of a dangerous disease : attempting to remove these, will be in vain, unless the disease itself is entirely cured. If this is done, these symptoms of course disappear. In the same way we should strive, not only to be rid of particular sins, but to be renewed in the whole temper of our souls. The same things are essential to every kind of reformation ; e. g. Jer. 3: 12, 13, where the Israelites are exhorted to renounce their idolatry ; and 2 Cor. 7: 8 — 11, which describes the feelings produc ed among the Corinthians by the rebuke which Paul administered to them, on account of their indulgence to the incestuous person, — and these feelings were the cause of their reformation, or of their putting away the offence. Here pezavoia is said expressly to con sist mainly in Xvntj xaza &eov, godly sorrow, which was very bene ficial to them after they became conscious of their guilt. Cf. Ezek. 18: 21, sq. Luke 3: 10—14. Now since the nature and operations of the human soul are the same at all times, it is not to be wondered at, that the manner of moral reformation is described in the Old Testament as essentially the same as in the New. And, indeed, the process of reformation could not be different in the Old Testament and the New, since it depends upon the unaltered constitution of the human soul, of which God himself is the author. The experience of David (after his af fair with Bathsheba) recorded in Ps. li., is full of instruction on this point. It consists of the knowledge of his sin and desert of punish ment, sorrow, repentance, desire of forgiveness, the earnest wish for reformation and for confirmed goodness ; also of love, confidence, and sincere gratitude to God. Cf. Ps. xxxn. The nature of reformation, and especially of its commencement, are clearly described by Christ in two parables. (a) The parable of the pharisee and the publican, Luke 18: 420 ART. XI. § 127. SORROW FOR ACTUAL SINS 9 — 14. The pharisee is very proud of his virtues and merits, and thinks no man is better than himself, and is fluent in praise of his own good works. The publican acknowledges his sins, is troubled and penitent. He utters the simple feeling of his heart in the few words, " God be merciful to me, a sinner." And Jesus decides, that the latter went down to his house forgiven by God ; the other, not. Here, the man who believes that he shall obtain the grace of God on account of his own works or worthiness, through pride and selfish blindness remains ignorant of himself and his great imperfections, and does not see God as holy and just. He is not therefore inclined to, embrace the doctrine of forgiveness through grace, without personal merit ; and accordingly he is not forgiven. This mistake is called self-righteousness, from Rom. 10: 3. Cf. Dan. 9: 18. Is. 64: 6. This mistake is one of the most in jurious and dangerous, because the man who makes it persuades himself that he does not need reformation. (6) The excellent parable of the prodigal son, Luke xv. The object of this parable is two-fold. First, to show in what way a man comes to the knowledge of sin, and to the feeling of guilt ; how he must humble himself, and acknowledge his unworthiness of the divine favors, and yet have confidence, and lay hold of, and embrace the undeserved forgiveness of God. Secondly ; this parable shows how gracious and kind the feelings of God are, and how ready he is to forgive the repentant sinner. Vid. Luke 15: 7, 10. Cf. Tollner's Essays in his " Theol. Enters." Bd. I. Th. 2. S. 390, sq. " Busse und Glauben," also, " Ueber die Parabel vom verlor- nen Sohn." (2) Sorrow for the sins we have committed, (Xvnt], 2 Cor. 7: 9, 10,) which is also an essential part of reformation, is called by theologians contrition, brokenness of heart (Germ. Zerhiirschung). Our older theologians justly render and explain this term by the phrase Reue undLeid (penitence and sorrow). The term is taken from the Hebrew mi NS7 and isipa ab (lit. wounded heart), Ps. 34: 19. Is. 57: 19. Ps. 51: 19. Both of these terms are applied to a desponding, contrite, troubled mind, whatever the cause of the distress may be. Cf. Is. 61: 1, and other passages cited by Morus p. 218, n. 9. The lively knowledge of sin, as a great evil, neces sarily involves unhappy feelings and sorrow (dolor animi, Xvnt]), Ps. 51: 19. Jer. 31: 19. Luke 18: 13. And since we are drawn ESSENTIAL TO CONVERSION. 421 away to sin by the strength of our passions, and cold reason is far too weak to afford the necessary resistance ; other feelings must be opposed to those which incline us to sin, in order to counteract their influence ; for man is not merely a rational being, but is com posed of sense and reason, (Germ. Verniinftig-sinnliches Wesen). Now it is a great object, and one of the chief advantages of religion, to excite and maintain these penitential feelings. Sorrow for sin is highly beneficial in its influence, and is essentially involved in true and radical reformation. Hence Paul, 2 Cor. 7: 9, calls this penitence and sorrow, Xvntyv xaza &edv, acceptable to God, agreea ble to his will and purpose ; because it contributes to our salvation (elg amztjglav). And because it does so, it is a repentance not to to be repented of (dpezapiXrjzov). But this sorrow for sin is very different in degree both as to strength (intensive) and continuance (extensive). Men differ exceed ingly from each other in respect to constitution, temperament, and the entire mental disposition. Accordingly their feelings, and the manner in which they express them, are very different. No gener al rule can, therefore, be prescribed for all, respecting the degree of sorrow which it is necessary to feel, and the manner in which it must be expressed. We have no definite measure of human feeling, — no mathesis affectuum. Let this, then, be the only rule by which we try ourselves and others : Sorrow for sin is then only sufficient ly great (for the purpose of reformation), when it produces in us a constant aversion to sin, remaining through our whole lives. It im plies the sincere wish : would that I had not transgressed the di vine commands, and also the acknowledgment of the desert of pun ishment on account of such transgression. But while one is inclin ed from his very temperament to sorrow and despondency, or to vi olent outbreakings of feeling ; another is naturally disposed to cheer fulness, is more considerate and reserved, and gives little vent to his emotions. Besides there are different degrees, both of actual sin and of inward corruption, in different men ; and their feelings of sorrow will, of course, vary accordingly. Sincerity of heart, is the great requisite here ; Ps. 32: 2. It is on this only that God looks with approbation. The accurate recollection of each particular sin we have ever committed, is neither necessary nor possible. Still less are the external, visible signs of penitence and sorrow essential to reformation ; unless they arise from the deep, 422 ART. XI. § 127. DEGREE OF SORROW UNDETERMINED. sincere sorrow of the heart. Whether the feelings of the heart shall be expressed by external signs, depends wholly upon the dif ference of men as to natural temperament and organization. As to tears, lamentations, and sighs, — they are of very little conse quence in this matter. Provided the heart be renewed, whether it be with, or without tears, is a point of indifference. The tearless repentance of a man of a sedate cast of mind, may be more sincere and acceptable to God, than the penitence of a person of a more ef feminate mould, which is attended with sighing and weeping, but which often passes soon away, and leaves no abiding effects. Cf. 124, I. II. We should beware however of considering persons to be hypocrites, because they make these violent demonstrations of feeling ; — a rash decision, too often made ! On this point we are liable to mistake, and religious teachers have often, from the earliest times, been in fault here. Many made too much of the term contri tion, and undertook to lay down definite rules on this subject, and appealed to some examples and passages in the Bible, which are not, however, universally applicable ; e. g. the repentance of David, Mary Magdalene, Peter, and the repentance in sackcloth and ashes mentioned in the Old Testament, which however, does not describe reformation of heart, but the public, external rites employed in case of pestilence and other great calamities. Such vehement ex pressions of feeling are not required of all men. The example of David, who spent three quarters of a year in trouble on account of his sins, is frequently mentioned here. But he had himself to blame for this ; since he himself confesses, Ps. 32: 3, 4, that he endeav oured to keep silence respecting his sins, i. e. to exculpate himself before God, to palliate his guilt, and to avoid the necessity of hum ble confession and penitence. As soon as he acknowledged his sin, and repented of it, God forgave him, v. 5. Christianity does not lay down any definite rule, or prescribe any artificial efforts, by which this moral change must be effected. It requires from each nothing but what is adapted to his nature. Peter wept, and considering his character and his crime, this was natural. The Publican only sighed. Zaccheus does not appear to have done either the one or the other. And yet the penitence and reformation of all, was acceptable in the sight of God. According to the precepts of Christianity, this change must re sult in the suppression of the reigning desires of the flesh, and in re- CONFESSION OF SIN. 423 storing dominion to those principles of reason which are conforma ble to the will of God ; and thus renovating the whole man, and mak ing him, before carnal (aagxixog), to be spiritual (nvevpaztxog), obedient to the precepts of Christianity, and in a state prepared to enjoy the guidance and assistance of God, or the Holy Spirit. Cf. Rom. 7: 25. 8: 1, sq. Theologians call the reformation of men who were before entire ly rude and savage, panitentiam primam, or magnam ; that of those who are in a better moral condition, but still need reformation, pa nitentiam stantitim, or secundam, or quotidianam. And all, even the greatest saints on earth, stand in need of this daily repentance, though in different degrees. None can justly consider themselves perfect. All must acknowledge themselves sinners, deficient and imperfect. So the Holy Scriptures require us to feel ; and every where insist upon sincere and unpretending humility, and condemn the opposite dispositions. (3) Sorrow or penitence for sin, must flow from the knowledge of sin ; i. e. from a consciousness that we have acted contrary to the divine law, and therefore deserve divine punishments. Hence it follows, that we should impartially examine our actions according to the law of God. Now when one sees, that he has been ungrate ful and disobedient, and rendered himself unworthy of the divine fa vor ; when, in view of this, he feels sorrow and sincere penitence, and begs God to pardon his sins, and avert deserved punishment ; this is called, making confession of sin to God (confessio). This is not, then, as some would have it, a particular part of repentance. It is the opposite of concealing, exculpating, palliating one's sins before God (refusing to acknowledge them as such, and to seek for giveness for them). Prov. 28: 13, " He that covereth his sins shall not prosper ; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy." So Christ represents it in the parable of the prodigal son, Luke xv. Vid. Ps. 32: 3—6. Dan. 9: 4. 1 John 1: 8, where say ing we have no sin, is opposed to dpoloyeia&ai dpagziav, v. 9, to acknowledge and repent of sin. The Bible says nothing of the necessity, which the Romish Church teaches, of making confession to men, as to representatives of God. It recommends, however, the practice of confessing our faults to experienced Christians, and of opening to them the state of our hearts, as conducive to vital religion ; cf. James 5: 16. 424 ART. XI. § 127. HOW SORROW FOR SIN IS PRODUCED. (4) Sorrow for sin, and hatred and abhorrence of it, are always founded on a previous knowledge of sin ; but they are produced in two ways ; viz. (a) By contemplation of the divine precepts and the penalty threatened in the law against transgressors. The divine laws were given for our highest good. Every violation of them, both destroys the happiness flowing from obedience, and incurs the punishment an nexed to disobedience. When the sinner seriously revolves such considerations as these, he must necessarily feel mingled emotions of shame, terror, anxiety on his own account, and abhorrence for sin itself. We find that Christ and the apostles made use of these considerations in order to awaken a salutary fear in the minds of their hearers ; vid. Matt. 3: 7, 10. Luke 3: 3, sq. Heb. 10 : 29, sq. This is called by the schoolmen and in the Romish Church, attri- tio, or as Thomas Aquinas has it, conlritio informis, i. e. imperfecta, inchohata (dolor de peccato e metu poenarum.) (b) By contemplation of the divine promises, contained in the gospel. When we consider, on one side, the undeserved love and kindness of God, exhibited in so many ways, and especially through Christ, and which has sought in every possbile manner, to lead us to true happiness in this life and the life to come, and has invited and encouraged us by the greatest promises ( John 3 : 16 ); and when we consider, on the other side, our own levity and negligence, our wilful rejection of the means of good offered us by God ; when we consider all this, we must be constrained to feel the deepest pen itence and shame, abhorrence for sin, and love to God and Christ, who have done so much for us. These motives have a great and mighty efficacy in promoting radical reformation. Jesus and the Apostles use these motives more frequently than any others. Their whole heart, as it were, lives in them. Vid. John 3: 16. 21: 15, sq. 1 Pet. 4: 1—3. Tit. 2 : 10, 11. The schoolmen and the Romish4 Church call this contritionem (dolorcm de peccato e dilectione oriun- dum). Thus this very consideration of the great blessings for which we are indebted to Christ, leads to faith in him. He who knows that much has been forgiven him, loves much, Luke 7: 47. Since Christ has done so much for us, and has even died for us, we are led to place our whole trust in him, and look to him for all our happiness, and to obey his commands from grateful love, John 3 : 5, 14 — 21. We see that by our sins we are rendered unhappy, that by our own PROPER MOTIVES FOR REFORMATION. 425 merit we cannot obtain the favor of God, not even by our best works. Hence we confide in Christ, and seek through faith in him to obtain forgiveness of God, ix niazemg Sixaim&tjvai, Gal. 3: 24. In this way we become children of God, (viol &eov Sid niazemg iv Xgioxio, v. 26,) beloved of God, and blessed by him. Many of the schoolmen and theologians of the Romish Church, reject altogether the motives first mentioned, asserting that they are not at all promotive of our moral improvement. The Antinomi- ans of the sixteenth century expressed themselves in a similar man ner, with many others. It is true that this attrition may be so abused as to lead to a despair, which will absolutely prevent, instead of pro moting reformation. But still when it is cautiously made use of, especially in the case of rude and uncultivated men, it produces a very good effect, and is therefore employed in the Old Testament, by John the Baptist, and Jesus himself with many classes of hearers. Some are entirely incapable of the tender emotions, to which the appeal is made in this second class of motives. Their heart must be broken and softened, before it can become susceptible of the mo tives of the gospel. There is in this respect the same difference even in adult persons, that there is between children, some of whom are ill-mannered and rude, and others, docile and well disposed. The wise teacher will employ different means with these different cases; and so must also the teacher of religion. Vid. Tollner's Es say (No. 1) " Busse und Glauben." When one is reformed, the love of sin, now renounced, is suc ceeded in his mind by holiness, diligence in duty, or pious Chris tian dispositions and a holy Christian walk. Cf. § 126, IV. Hence some theologians of the Lutheran Church in the sixteenth century, took poenitentia in so wide a sense, as to include faith and dili gence in good works. Morus, (pp. 216, 217, § 2,) has given a good summary statement of the different parts of reformation here separately considered. The inward man is principally regarded in Christian reformation. The object is not merely to restrain the gross outbreakings of sin, but to rectify the whole disposition and heart ; so that the subject of it will henceforth act from entirely different motives and principles. The Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, insist every where, that the vovg, xagSla, nvevpa, 6 earn dv&gmnog, must be renovated. The terms, circumcision of the heart, new heart, reno-. Vol. II. 54 426 ART. XI. § 127. DANGERS OF DELAYING REPENTANCE. vation, regeneration, new credture, all express this truth. Vid. John 3: 1—21; also No. vi. in " Scripta Varii Argumenti," above cited. If any one expects to succeed, by attempting to amend externally, or in any other way, than by a radical change of heart, he will be disappointed ; vid. No. I. 1. II. Delay of repentance ; and late conversion. This subject is treated more fully in Christian ethics. (1) The danger and evil of delaying reformation, (a) The dan ger and difficulties. The longer one continues in sin, the more fixed becomes his habit of sinning, and of course, the more difficul ty will he find in breaking loose from it. He will thus become more and more the slave of sin, and be constanly bound with strong er chains. The longer therefore reformation is deferred, the more difficult it becomes. Besides, external circumstances are not in our power. Many die suddenly ; others lose the use of their reason, or in their last moments are entirely unfitted for the mental efforts which are requisite, for attending to the important concerns of re ligion ; etc. (b) There must always be an evil and injury atten ding late reformations, however thorough and sincere they may be. God proportions the rewards he bestows, to the degree of zeal which one shows in goodness, and to the length of time during which he has exhibited it. Vid. § 125, II. One who has just commenced a virtuous course and has made but little advancement in it, cannot ex pect a great reward. In the future life, he must remain inferior to others, and thus suffer for his remissness and negligence. (2) The opinions of theologians have always been very much divided on the question as to the possibility of late repentance, and the worth of it. Vid. the history of these opinions in Hegelmeyer's Diss. " de sera poenitentia," P. I. Tubingen, 1780. First. Most hold, with truth, that late reformation is possible, and that God may pardon, (though with the limitations mentioned, No. 1 ,) even those who defer repentance to the last, if it is then thorough and sincere. They hold however, for the reasons above given, that such late conversions are very doubtful, and that great caution should be used in speaking confidently of the salvation of those who put off religion to the last, lest this should tend to confirm others, to their great injury, in their prevailing errors. It is unsafe for men to POSSIBILITY OF LATE CONVERSIONS. 427 pronounce any opinion in such a case. For there is no evidence of true faith, but the works of the life. None but God can look into the heart. But since God can look into the very soul ; since he will forgive, without exception, all who sincerely repent of their sins, and ask forgiveness through Christ, in the way which he has pre scribed ( 1 Tim. 2 : 4. 2 Pet. 3:9.); and since the grace of God is limited to no. time, to no terminum gratiae peremptorium (§ 113. I. 3) ; there can be no doubt in abstracto, but that God will really forgive those who seek for pardon, though it may be late, if their desire be only sincere and earnest. He will bestow even upon such, that happiness and reward of which they are susceptible. The example of the malefactor on the cross, Luke 23 : 40 — 43, is justly referred to in behalf of this opinion. The Christian doctrine justifies us in promising pardon and mercy to all, even the greatest sinners, at all times, provided they will only accept these offers. To cut off, therefore, an unhappy dying man from all hope, and to thrust him into despair, is without scriptural warrant, and highly presumptuous and cruel. Secondly. Others regard late repentance as impossible, and hold that one who has deferred it to the last cannot hope for pardon ; because, they say, late repentance never can be true or sincere, and this is a condition indispensable to forgiveness. They appeal to the example of many, who in prospect of death gave signs of repentance, but who, as soon as danger was past, became worse than before. But (a) there are also examples of a different kind ; — examples of those, who, like the thief on the cross, became repentant and be lieving in circumstances of imminent danger, and who yet have af terwards manifested an unshaken fidelity. (6) Those who advocate this opinion often mistake the want of perseverance in faith, for the want of sincerity in it. (c) The examples mentioned do not prove, that late repentance is never sincere and thorough ; but only that it is not always so; which indeed is true. The great argument, however, which is used on this side is, that conversion is not the work of a moment (not subitanea or instanta- nea), but requires time, earnestness, zeal, practice. This is true from the very nature of the human mind. But this only proves the great difficulty, the uncertainty, and danger of such late conversions ; and not the entire impossibility of them. Many men, in whom the work of conversion is not completed, are still not entirely evil, and' 428 ART. XI. § 127. LATE CONVERSION, ETC. destitute of all good. The seed of goodness frequently lies in their hearts ; while its growth and fruitfulness are impeded and prevented by various internal and external hinderances. But this work may have been silently and unobservedly going on, in the midst of these difficulties. And now unexpectedly some external circumstance oc curs, as a means of awakening. The person hears a moving exhorta tion, is reminded of some promise or threatning from .the Bible, is placed in imminent danger, or in some such manner is aroused, and impelled to attend more earnestly to the concerns of his soul. These circumstances depend on divine providence, and God makes use of them as means for the conversion of men. This appears to have been the case with the malefactor on the cross. Probably there had been a long preparation in his mind, for the result to which he then came. The passage, Heb. 6: 4 — 6, ASvvazov — naganeaovzag — dvaxaivi£eiv elg pezdvoiav, has no relation to this point. This passage refers to those who persevere in apostasy and the rejection of religion. The phrase, dSvvazov iazi, means only, that it is impossible for men; cf. Matt. 19: 26. Those theologians who differ so widely from the Bible as to hold, that the forgiveness of men depends altogether upon their holiness or obedience to the divine commandments, and not upon faith in Christ and his atonement, are indeed hard pressed in this point. If they would be consistent, they must deny salvation to those who delay repentance till just before the close of life, and who therefore do not exhibit the fruits of this change. So even Steinbart thought. The Holy Scriptures, on the contrary, teach that God forgives men on account of their faith in Jesus Christ ; that holiness is the con sequence of this faith, and that without this faith in Christ man is not able to live holy. Now if a man, whose reformation begins with faith, is prevented by death from exhibiting the fruits of this faith (which however, he would have exhibited had he lived long er) ; he cannot, on this account, be excluded by God from happi ness ; although his happiness will be less than that of others, who have pursued a long course of active virtue. Thus we might con clude in abstracto ; the determination in particular given cases, must be left with God. Note. The work of Noesselt, " Ueber den Werth der.Moral und spaten Bes- serung" (Halle, 1777, 8vo. Ausg. 2. 1783 ; especially s. 220, sq.), contains much on this subject which is excellent. This work was occasioned by the unsettled, § 128. PENANCE OF THE EXCOMMUNICATED. 429 partial, and indefinite views contained in many works on this subject, especial ly in those which held up the opinion, that late repentance is impossible or of no avail ; such, for example, as that of Saurin, " On the delay of conversion i" Edw. Harwood, " On the invalidity of repentance on the death bed ;" and Steinbart, on the question, " What value can be allowed to sudden conver sions, especially on the death bed ; and what is it advisable publicly to, teach on this subject ?" Berlin, 1770, 8vo. § 128. Remarks on the false opinions and perversions concerning the doctrine of repentance, which have been gradually adopted in the Christian, Church. Most of these mistakes have arisen from false ideas, agreeing with the depraved inclinations of the human heart, respecting for giveness of sin, propitiating God, and the merit of good works. Cf. § 108, and § 125, III. I. Penance of the excommunicated. The apostles and other ancient Christian teachers, held that it is the prerogative of God alone to forgive sin, and that men are bound to confess their sins to him, and to seek forgiveness from him. So taught Justin the Martyr ( Apol. 2), and others. But even as early as the times of the Apostles the custom, which had before prevailed among the Jews, of excommunicating gross offen ders from the church (dqjogiapog), was adopted by Christians, and was indeed necessary at that time. The rites attending restoration to the Church became constantly more numerous and complex, dur ing the second, third and fourth centuries. Those who were re stored were compelled to perform public penance (panitentia publi co). The excommunicated person (lapsus) was bound (1) to labor to convince the Church of the reality of his penitence and reforma tion. He appeared, therefore, in public in a mourning dress ; he fasted, wept, and begged for prayers (contritio). (2) He was bound to make a public confession of sin, and to ask forgiveness of the Church ; and this, in order to humble him and to warn others (con- fessio). (3) His undergoing these and other trials and punish ments, imposed upon him as the condition of his being readmitted, 430 ART. XI. § 128. PENANCE MADE THE MEANS OF FORGIVENESS. was called satisfactio ; and he obtained pacem. Vid. Morini, Tractatus de panitentia sacramento. This was originally only Church discipline, and nobody pretended that it was connected with the forgiveness of sins by God, who looks not upon, the outward man, but upon the heart. Indeed, Montanus in the second centu ry, and Novatian in the third, though they were so rigorous in Church discipline that they were unwilling to readmit a person who had been once excluded, did not deny that he might obtain forgiveness from God. II. Penance supposed the means of obtaining the forgiveness of God. We find that the great body, of Christians, since the second cen tury, have entertained very erroneous apprehensions respecting this excommunication. Many believed (although the doctrine was not as yet formally sanctioned by the authority of the Church), that a person by being excommunicated from the Church is also exclud ed from communion with God. But they also held, that when the Church forgives a person and admits him again to their fellowship, God also forgives him and admits him to his favor. And this opin ion was more dangerous in its tendency, than the former. The Church, and especially those who ruled over it, who had the most to say in this matter, came to be regarded, more and more as the rep resentatives of God ; vid. § 135, I. Hence great importance was attached to the external rite in the readmission of the excommuni cated. The idea became prevalent, that God is influenced, and moved, as it were, to compassion, by fasting, weeping, kneeling, begging and sighing. In short, it was believed that a person could obtain forgiveness of God by the same external means, by which the favor and forgiveness of the Church and its rulers could be ob tained. And the teachers of religion often contributed to the in crease of such errors, by insisting injudiciously upon these external rites. Even Origen sometimes expressed himself in this unguarded manner ; e. g. in Homil. 15 in Levit. After the fourth century, the service of God was made to consist more and more in mere outward ceremonies. AURICULAR CONFESSION, ETC. 431 III. Auricular Confession. When the Christian Church was much enlarged, the Grecian Church in the third century, and the Western Church in the third and fourth, commuted the public confession of the excommunicated, for private confession to be made to a Presbyter appointed for that purpose ; vid. Sozom. IX. 35. This too was soon abolished in the Grecian Church ; but it was retained in the Latiii Church. Hence arose by degrees the practice of auricular confession, and then slow ly, the whole system of public penance. At first the lapsi only were bound to confess their grosser offences to spiritual guides, be fore they could be reinstated and allowed to approach the Holy Sup per. But in process of time, every Christian was required to con fess to the clergy all his sins, even the least of them, before he could be admitted to the Lord's Table. The clergy and the monks con firmed the populace in the persuasion, to which it was itself predis posed, that confession to the priest was the same as confession to God ; and that the priests gave absolution in God's stead. This much abused principle, that confession must be made to spiritual teachers and the heads of the Church, is found very early, even in the third century ; e.g. in the writings of Origen (Homil. in Levit.), and especially of the Latin fathers Cyprian, Hierony mus, and Augustine. They compared the Presbyter with a physi cian, who can not heal a disease if he is not made acquainted with it. In all these rites, there is much which is good, and which might be practised to great advantage, and, indeed, was so in the early Church. But afterwards, when the priesthood and laity had both very much degenerated, they were greatly perverted and mis applied. IV. Penance imposed by the clergy . At first the Church imposed the satisfaction to be made by of fenders. This was now done by the ecclesiastic, to whom confes sion was made. The penalties imposed by him were now no long er considered merely as satisfaction given to the Church. It was believed, that by these same means, God is rendered propitious, and his judgments are averted. It was also believed that the teachers and ministers of the Church are the representatives of 432 ART. XI. § 128. DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES. God. These ministers were now frequently compared, as indeed they had been during the third century, with the Levitical priests, who, in God's stead, imposed punishments for the purpose of aton ing for sin, such as prayers, fasts, almsgiving, and other rites and gifts, which were now looked upon as meritorious good works, §125. The ecclesiastics and monks had books of penance, in which the penalties were assigned for each particular sin. Vid. Job. Dallaus, De pcenis et satisfactionibus humanis, Amst. 1649. V. The doctrine of Indulgences. At last the doctrine of indulgences was introduced. This was destructive of all morality. The practices of penance and confession, which at least during the darker periods of the middle ages, main tained to some degree an external discipline and order, fell at once into neglect and disuse. For by means of indulgences, the people obtained remission of the penances, and freedom from the canonical or ecclesiastical punishments of sin, which were imposed by their father confessors. These indulgences were first granted by the Bishops, when an individual offered of his own accord to perform some good work, to give alms, to found charitable institutions, to build churches, etc. They were afterwards sold for mere money. After some time the Pope appropriated the trade in indulgences to himself, and during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, carried on a wide extended monoply in this business. Indulgences could now be purchased even for future sins. It was the prevailing be lief, that these indulgences deliver not only from canonical pun ishments, i. e. from thosfe imposed by the laws of the visible church ; but also from the divine punishments, since the Pope is the Vicar of God and of Christ. After the thirteenth century this practice was sustained by the doctrine, de thesauro bonorum operum, which the Church and especially the Pope, the Head of the Church, were supposed to hold at their disposal, § 125. — The abuses attending this practice gave occasion to the reformation in Germany and Swit zerland in the sixteenth century. VI. Scholastic system of penance. These erroneous opinions which had gradually arisen, were brought into a formal scholastic system by the schoolmen, and es- SCHOLASTIC SYSTEM OF PENANCE. ' 433 peciallyby Peter of Lombardy in the twelfth, and Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. The whole doctrine of the Bible respect ing moral reformation and a change of heart, was thus changed into a matter of external penance. This became the prevailing system of the Romish Church, and all these principles of the schoolmen were sanctioned by the Council at Trent, Sess. 14. The following are the main principles of the schoolmen ; viz. (1) Panitentia is derived from punio, according to Augustine, and therefore denotes the punishment of one's self. Hence origin ally the German Busse, which signifies punishment, atonement, etc. vid. § 126, IV. (2) Each particular sin must be atoned for by particular satis factions. (3) Therefore every Christian must confess all his sins to the Minister of the Church, as a priest and judge, placed in God's stead. (4) Conversion, therefore, consists of three things ; viz. con- tritio, or compunciio cordis, confessio oris (to the priest in God's stead), and satisfactio operis (satisfaction rendered by performing the penances imposed). All this was borrowed from the ancient Ecclesiastical discipline. Vid. No. I.' on the distinction between attritio and contritio. Cf. § 127, I. 3. (5) This satisfaction or atonement must be made by prayer, alms, fasts, and other external rites and bodily chastisements. Ac cordingly Peter of Lombardy says, Oratio dominica delet minima et quotidiana peccata. Sufficit oratio dominica cum aleemosynis et je- junio. Vid. § 108. (6) This poena satisfactoria which must, in the usual course, be endured, may be somewhat remitted, says Thomas Aquinas, by means of indulgences. But this principle was afterwards very much extended. Vid. No. V. (7) One who is not absolved of his pardonable sins by render ing such satisfactions, goes at death into purgatory, where, in the midst of torments, he must make atonement for them. The doc trine de purgatorio, was propagated during the fourth century in the West, and universally prevailed from the ninth to the eleventh centuries. It was believed, however, that souls could be freed from purgatory, or, at least, that their continuance there could be short ened, by having masses said for their souls ; vid. § 150. Vol. II. 55 ARTICLE TWELFTH. ON THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE j OR THE DIVINE INSTITUTIONS FOR PROMOTING REPENTANCE AND FAITH J §§ 129 133, INCL. § 129. Explanation of the terms grace, operations of grace, means of grace, and other phrases employed in theology on this subject ; and the connexion of this doctrine with the preceding. I. Connexion of this doctrine with the foregoing; and the import of it. The whole Christian doctrine is given by God to men in order to bring them to faith and repentance, and consequently to eternal happiness. For they are not capable of this happiness, until they per form the conditions described in Article Eleventh. But, as the Scrip tures teach us, we are not at present in a condition to amend our selves, and by our own powers to fulfil these conditions, without some higher assistance and guidance of God. This incompetency is owing to the power of sense, and its preponderance over reason, or, which is the same thing, to natural depravity ; vid. §§ 77 — 80. Now though man needs a moral change, his will, according to both Scripture and experience, being in a high degree depraved ; he is yet unable, without divine help and assistance, either to awaken within himself earnest desires after holiness, or to execute the good purposes he may form and persevere in them, or to perform the oth er conditions upon which his salvation depends. All the arrange ments, therefore, which God has made, in order to produce in those who live in Christian lands faith in Christ and a change of heart, MEANING OF THE TERM, GRATIA. 435 and to secure their continuance, and thus to bring men to the en joyment of the promised salvation, are called by the general name of grace, or the operations of divine grace (operationes gratia, Germ. Gnadenwirkungen). II. The various names by which these operations are commonly designated in theology. (1) Gratia. By this term is understood in theology, the divine operations or power (assistance), exerted in producing repentance or conversion. It is contrasted with nature, and by this is meant, the natural powers of man, which, on account of his depravity, are re garded as too weak and insufficient to effect this moral renovation, and therefore need to be elevated and strengthened by God. The state of one who is enlightened by Christian doctrine, and by a faith ful use of it, under divine assistance, is renewed, is called a state of grace (status gratia). This is opposed to the natural state (status natura, or naturalis), by which is meant the state of one who is not as yet enlightened by the Christian doctrine or renovated by its in fluence, and has not yet experienced the assistance of God. Morus pp. 234, 235. Augustine first used the word gratia, to denote the supernatural agency of God in conversion. He held this agency to be, in reality, miraculous, and therefore irresistible ; vid. § 132. This use of the term has since been retained in theology, even by those who have discarded the erroneous opinions of Augustine. Xdgig is used in the Bible to denote, (a) the undeserved divine favor towards men in general; (b) the result and proof of this fa vor, in the particular blessings bestowed ; and (c) more especially the blessings for which we are indebted to Christ, pardon, the for giveness of sins, and all the Christian privileges connected with for giveness. Hence all the operations of God on the hearts of men, in promoting repentance and holiness, are comprehended by the sa cred writers under the term ^apts, as being the most distinguish ed favors ; although these are not the only favors intended by this term in its scriptural usage, but the others now mentioned are also often designated by it; vid. §88, II. Note. The whole series of operations and means which God employs to bring men to the enjoyment of the blessedness procured by Christ, is called in theology, aconomia gratia, the aconomy or dispensation of grace (Germ. Gnadenanstalt or Einrichtung). Theologians dis- 436 ART. XII. § 129. OFFICES OF THE SPIRIT. tinguish here (a) actus or operationes gratia, i.e. the gracious, salutary influences (also called auxilia gratia), by which men are brought to salvation ; and (/?) the media gratia, i. e. the means which God employs in exerting these influences on the hearts of men ; the means of repentance or holiness. These means are the Word of God, — the divine doctrine, especially that made known through Christ. The theologians of Tubingen have sometimes giv en the name gratia applicatrix, to these divine operations, be cause, through them, God applies to us the merit of Christ to be embraced by faith, i. e. he places us in a condition in which we ac tually realize the fruits of Christ's merits. (2) These operationes gratia, are sometimes called the office of the Holy Spirit (officium or munus Spirilus Sancti, or better, his opus, business, work, cf. § 105, 1. 2.) ; because the sanctifying divine influences are frequently ascribed in the Scriptures to the Holy Spirit. Some theologians have ascribed a four-fold, and others a five-fold office to the Spirit in renewing the heart of man ; viz. el- encticum, didactieum, padeuticum, paracleticum, and others, epanor- thoticvm. A different division is made by others. This form of the doctrine is derived from the passage, John 16: 7 — 15. But there the thing principally intended, is the instruction which the apostles should receive from the Holy Spirit, by which they them selves should be enabled to teach men, to exhort them to repentance, and to convince (iXe'yyeiv) them of their unbelief. This passage, then, does not speak of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit on the hearts of all Christians. Though all these renewing influ ences are, beyond a question, ascribed every where in the Scrip tures to God, and especially to the Holy Spirit. Vid. § 131. Note. The various, and mostly fruitless, controversies which have prevailed among theologians, especially since the time of Augustine, respecting the manner in which the agency of God is exerted in renewing the heart of man, and likewise the various technical terms and fine distinctions which have been introduced, have rendered this Article one of the most difficult and in volved in the whole system of Theology. These subtleties, however, should have no place in the religious instruction given to the unlearned Christian. It is sufficient for him to know, (1) that lie owes his renewal, not to himself and his own powers ; but (2) that it is the result of that powerful divine assistance, which God denies to none for this purpose ; (3) that faith and repentance are not produced by an irresistible influence, but that man can resist them ; (4) that in the case of those who enjoy the Word of God (revealed religion), the § 130. OPERATIONS OF GRACE. 437 saving change is effected by God, through this Word, as a means ; and that (5) those, therefore, who enjoy the Word of God are to expect no divine as sistance, entirely disconnected from it ; though they may look for this assist ance in connexion with the faithful use of the Word of God ; and that, ac cordingly, (6) man must not be passive and supine in this work, but carefully use all the opportunities and means which divine grace affords him. Erasmus remarked in his work, " Contra librum Lutheri de servo arbit- rio," that it is not essential that one should be able to determine accurately and logically the manner in which grace operates on the heart, if he only inward ly experiences these renewing influences. Not every one who imagines that he understands the manner in which the divine agency is exerted^ has him self, of necessity, actually experienced it ; and the reverse. Nor is it either necessary or possible, in particular cases, to determine definitely how much man himself (natura) has contributed to his own improvement, and how much grace has done for him ; provided he sincerely believes, that he owes his en tire renewal to the unmerited divine compassion. Vid. Morus p. 229, note, and pp. 236, 237. § 130. What are the operations of divine grace for promoting the repentance and salvation of those who live in Christian lands ; and what means does God employ in exerting these influences on their hearts ? I. In what the operations of divine grace consist ; and in what order they follow. We shall first exhibit this doctrine in the form in which it is commonly treated in theological systems, and then show, how it may be more simply and intelligibly represented. (1) The common method in theological schools is, to describe these various divine operations by figurative terms drawn from the Bible, often using them, however, in a different sense from that in which they are there used ; and then to treat particularly and separ ately of calling, illumination, regeneration, union with God, sanc tification and renovation. The result of this has been, that these particular parts are conceived of as different and distinct, while in truth, they are most intimately connected ; vid. § 126, in prin. Theologians make the following division of these influences, and suppose them to follow in this order, (a) Man is invited by the truths of the Christian religion to repent and accept the salvation 438 ART. XII. § 130. MEANING OF ILLUMINATION offered him (vocatio). (b) He now attains a proper, lively, and sal utary knowledge of Christian truth (illuminatio). (c) When the understanding entertains just views, then the will is renewed. Good feelings and dispositions arise in place of sinful ones (regeneratio). (d) This work of illumination and regeneration, must be carried on by ever increasing divine influences ; and thus progressive sanctifi cation, or entire holiness will be effected ; and the higher the degrees of divine influence, the more closely will man become united with God (unio mystica). The proper scriptural import of most of these terms was explained, § 126 ; and the unio mystica in § 119, I. 3. Cf. Morus p. 232. Calling and illumination still remain to be ex plained. (a) Illumination. This word is commonly explained in theolo gy in such a way as to render it applicable only to the true believ er. It denotes that true and living knowledge of the doctrines of salvation, which has a powerful efficacy upon the will, which is not the case with the knowledge which unregenerate men possess. So that, as theologians explain it, illuminare aliquem is the same as, cum effectu salutari docere aliquem. Of such a kind indeed, must our knowledge be, in order to be salutary and saving ; and to make it so, is the object of the divine influences. In the Bible, hqwever, this term is differently used in a wider and narrower sense. To enlighten, qjmziCetv, T^m , means (a) to instruct, teach. It is used by the LXX. as synonymous with SiSdaxeiv, x. z. X. And human teachers are said to enlighten men, as well as God. Thus Eph. 1:18, " The eyes of the understanding being enlightened," and 3: 9, qjmzi£eiv, and 2 Cor. 4: 6. Heb. 6: 4, qmziapog. For qjmg is intelligence, clear knowledge, and the opposite, axozog, is ig norance. Of the same import is the phrase, dvoiyeiv xovg 6qi&aX- povg, Acts 26: 18, etc. All this is the same as the phrase, Sovvai yvwaiv omztjgiag, Luke 1: 77. (/?) Light and darkness also signi fy prosperity and adversity. Hence, in the scriptural use, (y) both meanings are sometimes united in these words, (in the widest sense,) — instruction and the happiness which results from it. Thus Christ is said qimzi£eiv zov xoapov, and to be q:mg xoapov, a teacher and benefactor of the world, John 1: 4. 8: 12. In the Scriptures, there fore, illumination signifies, instruction in those truths which God gives to men for their salvation. It is always the end of this illu mination, to influence the will and to promote holiness ; but through AND OF CALLING. 439 the fault of man, this end is not always attained. Those with re spect to whom the design of God is attained, are savingly en lightened. But in a wider sense even the wicked may be said, ac cording to the Scripture use of this term, to be enlightened, i. e. con verted. Hence qjmtia&evxeg is frequently a general name of those who live in Christian lands, because they are better instructed, al though they are not all savingly enlightened. (b) Calling, gracious calling. Theologians understand by this term, the offer of the blessings purchased by Christ which is made to men, whether they accept the offer or not. This use of the term has its origin principally in some of the parables of Christ, in which he describes the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom, or Christian privileges, under the image of a great feast, to which many guests (xtxXtjpe'voi) are invited, many of whom despise the invitation, and only a few accept it, as Matt. 22: 3, sq. Now some have undertak en to apply this beautiful figure employed by Christ, to all the cases in which xXtjaig, xXtjxol, xaXelv occur in the apostolical writings, by which the greatest violence is done to these terms. In most of the passages of the New Testament, in which xaXelv stands without any farther qualification, it signifies, not merely to offer Christian privileges to any one, but actually to impart them. It denotes ad mission into the Christian church, and the enjoyment of Christian rights. KXtjxoi are those, who have not only received an invitation to become Christians, but are real Christians (such as are admit ted) ; and xXijaig is, in general, that divine favor conferred on any one, by which God counts him worthy of the privileges of Christian ity. It is therefore frequently a blessing bestowed only upon actual Christians. EXtjoig therefore frequently signifies the particular ad vantages which any one obtains by means of Christianity ; vid. Rom. 1: 7. 2 Thess. 2: 14. 2 Pet. 1: 3. Ephes. 4: 4, iXnlg xXtjoemg. Heb. 3: 1, xXijaig inovgdviog, etc. ; and when Christ says, Matt. 20: 14, many are called (enjoy the advantages of Christian instruc tion) ; few belong to the chosen (those who are truly good and ac ceptable to God). But what is the origin of this use ? From the ancient use of the words inj5 and xaXelv. They were used to denote calling, i. e. accepting, receiving ; designing or nominating any one to a particular service, employment, office, privilege, eta. Hence it was said of priests and prophets whom God took into his service, that they 440 ART. XII. § 130. DIVINE INFLUENCE were called; and so of Abraham, whom he chose to be his peculiar friend ; and of the Israelites, whom he received and selected from among others, as his own people ; e. g. Is. 48: 12. The particular members of the Christian society to whom this benefit happened, are called xXtjxol. Thus Paul uses the words xXtjaig and xaXelv of the external election of the Israelites to be the people of God, Rom. 11:29, and 9: 11. This phraseology was now applied to Christians, denoting partly their external reception in the Christian community (Rom. 9: 24), and partly all the advantages and bless ings which they receive through Christianity. We are able, there fore, according to Morus, to distinguish three different uses of the word xaXelv in the New Testament, when it is used in reference to religion : viz. (a) to admonish or counsel any one, for his best good ; (b) to instruct him as to his welfare, to point out to him and furnish him the means of attaining it (faith in Christ, which is active in good works) ; (c) to offer and promise this good to any one. So in the parables of Christ. When therefore God is said to call any one, the meaning is, in the theological sense, that he teaches him, or causes him to be instructed in the truths of salvation, that he may embrace them, and act accordingly, and that he promises him all the blessings and privileges connected with the Christian doctrine. (2) The method best adapted to the nature of the subject, is, to divide all which God does to assist us in obtaining the blessings promised in the Gospel into three principal classes ; viz. First. The first divine influences are intended to communi cate to man the knowledge of the truths of the Christian religion, and of the blessedness purchased by Christ for mankind (illumina- tio, in the wider sense). This must necessarily come first. For how can a man be disposed to desire or accept a divine favor, of which he knows nothing? Paul therefore says, very justly, Rom. 10: 14, " How should they serve God in whom they do not believe ? And how should they believe in him of whom they know nothing (ov ovx tjxovaav) 1 And how should they know any thing of him, without being instructed ?" By this instruction, man becomes ac quainted with the divine decree (predestinatio), that the happiness promised through Christ is intended even for him, and that he must appropriate it to himself; that Christ has redeemed him, died for him; and that he, therefore, may obtain the forgiveness of sin, and eternal salvation, etc. ln this way man is invited to receive IN ENLIGHTENING AND SANCTIFYING. 441 and obey the Christian doctrine, that his heart may be thus dispos ed ; and this is called vocatio, in the widest sense. This calling is sometimes said to be universal. If by this is meant, that the Christian religion and the blessedness attainable by it is actually offered to all, and that all have opportunity to become acquainted with it, and that those who do not know and receive it, can blame only themselves ; the statement is false and contrary to historical fact. For the blessings of Christianity are not published, even to the present day, to all nations, to say nothing of all men ; because God must know, that at present all are not prepared to re ceive these blessings ; though doubtless he does not wholly neglect even such, but in a different way conducts them to all that happi ness of which they are capable, and will doubtless continue to do so, throughout the future world. Vid. § 121, II. Cf. § 88, II. In another sense, however, this gracious calling is truly and scripturally said to be universal ; in the sense namely, (a) that all people and individuals have free access to the grace of God in Christ, as soon as they have opportunity to become acquainted with it ; and (6) that every real Christian, without exception, may enjoy the whole sum of blessedness procured by Christ, by complying with the prescribed conditions (niaxig xal pexdvoia, Art. XL). Second. The next class of operations go to secure our actual enjoyment of the blessedness promised us and procured for us by Christ. These operations take effect when man no longer acts in opposition to the knowledge which his understanding has received ; but faithfully complies with it, follows what he knows to be right, and allows his will to be governed by it ; so that his knowledge is no longer dead, but living. It is in fact the same divine agency which enlightens the understanding, and renews the will. What ever is done in the understanding has the renewal of the will for its object, and is for this end effected. This divine agency has for its aim the production of faith and repentance, the excitement of Chris tian dispositions, and the salutary consequences thence resulting ; Rom. 5: 5, nvevpa dyiov, 14: 17, Sixaioavvt], elgtjvtj, %aga iv nvevpazt dyim. Tit. 3: 4 — 7. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit is, in this passage, producing and communicating the Chris tian temper of which God is the Author, and by which we become xXrjgovopol Smijg almviov. Vol. II. 56 442 ART. XII. § 130. god's agency in confirming faith, etc. This is calling in the stricter sense, [or effectual calling,] and regeneration (conversio transitiva) in the theological sense ; § 126. When any one feels a firm and lively conviction of the truths of salvation with which he is acquainted, God grants him power to subdue his sinful desires, and cheerfully to obey the divine precepts. Thus (a) the internal hindrances to faith and repentance, by which we are kept from the enjoyment of spiritual happiness, are remov ed ; and ignorance, error, prejudice, and the prevailing bias to sense, are weakened. Vid. Morus, p. 226, n. 1 , where the texts of Scrip ture are cited. (6) On the contrary, man is led by God, to enter tain better views ; is inclined to faith and repentance, and is brought into a state in which he is ready and able to repent and believe. Both of these particulars are comprised in the expression of Christ: God draws (iXxveiv) men to believe in him ; i. e. he convinces them, and renders them disposed to this duty, John 6: 44. Vid. Morus, p. 227, Not. 2. Third. The third class of divine operations relates to the pre servation of faith, and the continuance of the entire happy condi tion resulting from it. Faith is saving only on certain conditions. These are, its firmness, growth and increase, and the showing of it by good works, or Christian virtues ; vid. § 124, IV. This class comprehends therefore (a) those divine operations and institutions which tend to increase our knowledge of the great truths of salva tion, and perfect our acquaintance with them. The state resulting from these influences is commonly called illuminatio regenitorum. (b) Those influences by which the Christian is advanced in holiness and fitted for the practice of Christian virtue, so as to attain a habit of goodness (renovatio and sanctificatio in the theological sense ; § 126). Both of these influences are noticed 2 Thess. 2: 17, &eog — aztjgl^ai vpag iv navzl X o y m xal e gym dya&m. The lat ter is mentioned 1 Thess. 5: 23, &eog — dyidaai vpag dXozeXelg; cf. 3: 13. Note. When the enlightening of the mind into the knowledge of the truths of salvation and the learning of these truths, is spoken of, it is only so far as these truths are practical, and stand in connexion with the plan of salvation (Art. XI.), and so have an influence on the holiness or moral improvement of men. These illuminating divine influences are not intended to convey learn ed theological science to the mind, or to teach the Holy Scriptures theoretical ly. All this must be done by each individual by his natural efforts. The di vine influences are directed only to moral ends, producing faith and repen tance, and renewing the heart. It is therefore possible for an unregenerate MEANS OF GRACE. 443 and wicked man, who has not therefore experienced these renewing influen ces, to possess a fundamental theoretic knowledge of religion, which he may have acquired by his own diligence. And if he is a teacher, he may clearly ex plain to others the doctrines of the Bible, and convince them, and thus be the means of good. Cf. Phil. 1: 16 — 18. This good, however, will be very much prevented by the fact, that hearers give much more regard to the example, than to the doctrines of their teacher, and that what does not go from the heart, does not commonly reach the heart. — Again ; these divine influences have different degrees, since the capacity for them is different in different men. Vid. § 124, III, II. The means which God employs in producing these effects. The doctrine of the Protestant church has always been, that God does not act immediately on the heart in conversion, or, in oth er words, that he does not produce ideas in the understanding and effects in the will, by his absolute divine power, without the employ ment of external means. This would be such an immediate illu mination and conversion as fanatics contend for, who regard their own imaginations and thoughts as effects of the Holy Spirit. Mo rus, p. 231, Not. The doctrine of the Protestant church is, that God exerts these reforming influences mediately ; and that the means which he employs with those who have the Holy Scriptures, is the divine doctrine taught in them, especially the truths of Christianity, in their full extent, comprising law and gospel (precept and promise). On this subject, cf. § 123, III. It is only through the medium of these truths, that these effects are produced, and not in a direct manner. The sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, are enumerat ed among the means of grace, and are so called. This is proper, if we remember, that these sacraments do not exert an influence through themselves alone, as external rites of religion ; but only as connected with the word of God, or so far as the truths of the Chris tian religion are connected with them, are sensibly exhibited and impressively set forth by them, and so through their means are person ally appropriated by men. Every thing here comes back to the word of God, or the revealed doctrines of Christianity, which is the medium through which God exerts his influence, even in the sacra ments. The fact that God exerts these influences in the conversion of men, through the doctrines of revelation, is established, 444 ART. XII. § 130. TRUTH THE MEANS OF HOLINESS (1) By such passages of Scripture as expressly declare, that faith, repentance and holiness are excited and produced in the hu man heart by God, through the influence of Christian truth ; as 2 Pet. 1: 3, " The divine power hath given us, by means of the Christian doctrine (inlyvmaig), all the means which we need^ in or der to live piously and godly." Rom. 10: 17, 18, n niazig t£ dxo- ijg, cf. v. 14. James 1: 18, " God has renewed us Xoym a\n&eiag." Connect with these all the texts in which the Christian doctrine is compared with seed sown by God, falling upon the human heart and bearing fruit, Luke 8: 11, sq. 1 Pet. 1: 23, OTiopa. 1 John 3: 9, anigpa Avzov pivei iv avzm. 1 Thess. 2: 13. 2 Tim. 3:16. John 8: 31, 32. (2) The texts which declare, that through this divine doctrine, Christians are brought to the enjoyment of blessedness, and are pre served in it. John 17: 17, 20. 2 Cor. 3: 6, nvevpa £monotel. 1 Tim. 4: 16, " If thou rightly teachest the Christian doctrine, oeuvzdv amaeig xal dxovovzdg oov." Ephes. 6: 13 — 17, where it is shown in figures, that by the right use of the Christian doctrine, one may advance far in all Christian virtues, and may secure him self against apostasy. 1 John 5: 4, " By your faith in the Son of God you overcome the world." James 1: 21, the Christian doctrine is called epqjvzog Xoyog, i. e. the doctrine implanted in Christians, in which they are instructed ; as Paul uses q>vzeveiv, 1 Cor. 3: 6, sq., adding Svvdpevog amaat xpvxdg vpdiv. Morus cites other pas sages, p. 225, § 1, not. 1. Note. It has become common in theological schools to denominate the di vine doctrine, the sum of which is contained in the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God, from a literal translation of Di|-;'is is*!.> $ijpa or Xoyos &eov ovXpiorov. This term denotes the declarations, oracles, revelations made in the Bible, and hence the divine doctrine or instruction in general, as Pss. cxix. civ. cv. etc. Thus in the New Testament, the Christian doctrine is denominated simply Xoyog. In later times, it has become common to call the Bible itself, consider ed as a book, the Word of God; and many have ascribed a divine and super natural power to ^he Bible as a book. In this way occasion has been given to the mistake, of ascribing to the book as such, what belongs to the truths or doctrines contained in it. This is never done in the Holy Scriptures them selves. There the Word of God is the divine doctrine itself, with which we are made acquainted by this book, but which can be efficacious without the book, as it was in the first ages of Christianity, before the writings composing the New Testament were written. For the power lies not in the book itself, but properly in the doctrine which is contained in the book. Vid. Toellner, § 131. DIVINE ORIGIN OF RENEWING INFLUENCES. 445 Ueber den Unterschied der heiligen Schrift und des Wortes Gottes, in his " Vermischten Aufsatzen," 2te Samml. S. 88, f. § 131. How is the divine origin of these gracious renewing influen ces proved from the Holy Scriptures ? and remarks in explana tion of the scriptural phraseology on this subject. I. Scriptural proof of the divine origin of the influences of grace. Many texts are frequently cited here, which do not belong to this subject ; but which refer only to miraculous gifts, which the Apos tles and some of the first Christians received ; and not at all to the renewing influences which are imparted to all Christians. Such are 1 Cor. 15: 10. 2 Cor. 3: 18. Still there are many texts which relate directly to this subject, a few only of which will be here cited, under two principal classes. (1) The texts which teach that God, or what is the same thing, the Holy Spirit, works by his power in the hearts of Christians, 1 Thess. 2: 13. Ephes. 1: 19. Rom. 8: 1—6. Hence the whole renewed and sanctified state of the true Christian is denominated nvevpa and qpgovtjpa nvevpazog, as in the passages cited ; vid. § 123, II. 1, and § 124, II. Through this influence, the flesh or sense (qjgovtjpa aagxog, adg£) loses its dominion over reason, and the will is renewed ; all which results from God, or from the Holy Spirit, who dwells and works in the hearts of Christians. Now in the same way as the influence of God or of the Holy Spirit (ive'gyeta, ivegyel nvevpa) takes place in true Christians, the ivigyeia zov 2azavd, aagxog, x. t.X. works in unbelievers and sin ners ; e. g. Ephes, 2: 2, cf. 1: 19, 20. For as Satan is regarded and described as the Author of evil and wickedness in depraved and unbelieving men ; so is God the Author of goodness and virtue in enlightened Christians. So Rom. 5: 5. Ephes. 4: 30, Xvnelv nvev pa dyiov, to counteract by sin his salutary influences. (2) The texts in which all the specific spiritual benefits which Christians enjoy, are ascribed to God, or to the Holy Spirit, as the author, or efficient cause. There is not one among all these bene fits, which is not somewhere described as produced by divine influ- 446 ART. XII. § 131. EXPLANATION OF SCRIPTURAL PHRASEOLOGY ence. Thus (a) instruction in Christianity (illuminatio), John 6: 45, 65. Ephes. 1 : 17, 18, " God gives us nvevpa aoopiag by the Christian doctrine ;" 1 Thess. 4: 9. 1 Cor. 12: 3, 8. (6) Conver sion and faith, and the entire sum of Christian blessedness (xXijaig), Phil. 1: 6. Ephes. 1: 11. 2: 5, 10. 3: 16. Acts 16: 14. 2 Tim. 2: 25. (c) The effects and consequences of faith ; such as good inten tions, readiness to good works, and skill in doing them, Ephes. 3: 16. 2 Pet. 1: 3. 2 Thess. 2: 17. Rom. 15: 5. Indeed the very ex ecution of our good purposes is represented as the work of the Spir it, 1 Cor. 1: 8. 1 Pet. 5: 10. Rom. 8: 13, 14. 9: 1. 14: 7. Phil. 2: 12, 13, " The Christian who is in earnest about his own salvation, should exhibit all diligence and zeal ; and yet he should cast him self upon the divine guidance and assistance, since he can do noth ing of himself. For it was God who had awakened in the Philip- pians (when Paul was among them) a serious desire for salvation, and who aided in the execution of this desire (although Paul was absent from them). And this he did vnig evSoxlag, i. e. for all this the Philippians were indebted to the mere mercy of God, to his free, gracious will." II. Remarks explanatory of the Scriptural phraseology on this subject. (1) There are many passages in the Bible which, taken by themselves, appear to affirm an immediate influence of God in the renewal of men ; — an influence, therefore, which is miraculous and irresistible, and involving an exertion of his bare omnipotence. And so there are passages, where, on the other hand, it seems to be taught, that God denies and withholds from men the means for their improvement, and renders them hard, obdurate, etc. In other passages, however, it is expressly said that God employs means, and that these are accessible to all men ; vid. § 130, II. These influ ences are described, in these very passages, as resistible. It is dis tinctly taught, that man is not to be compelled ; that he himself must not be inactive about his own moral welfare ; that he is free to will and choose good or evil. Hence good and evil actions are ascribed to man himself, and considered as imputable to him. We find these two ways of representing this subject connected together in the same manner in the Old Testament, and in other ancient writ ings ; e. g. those of the Arabians and Greeks ; cf. the texts cited § 85, RESPECTING THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE. 447 II. 3. According to these, God puts good and evil, wisdom and folly into the hearts of men, and is the author both of their prosperi ty and their overthrow. And yet, according to these same writers, the good actions of men are rewarded by God, and their wicked ac tions punished by him, as their own actions ; whereas, if they came from God, they would not be imputable to those by whom they were performed. (2) Are not these two representations really contradictory ? Such they may appear to, us., who are accustomed to different distinc tions and expressions, from those which were formerly common, re specting divine influences, the freedom of the human will, and its re lation to divine providence. Those especially who are scientifical ly educated, are apt to bring these subjects into a philosophical form, and to express them in scholastic terms. Hence in modern langua ges, we have appropriate expressions with regard to freedom, etc. even in common discourse. Such was not the case in ancient times. And for this reason, we frequently find* difficulties and con tradictions, where they saw none. On the one hand, the ancient world acknowledged with us, that God governs every thing, and that noth ing can take place without his cooperation. On the other hand, they knew that the human will must at the same time remain free, because the actions of men would otherwise cease to be their own actions. If men were moved like machines, and wrought upon like statues, their actions could not be imputed to them. But in the ancient world, the means by which God acts were not always so carefully distinguished, as is common at present. And even when these means were known, they were more seldom mentioned. The sacred writers indeed well understood them, for they frequently mention them ; but not in every case distinctly. Thus it happens, that many things were generally described by the ancients as the imme diate effects of divine power, which actually took place through the instrumentality of means which were either unknown to them, or which they left unmentioned. And so, many effects of the divine agency which have a miraculous aspect, were really produced by natural means. To those who are unacquainted with the an cient phraseology, the description given of those effects in the an cient manner of thinking and speaking, seems to imply, that God brought them to pass by an immediate and irresistible agency ; vid. § 70, Note ad fin. Now what did Augustine and his followers do ? They took only 448 ART. XII. § 131. EXPLANATION OF SCRIPTURAL PHRASEOLOGY one class of these texts, and interpreted them as they would the lan guage of accurate philosophers ; without paying any regard to the extreme simplicity of style in which the Bible was written. They drew conclusions and general doctrines from these texts, which were never drawn by the authors themselves from these premises ; and all this from ignorance of the ancient manner of thinking and speaking ; vid. § 85. Illiterate persons have generally understood this scriptural phraseology better than others. From these passages, Augustine and his followers deduced the doctrine of the irresistible grace of God, as something which is mirac ulous in its nature, and which, according to his unconditional de cree, he bestows upon some men and withholds from others. With out this grace, man could not recover himself to holiness ; because, since the fall, he possesses no freedom of will in spiritual things. Man can do nothing which will contribute to this end. He is en tirely passive under these operations of grace. Augustine depend ed much on the passage, John 6: 44, " No man can come to me unless the Father draw him" (de gratia irresistibili et particulari). The meaning of this passage is, " No man can come to me unless the conviction of the great love of the Father (in giving me to the world from love to it) induces him, under divine guidance and co operation, to come to me and believe on me." Even Origen (negl dgymv, III. 19) noticed both these classes of texts, and said that they should not be separated, but taken togeth er, that they might not contradict one another, and that one sense might be deduced from them both. And in fact, the two things, the earnest efforts of man, and the assistance of God, are connected in the Holy Scriptures. Morus therefore observes very justly, p. 225, § 1 , that the following result may be deduced from the various texts of Scripture taken together : " God leads us, by means of his truth, to faith and repentance." Truth is the means which God employs for this end. So the symbols and the Protestant theologi ans. Vid. ubi supra, note 5. (3) The following ideas, though variously modified, are found to have prevailed generally in the ancient world ; viz. that all life, activity, and motion throughout the universe, proceed from spirits or invisible beings. And even the extraordinary and unusual mental excitements, the talents, acquisitions, courage and magnanimity which appear among men, were derived from the inspiration of high er spirits, and viewed in connexion with them. They believed, RESPECTING THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE. 449 too, very generally, in evil spirits, to whose influences (under the divine permission) they ascribed the wicked purposes, the errors, faults, and calamities of men ; cf. § 58, II. With this mode of representation the Holy Scriptures plainly agree throughout ; vid. the Article on the Angels. They however take no part in the su perstitious notions, which heathen antiquity, and even the great mass of the Jews, connected with this representation. From all these they keep aloof. But on the other hand, the Bible is equally far from agreeing with that modern mechanical philosophy, which tends to set aside the influence of spiritual beings, and as far as pos sible, that of God himself. According to the Bible, there are good and evil spirits, which in various ways operate on the earth and on man. But there is especially a divine Spirit ("ijilj? h^"1) in an eminent sense, which operates in and upon true Christians, as it did in the times of the Old Testament upon the Israelites. Christians are indebted to Christ for this Spirit, whence he is called nvevpa Xgiazov, the Paracletus, the counsellor of the pious, whom Christ sends in .his own stead from the Father, John 15: 16. As soon as any one believes in Christ, this divine Spirit begins to influence his heart, and as it were to dwell with him. And all the good which such an one now thinks or does, — his knowledge, his holiness and happiness, he owes solely to him. He it is whom Christ truly en lightens in his understanding and guides into all the truth. Nor can he accomplish any thing good, without his agency. He does not, however, exert his influence upon all in the same manner. He renews the heart and all the dispositions of every true Christian (dona spiritus sancti ordinaria) ; but upon some in the first Christ ian church he exerted a peculiar agency, endueing them with the gifts of teaching, of working miracles, etc. (dona extraordinaria). Cf. 1 Cor. 12: 4—11, also § 39, coll. § 19, II. and § 9, III. IV. To the great bulk of mankind, who are unaccustomed to the arbitrary and mechanical philosophy of the Schools, and who are un- perverted by it, this simple, and truly animating representation, which is every where given in the New Testament, is more intelli gible, clear and consoling, and has more influence on their heart, and is more conducive to their moral improvement, than all the phi losophical and metaphysical reasonings on divine Providence and co operation, how deep soever they may apparently be. (4) The uniform doctrine of the Holy Scriptures is, therefore, Vol. II. 57 450 ART. XII. § 131. VINDICATION OF THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE that God effects the moral change and renovation of the human heart, not immediately, but mediately, and that the means which he employs is the Christian doctrine in all its extent, its doctrines, precepts and promises. Vid. No. 2, ad finem. But the Bible also teaches, that the cause of the effect which is produced by this di vine doctrine lies not merely in the power and weight of the argu ments by which Christianity is proved, or of the truths which it ex hibits ; but principally in the power and agency of God, who, by means of this doctrine, acts in the souls of men. Theologians say : "Divina efficientia a doctrina ipsa,ejusquevi et efficacia diseernitur." This clearly appears from the passages before cited, especially from 1 Cor. 3: 6, 7. Phil. 2: 12, 13. 2 Thess. 2: 15—17. 1: 11. Ephes. 1: 16—20. 3: 16—20. 1 Pet. 1: 15. Acts 16: 14, and many of the discourses of Jesus, especially those recorded in John, e. g. 3: 13 — 17, etc. This now entirely agrees with the promise of Christ, (a) that after his departure from the earth, he would support by his con stant and special assistance all those who should believe on him, even to the end of life ; and (6) that the Holy Spirit of God should always work among them, through the Christian doctrine. This the apostles every where repeat. And so they describe the whole moral renovation and perfection of man, as the work of God, or of the Holy Spirit; Ephes. 1: 19. James 1: 5, 18, where, however, this work is said to be accomplished Xoym dX-n&etag, 3: 17, sq. Heb. 13:20,21. When this doctrine is rightly understood, (i. e. in such a way, that human freedom, or the moral nature of man, is not violated,) sound reason cannot object to it. For it affirms no new revelations or irresistible influences. The manner however, in which this in fluence is exerted cannot be understood by reason, because the sub ject belongs to the sphere of things above sense. This we are taught by Christ and the Apostles. When Christ (John m.) had told Nicodemus, that the Holy Spirit effects a moral regeneration in men, the latter thought the doctrine incredible, and was unwill ing to believe it. Christ replied (v. 8), that it would be unreasona ble to consent to believe only what is directly perceived by the ex ternal senses, and the whole manner of whose existence and opera tion we could see, as it were, with our own eyes. He illustrates this by a comparison with the wind, which we cannot see and fol- RESPECTING THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE. 451 low with our eyes, but of whose actual existence we may be con vinced by its effects ; as, for example, by the sound which it makes. And such is the fact here. And there are a number of important passages of the same import, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, ch. i. — in., and especially 2 : 14. Cf. Morus, p. 237. ^ere ipvxi- xog uv&gmnog is not the natural man, for which qjvaixog would be the word ; but the carnal man; i. e. (where objects of knowledge are spoken of) one who will acknowledge and receive in religious matters, no higher divine instruction and guidance, who will be lieve nothing but what he perceives by his external senses (aagxi- xog), one who has no perception of the truths revealed by the Holy Spirit (za tov nvevpazog dyiov). No wonder, therefore, that he does not yield his assent to these truths, and that they even appear foolishness (pmgia ) to him. For such doctrines require to be dif ferently discerned from those which are merely of human discovery; they must be discerned nvevpazixdig. We reject human doctrines, or renounce them, when they do not instruct or satisfy us. But since God cannot err, the truths which he has revealed, and which we know from our own convictions to be such, may not be judged of by us in the same manner. We are not at liberty to oppose or re nounce them, because they may chance to be displeasing to us, or because they may be hard and unintelligible. (5) But these scriptural views of the agency of God in produc ing the moral renovation of man, when carefully examined, are by no means inconsistent with the philosophy of the day. They agree in all essential points with the doctrine which is confirmed by expe rience and reason, respecting the providence and agency of God1. For (a) all ability and power which man possesses for perceiving the truth, and for choosing either good or evil, is derived solely from God. (6) But God must also concur by his agency in the use and exercise of these powers, and preserve them to us in the mo ment of action ; vid. § 69. (c) We owe it to God, too, that we have opportunities to exert our faculties, and objects about which we may employ them. Through the divine ordering and government, we have teachers, and all the other internal and external assistances for acquiring knowledge of the truth, and for making progress in good ness. If we are deprived of these aids, we are not in a case ei- ther'to understand the truth, to practise virtue, or to do any thing great and useful ; vid. § 70. Every thing from without which con- 452 ART. XII. § 132. OPINIONS OF EARLY GREEK FATHERS. tributes to our moral good, is ordered by divine Providence and is employed by God for the promotion of his designs ; so that to him alone are we indebted not only for all temporal, but also for all spir itual good ; although by all this, our freedom of will is not in the least impaired ; vid. § *0, I. But being unable to fathom or com prehend the manner of the divine government, we cannot presume to determine positively how God can or must control us, and in what way he may, or may not, exert an agency in promoting our moral improvement. On this subject we must confine ourselves wholly to experience, and especially to the instructions of the Holy Scriptures, if we make them the ground of our knowledge. Nor must we renounce this doctrine because we cannot understand the internal modus of it. § 132. A sketch of some of the principal theories respecting the op erations of grace, and the freedom (or ability) of man in spir itual things ; and the controversies on this subject in the Chris tian Church. I. Opinions of the early Greek fathers. In the earliest ages, shortly after the time of the Apostles, there was no controversy on this subject, as Augustine himself acknowl edges. In the exhibition of this doctrine, most of the first teachers contented themselves with that simplicity, which prevails in the New Testament. They so express themselves, that while they af firm on one side, that man receives assistance (auxilia) from divine grace, they still allow to him on the other side freedom of action. Nothing was said from the first to the third century, about h-resisti- ble grace ; vid. § 79, in the history of the doctrine of original sin. So Ireneeus says in many passages, "that God compels no man ; that we are free, and can choose good or evil." Clement of Alexandria says, "that God indeed guides, but never binds our free wills ; and that hence to believe and to obey is in man's power." In the third century, Origen expressed his opinion still more definitely, than the Fathers who had preceded him. In his work negl dgxdjv, (L. in. c. 1.) he says, we are indebted for faith to God alone. He gave us RESPECTING THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE. 453 the means of faith. From him come both the faculties which man has of doing right, and the preservation of these faculties. But the use of these faculties bestowed upon us, depends upon our selves. When therefore in some passages of the New Testa ment the improvement of man is ascribed solely to God, and in others to man himself, there is no contradiction. For ev en that which depends upon our own free will, cannot take place without the divine assistance ; and God does not work in us, without our own cooperation. For he does not bind the free hu man will. With these sentiments, Athanasius, Basilius the Great, Chrysostom, and other fathers of the Greek Church perfectly agree. [Note. The early Greek Fathers were led to insist thus strongly upon av— TS%ovaiov, IXtv&splav, izpoaipsoiv (the self-determination, freedom of the will), by standing in immediate conflict with the views of man prevailing through out the heathen world, and especially among the contemporary Gnostic sects. Before Christianity was promulgated, it had become almost universal to regard man, as acting under the samo necessity to which material nature is subjec ted. Evil was supposed either to belong to matter, and to be inherent in the human organization, or to result from an irresistible fate and necessity. Thus the free and accountable agency of man was theoretically obscured ; and prac tically also, as far as the image of God, which is never wholly effaced, can be obscured by theoretic error and moral corruption. The publication of Christianity cast new light upon the condition and re lations of man. While by revealing a remedy, it implied his helplessness and need; on the other hand by offering pardon, it implied h\s guilt and exposure to punishment, and by appealing to the divine portion in man, it awaken — ed him from his apathy as' to moral obligation and effort. The whole na ture of the Christian remedy, consisting not of magical or physical influen ces, which would have been requisite had man been under a natural neces sity of sinning, but of moral means, calling our moral faculties into exercise, contained an implied contradiction to the Pagan and Manichean philosophy, and struck at the root of every view, which derives evil from a necessity of na ture, rather than from the perverted use of our moral powers. From these considerations it may be explained, that the early Greek Fath ers should have insisted so disproportionately upon the freedom of the human will, though they by no means went into the Pelagian excess of ascribing to it an independency on divine grace. Had they been placed in as immediate contact with the Stoical or Pharisaical doctrine of human self-sufficiency, as with the Pagan and Gnostic idea of natural necessity, they would doubtless have given to man's inability and dependence on God, that place which hu man freedom and power now hold in their system. As it was, the excess to which the Greek Fathers carried this point, laid the foundation for the divergency between the Eastern and Western Churches, which will appear in the sequel of this sketch. 454 ART. XII. § 132. LATIN FATHERS' DOCTRINE OF GRACE. With regard to the anthropological views of the Greek Fathers of this pe riod, cf. Neander, Kirchengeschichte, B. I. Abth. III. SS. 1049— 1060.. Tr.] II. Opinions of the early Latin Fathers ; and the doctrine of Pelagius. We find that most of the ancient Latin fathers agreed with this simple doctrine of the Greek Church. So Hilary, of the fourth cen tury ; nor were any objections made to him, before the time of Au gustine, near the beginning of the fifth century. We find, however, in Africa, even before the time of Augustine, some traces of the pe culiar expressions and sentiments which were afterwards formed by him into a system, which he held in opposition to that of Pelagius. Tertullian, who in the rest of his system does not differ from the Greeks, opposes gratiam divinam to natura, and says that the vis gratiae is potentior natura (the natural powers of men), De Anima, c. 21 . He, however, allows to man liberi arbitrii potestatem. Cyprian, in the third century, comes still nearer to the opinions of Augustine. And indeed there must have been many in Africa before and at the time of Augustine, who held the essentials of his system. This induced Pelagius, (who was a native of Britain, but who was extensively read in the works of the Greek fathers,) in the be ginning of the fifth century, to analyse and collate the doctrines of the Greek Fathers, and especially of Origen, and to draw conse quences from them, which they themselves had not authorized. He taught that three things should be distinguished in man, the posse, velle, and agere. For the faculty or power to do good, men are in debted to God alone (gratia), who had granted it to human nature. To will and to act depends upon man himself. Still men are so as sisted by the grace of God, that their willing and acting is facilitat ed. But the means which God makes use of in affording his aid are doctrina and revelalio. He made this last point more promi nent than any of the teachers who had preceded him ; and this was well. But in other points he deviated from the doctrine of the Bi ble ; viz. (a) by denying natural depravity ; (b) by deriving our ability to do good, solely or principally from the power with which our nature was originally endowed by God ; (c) and by allowing to God no real instrumentality in the conversion and sanctification of men. According to this system, God works only by means of the Christian doctrine, i. e. he is the author of this doctrine, which con tains more powerful motives than any other. Augustine's doctrine of grace. 455 Against this system Augustine contended. In Africa, Councils were held in opposition to Pelagius, in which his doctrine was con demned. The Christians of the Eastern Church, of Palestine and elsewhere, did not, however, assent to this decision ; and the same is true of many in the Latin Churches beyond the bounds of Africa, and at first even of the Roman Bishop himself. This was owing, partly to the extravagant zeal of Augustine, and to the mixture of many erroneous opinions in his system ; and partly to the guarded and ambiguous phraseology of Pelagius, by which he concealed his departures from the scriptural doctrine. But at length Augustine succeeded so far in his efforts, that the doctrine of Pelagius was con demned, and the condemnation confirmed by the Emperor. And thus the theory of Augustine obtained the predominance, at least in the West. III. Augustine's doctrine respecting grace. (1) He held that human nature is so depraved (§ 79), that it no longer possesses freedom of will in spiritual things (carere libera ar- bitrio in spiritualibus) ; i. e. is unable to understand spiritual things (the truths of salvation contained in the Scriptures), or to act con formably with them, without the divine instructions contained in the Scriptures, and the gracious assistance of God ; although he may possess freedom in natural things (liberum arbitrium habere in naturalibus) ; i.e. he may learn God from nature and reason, and fulfil many of his duties. The Bible, too, teaches that the wicked come at length to such a habit of sinning, that they become the slaves of sin, John 8: 32, 36. Rom. 7: 23, and that they can be de livered from this slavery, only by faith in Jesus Christ, and by divine assistance. Since now Augustine was led by opposition to Pelagius to exaggerate the doctrine of natural depravity (vid. §§ 79, 80) ; he represented the assistance afforded by God in the improvement of man, as truly compulsory, and of such a nature as to infringe upon human freedom. The ancient fathers, on the other hand, held to ro avze'S.ovaiov, understanding by this term, or the term li berum arbitrium (which Tertullian first borrowed from a term in Roman Law), the power of man .to choose good or evil freely and without compulsion. This view was universally held in the East ; and in the West, too, before the Pelagian controversies. (2) Augustine made a careful distinction between nature and 456 ART. XII.* § 132. DOCTRINE OF AUGUSTINE grace ; vid. § 129, II., and Morus p. 234, Not. 2. Grace alone can renew man ; he can do nothing for this end by the powers of mere nature. And it is true, in a certain sense, according to the Bible, that man alone cannot deliver himself; that by his own unaid ed poivers, he cannot renew himself. But Augustine went further than this, and the additions which he made are not scriptural. Man, he said, can do nothing which will at all contribute to his spiritual recovery. He is like a lump of clay, or a statue, without life or activity. Hence, he denied virtue and salvation to the heath en, and to all who are not enlightened by grace ; vid. § 121. (3) This divine grace, which alone is able to renew the heart, is described by Augustine as efficax and sufficiens, i. e. alone suffi cient to overcome the power of sin, (in which Augustine, was right,) and also as irresistibilis. For he conceived grace to be the direct operation of divine omnipotence, acting in a miraculous manner, qua voluntatem hominum indeclinabili vi ad bona trahat. (4) Augustine made a threefold division of grace, founded on the doctrine, which he held in opposition to Pelagius, that to will, to be able, and to perform, depend solely on divine grace ; viz. (a) gratia excitans or incipiens, that grace which renders the hu man will inclined to faith, excites good emotions, and produces the beginnings of faith. Other names given to this incipient grace are, praeveniens, pulsans, trahens, vocans, praeparans. (b) Operans or efficiens, that grace which imparts faith, and new spiritual powers for the performance of duty. God produces good desires and deter minations in man by the truths of the Christian religion, (c) Coop- erans, perficiens, or assistans, that by which the believer is assisted, after his conversion, so that he will be able to perform good works, and to persevere in faith. Augustine differed from all the theologians who had preced ed him, in teaching that grace anticipated the human will (praven- ire voluntatem). This may be understood in a very just and scrip tural sense. But Augustine meant by it nothing less, than that the first good desires and determinations to amend, are miraculously produced, or infused into the heart by divine grace. Whereas the earlier theologians had uniformly taught, that God gives man, in the use of means, opportunity to repent, and that he guides and as sists in this work by his own agency ; but that man himself must be active, and must form the resolution to repent, and have a disposi- RESPECTING THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE. 457 tion to do so ; in which case divine mercy will come to his relief (quod voluntas hominum praveniat auxilia gratia). To this view, however, Augustine could not consent, because he denied all power to the human will. In this work, man, in his view, is entirely passive. But many of his followers in the West differed from him in this particular, and adhered to the more ancient representation. Afterwards they were frequently numbered with the Semi-Pelagians, and in the sixth century their doctrine was condemned. (5) With respect to the manner in which saving grace operates, Augustine believed, that in the case of those who enjoy revelation, grace commonly acts by means of the word, or the divine doctrine, but sometimes directly ; because God is not confined to the use of means. On this point there was great logomachy. Real conver sions, even in such extraordinary cases as that of Paul, are effected by the Word of God, and the believing reception of it ; although the circumstances under which the word is brought home to the heart, may be extraordinary. (6) Augustine connected all these doctrines with his theory re specting the unconditional decree of God ; respecting which vid. Vol. I. § 32. He taught, that the anticipating and efficient grace of God- depend not at all upon man and his worthiness (susceptibil ity), but solely on the decree of God. God, according to his own will, elected some, from all eternity, from the whole mass of man kind, in order to make them vessels of mercy (susceptible of his grace) ; while from others he withholds, this renovating grace, that they may be vessels of wrath. He imparts, indeed, to all the an ticipating grace ; but efficient grace only to a few, viz. the elect. ' Of this procedure none can complain ; for God is not bound to be stow his grace upon any. Thus the efficacy (efficacia) of grace on the heart is made by him to depend on the unconditional decree of God (ab clectione Dei), and also the opposition (resistentia) of men, — the latter on the decretum reprobationis. For God does not will to exert the whole power of his grace upon the heart of those who prove reprobate. Why he does not, we are unable to deter mine. This is one of the unfathomable mysteries of the divine de crees. Such doctrines as these are distinctly expressed in many of the writings of Augustine ; as in his work De predesiinatione Sanc torum. He is not. however at all times consistent with himself; and feeling how hard his doctrine is, sometimes expresses himself less Vol. II. 58 458 ART. XII. § 132. CONTROVERSIES ON severely. [For a more complete view of the system of Augus tine, cf. the Jan. No. of Bib. Repository, for 1833. Art. Augustine and Pelagius.] IV. Controversies on particular points in the Augustinian system. The system of Augustine respecting grace was, taken as a whole, made fundamental in the Western Church in the ages succeed ing his. Some adopted it entire, others only in part ; most, howev er, dissented from it in some particulars, and lowered it down, so to speak. They retained many of his terms, but employed them in a more just and scriptural sense. Others, on the contrary, adopted the system of Pelagius, or endeavoured to compose a new system by combining his opinions with those of Augustine. The principal points on which a difference of opinion existed in the Latin Church were the following : viz. (1) The doctrine of predestination. Although Augustine be lieved in unconditional decrees, this doctrine never became univer sal in the Latin Church. Most of the members of this Church un til the ninth century, held only to those passages in his works, in which he expressed himself with less rigor. But in the ninth cen tury, when Gottschalk began to advocate unconditional decrees stren uously, a vehement controversy arose ; vid. § 32, Note. His princi pal opponents were Rabanus Maurus, Hinkmar, and others, who just ly derived predestination from God's foreknowledge of the free actions of men. In this opinion they had many followers ; though a large number still adopted the theory of Augustine, after moderat ing and modifying it in various ways. To this party, Peter of Lom bardy and other schoolmen belonged. Luther and Melancthon, (as well as Calvin and Beza,) were at first strong Augustinians ; but they afterwards abandoned his doctrine of predestination; while Calvin and Beza still adhered to it, and made it a doctrine of their Church ; vid. the sections above cited. Between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the most violent controversies on this sub ject raged in the Romish Church, between the Jansenists, who were zealous Augustinians, and the Jesuits in the Netherlands and France. The latter agreed very nearly in sentiment with Rabanus, and had many supporters. (2) The doctrine of the freedom of the human will and its rela- PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 459 tion to the operations of grace. On this subject, there are three principal systems. First. The Auguslinian, which allows to man no freedom of will in spiritual things, according to the statement above made ; No. III. The strenuous adherents of Augustine above named, en tirely agreed with him in this particular ; and the doctrine of the entire inability of man in spiritual things, in the sense of Augustine, was zealously advocated by the Dominicans, who in this followed Thomas Aquinas. Out of this arose the violent controversy which prevailed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries de auxiliis gra tia, between the Dominicans and Netherland theologians on the one side, and the Jesuits and their adherents on the other, and af terwards, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, between the Jesuits and Jansenists. Luther with Carlstadt, and some others of his coadjutors, belonged at first to this high party. The former de fended this doctrine in his book De servo arbitrio, against Eras mus. Afterwards however his views became very much more mod erate, and he retained but little more of the doctrine of Augustine than the terms in which it was expressed. He was followed by a large number of the theologians of his Church. Secondly. Tlie scholastic system. Most of the schoolmen en deavoured to moderate the theory of Augustine. They taught that grace is indeed powerful and efficacious, but that man is not com pelled by it, and can resist it. The assent of the human will must accompany grace, without which it is inefficacious. They allowed, therefore, the freedom of the will in a certain sense. They held, that the will of man can either follow or resist grace ; while still they admitted that grace has a certain influence in the renovation of man, not indeed miraculous, but yet acting physically in connexion with the divine word. They were followed afterwards in the Ro mish Church by the great body of the Jesuits, who, on this account, were involved in much controversy with the Dominicans, Jansen ists and others, who were strict Augustinians, and by whom they were accused of inclining to Pelagianism. At the time of the Re formation in the sixteenth century, this theory prevailed far and wide in the Romish Church, and was defended by Eck and Eras mus against Luther. It was adopted by Melancthon, and expressly avowed by him after the death of Luther, and by the theologians of his school in the sixteenth century. Others, however would not 460 ART. XII. § 132. LATER HISTORY swerve from the earlier system of Luther ; though the difference which now existed between the two parties was more in words, than in reality. This doctrine was called by the latter synergism, and its advocates Synergists, because they taught that the operations of grace are accompanied by the action of the human will. The prin cipal advocate of this synergism was Victorin Strigel, and its prin cipal opponent Flaccius. Since that period the opinions on both, sides have assumed a much more moderate shape, and a great deal of logomachy has ceased. But there still remains a difference of opinion on this point, in the Protestant as well as in the Catholic Church. Thirdly. The system of Pelagius. Many think that this system is better than any other, to remove the contradiction between hu man freedom and the influences of grace. Pelagius entirely denies any physical influence of grace, and any alteration of the will effect ed by means of it. God, indeed, operates on men, but merely through the (natural) power of the truths of religion, of which he is the Author. Man has ability both to understand these truths and live according to them, and also ability to sin. And this is the free dom of will, essential to man. God causes the renovation of the heart, but merely through the influence of Christian doctrine, inas much as this doctrine, of which God is the author, contains more powerful motives to improvement than any human systems. Vid. the estimate, No. II., ad fin. Many modern theologians have re ceived this system entirely, and some have undertaken to interpret the common ecclesiastical formulas and the Augustinian phraseolo gy in conformity with it. Respecting these controversies and sys tems, vid. the works of Vossius, Sirmond, Mauguin, Serry, Norisi- us ; also the works of Semler, Walch (Ketzergeschichte), Rosier (Bibliothek der Kirchenvater), and others. [Cf. Neander, Kirchen gesch. B. II. Abth. III. Bretschneider, B. II. S. 606.— Tr.] V. Later history of this doctrine. Since the seventeenth and especially since the eighteenth cen tury, many theologians of the Protestant Church have laboured to cast light on the doctrine of the operations of grace and the efficacy of the divine word, and to exhibit this doctrine in a manner corres pondent with the principles of modern philosophy. Some have de- dF THE DOCTRINE OF GRACE. 461 clared themselves decidedly in favor of the Pelagian system. Oth ers have adopted it only in part, or while they have held it, have disguised their belief by using the terms of the Augustinian or scho lastic theory, in an entirely different sense from what belongs to them, in reality denying physical influence. In this point, howev er, the Protestant church is agreed, that the Holy Spirit does not act immediately, but mediately, through the word, § 130, II. So clearly do the Symbols teach, Morus p. 231, n. 1. Still there is a great diversity of opinion on the question about the manner in which the Holy Spirit acts through the word, and on the question whether these operations may be denominated supernatural and in what sense. On these points there are two principal theories prevalent in the Protestant Church. (1) Many hold, that although grace operates through the word, there is still, connected with the word, a special power of the Holy Spirit, in enlightening and converting men. This power, however, is never exerted without, but always in connexion with the word. Conjunctum cum usu doctrina auxilium Dei, quod ille fert utenti- bus ea, Morus p. 228, Note. The greater part, though not all of the early Protestant and Lutheran theologians, were of this opinion. So Melancthon. Some gave such a turn to this doctrine, that they were suspected of fanaticism. This was the case with Herm. Rathmann, a Lutheran preacher in Dantzig, who affirmed in his work, " Gnadenreich Christi," 1621, that man is so depraved that the word of God can by itself exert no power on his heart, unless the almighty power of the Holy Spirit is connected with it. Upon this a great controversy arose in the seventeenth century. Some, too, of the party of the Pietists, in the eighteenth century, expressed themselves so vaguely on this point, that they were suspected of fa naticism. But in fact, neither their opinions, nor that of Rathmann can properly be called fanatical. Fanatics and enthusiasts believe in an illumination and renovation of man effected immediately by God, without the use of the word, or the truths of the Holy Scrip tures, of which consequently they speak with disregard. So e. g. the Quakers. Vid. Morus p. 231, §5, for a brief view of their system. Many modern theologians have entirely departed from these views, vid. No. 2 ; while on the other hand, many have adhered to the more ancient theory, and defended it against all attacks. E. g. 462 ART. XII. § 132. LATER HISTORY, ETC. C. A. Bertling, Vorstellung was die lutherische Kirche von der Kraft der heiligen Schrift lehre, Dantzig, 1756, 4to. The author of the " Freundschaftliche Unterredungen iiber die Wirkungen der Gnade," 2te Ausg. 4. Thl. Halle, 1774, 8vo. Also the " Briefe iiber dje Wirkungen der Gnade," by the same author, which is the best work in favor of this theory. Gottl. Christ. Storr, " De Spirit- us Sancti in mentibus nostris efficientia, et de momento ejus doc- trinae," Tubingen, 1777, 4to. Cf. Gehe, Diss, inaug. de argumento quod pro divinitate religionis Christianas ab experientia. ducitur, Gottingen, 1796. This theory, however little it may accord with the prevailing principles of modern philosophy, is strongly supported by many passages of Scripture, § 130, § 131, II. 4. (2) Others, on the contrary, hold that the divine and supernatu ral (though they do not like to make use of this word) power of the word of God, by which man is converted, is not to be looked for in connexion with the word, but as belonging to the word itself. They thus consider the power by which man is renewed and' made holy, to be in no sense a physical, but rather a logico-moral power. This opinion, which is fundamentally Pelagian, was ingeniously de fended in the seventeenth century by Claud Pajon, a reformed theo logian of Orleans ; it led, however, to much controversy. This opinion was first fully exhibited in the Lutheran Church, after the eighteenth century, by Joh. Ernest. Schubert, in his " Unterricht von der Kraft der heiligen Schrift," Helmstadt, 1753, 4to. It was against this work that Bertling wrote ; cf. No. 1. It was afterwards defended by Spalding, " Ueber den Werth der Gefiihle in Christen- thum," and by Eberhard, " Apologie des Sokrates," Thl. I. HI. The most copious and learned \vork on this subject is, Junkheim, " Von dem Uebernaturlichen in den Gnadenvvirkungen," Erlangen, 1775, 8vo. This theory has been adopted by most modern theo logians of the Protestant Church, and essentially even by Morus. They frequently employ, indeed, the ancient phraseology and form ulas, but in a different sense from that in which they were originally used, a sense which is considered by them more rational, i. e. more conformed to the philosophical system adopted by these modern theolo gians. We shall now give a brief historical account and illustration of this theory, which at present is the most popular and current among Protestant theologians ; adding, however, a critique as we pass along. § 133. MODERN THEORY OF DIVINE AGENCY. 463 § 133. Exhibition of the modern theory respecting the divinity of the operations of grace, and the power of the word of God.* I. How does God act in promoting the moral improvement and perfection of men 1 and in what consists the divinity of the operations of grace I (1) God does not act in such a way, as to infringe upon the free will of man, or to interfere with the use of his powers ; vid. Phil. 2: 12, 13. Consequently God does not act on man immediately, pro ducing ideas in their souls without the preaching or reading of the Scriptures, or influencing their will in any other way than by the un derstanding. Did God operate in any other way than through the understanding, he would operate miraculously and irresistibly. And the practice of virtue under such an influence, would have no internal worth : it would be compelled, and consequently incapa ble of reward. But experience teaches, that the work of reforma tion and holiness is not effected violently and at once, but by de grees ; which could not be the case, if God acted irresistibly and miraculously. Experience teaches, too, that man can resist ; and so the Bible says expressly, Matt. 23: 37. Heb. 3: 8, sq. John 7: 17. Acts 7: 51. We find, also, that the moral reformation of man can not take place without earnest and zealous effort, (the working out of salvation with fear and trembling, Phil, ii.,) or the vigorous exer cise of one's own powers ; and that man must be any thing, rather than passive and inactive in this matter. The Bible teaches the same thing, and so requires of men that they should reform, change their heart, Acts 2: 38. 8: 22. It exhorts them to increase in knowledge and Virtue, Ephes. 2: 10. Tit. 2: 17. 1 Pet. 2: 1, 2, sq. And for what purpose has God given to man the direct revelation of his will, if it is not to be used and employed by God himself in promoting the salvation of men 1 Hence all genuine Protestant theologians, on whatever other points they may differ are agreed in this. (2) The divinity in the operations of grace consists, * How far I assent to this theory, either on scriptural or other grounds, will appear from the previous sections. Where I agree with it entirely, I shall state it as my opinion ; wherever it appears to me erroneous, i. e. not de monstrable from the Bible, I shall give it as the opinion of others. 464 ART. XII. § 133. MODERN THEORY (a) In thetdoctrine revealed by God. For by means of this, faith is excited and preserved in men. This doctrine could not have been discovered by man, without a divine revelation ; and God is the author of all the effects which result from it. In the same way we properly ascribe to a discourse or to a great writer, all the beneficial effects which may result from his discovery or writings ; and regard him as the author of these effects. All this is true ; but this is not all which the Bible teaches on this subject. The Bible teaches, that besides this, there is an agency of God, connected with divine truth, and accompanying it ; or that there is connected with the divine word an operation of God on the hearts of men, having for its end their improvement and holiness ; vid. § 131, II. 4. (6) In the wise and beneficent external institutions which God has established, by which man is led to the knowledge of the truth, and his heart is prepared and inclined to receive it. Who can fail to recognize the divine hand in these external circumstances, by which so powerful an influence is exerted upon us ; and which are often entirely beyond our own control ? How much does the moral culture and improvement of men depend on birth, paren tage, early instruction, education, society, example, natural powers, adversity or prosperity ! Vid. § 131, II. 4. These circumstances are frequently mentioned in the Bible, Rom. 2: 4, sq. Hence it fol lows that God has made wise arrangements for the good of man, which may properly be called grace, inasmuch as they are proofs of his undeserved goodness. It follows also, that God withholds his as sistance from none, and that the work of moral renovation is effect ed in a manner entirely adapted to our moral nature, not forcibly, irresistibly, instantaneously, but gradually ; vid. § 126, sq. Now, so far as the end which God has in view in wisely order ing these circumstances and appointing these means, is attained, i. e. when man does not himself resist their influence, this grace may be called efficacious. Still it is exerted in such a way, that no one is compelled. Grace never acts irresistibly. The renew al of man is effected by God through the Christian doctrine, the influence of which can be resisted, because it acts on the will through the understanding ; and the will is not necessa rily determined, but only rendered disposed to determine it self for a particular object. In the physical world the law of sufficient reason and of necessity prevails ; in the moral world, the law of freedom. God, therefore, who himself has given this law, OF DIVINE AGENCY. 465 will not act in contradiction to it. Frequently, however, one can not prevent the good impressions and emotions which arise on hear ing or reading the truths of the Christian religion ; just as he is un able to prevent the sensations or ideas which external objects pro duce in his mind, through the senses. This observation, which is founded on the nature of the human soul, gave rise to the position which was taken in the controversies between the Jansenists and Jesuits ; gratiam non esse irresislibilem, sed inevitabilem. For al though man cannot prevent in every case good impressions and emotions, he is able to prevent the consequences of them in actual reformation. II. In what manner does God operate on the heart of man through the word, in promoting his mora] improvement. On this point theologians are divided. (1) The natural power of truth acts first on the human under standing. The Christian doctrine makes us acquainted with God, with his feelings towards us, and with what he requires of us. It delivers us from ignorance and prejudice. For all this we are in debted to God. God gave us these instructions, that they might have an effect upon us ; i. e. that they might act powerfully on the will, and excite in us good feelings and resolutions. Thus the con sideration of the divine promises revealed in Christianity, tends to lead our minds to repose confidence in God. The consideration, too, of these promises, and the examination of our conduct by the divine precepts, produces sorrow and repentance. These precepts and promises, which the Christian religion makes known, are adapt ed to produce zeal for virtue or holiness. At first our powers for goodness are weak ; but by exercise they increase in strength and become confirmed; vid. Art. XI. All this takes place according to the natural laws of the human mind ; but the effect produced does not cease, on this account, to be the work of God. (2) But the New Testament always ascribes to the Christian religion a greater power and efficacy in rendering men virtuous and happy, than to any truth ever discovered or taught by man, or sup ported merely by arguments of human wisdom. Thus Paul says, Rom. 1: 16, evayyeXiov Xgiazov is Svvupig &eov elg amztjgiav nav- zl to) mazevovzi. In 1 Cor. i. and n. he shows that the Gospel Vol. II. 59 466 ART. XII. § 133. MODERN THEORY had produced greater effects, than any human system ever did or could produce, although exhibited in the most eloquent, forcible, and convincing manner. Cf. John 6: 63, and John in. Experience and history confirm this. Philosophers and moralists, who depend upon the internal strength and validity of their systems derived from human wisdom, have never been able to accomplish such great and wonderful results as the Christian religion has produced, although exhibited without eloquence or human wisdom. What merely hu man teacher of morals could ever boast of so great and remarkable an effect from his instructions, as we read of in Acts 2: 37, and 8: 27 — 38. And whence is all this ? Some have thought it to be ow ing to the divine authority on which the Christian doctrine is publish ed. This authority they say, exerts more influence on one who ac- knoicledges it, and removes doubts and difficulties more easily, than the most convincing arguments and the most eloquent address, which depend on nothing more than mere human authority. But why have not other religions,which have also been published on divine authority, produced these same effects? This divine authority cannot, therefore, be the only ground of the difference. With this must be connected the internal excellence of the religion itself, and the salutary nature of its doctrines. These two taken together, constitute the whole cause, so far at least as it is externally visible, of the facts under consideration. But even these do not satisfactorily account for all the effects pro duced by the Christian doctrine ; they are not assigned by the Holy Scriptures as the principal cause from which these effects are ex plicable. The Scriptures teach, that the cause of these great ef fects does not lie merely in the power and weight of the doctrines of Christianity, and the evidence by which they are supported, but prin cipally in the almighty power and influence of God, who through the Christian doctrine works in the souls of men ; vid. § 131, II. 4. This efficacy of the divine doctrine is called in theology, the power (vis, efficacia) of the divine word. (3) Inferences drawn from the preceding statement. (a) The power of the word of God, or the agency of the Holy Spirit, is not physical, but logico-moral ; i. e. the Holy Spirit acts upon the human soul in a manner conformed to our rational and moral nature. This influence is founded in the knowledge of the truths of Christianity, and of the motives contained in it, by which the human will is drawn, but not compelled. To this is add ed on the part of man, the firm conviction of the divine origin and OF DIVINE AGENCY. 467 authority of this doctrine, and of the divine superintendence by which its effect on him is increased. Power to convince and re form is imparted to, and connected with, the Christian doctrine, in the same way as power to germinate and grow, is given to seed, and power to heal, to medicine. This last statement is, in itself, true and scriptural, cf. Mark 4: 28. But it is not inconsistent with the other equally scriptural view of the influence of God on the heart of man. For he does not act on us, otherwise than by means of the Christian doctrine, and conse quently not in a compulsory and irresistible manner, but in a man ner conformed to the moral nature of man, although the internal modus of his agency may be inexplicable to us. And who can ex plain the internal modus of the effects produced by God in the nat ural world ? John 3: 8. Vid. § 131, II. 4. To believe, therefore, that there is an influxum (vim physicam, or as others express it more guardedly, physico-analogam), is, according to what has now been said, not contrary to Scripture, but conformed to it. (6) But however powerful the operation of the divine word, and of God, by means of his word, may be, man himself must not, in the mean time, be inactive and sluggish, Phil. 2: 12, 13. For the ef fect of the divine influence on the heart of any one, depends on his making a right use and proper application of the divine doctrine, and on his whole conduct in regard to these divine influences. If he disregards these influences, and neglects to improve them in the proper manner, he can no more be benefited by them, than one can be satisfied and nourished without the use of food. Such is the uniform representation of the Bible. Vid. Mark 4: 20, sq. Luke 8: 15, Katixeiv Xoyov iv xagSla xaXrj xal dya&y, to embrace and obey the truth with an upright and sincere heart. (c) Theologians call the operations of grace supernatural. By this they cannot mean to denote a direct, and of course irresistible, agency of God in the soul of man, or any thing properly miracu lous. This term cannot, therefore, be taken here in that strict sense, in which philosophers use it. According to the Pelagian theory, these influences can be so called, only because they are ex erted through the divine doctrine which is supernalurally revealed (in respect, therefore, to the means by which they are exerted) ; and hence are more efficacious, than mere unassisted reason could be. Thus we call supernatural knowledge, that for which we are indebt- 468 ART. XII. § 133. MODERN THEORY ed to divine revelation, and natural, that to which we can attain through our own reflection. According to the theory of the ancient theologians, which is more accordant with the Holy Scriptures, with Christ and the apostles, these influences are also called super natural, because they cannot be explained by any of the known laws of nature; John 3: 8. 1 Cor. 1:2. Vid. § 131, II. 4. In respect to the manner in which the influences of grace are exerted on the human soul, — a manner entirely suited to its moral nature, — the op erations of grace may, indeed, be denominated natural, as they are by Eberhard, in his " Apologie des Socrates." (d) Theologians distinguish between nature and grace. In this they follow Augustine, vid. § 1 32, II. But they have differed very mueh in determining what are the motus gratia, and what the mo- tus natura, and how they can be distinguished. The common opinion has been, that the doings of the unconverted, even their vir tues, flow from their nature, and therefore, according to Augustine, are not pleasing to God, or capable of reward. Of the actions of the regenerate only, can it be said, that they are acceptable in his sight, and flow from the influences of grace. Vid. Spener, Vom Unter schied der Natur und Gnade, Erfurt, 1715. But there are difficul ties attending this opinion, § 125. To determine the marks, by which nature and grace may be distinguished, the matter can be stated as follows : every thing which we owe to the right use of the Christian doctrine, and to the agency of God through his truth, is the effect of grace ; and every thing in us which has not its origin or foundation in the use of the divine truth, is the effect of nature. If then we can ascertain how much we owe to our be ing instructed in divine truth, and to the influences of God by its means, we may also know how much we owe to grace. Proceed ing in this way, we do not treat nature (or that essential constitu tion which God has given toman), with contemptuous disregard ; nor are we compelled, in denying grace to the heathen, to deny de cidedly, that they had any virtue, or can attain to salvation. Note. In popular religious instruction, the teacher should confine himself to such clear and scriptural points, as Morus has exhibited (pp. 236, 237,Note 4), il lustrating these by the Bible and experience, and setting aside all learned theological disputes and scholastic terms. (1) God has endued man with reason and conscience. By the aid of these principles, man is enabled to learn much respecting the nature and will OF DIVINE AGENCY. 469 of God, and to act conformably to this correct knowledge, Rom. 1: 19, 20. 2: 14, 15, sq. (2) But the Holy Scriptures give us a far more perfect knowledge of God and of our duty. The revealed religion contained in them has much which is peculiarly excellent, and which is not taught in natural religion. And, ac cording to the testimony of the Scriptures, God has promised his special as sistance, support and guidance to those who possess them, and obey the pre cepts contained in them. And this promise is confirmed by experience ; Rom. i. n. We ought therefore thankfully to receive, and faithfully to obey, the instruction contained in the Holy Scriptures. (3) No one can understand, discern, or receive with approbation the in structions of the Holy Scriptures, unless he is taught the truths contained in them. Nor can any one obey these instructions, unless the hindrances which stand in the way of his reception of them, in his understanding and will, are removed, 1 Cor. 2: 14. (4) To be delivered through divine instruction and assistance, from our ig norance, our mistakes, prejudices, and from our evil passions, is a great and invaluable benefit ; and we owe this benefit to none but God and the Holy Spirit; vid. the texts cited, § 130. (5) There are, and always will be, great difficulties and hindrances, both within and without, by which our assent to the truths of revelation will be weakened, and our progress in holiness retarded; and these difficulties and hindrances cannot be overcome and removed, without the constant assistance and support of God, John 5: 44. 8:43, sq. Ephes. 4: 18, and other passages, vid. §§ 130, 131. (6) We need therefore, in commencing and continuing a life of piety, the help, support and guidance of God. We ourselves, however, must not in the mean time be inactive, but must conscientiously employ the means which God has given us, and faithfully obey the instructions and directions contain ed in the Bible, always remembering, that we owe these means of improve ment and virtue to God only, and that without him we can do nothing ; Phil. 2: 12, 13. [Note. The opinions of the Lutheran theologians since the time of our au thor, have been equally diversified as when he wrote, and perhaps more so. This is the less strange, as it is now a conceded point, that their own estab lished standards are at variance among themselves on the doctrine of the ope rations of grace ; cf. Vol. I. § 32, JNote. Henke, Eckerrnann, and Wegschei- der follow out the positions of Morus, Junkheim, Michaelis, Dcederlein .and others, to the full Pelagian extreme, and make the grace of God in conver sion to be only that general agency, by which he has endued man with rational powers, written the law upon his heart, instituted Christianity and caused it to be promulgated, and by which, in his providential arrangements, 470 ART. XII. § 133. OPINIONS OF THEOLOGIANS he givesto every man opportunity and excitement to repentance. Ammon also (Summa, § 132, 133), makes the renewing grace of God to consist procu- ratione institutionis salutaris, excitatione per exempla virtutis illustria, pauper- tate, calamitatibus, admonitionibus amicorum et inimicorum. All these writers agree in making the operations of grace merely external, in the way of moral influence, and in denying an immediate agency of God upon the human mind. In this, their system is stamped with one of the most essen tial features of Pelagianism : cf. Neander's developement of the Pelagian sys tem in Part III. of the 2d Vol. of his Church Hist. There is another class who are distinguished from the former by admitting an immediate divine agency in the moral kingdom, though they differ among themselves as to the relation of this influence to the agency of man, especial ly at the commencement of the life of faith. Bretschneider contends strenu ously for an immediate divine influence as indispensable to conversion. At the same time, he supposes it to depend upon the character and state of the in dividual who is the subject of this influence, whether grace alone produces faith in him, or whether he himself contributes any thing towards it. The opera tions of grace, accordingly, are not uniform, but as various as the states in which it finds man, from untutored barbarism, to the highest degree of illumi nation and refinement enjoyed in Christian lands. Nearly the same views are expressed by Reinhard in his Theology. Neander and Tholuck, as will be obvious to any attentive reader of their works, hold prominently, that even in faith there is a divine element,— that it can by no means result from the unaided efforts of man ; that besides the gen eral influence of Christianity, there is an internal influence of the Spirit of God,— a drawing of the Heavenly Father;— but that man also is active in this work; and that it is an unwarrantable assumption to undertake to settle im moveable limits to these two conspiring agencies, or to solve the mystery belonging to the secret operations of grace. Again ; Schleiermacher, Marheinecke, and others belonging to the more ap propriately philosophical school of Theologians, have restored the entire sys tem of Augustine as to immediate and efficacious grace, and the absolute and unqualified dependence of man upon God for the very commencement of faith.— With regard to this class, it is remarkable, that while Augustine and Calvin rested the proof of this doctrine mainly upon scriptural authority, these have been led to adopt and now maintain it, on grounds purely philosophical. The weight of the names of such writers, has raised the Augustinian and Cal- vinistic theory of grace far above the contempt and reproach, with which it was heretofore treated by the great body of Lutheran Theologians. A few extracts, under distinct heads, will show something of the manner in wliich this doctrine is treated by writers of this class, and how much impor tance is attached by them to the idea, that the divine influences are immediate, and not merely moral and external. Our extracts are drawn from two of the more lucid and popular writers. The statements of Schleiermacher and others of the same School upon this subject, though still more decisive on the point in question, are so intimately interwoven with the whole of their system, SINCE THE TIME OF KNAPP. 471 and receive so much colouring from it, as to require more explanation to render them perfectly intelligible, than the present limits will allow. That such an influence is to be desired, is affirmed by Reinhard in the fol lowing passage from the 4th Vol. of his "Moral," S. 129. " When one consid ers the innate depravity of which man is conscious, — the weakness of his moral powers hence resulting, — the innumerable perversions to which those constitutional feelings and propensities which are in themselves good, are liable, the disordered states which arise from these perversions, and which more or less hinder a true moral developement, — in fine, the many external causes which nourish and strengthen depravity, and render genuine reforma tion exceedingly difficult; — whe^i one who is in earnest in the work of im provement considers all this, he must feel the wish arise! that God would light en this arduous work, and come in aid of his efforts." Objections having often been made to the possibility of such influences, by Reimarus, Lessing and others, on the ground that violence would thus be done to the intellectual and moral nature of man, Bretschneider thus replies: " That God has power to act inwardly on the souls of men, and to awaken ideas in their minds, cannot be denied. As the Creator of spirits he knows their nature, and how he can operate upon them ; and as almighty, he must be able to produce in his creatures any effect which he desires. Does any one deny this power to God, he erects between him and the spiritual world an in surmountable wall of partition ; and in order to be consistent, must deny that God is the Governor of the world in general, any more than he is of the spir itual world. The possibility of an inward agency of God upon the world of spirits cannot therefore be denied, although the manner in which this agency is exerted is inscrutable ; which indeed is true as to the manner of all the di vine operations.' * * With what truth now is it presupposed that these influ ences must hamper the free agency of the mind, and reduce the subject of them to a mere machine ? Does not the very nature of the case require that Reason, the recipient, should actively receive, retain, and appropriate that which is given it? Does not the teacher often, in giving instruction to the child, suddenly interrupt the course of his thoughts, and put him on an entire ly new train of ideas ? But are the laws of mind in the child violated by this interruption ? — The teacher, it is said, makes use of words. But cannot God, by an adloquium internum cause new thoughts in the souls of men ? Or are words the only possible way by which a Spirit can impart his light to other spirits, and teach them." Dogmatik, B. I. S. 129, ff. But an immediate influence of this kind is not only desirable and possible, but also highly probable. Here again Bretschneider remarks : " As God stands in connexion with the material world, and by his most full and perfect life continually operates upon it; he must also stand in constant connexion with the moral world ; otherwise there could be no moral government." Dogmat ik, B. II. S. 600. This probability drawn from the cooperation of God in the material world, is stated still more strongly by Reinhard If there is an im mediate concurrence and agency of God in the material world, as generally conceded by German philosophers and theologians, such an agency is much 472 ART. XII. § 133. OPINIONS OF LATER THEOLOGIANS. more to be expected in the moral world, since this is a far more congenial sphere for divine operations. " In the material sphere, the connexion between natural causes and effects is obvious to the senses, and must, therefore, be principally regarded by us, although even here the Scriptures commonly mention only the highest and last cause, which is God. But in the kingdom of freedom, there is no such mechanical connexion between cause and effect, but an unimpeded intercommunion of beings freely acting ; here, therefore, there can be no reason why we, with the Scriptures, should not conceive of an immediate influence, since such an influence is far more adapted than one which is mediate, to the sphere of which we are now speaking." Moral, B. IV. S. 258. But while these writers contend for the fact of immediate divine influ ences in promoting the renewal of men, they are careful to guard against the perversion of this doctrine by enthusiasts and fanatics. " The reality of these influences," says Bretschneider, " cannot be proved from experience. The in fluences of grace as such, cannot be distinguished in consciousness from oth ers ; because our consciousness informs us only of the effect, and not of its or igin ; takes note only of the change itself, which passes within us, but is un able to feel whether it comes from God. * * As the agency of God in the ma terial world always appears to us as natural, and in the effects produced we never discern the supernatural cause ; so his agency in the moral world will always appear to us as natural, and conformed to the laws of psychology, and we are unable in our consciousness to distinguish him as the acting cause." Dogmatik, B. II. S. 600. Cf. Reinhard's " Moral," B. IV. S. 264. In this manner do these writers contend for the fact of immediate divine influences, by arguments derived from the need of man, the perfections of God, and the analogy of his agency in the material universe ; and at the same time guard against the perversions of this salutary opinion by enthusiasts who in the words of Tucker, " think they can see the flashes of illumination, and feel the floods of inspiration poured on them directly from the divine hand, and who undertake to give an exact history of all his motions from the very day and hour when he first touched their hearts." It may be remarked here, that Kant conceded the possibility of immedi ate operations of grace for the conversion of man, but denied that they could be either proved or disproved from philosophy. The belief in such influences he held to be useful in awakening the hope, that.God would do for us what we ourselves might be unable to accomplish in the work of our moral renova- vation. — Tr.] MODERN THEORY OF PRAYER*. 473 APPENDIX. Of Prayer as a means of grace. The doctrine respecting prayer is commonly treated in system atic theology, in connexion with the doctrine of the operations of grace. But as the full discussion of this subject belongs rather to Christian ethics, than to theology, it has by some theologians been either wholly omitted or only cursorily noticed in their systems. On this subject, we shall make here only the following remarks. The prayer of Christians is a means of grace included under Christian doctrine, and not to be separated from it. For the influence of prayer is not to be derived from the mere act of those who pray. It stands in connexion with the power of the religious truths, to which prayer relates. (1) Statement of the philosophical theory respecting prayer. The following is the theory respecting prayer which has been adopted in modern times, especially in the eighteenth century, by Mosheim and Morus, and which is held by many philosophical and theological moralists. One who institutes a merely philosophical examination of prayer, and passes by all the positive promises to the supplicant contained in the Holy Scriptures, and especially in the Christian system, will yet allow, if he understands the nature of man, a great moral influence to prayer. For it is the means of re minding us of the great truths of religion, and of impressing these truths deeply on our hearts. It excites, moreover, a sure and grate ful confidence in God and his promises, and a longing desire after the enjoyment of the blessings which he has promised. It is.there- fore, in itself, of a most beneficial tendency, and has an indescriba ble influence in promoting moral improvement and in purifying the heart. A man is not prepared for the blessings which the Chris tian doctrine promises, and is not capable of free, moral improve ment, unless he acknowledges God as the author of them, and has a lively perception of these benefits, and an earnest desire to obtain them. Now from this desire after divine blessings, springs the wish, directed to God, that he would bestow them upon us ; and this is the inward prayer of the heart. If these feelings are strong and vivid, it is common and natural to us, to express them in words and in the form of an address to God, whom we conceive to be present Vol. II. 60 474 ART. XII. § 133. CRITIQUE ON THE with us, and acquainted with our thoughts and wishes. (The ver bal expression is, however, by no means essential to prayer. A soul directed to God is all which is requisite.) By the very act of prayer, this vividness of conception is very much heightened, and in this way our desires and our longings are cherished and strengthened by prayer itself. In this exercise God is made, as it were, present with us; and while we are engaged in this duty, we feel as we are accustomed to feel in direct intercourse with a person who is near at hand, listening to us, and who by our words and requests is render ed favorable towards us and becomes intimate with us. To the phi losopher, all this may appear illusion and imagination ; but if he looks at experience, which on this subject is worth more than all speculation, he will find that this aid is indispensable to any one who means to make religion a matter of serious and lasting interest. Experience shows that good thoughts, purposes, and resolutions, unaccompanied by prayer, amount to nothing, because they leave the heart cold, and the mind unaffected. (2) Examination of this view of prayer. It is true that prayer, considered merely as a means of improve ment, has great moral advantages ; i. e. that it has a great effect on our moral improvement, that it witholds from evil, tranquillizes the soul, and is in every way promotive of the interests of morality and sincere religion. But it is also true, that it would cease to produce these results which are expected from it, if we should content our selves with this theory of our philosophical moralists, and did not confidently hope to obtain the blessings for which we ask. One who considers the often-repeated assurances, " he that asks, shall receive," etc. as delusive, and not serious or sincere, will find that he wants an inward impulse to prayer. He can exercise no earnest desires, no real confidence, and no hearty gratitude. It is not our business to inquire how God can hear and answer our supplications, without infringing upon his immutability, or altering the establish ed course of nature. We are to be satisfied with knowing, that he can do more than we understand, and that he can and will do every thing which he has promised. Such considerations, connected with personal experience, are enough to secure us against every doubt. Neither Christ, nor the other early teachers of morals, nor the pro phets of the Old Testament, ever made use of the motives to prayer, so often used at the present day, derived merely from its moral ad- MODERN THEORY OF PRAYER. 475 vantages. Their great motive to prayer, is, that it will be heard, upon which they could depend as confidently, as the child does upon its father, when it requests what is needful for it. This is the great motive by which prayer should be inculcated on the com mon people and the young ; otherwise they easily get the erroneous impression, that prayer, as such, is of no advantage, and in reality useless, since it is not heard. On this account, Jesus and the oth er teachers of morals and religion in ancient times, did wisely, both in omitting to mention the motives to prayer derived from its moral uses, and in inculcating it on the simple ground, that it is heard; without philosophizing upon the question, in what way it has an in fluence. And certainly Christians do well, in holding fast to the doc trine of Jesus and of the Holy Scriptures. Cf. Cramer, Die Lehre vom Gebet, nach Offenbarung und Vemuuft uhtersucht, u. s. w., Keil und Hamburgh, 1786, Svo ; and Nitzsch, Diss, inaugural., Ratio qua Christus usus est in commendando precandi officio, Vite- berg. 1790 ; also, " Nonnulla ad historiam de usu religiosa precatio- nis morali pertinentia," by the same author and published at the same place, 1790, 4to. Two points deserve particular consideration in this connexion. (a) The feeling that prayer is necessary, is absolutely universal. The history of all nations who have had any religion, shows that prayer is every where recognized as an auxiliary to piety, which is indispensable and founded in our very nature. Experience, too, teaches that those religions which inculcate frequent prayer, and in sist upon it, as a duty of the first importance, are the most practical, and can enumerate among their followers more examples of men em inently religious and virtuous, than other religions, which make prayer of less importance, and at most prescribe certain public prayers and set formulas. Next to the Jewish and Christian relig ion, the Mohammedan has exerted the most influence on the heart, because it so strenuously inculcates prayer. This religion next to the Jewish and Christian, has had the greatest number of truly re ligious professors and devout worshippers of God. [Cf. the work of Tholuck on Ssuffismus, or the doctrine of the Ssuffis, — a Mahom- medan sect in Persia. Tr.] (b) Christ makes it the special duty of his followers to suppli cate God in his name, and promises to them a sure audience, which he would, as it were, procure for them, John 14: 13. 16:23,24. 476 ART. XII. § 133. THEORY OF PRAYER. This duty is inculcated by the Apostles upon all Christians. The sentiment of many passages taken together is this : pray with refer ence to Christ and his work, consequently in belief or sure confi dence in him, and in his promises. In prayer we must be deeply convinced, that he is the author of our salvation, that even now he is mindful of our interests, and makes the things for which we ask his own, and intercedes with God to hear our requests. In this res pect he is represented as our Paracletus and advocate with God, 1 ^ohn 2: 1. But the blessings which Christianity promises to us are not temporal but spiritual. Desire to obtain these, is always conformable to the divine will ; and as far as they are concerned, the hearing of prayer is certain. ARTICLE THIRTEENTH. ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY OR CHURCH. [The common order is to treat, first of the Sacraments, and then of the Church ; but the re verse order is in many respects more natural and proper; for both of these parts of divine ser vice have a principal relation to the Church. By Baptism we are solemnly initiated into the Church; and by the Lord's Supper, the memberB of the Church solemnly renew and perpet uate the remembrance of Jesus Christ, and of the blessings which he has bestowed upon the human race. § 134. What is meant by the Christian Church ; its object ; its names ; and the divisions of the Church common in Theology. I. Idea of the Christian Church ; its object ; and au explanation of its Scriptural names. The Christian Church, in the widest sense, may be defined to be, the whole number of those who agree in worshipping God accord ing to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. In this wider sense, it agrees with the word Christendom. — Its object is, to maintain and perpetu ate the Christian doctrine, and by means of ordinances and exercis es observed in common, to promote the practice of it. Such is the great body of mankind, that without some common duties, and some external ordinances, the Christian Religion could scarcely be main tained among them ; certainly it could not be kept from totally de generating. The government and preservation of the Church are everywhere properly ascribed to Christ, as its head. The same 478 ART. XIII. § 134. SCRIPTURAL NAMES OF THE CHURCH. Scriptural principles are therefore, applicable here, which were above laid down in the doctrine respecting the kingdom of Christ, § 98. The Scriptural names of Church are, (1) 'ExxXtjota. This term is used by the Greeks to denote an assembly of men, called together on the authority of the magistra cy ; from ixxaXim, evoco, convoco ; e. g. Acts 19: 32, 39. The He brew bfip is used in the same way, especially in the books of Mo ses, and is commonly translated in the Septuagint by ixxXtjala. The same is true of the Hebrew tnp» . The term xrt;3 (frii-p) , denoted secondarily all those who belonged to the Jewish people, and professed the Jewish religion. Christians took the word from the Jews, and like them used ixxXr\aia to denote, (a) particu lar societies of Christians in particular cities or provinces, e. g. ix- xXtjaia iv 'legoaoXvpoig, x. t. X. Acts 8: 1 ; (b) the religious assem blies of these societies, and the places in which they met ; e. g. ICor. 11: 18. 14: 19, 28, etc. ; (c) the whole sum of those who profess the Christian religion, wherever they may be ; e. g. 1 Cor. 12: 28. Matt. 16: 18, sq. (2) 2uvaymyt] and iniavvaymyzr and these, too, are used by the Septuagint to render the words bnj? and iVVf. But they were employed by the Grecian Jews about the time of Christ, to denote their places of prayer or oratories, and the congregations connected with them ; vid. Vitringa, de Synagoga Vetere. And so we find them used in the New Testament, to denote the religious assem blies of Christians, and the places where they held them ; e. g. Heb. 10: 25. James 2: 2. These terms, however, were never used, like the preceding, to denote the whole of Christendom. (3) There were also various figurative names employed. E. g. BaaiXeia zmv ovgavmv or zov &eov. So frequently in the discour ses of Christ, vid. § 99, I. But this term denotes not simply the Christian Religion and Church ; it comprehends all to whom be long the rights, duties, and the entire blessedness of the pious fol lowers of Christ, in this life and the life to come ; e. g. John 3: 3. Matt. 5: 3. — JSdypa Xgiazov (of which he is the xeqsaXt]), — a figu rative expression used to denote the intimate connexion between believers and Christ, and to impress upon them the duties of mutu al harmony and brotherly love ; Rom. 12: 5. He' is the Head, we the members, Eph. 1: 22, also ch. iv. and v. — Nadg &eov, 1 Cor. 3: 16, 17, — used to describe the dignity and holiness of Christians, UNIVERSAL AND PARTICULAR, TRUE AND FALSE CHURCHES 479 and the inviolableness of their rights. — Oixog &eov, 1 Pet. 4: 17, sq. — Besides these, all the terms used to designate the Israelites as the peculiar and favorite people of God, are transferred to Christians in the New Testament, e. g. Xaog negiovaiog, Tit. 2: 14 ; Xaog elg ne- ginoiijoiv (negmoitjoemg), 1 Pet. 2: 9 ; ixXexzoi, x. z. X. The Israel ites were the ancient people of God (under the naXaid Siu&tjxrj), in opposition to the new people of God (under the xaivtj Sia&tjxtj). And this ancient people is always regarded as the stock, from which the new sprung, Rom. 11: 17, sq. Acts 15: 16. And on this very ac count, Paul earnestly warns Christians, in the passage cited, against despising or undervaluing the Jews. II. Divisions of the Church. (1) Into universal and particular. The Church universal com prehends within itself all who profess the Christian doctrine, No. I. But since all Christians cannot agree respecting doctrines and forms of worship, it is natural that those who do agree in these respects should enter into a more intimate connexion. Hence have arisen particular churches, differing according to place and time, doctrine, forms, etc. Hence the division of the Church into the Eastern, Western, Roman, African, Papal, Lutheran, Calvinistic, etc. — Again ; these particular Churches are subdivided into Ecclesia sin- gulares, by which are understood the separate communions belong ing to one particular Church, since even these often differ according to time and place, and even with respect to doctrines and usages. Thus we have the Lutheran Church in Saxony, Brandenburg, Sweden ; the Reformed Church in England and Switzerland ; etc. (2) Into the true Church, and false Churches, and their subdi visions. This division must be retained in abstracto, although it should be applied very cautiously in concreto, or to particular cases. We may see in general, that that Christian Church deserves emi nently the name of the true Church, in which there is an entire agreement with the doctrine of Jesus and the Apostles. The more it obeys Christ in every thing which he has commanded, the more worthy is it of this name, Eph. 5: 23, 24. But there has never been a Church, respecting all whose members this could be said ; nor was there any such, even during the times of the Apostles, as we see from their writings ; there has never been a particular 480 ART. XIII. § 134. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TRUE CHURCH. Church, wholly free from errors and deviations from the doc trine of Jesus. Christ himself declares, that in his Church on earth, there will always be error and truth, good and evil mingled together ; vid. § 135, II. It is therefore better to say, that is the true Church, or more properly, has the most truth, in which there is found a nearer agreement with the doctrine of Jesus and the Apostles, than in other Churches. On this subject, the opinions of Christians are so divided, that it is impossible to give any general characteristic marks of the true Church, which would be approved by all. The definition of the true Church will always depend upon the individual belief and con viction of every Christian ; and each one regards that Church as true, which is most accordant with his own views. — The following principles, however, may be of some practical importance. (a) No one Church is in the exclusive possession of the truth. There are in every Church, faults, defects, and errors ; and so it was at the time of the Apostles, and so it is in all human societies and institutions. (b) Nor is there, on the other hand, any Christian Church which is wholly wanting in the truth, or which does not profess many use ful and important truths, although mixed more or less with error. We cannot in this matter judge of the particular members of a Church from the established and received doctrines of their Church, without doing the greatest injustice. In this respect, wrong is of ten done. For experience teaches, that there are often good Chris tians in a Church which professes many errors, and which has a bad constitution ; and on the contrary, that there are often connected with very excellent Church-establishments, those who are unworthy of the Christian name. — These observations have given occasion to the division of the Church into pure and impure, according as more or less errors or false principles are embraced. We also speak of a corrupt Church, by which is meant particularly a Church in which false moral principles, exerting an injurious influence upon the life and Christian walk, are mingled with Christian doctrine. It re mains therefore true, that the separate Christian communions are of different value and excellence, according to their greater or less pu rity in doctrine, and according to the greater or less adaptedness of their external polity and forms to promote moral improvement. It cannot, therefore, be in itself an indifferent matter to which of these VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE CHURCH. 481 one belongs. No one, however, should desire to make his own in dividual conviction the unconditional rule for all others, and despise and condemn those who do not agree with himself. (c) If there is no Church in which the system of doctrine, the regulations, forms of worship, etc. are perfect and incapable of im provement ; it follows, that improvements may and ought to be made in them, whenever and wherever there is a necessity for it, and that it is an entirely false maxim, to adhere invariably to what is ancient,, and never to alter. It does not belong, however, to any particular member, not even to a public teacher, to urge his suppos ed improvements upon the Church. And correct as is the princi ple de reformatione ecclesia, in the abstract, its practical applica tion is attended with very great difficulties. (d) To unite externally all the different Churches, is not practi cable ; and even if it could be done, would occasion more injury than benefit. And notwithstanding all the difference as to opinion and form in religious matters, mutual love and toleration may still exist. This is proved by the History of the Church in ancient and modern times. (3) The Church is divided into visible and invisible. This di vision is entirely rejected in several of the new systems, e. g. in those of Gruner, Doderlein, and others. They seem, however, to have taken offence merely at the terms. These are, indeed, new, and have come into use since the Reformation. But the thing it self which is intended by these terms is well supported, and is as an cient as the Christian Church itself, and was acknowledged as true by Christ and the Apostles and the whole early Church. These terms came into use in the following way : Luther denied that the Romish Church, according to the doctrine and polity which it then professed, is the true Church. It was then asked, Where then was the true Church before him ? To which he answered, that it was invisible, i. e. before the Reformation those Christians had constitut ed the true Church and held the pure doctrine, who, without regard ing the authority and commandment of men, had followed the Scrip tures according to their own views, had lived piously, and kept themselves free from the errors of the public Religion ; and such persons there always had been, even at the most corrupt periods, although they had not always been known. It was from this just Vol. II. 61 482 ART. XIII. § 134. VISIBLE AND INVISTOLE CHURCH. observation, that this division arose. Cf. Confess. August. Art. VII. and VIII., and Apol. A. C. Protestants understand by the Invisible Church, true Christians, who not only know the precepts of Christ, but from the heart obey them, Matt. 7: 21. This Church is not always clearly seen ; indeed, to speak jusly, it is known only to God, Col. 3: 3 ; while from the eyes of men, who judge only according to the external appearance, it is wholly concealed. On the contrary, the Visible Church consists of all who by profession belong externally to the Church, i. e. attend public worship, partake of the sacraments, etc. ; for wherever the Christian doctrine is proclaimed, and the rites prescribed by it are observed, there the Visible Church is. Not every one, therefore, who belongs to the Visible Church, even if it be one of the best, does on this account belong also to the Invisible Church. For in the Visible Church, there are often wicked men and hypocrites. This is not, then, a division generis in species, but eadem res diver- so respectu. The same is true with respect to other societies, e. g. the Republic of the learned. There are not wanting passages in the New Testament in which this distinction is plainly made, although it is not expressed in this manner. For, first, the word ixxXtjaia in many texts denotes the whole number who make an outward profession of Christianity, without having any reference to their inward state ; e. g. 1 Cor. 1: 2, etc. ; vid. No. I. But secondly, in other passages such predicates are given to the Church, as do not apply to all who profess Christ, but only to that better and nobler part, which is called the invisi ble Church ; e.g. Eph. 5: 27, dyia, dpmpog, ptj e'yovaa anlXovrf gvzlSa, etc. Here belongs the remarkable passage, Mark 9: 38—40, where the disciples of Jesus would not acknowledge a person to be a genuine follower of Christ, because he did not belong to their so ciety, — their external church, and was not, as it were, enrolled as belonging to their corporation ; on which point Christ sets them right. Cf. Matt. 15: 22, sq. That in the visible Church (paaiXeiu tmv ovgavdiv) the evil and the good are mingled together, and can not be externally separated without injury to the whole, is taught by Christ in the excellent Parable, Matt. 13: 24 — 30. The wicked are compared with the tares, although they belong to the external, visible Church ; but the good, who belong both to the visible and invisible Church, are compared with the wheat. Cf. the text, Matt. 7: 21, above cited. CHURCH MILITANT AND TRIUMPHANT. 483 Note. Christ regards all who from the heart believe in him (the members of the invisible Church), as a present which God has given him, and so calls them ; and upon them, he says, he bestows eternal life ; vid. John 6; 37. 17: 2, 6. The better, pious part of mankind are spoken of as belonging to God, — they are his children ; and this his possession he gives over to the charge of Christ, to lead them to eternal life. This is a great and heart-affecting idea ; and if such a thought had been found in Plato or Xenophon, there would have been no end of praising it. But in the Holy Scriptures it is less regarded. (4) The Church is divided again into militant and triumphant. By the Church militant is meant, Christians in the present life, so far as they have to contend with many internal and external suffer ings, adversities, and persecutions. By the Church triumphant is meant, the society of Christians in Heaven, so far as they are freed from all these trials, and enjoy the most perfect rest and blessedness. The Church, however, is here used in the narrower sense, for the invisible Church and its members. This division was taken princi pally from the text, Rev. 12: 7, sq., though this is rather a descrip tion of the rest to which the Church will be restored here upon the earth, after long persecutions and calamities. It is also derived from those passages in which the dangerous and toilsome life of Christians, is compared with a strife and conflict, which will soon be over ; e. g. 2 Tim. 4: 7. Here too must be mentioned the text, Heb. 12: 22,23, where the noble thought is exhibited, that we compose but one society with the host of blessed angels and the company of the saints now rewarded in Heaven (zezeXeimpevmv Sixuimv), of whom Jesus is the Head ; and that, when we have completed our course here below, we shall join this upper society, in our native land. Note. Among the writings of the older Protestant theologians, in which this division, and the other topics introduced in this section are treated very thoroughly, that of Jo. Museeus, De Ecclesia (Jense, 1675), deserves particular mention. § 135. Attributes of the Christian Church; the ecclesiastical terms commonly employed to designate them, and their signification. It has been common, in imitation of the ancient Confessions, to predicate of the true Church the four attributes una, sancta, cathol- 484 ART. XIII. § 135. UNITY OF THE CHURCH. ica, apostolica. In the Apostolic Symbol it is called, a holy Chris tian Church, the society of the saints ; in the Nicene Symbol, one only, holy, Christian, Apostolic Church. Most of these terras are taken from the New Testament, though they are there used in a different sense from that in which they are employed in the later ec clesiastical phraseology. And this difference should be carefully noted. It must be remarked in general, that all these attributes properly apply only to the Invisible Church, although many of them may be predicated also of the Visible Church, when rightly explain ed. — The doctrine of the perpetuity of the Church may be most conveniently considered in connexion with these. I. Unity of the Church. This predicate has an entirely different meaning in the New Testament, from that which it bears in the common ecclesiastical phraseology. Its two significations will therefore be separately con sidered. (1) When the unity of the Church is spoken of in the New Tes tament, it is a moral unity which is intended. The import of this term is, that all who worship God according to the doctrine of Je sus, should regard themselves as members of one society, and as such should exercise mutual brotherly love ; that notwithstanding all differences of birth, condition, knowledge, opinions, and forms, they should still constitute but one Church or religious society, worship ing one and the same Lord, even Christ, and partaking in common of the blessings promised to his followers. That there should be such a union among his followers, was the last will, the testament of Christ; John 13: 34, coll. 15: 1, sq. And in order to this, it is not es sential that there should be a full and entire agreement of opinion on every particular doctrine. Christians, though differing as to their mode of thinking, their particular opinions and forms, and though divided into particular communions, ought to regard themselves as constituting still but one Church, and so to live together in unity of spirit. This is the true spirit of Christianity ; it infuses feelings of toleration. And the more one has of the mind of Christ, the more tolerant will he be to others ; and especially, because he knows, that not only his Lord, but his brethren, see much in him which re quires forbearance; vid. Tit. 3: 3 — 5. FALSE NOTION RESPECTING IT. 485 This unity of the Church is mentioned in those passages in the New Testament, in which warnings are given against disturbers of the peace and against controversies ; and in those also in which it is taught, that it is the design of Christianity to remove all distinc tion between Jew and Gentile, and to unite all nations in a common religion ; respecting which vid. § 118, II. The principal proof-texts here are John 17: 20, iva ndvzeg ev waiv John 1Q: 16, " one fold, one shepherd ;" and Eph. 4: 3 — 6, and v. 13, ivoztjg nvevpazog, because all worship one God and one Christ, have one baptism and one doctrine. The ivoztjg nia zemg in v. 13, is one and the same Christian doctrine, professed alike by Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ, who ought there fore to love each other as brethren. Gal. 3: 28, ndvzeg elg iv Xgia zm. Rom. 12: 5, noXXoi ev aolpd iapev, coll. v. 13, and ch. 10: 17. 1 Cor. 1: 12, 13. 8: 6. The true spiritual unity of Christians is, therefore, placed by Christ himself in this, that they believe in the only true God, and in Jesus, as the Saviour of the world ; that they love him, and from love to him, obey his commandments, and especially that they love one another. By this only can the true dis ciples of Christ be known :— not by external names and forms ; but by faith, working by love, — the love of Christ and our neighbour. (2) But there gradually arose, after the second and third centu ries, an entirely different conception of the unity of the Church. It first originated among the Fathers in the West, in consequence of their transferring to Christianity certain incorrect Jewish ideas, which were disapproved by Jesus and his apostles, and which had the most injurious results. The unity of the Church was placed by them, in an entire external agreement as to those doctrines and forms which were handed down from the times of the Apostles, through the churches founded by them, and in the external connex ion and fellowship of the particular societies founded upon this agreement. The most ancient passages relating to this subject are found in Irenaeus (I. 10), Tertullian (de passcript. hreret. c. 20, ad finem), and Cyprian (in his Book, " de unitate ecclesis"). The object contemplated in this external connexion of Churches was at first very good ; it was designed by this means to set bounds to the ever encroaching corruption in doctrine and life, and to remove false teachers. But when the rulers of the Churches no longer possessed 486 ART. XIII. § 135. ERRORS ABOUT THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. the genuine spirit of Jesus, then, through these principles and the consequences derived from them, the hierarchy was gradually esta blished ; and intolerance, and the spirit of persecution and anathe matizing, became very prevalent. Even the papal hierarchy rests en tirely upon these principles, and originated from them. The prin cipal Bishops now established a kind of College or secret society; and this unity of the Church was made dependent, first upon many heads, then upon one visible Head of the Church. , And whoever ventured to dissent from the doctrine or the ordinances of the prin cipal Bishops, who held together and governed their Churches, was excluded from Church-fellowship and declared a heretic. Even Cyprian derived the one true Church in the West from Peter, be cause he taught at Rome, and because^the Church there was the mother of most of the Churches in the West. The Bishops regard^ ed themselves therefore as the successors of the Apostles, and as the representatives of God and of Christ ; and whoever was exclud ed by them from Church-fellowship, was excluded by God himself; and it was early believed and taught, that he was at the same time excluded from salvation. Vid.. § 128, II. — Hence even Cyprian states in his book the principle, extra ecclesiam illam unicam et ve- ram [externam or visibilem] non dari salutem, — a principle from which so many false doctrines were afterwards deduced ; vid. §121,11. Upon these supports does the whole false system of the hierar chy in the Romish Church depend. Vid. Henke, De unitate eccle- sise, in his " Opuscula." But there is no such Societas Christiana, nor ought there, according to the design of Jesus, to be any which shall resemble civil societies ; for this leads to a hierarchy, and all the evil consequences which flow from the collision of secular and spir itual power. Protestants have never had properly one Church, but churches, (ecclesias): Such at least is the language employed in the Augs burg Confession, Art. VII., and in the other public instruments, even in the Peace of Westphalia ; and it is in this that Protestantism is distinguished from consolidated Popedom. — The Roman Cathol ic idea of the Church is vindicated in a very subtile and plausible manner in the work, " Idea biblica Ecclesia? Dei," by Franc. Ober- thiir, Vol. I. Salzburg, 1790, Svo. Vol. II. 1799. He proceeds on the definition : Quod sit ecclesia schola quadam, quam Deus erexe- SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH. 487 rit, nutrienda ac promovenda interna religionis causa, in which, however, there does not seem to be any thing insidious. II. The sanctity of the Church. This is twofold ; viz., (1) External; and this is predicated of the Church, so far as it is distinguished from other religious societies (e. g. Jewish or Gen tile) by the superior excellence of its religious principles. In this wider sense, even the Jews are in the Old Testament often denomi nated holy ; and taken in this sense, the visible Christian Church may justly be called holy ; for it is not the moral character of the members which is designated by the term in this wider sense. And so all Christians, even those who are such merely by ex ternal profession, are often denominated ayiot in the New Testa ment ; vid. § 126, IV., also 1 Pet. 2: 9. (2) Internal or moral. The whole object of the establishment of the Church, and the instruction communicated in Christian doc trine, is, to bring the members of the Church, under divine guid ance, to this internal holiness. This is said by Paul in the passage cited, Eph. 5: 26, 27, coll. Tit. 2: 14. But this object is not actual ly attained in respect to all who belong to the external visible Church, but only in those who belong to the invisible Church. It can, therefore, be truly said only of the invisible Church, that it is holy, in this internal, moral sense. Many have been led, by confounding these different meanings, and by misunderstanding those passages in which it is made the du ty of every Christian to be holy, to adopt the principle, that even the external or visible Church must be a society consisting only of renewed persons or saints, and that a Church which tolerates within itself unholy or unregenerate persons cannot be a true Church, and so is to be excluded from Christian fellowship. It was on these principles that the Novatians proceeded in the third century, and the Donatists in the fourth and fifth. And they were still more fre quently maintained by the Anabaptists and other fanatical sects in the sixteenth century. The same principles have been revived in still more modern times by the Quakers, and many other fanatics and separatists. But they do not consider, that in all external human societies, 488 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. good and evil must be mixed, and that often the Omniscient only can discern and distinguish the hypocrites, who are much more inju rious than the openly vicious. And so Christ pronounced, that the external Church could never be pure from evil, and that the tares and the wheat must be suffered to grow together : Matt. 13:^3, sq. vs. 24 — 31, 47 — 50; and so too, he himself endured Judas'among his apostles. Too great severity often terrifies the good, and keeps them at a distance ; and wicked ancestors often have descendants who are good and useful members of the Church, but who^would not have been so, if their ancestors had been excluded. The external visible Church cannot', therefore, be a society consisting of pious Christians only ; it is rather a nursery (seminarium), de signed to raise up many for the invisible kingdom. Still however, it is always right and certainly according to the spirit of Christ, for like-minded Christians to associate together, arid to establish among themselves institutions which they may deem promotive of piety, or even to form smaller societies in which they will permit those only to participate who have a like object and pos sess similar dispositions with themselves, excluding all others ; — the ecclesiola in ecclesia of which Spener spoke. They should be ware, however, against running in this way into spiritual pride, against holding themselves to be better than others, and against re garding those who do not join them, and are not enrolled among them, as worse Christians than themselves. It does not belong to the government to interdict such associations, if they do not disturb civil peace and order, any more than to forbid and hinder other private associations of citizens for other lawful objects. The ,;rea- sons for and against these associations are canvassed in Burkhardt's "Geschichte der Methodisten," Niirnberg, 1795, S. 123, f. — The History of the Church teaches that these smaller associations have had, upon the whole, a highly beneficial effect. In times of igno rance arid unbelief, they have been the depositories of uncorrupted Christianity. Without the Waldenses, the Wicklifiles, and the Hussites, the Reformation would never have taken place. III. Tho Catholic and Apostolic Church. A different idea is attached to the term Catholic in modern times, and especially in the Protestant Church, from that which an- ANCIENT AND MODERN USE OF THIS TERM. 489 ciently belonged to it. Catholic is now used in its etymological sense, and is synonymous with universal. And the Church is said to be universal, because all, in the whole earth, who profess Christ, be long to it, and because Christianity is not merely a national religion, or the religion of a country, but one which may be professed by all men without distinction. The Church is called apostolical, because the members of it profess to adopt the doctrine taught by the apos tles, and contained in their writings; according to Eph. 2:20, "built upon the foundation of the Apostles." But anciently xu&oXi- xog was synonymous with 6g&oSo^og, and fides catholica was the same as fides orthodoxa, which was the faith held in opposition to heretics ; because it was supposed that the true faith, which accords with the will of Christ and the Apostles, must be the universal faith of all Christians, and be found in all the Churches established by the Apostles. Hence Ecclesia Catholica is that quae habet fidem sive veritatem Catholicam, i. e. the right and pure doctrine and con stitution, in opposition to those Churches which have not the pure apostolic doctrine, but belong to the heretics. They proceeded on the principle, that there is only one true Church (vid. No. I.), and in order to establish and maintain this, the principal Churches and their Bishops throughout the Roman Empire (xa&' oXtjv olxovpivtjv) had gradually formed a separate Church union. Whatever agreed with this was xa&oXixov, otherwise algezixov. The genuine apos tolic doctrine was supposed, however, to be found in those Church es which the Apostles themselves had founded. To these Church es, and to the doctrine handed down in them from the times of the Apostles, the appeal was, therefore, made in the controversies in which the Catholic fathers were engaged with the heretics ; and it was by this appeal, an appeal to tradition, that they confuted them ; vid. Vol. I. Introduction, § 7, III. But the whole body of Christian Churches professing the orthodox doctrine handed down in the apostolic Churches, were called the Catholic, Orthodox, or Apostolic Church, because they all agreed in the doctrines and reg ulations prescribed by the Apostles to the Churches founded by them, e. g. by Peter to the Church at Rome, by Paul to that at Ephesus, etc. The earliest passages relating to this subject are found in Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres L. III. and]especially in Tertullian, De praescript. haer. c. 20, 21. It is there said, for example, Tot ac tanta ecclesia, una est; ilia ab Apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima, et omnes Vol.11. 62 490 ART XIII. § 135. PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH. apostolica dum una ; omnes probant unitatem, etc. Vid. the Essay of Henke before cited. Note. The infallibility of the Church was not believed during the first cen turies. Between the period of the Nicene Council in the fourth century, and Gregory the VII. many traces of this opinion appear. From Gregory VII. until the Western Schism in the fourteenth century, it was placed mostly in the infalllibilty of the Pope. From that period until the Council at Trent, the idea prevailed, that only the Church collected in general. Council is infallible. Since that period, the opinions of Catholic theologians have been divided on this point. Some (the genuine Romanists) make the Pope the subject of this in fallibility ; other, (and among these even Febronius) suppose the (Ecumenical Councils alone infallible; others still (and principally the French theologians since the middle of the seventeenth century) attribute infallibility only to the Church dispersed at large. At present this doctrine is wholly abandoned by some of the more liberal Catholic theologians. Vid. the excellent book (writ ten by a Catholic), entitled, Kritische Geschichte der kirchlichen Un- fehlbarkeit, zdr Befdrderungeinerfreyern PrQfungdes Katholicismus, Frankf. a. M. 1792, Svo. Cf. also the very learned and liberal work, entitled "Thomas Freykirch, oder Freymtlthige Untersuchung von einem katholischen Gottesgelehrten uber die TJnfehlbarkeit der katholischen Kirche, lr. B. Frankf. und Leipzig, 1792, 8vo. IV. The perpotuity of the Church. Christ himself teaches with the greatest assurance, that the re ligious society and constitution founded by him will never cease, but be perpetual. All the powers of decay and destruction shall not get advantage over it, nvXai aSov (where all which perishes or is destroyed upon the earth is collected) ov xaziaxvaovaiv avzzjg, Matt. 16: 18.— It is the doctrine of the New Testament, that Christ, as the Ruler of the Church, is now actively employed in Heaven for its good, and that he will continue until the end of the world, to support and enlarge it ; vid. Matt. 28: 20. 1 Cor. 15: 25 ; coll. Ephes. 4: 16, and § 98, respecting the kingdom of Christ. This, however, is not to be so understood as to imply, that the particular forms of doctrine which prevail at any particular time, and the par ticular Church communions originating from them, will be of per petual duration. Changes must necessarily here take place. The history of the Church teaches, that one mode of Church polity suc ceeds another, and that yet, however great these changes may be, Christianity still survives. External constitutions and ceconomies resemble the scaffolding, which aid in the construction of the build ing, but are not the building itself. They may be taken down and § 136. HEAD OF THE CHURCH. 491 broken to pieces, when they have answered their purposes, and the building will then proceed in a different way. That this is so, is proved by the history of the Church. It has been, however, a com mon mistake for the members of certain particular churches, e. g. the Catholic, Lutheran, and others, to suppose, that if their particu lar constitution should cease, the whole Christian Church, and Christianity itself would perish. So most in all the separate com munions still think, and always have thought ; and yet the Christian doctrine ^tnd Church have hitherto been perpetuated, notwithstanding the greatest revolutions in states and in ecclesiastical polities ; and this beyond a doubt would still be the case, even if the partic ular Churches and establishments now existing should perish. The spirit and essential nature of Christianity may remain, however much its external form may be altered. — Christianity, however, is not so connected with any one place or nation, that it must neces sarily be perpetuated there ; nor has any one Church a promise, that its descendants shall be Christians. We know from the history of the Church, that where Christianity was once most flourishing, it has since been expelled, either by superstition or unbelief; and it has thence travelled to other regions which were formerly sunk in the deepest night of ignorance. Let the reader call to mind the former flourishing condition of the Eastern Churches, and then com pare with it their present state. Every Church should make the use of this fact, which is suggested in Rev. 2: 5. § 136. Of the Head of the Christian Church ; and of the institu tions established to maintain and extend it, especially through the office of public teaching. I. The Head of the Church. The only true Head and supreme Lord of the Christian Church, is Jesus Christ, according to the uniform doctrine of Christ himself and the Apostles ; vid. Morus p. 278, § 2. Those who profess his doctrine are brethren, and as such have equal rights ; vid. Matt. 23: 492 ART. XIII. § 136. HEAD OF THE CHURCH. 8. Hence he is called 6 notptjv, dgxmoiptjv, x. z. X. John 10; 12. 1 Pet. 5:4. Heb. 13:20; and xeqiaXn ixxXrjolag, Ephes. 1: 22. 4: 15. Col. 2: 10. Nor is he called by these titles merely in a figurative sense, but because, in his exalted state, he exercises un wearied and watchful care over men, and especially over his Church and its members ; vid. § 98, respecting the kingdom of Christ. Christ therefore by no means wished, that his apostles should exercise.a lordly dominion over other Christians, Luke 22: 24 ; and they never assumed such authority, but expressly protested against it, vid. 1 Pet. 5: 1 — 3. 1 Cor. 5: 6, sq. Nor was it his will that one of the apostles, or his successors, should possess supremacy and magisterial power over the Church, like what is asserted in the Romish Church respecting Peter and his successors, of which there is not a trace in the New Testament or in the first centuries, as ap pears from Church history. The text, Matt. 16: 18, upon this rock I will build my Church, relates indeed to Peter and his merits in diffusing the Christian faith. For history teaches, that he really laid the first foundation of the great building of the house of God, after the departure of Christ, both from the Jews, Acts n., and from the Gentiles, Acts x., — a building which is firmly based (built on a rock), and which will endure until the end of the world ; whence he is always preeminent among the apostles. But nothing is said in this passage respecting his own supreme and judicial po w er over the Church, or that of his successors. Peter is here spok en of as a disciple, and not as a ruler and governour. Morus ex plains this passage very well (p. 2S4, sq. n. 3). It is therefore justly affirmed in the Protestant Church, that Christ has constituted no visible head of the whole Church, who is to hold his place upon the earth, and to act and make decrees as his representative and in his name. It is quite another question, Whether the Christian Church has net the right to commit to someone the charge and government of its external public concerns ? This right the Church certainly has ; and if good order is to be preserved, it must be exercised; because all the members of the Church cannot take part in its government. Thus it was in the Apostolic Church. But the one, or the many, who are appointed to this duty, and who constitute an ecclesiam reprasentalivam, possess this preeminence not jure divino, but humano. They ought not therefore to give out their decretals as OFFICE OF TEACHING. 493 divine, and in the name of God. Their enactments are merely hu man, and ought to have no more than human authority ; they may be altered, improved, etc. Since, moreover, in every well organized society there must be subordination, no good reason can be given why this should not be introduced among the officers and teachers of the Christian Church, and why ! one should not have more authority than another. In this way, at a very early period, a great preeminence over the other occidental Bishops was ascribed to the Roman Bishops, and he was called the Head of the (occidental) Church, while as yet there was no absolute dominion or magisterial power over the Church al lowed him. But for a farther account of this matter, we must refer to Canon Law and Church History. II. The office of teaching in the Church. Every Christian has the right, and indeed is under obligation, to do all in his power to maintain and promote Christian knowledge and feeling ; vid. Rom. 15: 14. Gal. 6: 1. Eph. 5: 19. 6: 4. 1 Thess. 5: 14. But since all Christians have not the time, talents, or other qualifications requisite for this work, some were set apart by Christ, whose appropriate business and calling it should be, to teach and counsel those committed to their charge ; and these were to be the instruments, through whom he designed that his doctrine should be maintained and transmitted, and the practice of it promoted. Paul therefore derives the institution of the different kinds of officers and teachers in the Church, directly from God and Christ ; and says, that each received a different office and employment, according to his talents and gifts ; 1 Cor. 12: 28. Eph. 4: 11, 12 ; and in the latter passage he says, that this arrangement was made for the per fection and edification of the Christian Church (ngog xazagtiapov — tig olxoSoptjv ompuTog Xgiazov). They are hence called vntjgezag and Sidxovoi &eov and Xgiazov, — those who stand in the service of God and Christ, and are employed by them as instruments. They are also called fellow-workers with God (avvegyol), 1 Cor. 3: 9. The Christian office of teaching was therefore appointed by Je sus Christ himself, as an institution designed for the maintenance and spread of the gospel through all ages. And he had the right to do this, as being commissioned and authorized by God himself, to be the founder and head of his Church. No one of his followers 494 ART. XIII. § 136. TEACHERS OF THE CHURCH. can therefore consistently undervalue this institution, or wilfully withdraw himself, on any pretence, from the assemblies of Chris tians for the purpose of religious instruction. Matt. 28: 18 — 20. Eph. 4: 11, sq. Heb. 10: 25. — But it is necessary, in order to obvi ate various abuses and mistakes, that we should here more particu larly illustrate some points relating to the office of teaching. (1) The Apostles were set apart, as public teachers and as foun ders of Christian Churches, directly by Christ himself; and they again, as ambassadors for Christ, appointed a perpetual office of teaching, and the public assembling of Christians for worship, and other institutions, calculated to impart strength and perpetuity to the Church. Cf. the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. Cf. also Spalding, Vom Werth und Nutzen des Predigtamts, 2te Ausg. Berlin, 1773, 8vo. The teachers in the Apostolic Church are divided into ordinary and extraordinary. Among the latter are included the Apostles themselves, the evangelists (who were missionaries and assistants of the Apostles), and in general all who were not appointed as perma nent teachers over particular churches, but who were employed in extending Christianity, and in founding new Churches. Among the former, — the ordinary and permanent officers and teachers of each particular Church, were iniaxonoi, ngeofivzegoi, noipe'veg, Si- SaaxaXoi (of which the general name is tjyovpevoi, officers, rulers of the Church, Heb. 13: 7, 17, 24). Some of these had more to do with the external concerns of the Church (presbyteri regentes, not- pevtg), and others were more especially employed in instruction (presbyteri docenles, SiSaaxaXoi). But for a more particular ac count of this matter we must refer to Church History. These officers and teachers were not appointed immediately by Christ himself; and in the first Church they were not always ap pointed in the same way and by the same persons ; certainly no rule was given respecting this point which should be binding in all pla ces and at all times. The apostles never imposed teachers upon any Church, but left to the Churches the enjoyment of the right be longing to them of choosing their own teachers. This right of choosing their officers was sometimes exercised by the Churches, e. g. Acts 6: 2, 3, 5. 2 Cor. 8: 19 ; and sometimes they left it to the Apostles, or persons commissioned by them, to whom was commit- THEIR CALLING AND CONSECRATION. 495 ted the care of the public affairs of the Church, e. g. 2 Tim. 2: 2. Tit. 1:5, sq. But all these teachers and overseers, appointed either by the Churches or their rulers and representatives, were regarded in the New Testament as appointed by God, or the Holy Ghost, or Christ, e. g. Acts 20: 28. Col. 4: 17 ; because their consecration took place on his authority, and according to his will. It is common to de nominate the naming and consecration of any one to the office of teaohing, his calling (vocatio), because top and xaXelv are used in the Scriptures with respect to the designation of prophets and other teachers, and the divine commissions entrusted to them. And this calling, even in application to the teachers of religion at the present day, may be denominated divine, so far as it is accordant with the divine will, and with the order which God has established ; in the same way as the institution of government is called divine, Rom. 13: 1. At the present time, however, this calling is never immediately from God. And every teacher may be sure, that he has a divine call, (i. e. one in accordance with the divine will,) when in a regu lar manner he has received a commission to his office from those who have the right to induct him, and after careful examination, in the presence of God, has found that he can hope to discharge its duties with the divine approbation. The characteristics of a teach er who is acceptable to God and to Christ, are briefly enumerated, 1 Tim. 3: 2—7. 2 Tim. 2: 24. Tit. 1: 5—9. 1 Pet. 5: 2, sq. ; and by these each one may examine himself. That a teacher of religion should be solemnly consecrated to his; office, or ordained, is a regulation which is indeed useful, both to the teacher himself and to the Church ; but, in itself considered, it is not a matter juris divini; it is nowhere expressly commanded by God, and contributes nothing, considered as an external ceremo ny, to efficiency and activity in the sacred office. Luther himself pronounced ordination not to be necessary, and said that a right ful calling is sufficient to make any one a rightful teacher, and this.- is the consecration of God. And this is very true ; for the right to teach does not properly depend upon ordination, but upon vocation. On Protestant principles, the ordination of a teacher is nothing else than a public approval and confirmation of his calling to the office of teaching ; so that thenceforward he may begin his work, and en joy his rights; Morus, p. 282', n. 3. 496 ART. XIII. § 136. RIGHTS OF TEACHERS. . The act which is now called ordination, and which is still re tained in the Protestant Church, is something very different from or dination according to the use of the ancient Church, and the old ecclesiastical Latinity. Ordinatio was there the same as #«poro- via, and was taken from military life among the Romans, like the word ordines. For Christians were called milites Christi. It was therefore synonymous with constitutio, constituere ad munus publi cum, and was the same with vocare. But afterwards they made a separate order of the clergy, and allowed them entirely peculiar privileges, and an ecclesiastical jurisdiction ; and then called them — ordo, in the same sense in which the Roman senate is called ordo, ordo senatorius, with which it was compared ; and when any one was received into this order by special consecration, he was said or dinar i. The right of ordaining, according to Protestant principles, is not confined to particular persons, e. g. bishops ; but it can be per formed by any one who is commissioned to do it by the Church, or by their functionaries and representatives. — The imposition of hands in the induction of teachers into office is mentioned, e. g. 1 Tim. 4: 14. Acts 13: 3 ; and is a ceremony borrowed from the Jewish Church, where it was practised with regard to all to whom any of fice was given, to whom any thing was promised, or for whom any blessing was implored from God, as a sign of blessing, invocation, etc., — symbolum collationis. There is one practice in the Protestant Church with reference to this subject, which is a real remnant of popery ; viz. that an or dained person may still teach and administer the sacraments, even when he no longer properly fills an office as a teacher of religion ; as if ordination put a character indelebilis upon a person ; while the truth is, that the permission and the right to discharge these duties depend upon a person's vocation to the sacred office, and not upon his ordination. In this respect, therefore, the practice of the Pro testant Church is inconsistent with its theory, and many evil conse quences are the result. (2) Of the rights of Christian teachers. First ; as to the rights of teachers, they have, merely as teach ers, no other than to instruct and counsel that part of the Church entrusted to their care, to perform the services of public worship, and in return to expect their maintenance from the Church ; 1 Pet. POWER OF THE KEYS. 497 5: 2, 3. Acts 20: 28. 1 Cor. 9: 6—14. The Church and the gov ernment may, however, if they see it to be best, confer still other rights, privileges, and immunities upon teachers. Note. As to the manner in which the Church shall be governed, and by what sort of persons, and how instruction shall be provided for, there are no precepts given in the Bible. Properly all Christians have a right to teach, — every father his own family ; and even to administer the sacraments, as even Tertullian truly observes. There is, therefore, truly a jus laicorum sacerdota- le, as Grotius, Salmasius, Bohmer, and Spenerhave maintained. Even among the Jews, the teachers of the people were not priests, but laymen ; and any one who had proper qualifications, might teach in the synagogue or in the temple. Among the ancient Israelites, the prophets were commonly not from the order of the priesthood, but for the most part from other tribes, classes and orders of the people. But for the sake of good order, the business of teaching and of performing the services of public worship, must necessarily be entrusted to some particular persons ; otherwise irregularities and abuses are inevitable ; as may be seen from the example of some sects which allow every one to teach, 1 Cor. xn. Secondly. It was not long, however, before other rights and priv ileges were conferred upon the teachers of the Christian Church ; partly such as had belonged to the Jewish Priests (with whom Christian teachers were compared), and even to the heathen priests within the Roman Empire ; and partly such as were given to the extraordinary teachers in the first Christian Church, and especially to the Apostles. To these extraordinary teachers, Christ promised extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, and many of their peculiar privi leges and rights were founded upon these gifts, and could not be claimed by their successors, to whom these gifts were not imparted. Among these is especially the office or the power of the keys (potestas clav'ium). This includes the power of forgiving or not forgiving sins, like what is common in the Protestant Church at Confessions, or at the preparation for the Lord's Supper ; (against which there is nothing to be objected, if it is understood that this absolution is not collativa, but merely declarativa or hypothetica ;) and also plenipotentiary power, either to exclude any one from Church fellowship, or to receive him again ; so that the entire ad ministration of Church discipline is called officium clavium ; vid. Morus, pp. 286—288. Vol. II. 63 498 ART. XIII. §136. EXAMINATION OF ERRORS But with regard to this, there are more mistakes than one, which need to be answered. (a) In all the passages of the New Testament which are appeal ed to in behalf of the power of the keys, the Apostles only — the extraordinary teachers of the Church, are spoken of. (b) In the passages Matt. 16: 19 and IS: 18, nothing is said about forgiving or not forgiving sins, but about binding and loosing, which in such a connexion always mean, in the Syriac, Chaldaic, and the Rabbinical writers, to forbid and to allow ; cf. Lightfoot and Wetstein on these texts. The meaning is : " You, as my am bassadors, shall have power in the Christian Church (xXtlg paaiXel- ag zmv ovgavmv) to make regulations and to give precepts, — to al low and to forbid ; and God will approve these your appointments, and they shall be regarded by men as if they were from God." For the Apostles had special gifts of the Spirit, and were the ambassa dors of God and of Christ. The doctrine of the Apostles should therefore be to all Christians, the rule of what they should do, and what they should leave undone. The same is taught in other words, Matt. IS: 18. This is somewhat differently explained by Morus, pp. 284, 287. (c) In John 20: 23, Christ gives to his Apostles, as ambassadors of God, full power to forgive sins, or to withhold forgiveness. The reason of this is to be found in the gifts of the Spirit promised, v. 22. The Apostles did not indeed become omniscient and infalli ble by the possession of these extraordinary gifts ; but they received power to free men from certain evils, which were regarded as pun ishments of sin, especially from sicknesses ; and it is this power which seems to be here spoken of, and therefore not so much de re missione peccatorum verbali (as theologians call it), as de remissio ne reali. Thus the healing of the lame man, Matt. 9: 6, is derived from the power which the Messiah possessed of forgivino- sins. (d) The right to receive any one into the fellowship of the Church, or to exclude him from it, did not belong to the apostles or to other teachers exclusively. Nor did the apostles ever exercise it, or claim it for themselves ; but they left the exercise of it to the Churches; vid. 1 Cor. 5: 13. 2 Cor. 2: 6—10. That the Church not only have the right, but are under obligation, to provide for the support of their doctrine and constitution, and to see to it that noth ing is done contrary to them, is indeed unquestionable. And this RESPECTING THE POWER OF THE KEYS. 499 is the foundation of Christian discipline, i. e. of all those public reg ulations and appointments, by which the Christian doctrine and constitution, and a correspondent demeanour in the members of the Church, are promoted and preserved. And this is according to Scripture. But respecting the manner in which Christian Church es shall administer this discipline, no general rules are given. This must depend upon the situation and circumstances of each particu lar Church. The Church may allow this right to be exercised by some particular persons, e. g. by its teachers ; but these in such a case do not possess this right in and of themselves, but in the name of the Church and as its representatives. In the Augsburg Confes sion and the Apology, there is a particular Chapter on the power of the Church, as exercised through its teachers. But many Protes tant teachers are dissatisfied with having their power limited to mere teaching and counselling. — It is moreover a maxim in the Protes tant Church, that Church discipline should not have the form and ef fect of civil punishments ; vid. Morus, p. 285, § 8. If therefore the phrase the power of the keys, is to be retained, and this power is to be considered as belonging to the office of teaching, it must be understood to denote, the right and duty of the teacher earnestly to exhibit before the impenitent and unconverted the con sequences of their sins, — the divine punishments ; to admonish them, to counsel and exhort them to repentance ; and on the contrary, to comfort and console the penitent, and to convince them, with rea sons drawn from the Christian System," of the mercy of God, and the forgiveness of their sins. This right is derived from the very object of their office, and cannot be denied. Cf. the texts relating to this subject, as cited by Morus, p. 283, n. 2, and p. 287, no. 2. — And to these points are the rights and duties of teachers limited, according to the principles of the Protestant Church. Note 1. The more extended investigation of the doctrines of Church gov ernment, of the primacy, of the rights of the Church and its teachers, the re lation of the Church to the State, etc. which were formerly introduced into the theological systems, belong rather to Canon law or to Church History. It will be sufficient here to make this one additional remark, that the uniting of persons in an ecclesiastical society, produces no alterations in their lawful civil and domestic relations ; vid. 1 Cor. 7: 20 — 24. The Church is not a so ciety which is opposed to the State ; it rather contributes to advance the good ends of civil society. Hence the members of the Church are always directed 500 ART. XIII. § 136. REFERENCES. to yield the most perfect obedience to the Government ; vid. Luke 20: 25. Rom. 13: 1. 1 Pet. 2: 13—17. The true Christian should not indeed conform to the world (the great body of unrenewed men), and ought to keep himself unspotted from the world; still he should not, of his own accord, relinquish his worldly station and calling, so far as it is not sinful. [Note 2. On the general subject of this Article, cf. Hahn, S. 613, ff. Ne ander, Kircheng. I. B. 1 Abth. S. 346. Bretschneider, B. II. S. 785, ff.— Tr.] ARTICLE FOURTEENTH. OF THE TWO SACRAMENTS, BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER. § 137. Of the sacraments in general. I. Different uses of the term, sacramentum. (I) In the earliest times of the Church. Even Tertullian employ ed the term sacramentum with reference to Baptism and the Lord's Supper (sacramentum aqua et eucharista), and many of the Latin teachers after him. But neither Tertullian nor the other ancient fathers employ it exclusively with reference to these ; but they were accustomed also to apply it to other things, to such especially as they elsewhere called mysteria. Hence we find that in Ter tullian the terms mysterium and sacramentum are used to de note, the whole Christian Religion and its particular doctrines. The doctrine of the Trinity, of the Incarnation of Christ, etc. are called alternately mysterium and sacramentum. The same is true of all the rites and ceremonies practised by Christians, so far as they are the types of spiritual things, and have a special significancy, or a secret sense, or are kept private. But from whence is this use of sacramentum derived? Not from the ancient Latin significations of this word, according to which it denotes the military oath, or a sum of money deposited ; but from the ancient Latin Versions of the Bible, e. g. the Vulgate. In these the Greek pvattjgiov is frequently rendered by the word sacramentum. And since this Greek term was used respecting all 502 art. xiv. § 137. meaning of sacrament. secret and unknown things, and designated the higher religious truths, the secret sense of a thing, etc. (vid. Introduction, § 6) ; the term sacramentum was employed in ecclesiastical Latinity in all these senses. And it was adopted the more willingly by the.Fa- thers, because they were accustomed to compare the doctrines and rites of Christianity with the doctrines and ceremonies of the pagan mysteries, in order to secure for them a higher regard and authority among the heathen. The texts of the Vulgate on which this use is founded are the following ; viz. Dan. 2: 18, 30, where Nebuchadnezzar's unknown dream is called sacramentum. Tob. 12: 6, 7. B. of Wisdom 2: 22. Ephes. 3: 3, 9, where it stands for the Christian System, and its particular doctrines. Eph. 5: 32. Rev. 1: 20. 17: 7, etc. The fathers now called every thing standing in any relation to religion sacramemtum, and extended it especially to all religious rites which have a secret sense or any thing symbolical, and which are the external and sensible signs of certain spiritual things not cognizable by the senses. Respecting the meaning of this term, cf. G. J. Vossius, Disp. XX. de Baptismo, Amst. 1648. Ges- ner, Thesaur. Lat. h. v. Windorf, Index Latin. Tertull. T. VI. p. 500. — The primary sense, therefore, of the term sacramentum, is, as Morus justly observes, sacrum signum or significatio rei sacra. (2) The rites of Baptism and the Lord's Supper have always been justly regarded in the Christian Church, as the most impor tant acts of religious service, and as possessing a peculiar, mystical efficacy. But to many other usages which have gradually become prevalent in the Church, and which were not instituted by Christ himself, a great significance and efficacy was attributed ; and they were supposed to contain deep religious mysteries. To all these, the term sacramentum was applied, in the sense in which it was us ed by Augustine ; viz. Sacramentum est visible signum rei sacra, sive rei divina invisibilis. In this way, all the rites of the Church might be reckoned as belonging to the sacraments, and this was ac tually done. Now after the twelfth century, the schoolmen began to contend about the number of the sacraments, and at length most of them set tled upon seven (as a sacred number), which they regarded as the most important and efficacious, and to which, by way of eminence, they gave the name sacramenta. These were first distinctly stated by Peter of Lombardy in the twelfth century, as Baptism, the Lord's NUMBER OF SACRAMENTS. 503 Supper, Confirmation (confirmalio catecnmenorum), Ordination, Ex treme Unction, Auricular Confession (sacramentum panitentia) and Wedlock. He was followed in this by most of the teachers in the Romish Church, and they endeavoured to support their opinion even from the Bible. This doctrine was not, however, publicly ac knowledged until the Council at Trent, in the sixteenth century. It must'be acknowledged that this selection does not reflect much credit upon the sagacity of the one who made it ; and it proved the occasion of a great accumulation of ceremonies, and confirmed the people in the delusion, that Christianity consists essentially in eccle siastical rites, and that those invented by men have equal authority with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which depend upon divine ap pointment, and possess equal power and efficacy. (3) These perversions induced the Protestant theologians of the sixteenth century, especially those of the Lutheran Church, to use the word sacramentum in a more limited sense, than that in which it had been previously taken, and so to determine its meaning that it should no more include all the rites which had been formerly denominated sacramenta, but merely Baptism and the Lord's Sup per. Hence the doctrine of seven sacraments was publicly estab lished in the Romish Church by the Council at Trent, in opposition to the Protestants; and it was there maintained, that all the seven were instituted by Christ, and were sacraments in the same sense with Baptism and the Lord's Supper. It is however expressly said in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession by Melancthon, that nothing depends upon the use of the word or upon the number, if the thing itself is only rightly understood, and human institutions are not made of equal authority with those of God. Nemo vir pru- dens de nomine et numero rixabitur ; cf. Morus, p. 276, § 5. The Lutheran theologians have adhered closely to the use of this word in the narrower sense adopted in the sixteenth century. But the Reformed theologians have often used it in the wider sense, after the ancient manner ; e. g. they frequently call the Levitical ceremonies, and all the types of the Old Testament, sacraments. Many among the Catholics (Bellarmin and more latejy Oberthur) have expressly allowed, that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the most genera] and important of the sacraments, and that they there fore approached the Protestants more nearly, than the Council at Trent. Oberthur (in his Idea bibl. eccles. Dei, Vol. II.) confesses, 504 ART. XIV. § 137. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SACRAMENTS. that Christ expressly and immediately appointed only two sacra ments, but insists that he conferred upon the Church and the Priest hood the power to add others. The assertion made by some, that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are even in the New Testament denominated pvaztjgia, is without foundation. For the oixovopog pvaztjgimv &eov (1 Cor. 4: 1), is one who teaches the doctrines which God has revealed to men, and of which they were before ig norant ; vid. chap. 2: 7. II. Developement of the idea which is connected in the Lutheran Church with the term sacrament ; and the marks by which sacraments are distinguished from other cere monies. ( 1 ) By the word sacraments is understood in the Lutheran Church, those religious rites and ceremonies which God himself has instituted in the Holy Scriptures, by which certain spiritual bless ings are represented and actually communicated. Luther defined a sacrament, in this narrower sense, as follows : it is an observance appointed by God, in which one makes use of a visible thing, which has the divine word of command and of promise ; cf. Morus p. 274, §2, n. 1. The essential characteristics of a sacrament are therefore the following : viz. (a) Sacraments are external religious acts. (6) They are among those acts which are positively instituted, i. e. they are such as stand in no essential connexion, from their in ternal nature, with religion and the welfare of men (like prayer, for example). And all the religious acts which have these two characteristics, are called ceremonies. (c) They are instituted and appointed by God himself. (d) They serve not only to exhibit or represent to the senses the spiritual blessings which flow from God and Christ, but actually to communicate them. In every sacrament, therefore, there are two parts ; — the visible thing (materia or res terrestris), which affects the senses, as the bread, wine, and water ; — and the invisible thing (res or materia calestis), which is typified and imparted by the external sign. But respecting the manner in which the sacraments exert their power and produce their effect, Protestant theologians have not agreed ; nor have even the Lutheran theologians agreed among themselves. MANNER OF THEIR INFLUENCE. 505 In this point, however, they coincide, that the sacraments do not exert a mechanical or miraculous power, as some Catholics and en thusiasts have maintained ; for in that case they must act irresisti bly ; but some of them contend, that they have a physical power, or a power analogous to physical (physico-analogam vim) ; while oth ers say, that they have merely a moral effect. It is the same here, as in the controversy respecting the power and efficacy of the di vine Word. These religious services stand in the most intimate connexion with the essential doctrines of the Christian System, and they can in themselves produce no effect upon those who have no knowledge of these doctrines, or no conviction of their truth, i. e. no faith. The truths of religion which are herein represented, and which should be deduced from these ceremonies, produce their ef fect in the same way (or rather the Holy Ghost produces through them an effect in the same way) upon the heart of man, as they are accustomed in other cases to do, when they are heard, read, etc. ; only in these sacraments they are not taught by words, but in different ways are rendered obvious to the senses. All which has been before said respecting the operations of grace through the Word of God, § 129, sq. is therefore equally applicable to this sub ject ; cf. especially with reference to the Biblical doctrine, § 131. Melancthon therefore well observed in the Augsburg Confession, Art. VII., that Augustine truly said, sacramentum esse verbum visi- bile ; for, he adds, ritus oculis accipitur (ut moveat corda), el est quasi pictura verbi, idem significans quod verbum. Now in the same way in which God exerts his power through the word, when it is heard or read, in the very same way does he act through the Word (the truth), when in other ways and by external rites it is represented to the senses. (2) Inferences from this representation of the Lutheran theolo gians. From this limitation of the idea of sacramentum, it follows, that pnly Baptism and the Lord's Supper can properly be regarded as sacraments. For the characteristics of the sacraments have been so settled, that they can all apply only to these two ; and other cer emonies are excluded from the number. By these distinctions are excluded, (a) The five other sacraments of the Romish Church, because the third and fourth of the characteristics above mentioned do not belong to them ; or at least one or the other of these two character- Vol. II. 64 506 ART XIV. § 137. ALL CEREMONIES NOT SACRAMENTS. istics is wanting. Morus shows this particularly with regard to each one of the five Romish sacraments, p. 275, § 4, in the Note. (b) The washing of feet (pedilavium), which was regarded by some as a religious rite appointed for all the members of the Christ ian Church in all ages, because Christ washed his disciples feet (John 13: 5), and because it appears from 1 Tim. 5: 10, that this rite was practised in the first Christian Church. But this act was sym bolical, and Christ designed by it to inculcate upon his disciples, after the oriental manner, the duty of Christian love, condescension and readiness to serve others ; vid. v. 12, sq. It was never appoint ed by the apostles as a rule for all Christians, in all ages. By de grees, as customs altered, and another mode of thinking prevailed, it fell into disuse in most of the Western Churches. Still it was long retained in the Eastern Churches, and in some of them is com mon to this day. Even in the West, it has been revived by some of the smaller churches, e. g. by a part of the Mennonites : and it is now practised by some, though not all, belonging to the society of United Brethren. They, however, do not insist, that it is an es sential Christian rite, which must be observed by all Christians, and which should again be introduced into all Christian Churches, after it has now fallen into disuse ; but they leave every one to his own judgment respecting it. (c) The Jewish religious rites, such as offerings, sacrifices, etc. For Paul says, that they did not effect the forgiveness of sin before God, although they were instituted by him, Heb. 9: 9. 10: 11. So far as they typified spiritual blessings (vid. § 90, III. 7), they might be called sacraments in the old sense. (d) Especially have Circumcision and the Passover been consid ered as sacraments, and called by way of distinction sacramenta Veleris Testamenti, and compared with Baptism and the Lord's Supper. But many modern theologians have decided, that they can not be called sacraments in the sense of the Lutheran Church. For although they were commanded by God, they were attended by no promise of spiritual blessings. Circumcision related merely to external good, the possession of Canaan, the posterity of Abra ham, etc., Gen. xvn., and not to the forgiveness of sins, etc. On the contrary, it is assigned as the object of Baptism, the initiatory rite of the Christian religion, to promote the circumcision of the heart, or moral improvement; vid. Col. 2: 11, 12. The Passover was in- CHRIST'S OBJECT IN APPOINTING SACRAMENTS. 507 stituted merely to commemorate the deliverance of the Jews from Egypt. Still, although it is not declared in the Scriptures, that Baptism and the Lord's Supper have come into the place of Cir cumcision and the Passover ; yet both of the latter may be regard ed as sacraments, so far as they typified spiritual blessings. For it was expressly said to Abraham at his Circumcision, that the great promises made to him and his posterity should be fulfilled, (Gen. 17: 21,) and among these were spiritual blessings. And all the of ferings and festivals of the Jewish Religion, and especially these two, which were the most solemn, are said in the New Testament to have a figurative sense ; vid. 1 Cor. 5: 7. John 19: 36, and §90. Cf. Heilraann, De finienda justa sacramentorum notione, in his " Opuscula," Th. I. S. 433. III. The objeet of Christ in instituting these two sacraments. (1) The utility and necessity of religious rites may be inferred from the constitution of our nature. Man is not a mere spirit, but a being composed of reason and sense. And on this account there must be something in Religion which will appeal to his senses, ex cite and sustain his devotion, and strengthen his zeal in piety. The sensible representation of the truths of Religion often makes a stronger impression upon men, as experience shows, than mere instruction ; because their feelings are apt to be more strong ly excited by any thing which appeals to the senses, than by that which addresses simply the understanding. Hence our religious services cannot be merely spiritual. Even ceremonies of hu man appointment have a great effect, and far more those which have divine authority, and, like Baptism and the Lord's Supper, are accompanied with special promises. Religious rites in general contribute much also to the support of Religion itself ; since by their means, the solemn and public pro fession of religion is renewed, and even children are from their youth up accustomed to them, and are bound to their observance. A religion without external religious rites, and without the aids Of sensible exhibitions of its truths, would be as liable to become obso lete, as the different systems of philosophy. The truth of this re mark is confirmed by the history of the Church. In the Oriental Church, Christianity was indeed very early disfigured by many false 508 ART. XIV. § 137. IMPORTANCE OF SIMPLICITY doctrines ; but the profession of Christ, and the essentials of his re ligion, still continued, until Mohammed and his adherents succeeded in abolishing Christian worship, together with Baptism and the Lord's Supper. It is, therefore, very necessary, that these religious rites should be maintained. And the opponents of Christianity pro ceed very wisely, when they endeavour to bring them into disuse and contempt. For the doctrines to which they relate, must soon share the same fate. (2) But it is equally important, on the other hand, that Religion should not be overloaded with external rites, and that they should be as few as possible. For when they are multiplied, their effect is weakened, and they are soon regarded with indifference and con tempt. This is proved by the example of all Religions, and even of the Christian Religion, when it has been burdened with ceremo nies. Christ endeavoured by his doctrine to withdraw men more and more from what is external and sensible, and to promote internal, spiritual worship, as an affair of the heart ; cf. John 4: 23, 24. Hence he appointed but few ceremonies. An additional reason for this was, that at the time when Christianity was founded, the reli gious ceremonial both of the Jews and of the heathen nations, was looked upon with coldness, or even with contempt, by the more cul tivated and thinking part of the public, on account of the great multiplicity of its rites, and the superstition with which it was at tended. Even a great portion of the religious Jews at that time, felt the burden of the Jewish Ceremonial Law to be very oppressive ; cf. Acts 15: 10. Matt. 23: 4. A new religious Institution, there fore, prescribing but few, simple, and easy rites, would on this very account commend itself to the Jews and the Heathen; cf. Matt. 9; 14—17. Considered in this respect, these two sacraments of Christ have great advantages. They are natural, simple, and universally appli cable. The are therefore peculiarly appropriate to an institution, which is designed to be universal. It is otherwise with the Jewish ritual, which is not adapted to all men, countries, and times. In deed it was not designed by God for all men, but only for a particu lar period, and that for a limited time. Christ, however, has not forbidden the introduction of other religious usages. For an in crease of them may often be indispensable to the maintenance of IN CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES. 509 united religious worship. But he has left this to the discretion of his Church, which may appoint and modify them according to cir cumstances. Those, however, which Christ has instituted should serve as models and patterns, in point of simplicity, for all other Christian ceremonies. CHAPTER FIRST. THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. § 138. Names, institution, and origin of Christian Baptism ; with observations on John the Baptist and the Jewish Baptism of Proselytes I. NameB of Baptism in the Bible. (1) To pdntiapa, from (tanzlfeiv, which properly signifies to immerse, (like the Germ, taufen,) to dip in, to wash (by immer sion). In the Syriac and Chaldaic (which Christ used), this is de noted by the words, bl?a , fil^a . ii ^a (Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. p. 849, 850). Hence the washing of vessels with water is called (idnxiopoi, Mark 7: 4. And instead of vlxpmvxai in v. 3 of the same chap, we have in v. 4, fianziornvzai' so also of the washing of hands, Luke 11: 38, sq. (In the New Testament the form 6 (iun- ziapog is never used for the religious rite of Baptism, either of John or of Christ ; but always xo fianziapa.) Hence it is often used tropically, (a) For what flows, or is communicated, to any one in full measure ; as in Latin, perfundere, imbuere, etc. ; e. g. Acts 1: 5. (b) For severe sufferings which befall any one ; e. g. Matt. 20: 22, 23; for these are often compared with waves which overflow any one ; Ps. 69: 2, 3. So among the Latins, fluctus miseria, mergi malis. Hence martyrdom is called by the Ancients, baptisma sanguinis. In the Classics, e. g. in Plato, a drunken person is said to be fianzia&eig, vino imbutus, mersus. (2,) Ka&ugiapog, John 3: 25 ; because by washing, purifica tion is effected, and Baptism represents purification from sins, and is designed to promote this end in the one who is baptized. Hence Josephus (XVIII. 7) employs ixxa&algetv in respect to the baptism § 138. INSTITUTION OF BAPTISM. 511 of John. Perhaps too 2 Peter 1: 9 (xa&agiopog zdiv naXai dpag zimv, coll. Eph. 5: 26) belongs in this connexion. (3) To vSmg, because Baptism was administered with water, John 3: 5, coll. Acts 10: 47. Ephes, 5: 26, sq. (4) Among the Church Fathers one of the oldest names was qjmziapog, from the instruction which the subject of this rite re ceived in connexion with his Baptism, as Justin the Martyr (Apol. 1.61) explains it. The Syriac too, translates, tovg dna% qjmzia- &evzag (Heb. 6: 4), those once baptized; which version Michaelis follows, though it is a doubtful rendering. Baptism is moreover called by the Church Fathers, acpgayig, sigillum (character Chris- tiani), xdgig, %dgiapu, e'vSvpa aq&agaiag, x. x. X. II. Institution of Baptism, and the principal texts relating to it. Jesus, even during his life upon the earth, required those who wished to become his disciples to be baptized by his Apostles ; John 3: 22, coll. v. 5 of the same chap, and Chap. 4: 1, 2. But at that time none but Jews were received into his Church and baptized ; as was the case also with John, in his Baptism. Shortly before his Ascension to heaven he first gave the commission to his "Apostles, to admit all (ndvTa t&vtf) into the Christian Church, and to bap tize them without distinction ; Matt. 28: 18—20, cf. Mark 16: 15, 16. They were to be made disciples of Jesus Christ, or professors of his religion (pa&tjzeveiv), in a two-fold manner ; viz. by bap tism and by instruction. They were to^ be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; i. e. by baptism they were to be obligated to accept and obey the doctrine, which acknowledges and receives Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Whoever, therefore, is baptized, declares by this rite that he acknowledges Father, Son, and Spirit for his God, that he will obey his laws, and that he ex pects protection and blessing from him ; and God, on the other hand, promises and grants to him, the enjoyment of all the benefits which the Gospel of Christ enjoins upon us to expect from the Fath er, Son, and Holy Spirit; for a more full explanation of this formu la, vid. Vol. I. § 35, I. and Morus, p. 275, § 2, 3. It is the opin ion of some, that Christ did not design in this passage so much to prescribe a precise formula ; in which case he would rather have said "Baptize ye and say, I" baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," but that he merely intended to teach what 512 ART. XIV. § 138. BAPTISM OF JOHN. is the meaning and object of this rite. That this command of Christ was obeyed by the Apostles, may be seen from the Acts and Epistles. The other important passages concerning the object, design, and effect of baptism, e. g. John 3: 5. Tit. 3: 5. Acts. 22: 16. Gal. 3: 27. Rom. 6: 3, 4. Ephes. 5: 26. 1 Pet. 3: 21, etc., will be explained in the Jfollowing Sections. III. Origin of Christian Baptism ; the Baptism of John, and the Jewish Baptism of Proselytes. (1) John baptized before Christ appeared publicly as a teach er, and Christ even suffered himself to be baptized by him. The Baptism of John is described, equally with the baptism of Christ, as a divine institution, and as performed under divine authority ; John 1: 33 (God sent him to baptize), and Luke 7: 30, where it is called a divine institutiou ((tovXtj &eov), and Matt. 21: 25, sq. (2) But although this is a divine institution, we must still seek among the prevailing practices and expectations of the Israelites, the more immediate reason why just this, and no other form of ini tiation was then introduced by John and Christ. From the passage John 1: 25, it is manifest that the Jews (the Sanhedrim, and the Pharisees) expected that the Messiah and his herald Elias, would baptize ; cf. Lightfoot on this text. And so, many even among the learned (the Pharisees and Saducees) suffered themselves to be baptized by John (Matt. 3: 7); which probably would not have been the case, if Baptism had been to them a strange and unheard of thing. The Israelites, like many other nations, had different forms of lustration, and washings with water, which were clearly pre scribed by their Law, by means of which they sanctified, consecra ted, and cleansed themselves from impurities ; vid. Wetstein on Matt. 3: 6. As now the Messiah was to bring about a general re formation, and to establish a new constitution, into which every one must be solemnly initiated, and to which he must be consecrated ; as, moreover, it was the universal expectation, according to the Prophets, that he would cleanse men from their sins, which was ex actly typified by the washings in the Levitical Law ; it does not seem unnatural, that just this form of initiation should have been expected by the Jews, and should in fact have been chosen by John and Christ, according to divine appointment. If now the baptism of proselytes was customary among the Jews PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 513 at or before the time of Christ, many things could be explained still more clearly from this circumstance. The Talmud and its in terpreters relate, that the Proselytes, as well circumcised as uncir- cumcised, were initiated by baptism into the worship of the one true God, and that this was a symbol of purification from sin, and of the renunciation of heathenism ; and that they were then considered as born again ; — exactly the expression used by Christ (John m.) and by Paul (Tit. in.) respecting Christian baptism ; vid. § 126, II. The Talmudists make this practice very ancient, and place it as far back as the time of Moses, and even farther (which probably is go ing too far, as their way is). The oldest passage respecting a re ligious cleansing, or sort of baptism, occurs in Jacob's history (Gen. 35: 2), when he puts away the idols in his house, and builds an al tar to Jehovah. This passage may certainly have induced the Is raelites to adopt this custom. So much is certain, that as early as the second century Proselyte Baptism must have been very custom ary ; since in the dissertations of Epictetus (II. 9) published by Ar- rian, (tefiappe'vog signifies a Jewish proselyte, and naga^anzia&eig, one who had not sincerely embraced Judaism. Others, however, are inclined to think, that Christians are here meant, and that Epic tetus confounded them with the Jews. — For these reasons Dantz firmly maintained, that the baptism of proselytes was, as it were, the prelude of the baptism of John and of Christ; and he is follow ed by Michaelis, Less, and others ; cf. his treatise de anliquitate baptismi initiationis Israel, in Meuschen's JN. T. e Talmude illustra- to, p. 133, f. and Wetstein on Matt. 3: 6. There is much for, and much against the opinion, that Proselyte Baptism was customary in the first century, and even earlier. (a) Against. There is not found even to the present time, one dis tinct evidence of it in any writer, before, at, or shortly after the the time of Christ ; not in Philo, — not in Josephus, even when he speaks of the conversion of the Idumeans, under John Hyrkan, to Judaism (XIII. 9), where he simply mentions circumcision ; — not even in the Chaldaic paraphrases. Zeltner firmly opposes to Dantz this stubborn silence of the writers near the age of Christ. (6) In favor. The unanimous testimony of all the Rabbins ; — the univer sality of this practice among the Jews of the second century, since it can scarcely be thought, that they would have borrowed it from the Christians, who were so hated and despised by them ; — the Vol. II. 65 514 art. xiv. § 138. john's baptism striking similarity of the Jewish expressions concerning the baptism of proselytes, with those which occur in the New Testament respect ing the Christian rite (regeneratio) ; — also the circumstance, that Josephus, in his account of John the Baptist, does not express the least surprize at this practice, as a new and unwonted cere mony. This last argument, however, is invalidated by _. the re mark, that it is known to have been expected, that the pre cursor of the Messiah would baptize. Besides, it appears that the baptism of John, did excite among the Jews some degree of surprize. This is seen from the question, why baptizest thou then ? and from his being called the Baptist. — Ziegler has lately maintain ed, with very probable reasons, that the antiquity of the Jewish baptism of proselytes, ascends beyond the origin of Christianity ; cf. his Theological Essays, Part. II. (Gottingen, 1804,) Num. 3, " Con cerning the baptism of John, as the unaltered application of, the Jewish baptism of proselytes, and concerning the baptism of Christ, as the continuation of that of John." But although much may be advanced in support of this opinion, it cannot be relied upon with certainty, since it is entirely destitute of clear contemporary evidence. IV. Was the baptism of John different from Christian Baptism i Many Theologians of the Romish Church formerly maintained, that there is a difference ; — but Protestants usually take the opposite side ; although some, especially the more modern, have again adopt ed the former opinion. The following observations may serve to settle the matter. (1) The object of John's baptism was the same with thatof Christian ; and from this it may be at once concluded, that it did not differ essentially from the latter. John exhorted the persons baptized by him to repentance (pezavoia) and to faith in the Mes- . siah who was shortly to appear, and made these duties obligatory upon them by this rite; Matt. 3:11. Luke m. Mark i. John i. Acts 2: 38. And as soon as Jesus publicly appeared, John asserted in the most forcible manner, that he was the Messiah, and so re quired of all whom he had then or before baptized, that they should believe in Jesus as the Messiah. Now in Christian baptism, re pentance and faith in Jesus as the Messiah, are likewise the princi pal things which are required on the part of the subjects of this rite. THE SAME WITH CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 515 (2) The practice of the first. Christian Church confirms the point, that the baptism of John was considered essentially the same with Christian Baptism. For those who acknowledged that they had professed, by the baptism of John, to believe in Jesus as the Christ, and who in consequence of this had become in fact his dis ciples and had believed in him, were not, in a single instance, bap tized again into Christ ; because this was considered as having been already done. Hence we do not find, that any apostle, or any other disciple of Jesus, was the second time baptized ; not even that Apollos mentioned in Acts 18: 25, because he had before believed in Jesus as Christ, although he had received only the baptism of John. (3) But all those disciples of John, who had not before acknowl edged this truth, and had received the baptism of John or his suc cessors in an entirely different signification, were properly consider ed at the time of the Apostles as not being baptized, or as wrongly baptized ; and all such were therefore required to be baptized ex pressly into Christ as the Messiah. This was the case with the Jews, who, according to Acts 2: 41, were baptized into Jesus, among whom were many whom John had baptized, but who had not then recognized Jesus as the Messiah, and had even taken part in his crucifixion. This was likewise the case with those persons, whom Paul (Acts 19: 1 — 5) permitted to be baptized at Ephesus, although they had already received the baptism of John. There is in this place, nothing that needs to be artificially explained. The meaning is : ' That when they heard from Paul, that it was essen tial to Baptism, that one should believe in Jesus as the Lord and Christ (which they hitherto had not done, since the disciples of John who baptized them, had said nothing to them about it) ; they were then willing to suffer themselves, to be solemnly obligated by baptism to the acknowledgment of Jesus;' vid. Bengel's Gnomon ad h. 1. and Semler, Diss, ad Acts 19: 1, sq. This was the more necessary at that time, as many of the disciples of John had entirely separat ed themselves from the Christians. These false disciples of John still continued to practise John's baptism into the approaching Mes siah, but denied that Jesus was the Messiah. Even to the present day, there are remnants of this sect in Syria and Arabia ; vid. Nor- bero-, Von der Religion und Sprache der Zabier, and Walch, De Sabsis, in the Comment. Soc. Gott. 1780 and 1781. There is 516 ART. XIV. § 139. MODE OF BAPTISM. much directed against the false disciples of John in the accounts given by the Evangelists respecting John the Baptist. Vid. Storr, Ueber den Zweck der evang. Gesch. und der Briefe Johannis, Tu bingen, 1786, 8vo; 2d ed. 1809.— There is nothing therefore in the passages Acts ir. and xix. which favors the doctrine, that those who had been baptized by John were required to be rebaptized, in order to admission into the Church of Christ. §139. How and by whom baptism is to be administered; and re specting the optional and unessential things attending the obser vance of this rite. I. Concerning immersion, affusion, and sprinkling with water. (1) It is certain that in Christian baptism, as in the baptism of John, only water was used by Christ and his Apostles ; vid. John 3: 5. Ephes. 5: 26. But after baptism, in itself considered .and simply as an opus operatum, came to be regarded as essential to salvation, the question was started, Whether, in the want of water, baptism could be performed with any other material, e. g. wine, milk, or sand ? The question must be answered in the negative, since to do this would be contrary to the institution of Christ. For any one to be prevented ne cessarily from being baptized, does not subject him to condemnation ; but only the wilful and criminal refusal of this rite. (2) Immersion is peculiarly agreeable to the institution of Christ, and to the practice of the apostolical church, and so even John baptiz ed, and Immersion remained common for a long time after ; except that in the third century, or perhaps earlier, the baptism of the sick (baptisma clinicorum) was performed by sprinkling or affusion. Still some would not acknowledge this to be true baptism, and controversy arose concerning it, — so unheard of was it at that time, to baptize by simple affusion. Cyprian first defended baptism by sprinkling, when necessity called for it ; but cautiously and with much limita tion. By degrees, however, this mode of baptism became more cus tomary, probably because it was found more convenient ; especial- IMMERSION PREFERABLE, NOT ESSENTIAL. 517 ly was this the case after the seventh century, and in the Western Church ; but it did not become universal until the commencement of the fourteenth century. Yet Thomas Aquinas had approved and promoted this innovation, more than a hundred years before. In the Greek and Eastern Church they still held to immersion. It would have been better, to have adhered generally to the ancient practice, as even Luther and Calvin allowed ; vid. Storr, Doct. Christ. Pars theo- ret. p. 291. — If it is asked, however, if immersion is so essential, that one who has been only sprinkled, is not to be considered as properly a baptized person ; it may be answered, No! Nothing more is essen tial to the external part of baptism, than that water be used (Acts 10: 47. John 3: 5), and that the subject, by the solemn use of this rite, be consecrated to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and be pledged to obey the Christian doctrine, Matt. 28: 19. The washing with water is con sidered as the symbol of the purification of sins ; and this can be signi fied as well by affusion as by immersion. Hence, even in affusion, the external significancy of the rite is retained. And this is the reason, why many in the Western Church, and even in the Protestant Church, have contended that this rite should be administered, not per adsper- sionem, but per largiorem aqua affusionem. (3) There is no command given concerning the question, whether immersion or affusion should be performed only once, or more than once ; — this therefore is, in itself, optional. In the Greek church we find the three-fold immersion earlier and more prevalent, than ill the Latin; whence the Greeks objected to the Latins. Basilius and Hie ronymus say, that this was practised in conformity with an ancient tra dition ; and if it was not common in the first Church, perhaps thecon- troversies with the Antitrinitarians in the third century might have giv en the first occasion for it. In the African church it was already com mon in the times of Tertullian and Cyprian, and in the Apostolical Constitutions it was so ordained. At the fourth Church Council at Toledo, in the year 633, this three-fold immersion was first establish ed by ecclesiastical authority in the Latin Church, in opposition to the Arians. (4) It is also optional, whether the head, the forehead, or the breast, be wet with the water ; and in this respect the one who ad ministers this sacrament must govern himself according to the usa ges of his own particular Church. / 518 ART. XIV. § 139. FORMULAS IN BAPTISM. II. On the use of Formulas in baptism. The formulas used in administering baptism have always been very different. In the Greek Church it is still common to say, as formerly, Baptizetur hie or hac (servus or serva Dei) in nomine, etc. In the Latin Church the subject is addressed, I baptize thee in the name, etc. The formula adopted by some of baptizing in the name " of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost," is liable to be misunderstood ; as it might be interpreted to mean, that there are three Gods. It has appeared strange to some, that we find in the New Testament no passage from which it plainly ap pears, that the words used Matt. xxvm. in the name of the Father, etc. were used in the Apostolical Church. For we always find on ly, tig Xgiazov or Itjaovv, — tig ovopa Kvgiov or Irjaov, e. g. Rom. 6: 3. Gal. 3: 27. Acts 2: 38. 10: 48. 19: 5. The opin ions on this subject are not unanimous. (1) We might say with some, that although the formula in Matt. xxvm. were not used in the Apostolical Church, but it was merely said, in the name of Je sus, i. e. into the profession of Christ and his doctrine ; yet this was entirely the same with the other ; because it comprehended the pro fession of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, since whoever was bap tized into Jesus, by this act professed his belief in the whole doctrine of Christ, and therefore in that which he taught concerning the Fa ther, Son, and Holy Spirit. Basilius endeavoured to explain the thing in this way. (2) Others, (and among the rest, Facundus Hermianensis, De tribus capit. I. 3,) are of opinion, that it does not follow from these places, that they did not fully employ the prescrib ed formulas in baptism ; but that Christian baptism was so named in distinction from the baptism of John, and from the Jewish prose lyte baptism, since one who had received this proselyte baptism, or had wrongly understood that of John, was not baptized into Christ. This can be reconciled very well, at least with Acts 19: 5, and with some other places ; vid. § 138, II. But in addition to these, there is a third reason. (3) In the ancient Christian Church, immediately after the time of the Apostles, the words prescribed by Christ at the establishment of this rite, were certainly used (Just. M. Ap. 1. 80). It may therefore be rightly inferred, that it was the same at the time of the Apostles ; and that it is right and proper to continue in this use. It is not however forbidden, to unite with BY WHOM SHOULD BAPTISM BE ADMINISTERED 1 519 this, other formulas which are suitable, and which serve to explain the design of this rite, and to excite pious feelings. The teacher will of course govern himself in this matter according to the circum stances, the constitution, and usages of the particular Church to which he may belong. III. By whom is Baptism to be administered 1 In ordinary cases, certainly, by the teachers of religion ; for it is their appropriate business and calling, to lead disciples -to Christ (pa&tjzevtiv), and this duty is also committed to them by the Church and government. We find, therefore, that baptism in the apostolical Church was always administered by the Teachers ; vid. John 4: 2. Acts 10: 48. 1 Cor. 1: 16. But although this pa&tj- zeveiv is the appropriate business of Teachers, still they have no ex clusive right to it, as this is nowhere given to them in the New Testament. But in case of necessity, and when no teachers can be obtained, baptism may be administered by any Christian, and is valid if it is performed according to the institution of Christ; vid. § 136, II. 2. This has been the doctrine and practice which has universally prevailed in the Church. IV. How far a knowledge of Christian doctrines is essential in the subjects of Baptism. This knowledge must certainly be presupposed in adults, before they can be baptized. For how could they solemnly profess, as they do in Baptism, to believe, and pledge themselves to obey a doctrine, respecting which they were wholly ignorant 1 We find therefore, even in the writings of the New Testament, that the candidates for Baptism were previously instructed. But this instruction was by no means particular; it was confined to the main, fundamental truths of Christianity, — the doctrine of On? God, — the princi pal articles respecting Christ, — that he is the Messiah, and that through him we receive forgiveness from God ; — also concerning the Holy Spirit promised to Christians, and the indispensable neces sity of repentance and holiness : — these are the principal truths in which the candidates for Baptism were briefly instructed. When they were sufficiently acquainted with these truths and had profess ed them from the heart, they were allowed baptism, and received afterwards more complete instruction both in these, and the other 520 ART. XIV. § 139. INCIDENTAL USAGES Christian doctrines ; cf. Acts 2: 41. 8: 12, 36, sq. 9: 17, 18. 10: 34 — 48, where in the words of Peter, we have an example of the instruc tion commonly given before baptism ; cf. Heb. 6: 1, sq. In the great addition of new converts in the first period of Christianity, this prepar atory instruction could not possibly be very long or particular, especial ly as the teachers of religion were yet few. Accordingly the confes sions of faith to be made in baptism were at first very short and simple ; such for example, was the Symbolum Aposlolicum, so call ed ; but this was gradually enlarged by the addition of new dis- tinctionsj by which the Orthodox endeavoured to distinguish them selves from heretics. The instruction of catecumens and the time of probation preceding baptism, were by degrees increased and prolonged ; and for this, there was good reason. For as the num ber of Christian proselytes constantly increased, and multitudes were pressing into the Church, greater caution became necessary in ad mitting them. This led to the appointment of fixed periods for the probation of new converts before baptism. V. Usages incidental to Baptism, but not essential to its validity. Many of these are very ancient, but they may all be dispensed with, without affecting the validity of Christian baptism, because they are not commanded by Christ. In .Christian Archaeology and Church history, they are more fully exhibited, than they can be here. We mention only some of those which are still common among us. (1) The sign of the cross appears to have been first introduced in connexion with baptism in the fourth century, and is intended to be a solemn memorial of the death of Christ, Rom. 6: 3. (2) The imposition of a name ; this was also done in connexion with Jewish circumcisions. (3) The laying on of hands, as a symbol of the communication of the Holy Ghost, or of the gift of sanctification, which in this way is solemnly sought of God for the subject of baptism, and prom ised to him. This is mentioned even by Tertullian. (4) Sponsors at baptism. Tertullian (de bapt. ch. 18) mentions these as being present at the baptism of Children ; but they were also concerned in the performance of this rile for adult persons ; just as sponsors were called in at the rite of circumcision among CONNECTED WITH BAPTISM. 521 the Jews. Such only, however, as belong to the Christian Church can be employed for this service; heathens, Jews, Mahommedans, and others who are not members of the Christian Church, may be present at the rite, but not as valid sponsors. (5) The subjects of baptism must renounce Satan. This denot ed originally an entire renunciation on their part of heathenism and of heathen superstitions, and also of the entire disposition which had before prevailed within them, as far as it was opposed to Christ ianity. (6) Exorcism. The first traces of this practice appear in Afri ca, in the third century, as we learn from Cyprian's letter, although* a foundation for it was laid as early as the second century. It had its rise in various opinions, in a great measure superstitious, re specting the physical agency of the Devil upon men ; and in the idea, the evil spirits may be driven off by the use of formulas, and certain charmed words. It was at first practised only at the bap tism of heathen, who were regarded as persons possessed by the Devil ; but it came afterwards to be employed at the baptism of the children of Christian parents. Vid. Kraft, Ausfurhliche Historie des Exorcismus, Hamburg, 1750. Concerning the other usages in bap tism, vid. besides the ancient Authors (e. g. Vosii Disertatt. cf. § 137, I. 1), Calixtus, Diss, de antiq. ritibus bapt. Helmstadt, 1650 ; Ncesselt's historical investigation and illustration of the usa ges common in baptism, published in the weekly " Anzeiger" at Halle, 1764, Num. 28—32. Note. The rite of Exorcism, has been properly abandoned in most places in the Protestant church. Although it is well explained in the Lutheran church, as a confession of the natural corruption of indwelling sin and of re demption from it, and in various other ways ; still it is calculated to promote Buperstition and serious error in the community at large ; and, what is most important, to excite contempt among the lightly disposed. Morus gives the same opinion (p. 257, no. 3). It may bo remarked in general, that some of the usages common in many places at Infant baptism, are not at all suitable to children, and have been transferred, without much judgment, to their baptism, from that of adult per sons. Among these inappropriate services we may place the Confession of faith, and the renunciation of the Devil. Instead of these, it would be more ap. propriato and profitable to have a sincere prayer, in which the new member of the Christian church should be commended to the care and blessing of God; and at the same time a feeling exhortation to parents and other spectators, in which they should be impressively reminded of the duties which they owe as Vol. II. 66 522 ART. XIV. § 140. EXTERNAL ADVANTAGES OF BAPTISM. Christians to their children, and those entrusted to their watchful care. Much depends in things of this nature upon the teacher, who, even where the rites are not exactly suitable, can obviate mistake and remove ignorance, by proper explanations. Even the best formulary in baptism will affect specta tors but little, if they see that the teacher uses it without any emotion, and re peats it with a heartless voice and manner. The teacher needs to be on his guard against performing the duties of his office, especially those which fre quently recur, as the Lord's Supper and Baptism, in a merely mechanical way. When he performs religious services with a cold heart, it cannot be expected that others present should engage in them with warm devotion. A teacher who discharges his duties in this manner, must lose in the good opinion of bis hearers ; and the blame is his own, if he at last becomes contemptible in their view. § 140. Object, uses, and effects of Christian Baptism. The uses and effects of baptism are divided, as in the sacra ments in general, into internal and external. I. Externa) advantages and effects of baptism. By means of this rite we are received as members of the visi ble Christian society, and consequently become partakers of all the privileges belonging to Christians. It is, therefore, considered in this light, the solemn initiatory rite of admission into the Christian Church (sacramentum initiationis). This is mentioned expressly in the New Testament as the design and object of baptism. As soon as a person was baptized, he was considered as a member of the Church (dyiog, pa&rjx-ljg, niazevmv), Acts 2: 41, 44, and entitled to all the rights of other Christians. 1 Cor. 12: 13, " Whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; tig t\ ampa Iflunzla&npev," i. e. we are united by baptism into one Church, and have, as members of it, equal rights ; vid. vs. 12, 27. Whence Paul says, Ephes. 4: 4, 5, there is ev pdnziapa (one common baptism), and evampa (one church), and pia iXnig of Christians ; and Gal! 3:27, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ," i. e. are Christians, belong to the school of Christ and are therefore obligated to confess him for your Lord and Mas ter, to obey him and to follow his example. ITS INTERNAL ADVANTAGES. 523 II. The internal advantages and effects of Baptism. ( 1 ) In the old ecclesiastical writers we find many extravagant and unscriptural assertions respecting the effect of Baptism, espe cially in the instructions which they gave to catechumens and new converts ; e. g. in Gregory of Nazianzen, Cyrill of Jerusalem, and even earlier in Irensus and Tertullian. Cyrill of Alexandria went so far as to say, that the water became changed (pezaazoixeiova- &ai), by the divine power of the Holy Spirit, into an entirely different element. All this, indeed, admits of being explained according to Scripture ; but it is still apparent that Christians began very early to attribute to baptism a magical efficacy, by which it produces its effect through its own inherent virtue, and independently of the use of the word of God ; and by which it acts, not only upon the soul, but upon the body also. Hence they made use of it in order to heal sicknesses, to banish evil Spirits, etc. During the middle ages, these superstitious notions prevailed more and more, and were even adopted by the schoolmen into their systems. We find, e. g. in Thomas Aquinas, the doctrine that a character indelibilis is acquir ed in baptism, — an opinion which Augustine had before held ,* also the scholastic doctrine, that by baptism native depravity is so far done away, that only concupiscentia remains, and that even this loses the form of sin. Protestants have in every way endeavoured to separate the scriptural doctrine from these superstitious notions ; yet there are not wanting incautious expressions on this subject, even among some Protestant Theologians. (2) In the New Testament this magical effect is no were ascrib ed to baptism, as if faith were imparted to man by baptism, without his being himself active in obtaining it ; as if he received, through this external rite, the forgiveness of sins, readiness in good works, and eternal salvation. Neither has Luther taught such a doctrine. On an adult person, who has no knowledge of the Word of God or of the Christian doctrine, baptism can have no efficacy, simply as an opus operalum. Its effect on adults depends on their being in structed in the divine Word, and the connexion of baptism with this instruction. To this divine Word, and the divine efficacy connected with it (§§ 130, 131), does the power properly belong to renew the heart of man, and to make it susceptible of the benefits and priyi- 524 ART. XIV. § 140. SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE leges which Christianity promises ; and not the mere external rite of baptism. This we are distinctly taught in the Holy Scriptures. So Peter (Acts 2: 38) exhorts his hearers to suffer themselves to be baptized tig dcptjoiv dpagzimv, but he expressly requires, as an es sential condition, the pezavoelv (which is effected by God through the use of Christian doctrine) ; and it is the same in the baptism of John, Mark 1: 4, sq. So Acts 22: 16, Paul was called upon to be baptized and to be washed from his sins ; but the condition was intxaXeadpevog zo ovopa zov Kvgiov. Several texts relating to this point should be here more particularly considered. (a.) John 3: 5, " Whoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, 'cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven," i. e. whoever does not take upon himself the obligation to live in an entirely altered and renewed temper of mind, which is effected through baptism by the aid of the Holy Spirit, has no part in the saving blessings of Christ's spiritual kingdom (forgiveness of sins and eternal blessed ness) ; vid. § 126, II. (6) Titus 3: 5, where Paul means to say, God had bestowed salvation upon them (iaoiaev), by leading them to embrace Christ ianity. We become participators in these Christian blessings in a two-fold way ; first, Sid Xovzgov naXiyytviaiag- so baptism is called as far as one externally receives it, and especially as far as he is en gaged by means of it, to lead a new life, and receives strength for this end : secondly, xal Sia avaxaivmatmg Hvtvpazog uyiov, i. e. through that entire change and renovation of heart which we owe to the Holy Spirit. This renewal he effects through the Christian doctrine, §§ 130, 131. The meaning is: 'the renovation of our hearts which is effected by the Holy Spirit, is bestowed upon us by the free and undeserved grace of God. He assists us to obtain this blessing by means of Christian baptism, in which we become obligated to lead a new life, and receive strength so to do, and also by the entire renewal of our hearts, which we owe to his Spirit.' (c) 1 Peter 3: 21. It is said concerning baptism, that it deliv ers or frees us from the punishment of our sins (o"eo£«) ; not how ever as an external washing ; but inasmuch as we pledge ourselves in this rite, and are assisted by it, to maintain a good conscience, and inasmuch as it is the means by which we receive and appro priate to ourselves the gracious promise of the forgiveness of sins through Christ ; which is elsewhere called pezavoia, dyimavvtj. OF THE INTERNAL ADVANTAGES OF BAPTISM. 525 The scriptural doctrine of the internal advantages and effects of baptism may be embraced in the following points. First. When we are received by baptism into the number of the followers of Jesus Christ, we sacredly bind ourselves to believe his doctrine in its whole extent, its commands, and its promises ; to embrace it as true, and therefore punctually to obey it in all parts, to live pious and godly lives, according to his precepts, and to imi tate his example. For he only who does this, is worthy of the name of a Christian, and can lay claim to the blessedness promised to be lievers ; vid. 1 John 2: 4. 3: 3. Peter calls this, in his first Epistle, ch. 3: 21, auveiStjaemg dya&tjg inegmxtjpa elg &eov, and makes this one object of baptism. ' Enegmztjpa is properly stipulatio, and so denotes any solemn obligation which one assumes (before God). Hence the meaning here is : ' by baptism we take upon ourselves the sacred obligation, in the presence of God, to maintain a good conscience, to be watchful against sin, and to strive after holiness.' The passage Rom. 6:3, 4, sq. teaches the same thing, coll. Col. 2: 12, 13, " We are, like Christ, buried as dead persons by baptism ; and should arise, like him, to a new life," i. e. by baptism we obtain the assurance of the pardon of sin on account of the death of Christ; and so, when we are baptized, take upon ourselves the obligation to die to sin in a spiritual manner, as Christ died and was buried bodily, etc. The image is here taken from baptized persons as they were immerged (buried), and as they emerged (rose again) ; so it was understood by Chrysostom. Since immersion has been disused, the full significance of this comparison is no longer perceived. So then by baptism we profess to receive Christ as our teacher, Saviour, and Lord, i. e. we thus bind ourselves to embrace and obey his doc trine, confidently to trust his promises, to expect from him all our spiritual blessedness, and to render him a dutiful obedience. This is what is meant in the New Testament by being baptized in the name of Christ ; vid. Morus p. 246, § 4. But since now all these blessings which we owe to Jesus as Messiah, or Saviour and Lord, are blessings which God bestows, — blessings which, according to the Christian doctrine, are derived from Father, Son and Holy Spirit ; so in baptism we bind ourselves to believe in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as our God, to look for our salvation from them, and to acknowledge and adore them, as the only authors of it. Hence the command of Jesus to baptize in the name of the Father, 526 ART. XIV. § 140. ADVANTAGES OF BAPTISM. Son, and Holy Spirit, is designed to express the religious connex ion in which we stand to them, and our duty to pay them religious homage. Secondly. Through baptism we receive the assurance, that the di vine blessings which the Christian doctrine promises, concern even us, and that even we may participate in them ; or, in other words, these blessings are by this rite particularly applied to our own per sonal state, and we learn in faith to appropriate them to ourselves. As any one, on being formally admitted as a citizen of a town, in taking the oath of citizenship, and in going through the other rites of initiation, receives the confident assurance that he has now a title to all the rites and privileges of citizenship ; so it is with the Chris tian in Baptism. It is the same, in this view, with baptism as with circumcision. This Paul calls (Rom. 4: 11) a arjpelov and aq,gayi- Sa for Abraham and his posterity, i. e. a token of assurance and a proof that God was favorably disposed towards him, and justified him on account of his faith. So Baptism is to every one the token of assurance, that he may partake in all those spiritual blessings which Christianity promises. Whoever, therefore, is baptized, re ceives the assurance that his sins are forgiven him for the sake of Christ, that God, for the sake of Christ, looks upon him with favor and regards him as a child, and that he, in faithful obedience to the commands of Jesus, (and by enjoying the constant aid of the Holy Spirit which is promised,) may securely expect eternal blessedness ; Acts 2: 38. Gal. 3: 27. "Mark 16: 16. Hence Peter, in his first Epistle, ch. 3: 21, compares the water of baptism to the water of the deluge, (as the Jews also called their washings and purifications, spiritual floods ; dvzlrvnog, image, likeness). Even as the pious at the time of the deluge (v. 20), were bodily delivered ; so are those who are baptized with water, spiritually delivered from sin, and its penalty. Conclusions from the foregoing, and some remarks designed to illustrate certain theological distinctions and terminologies respecting baptism. (a) It is justly maintained, that baptism tends to awaken, enlarge and confirm our faith, and that by means of it, we receive power and impulse for a new spiritual life. This effect is produced in regard to both the objects which belong to Christian faith, the law and the gospel. Still this is not wrought through any miraculous or magical influence of baptism, or of the Holy Spirit in baptism ; for, ITS effects not magical. 527 (b) This effect of baptism depends upon the Word of God unit ed with baptism; or the divine truths of Christianity, and the divine power inherent in, and connected with them. Cf. Ephes. 5: 26, " Christ purifies and sanctifies the members of the Church in bap tism through the Word," i. e. the whole gospel system in its full ex tent, its precepts and promises. The latter are made to us in bap tism ; and at the same time we pledge ourselves to obey the former, and receive strength so to do. The means, therefore, by which baptism produces these effects, or rather God through baptism, is the Word. It is the same in the Lord's Supper. It is according ly rightly said, that " God, or the Holy Spirit, operates in baptism upon the hearts of men ;" excites good feelings, resolutions, etc. namely through the Word. Hence the effect of baptism is proper ly an effect which God produces through his Word, or through the contents of the Christian doctrine, which is visibly set forth, repre sented and appropriated to us in baptism, for the sake of making a stronger impression upon our heart. Baptism may be thus call ed, verbum Dei visibile ; vid. § 137, II. In the same manner, therefore, as God operates upon our hearts, through the Word and in the use of it, when we hear or read it ; does he also operate in this visible presentation of the same truth, by the external rites of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. And so we may apply to this sub ject all which is said in the twelfth Article respecting the operations of grace, — both in the statement of the biblical doctrine (§§ 130, 131), and of the different theories of Theologians in the succeed ing sections. But this effect is not miraculous, not magical, not ir resistible, but suited to our moral nature. (c) According to the ancient scholastic division, two things must be considered in baptism, materia (better res) terrestris, that which strikes the senses externally, — the water ; and materia cales- tis, the invisible thing which is represented by the visible sign, and conveyed through it. This is the Holy Spirit, and his power and agency ; or more definitely, it is that which, in baptism, is effected in us by God, or by the Holy Spirit, through the divine Word. Note. Augustine expresses himself very justly concerning the efficacy and power of baptism (Do bapt. I. 13, 18), " It has indeed the power to effect re generation (change of heart) in men ; but it does nothing for man's salvation, if there is in him any hindrance (obstaculum.)" Luther too follows him in this, and says very appropriately and justly, especially in his large Catechism, 528 ART. XIV. § 141. necessity of baptism. " that the divine Word and instruction must not be separated from baptism, and that without the former, and faith in it, the water is nothing but water, and can in nowise benefit the subject." Vid. Morus, p. 250. n. 4. (d) Baptism is frequently represented as a covenant, which is es tablished between God and men ; • hence the expression, to stand in his covenant of baptism, and others of the same kind. This name is derived from circumcision, and the covenant of God with Abraham established by it; also from 1 Peter 3: 21, where inegm- ztjpa is translated covenant by Luther. Cf. Heb. 8: 10, sq. The thing intended by this name is true, if it is rightly understood : God solemnly promises to men, in baptism, the enjoyment of all the blessings, which are promised in the Christian doctrine ; and man solemnly binds himself in the same rite, to yield obedience to God and the Christian doctrine ; and in order to this, receives strength and assistance from God. Any one, therefore, who has not broken this engagement, or forfeited this gracious assistance which is prom ised, stands still in the covenant of baptism. For baptism is the tes timony, the assurance of pardon, — the pledge and proof of this and all other Christian blessings. § 141. Of the necessity of baptism, and whether it may be re- . peated. I. The necessity of baptism. ' (1) An internal and absolute necessity of baptism cannot be af firmed. For the water of baptism, in and of itself, and the rite it self, as an external act, have no power to renew or save men. This effect depends solely upon the agency of God, through the Christian doctrine, united with baptism. Since, then, it is one of the positive rites established by Christ, and has no internal or essential efficacy, it is no otherwise necessary, than because it has been commanded (necessitas pracepti). But Christ has commanded, that all who would be his disciples should be baptized. Anyone, therefore, who acknowledges Jesus Christ as a divine Messenger, and regards his authority, is under obligation to obey this precept. Christ brought HISTORY OF THIS OPINION. 529 a charge against the Pharisees (Luke 7: 30), that they had reject ed the divine appointment ((JovXrj &eov) concerning the baptism of John. He required baptism of Nicodemus (John 3: 3, 5, 7), and commanded the apostles to baptize all whom they would make his disciples (Matt. xxvm. Mark xvi). It would be false, however, to assert, that baptism is absolutely essential to each and every man in order to salvation. Theologians, therefore, hold with truth, that if a man is deprived of baptism with out any fault of his own, his salvation is not endangered by this omission. Even that familiar passage, Mark 16: 16, "Whoever believes and is baptized, is saved, but he that believes not, is pun ished," is not against, but in favor of this view. For punishment is here threatened only to the unbelieving, who wilfully reject Chris tian truth ; and not to those who, without, their own fault, remain unbaptized ; hence (ianzia&elg is not repeated in the second mem ber. For an unbeliever should not be haptized ; and even if he should be, it could do him no good. Just so it is in John in. where yivvtjaig ix nvevpazog is represented as the principal thing (vs. 6 — 8) ; and the yivvtjaig ix vSazog, as useful only soifar as it tends to promote the former. (2) Sketch of the history of this doctrine. The most opposite opinions have prevailed, from the earliest times, respecting the neces sity of baptism. (a) Already in the second century some denied, that baptism is necessary for every Christian, and that it is the will of Christ, that each and every one should be baptized. They maintained, that those who have otherwise sufficient faith, have no need o# bap tism. Of these Tertullian speaks (De bapt. ch. 12 — 14). Some Socinians agreed with these, and maintained that baptism is not properly applied to such as are born of Christian parents; but that it is an external rite of initiation, by which those of other religions are to be introduced into the Christian Church ; — an opinion to which many who are of a Pelagian way of thinking assent. It is true, indeed, that there is an entire want of express testimony and evidence from the apostolical age, concerning the baptism of those born of Christian parents. This inquiry has been lately revived ; and Teller (Excurs. I. on Burnet, " De fide et officiis") is of the opinion, that those descended of Christian parents were not baptiz ed, but were considered as born within the lap of the Church. Vol.11. 67 530 ART. XIV. § 141. OPINIONS ON THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. That this, however, was done, is implied in the whole design of baptism, as expressed by Jesus and the Apostles, § 140 ; and may also be concluded from the analogy of circumcision, and the uniform practice of the ancient Church after the apostolical times. There is a work in which, with a boldness not to be found elsewhere, the entire needlessness of baptism is maintained, its establishment by Christ denied, and the whole thing given out as an invention of Peter, for the sake of making himself pleasing to the Jews ; it is entitled, " Die Taufe der Christen, ein ehrwiirdiger Gebrauch, und kein Gesetz Christi," published 1774. The author was C. C. Reiche. An an swer to this was written by J. E. Troschel, " Die Wassertaufe ein Gesetz Christi," Berlin, 1774. (6) Among the old Catholic fathers in the Christian Church, there always prevailed very high ideas respecting the necessity and advantages of baptism. They were accustomed, however, to defer baptism as long as possible (procraslinare) ; and this is recommend ed even by Tertullian (De bapt. c. 18) ; and many would not be baptized until just before their death ; e.g. Constantine the Great. They supposed that baptism removes, in a kind of miraculous way, all the sins previously committed ; while, on the other hand, the sins committed subsequently to baptism, could be for given only with great difficulty, or not at all. And so they imagined, that one baptized shortly before death, or one who dies a martyr, (for martyrdom, in their view, has the same efficacy,) goes out of the world as a man without sin, and is saved. They therefore delayed very much the baptism of new converts, and prevented them f«om the enjoyment of this sacrament, entirely contrary to the appointment and meaning of the Apostles, who baptized new con verts immediately, and often many thousands in one day, respecting whose conduct and integrity, they could not possibly have been thoroughly informed before; Acts 2: 41. 16: 15, 33. coll. Acts 8: 13. Vid. Baumgarten, De procrastinatione baptismi apud veteres, Halle, 1747. (c) When now the position, extra ecclesiam visibilem non dari salutem, with all its consequences, became more and more prevalent, especially after the time of Augustine, and in the Western church (vid. § 128, II. and 135, I.), they began to maintain the doctrine of the absolute necessity of baptism in order to salvation ; because baptism is the appointed rite of initiation or reception into the SHOULD BAPTISM BE REPEATED ? 531 Church ; and they gave out, that whoever is not baptized, and so is not a member of the visible Church, could not become parta ker of eternal happiness. So Augustine had before judged not on ly respecting the heathen, and the children of heathen parents, but also the children of Christian parents, who die before baptism. He was followed by the schoolmen. After this time they began very much to hasten the baptism of children ; and now, for the first time, the so called baptism of necessity, (administered when a child was thought in danger of dying,) became common. It happened also not unfrequently, that the children of unchristian parents (e. g. of Jews), were forcibly baptized against their own and their parent's will, on the ground that they were thus put into the way of salva tion : of this we find many examples in earlier times. That this is contrary to the sense and spirit of the Holy Scriptures, may be seen from this, that circumcision was appointed on the eighth day, and one who died before, was not considered, on this account, as shut out from the people of God. II. Is Christian baptism to be repeated .' (1) The doctrine now prevalent in the Church is entirely just, that baptism is not to be repeated, when one passes over from one Christian sect, or particular Communion, to another. For, (a) Baptism, considered as an external religious rite, is the rite of initiation and solemn reception into the Christian Church in gen eral. The subject of baptism pledges himself to the profession and to the obedience of the doctrine of Jesus, in general ; and not to any one particular church. No one of these particular Commun ions, (such as they have always been,) is in exclusive possession of the truth (vid. § 134, II. 2) ; but in this all agree, that they hold themselves pledged to profess the pure Christian doctrine, (i.e. what they, according to their views, understand as such). Every sect binds its own baptized to this ; and hence it is, in this view, the same thing, wherever and by whomsoever one is baptized. And Paul taught the same thing, when he said, I Cor. 1 : 12, sq. that one is not pledged by baptism to any man or to any sect, but to the- profession of Christ. (b) The power or efficacy of baptism depends not upon the sect, or the man, by whom it is administered ; man can neither increase nor diminish this efficacy ; vid. 1 Cor. 1: 12. 532 ART. XIV. § 141. HISTORY OF OPINIONS (c) We find no example during the times of Christ or the Apos tles, to prove that proper Christian baptism was ever repeated ; al though we find some examples, even at that time, of great sinners and of persons excommunicated. (d) We do not even find that the baptism of John was repeated, (although, at the present time, the Sabeans in the east yearly repeat it) ; and the same is true of Jewish proselyte baptism. The exam ples Acts n. and xix. do not bear upon this point ; vid. § 138, IV. (e) Finally, the uniform phraseology of the Holy Scriptures teach es clearly the same thing, since it is always said concerning Christ ians who were received into the Church, that they had been baptized (baptizatos esse), because it took place once for all ; not merely that they were baptized (baptizari) ; Rom. 6: 31. Gal. 3: 27. It is a thing which had been performed. It is different with the Lord's Sup per ; this is a rite to be repeated; 1 Cor. 11: 25, sq. Therefore, only when an essential mistake has been committed (when e. g. any thing belonging to the essentials of baptism, as the use of water, or proper instruction concerning the object of this rite, has been neg lected or altered, or if it has been administered by one not a Christ ian ; vid. Acts n. and xix. § 138, IV.) ; in such cases only must it be renewed, as baptism then ceases to be true Christian baptism. (2) The opinions respecting repeating baptism were different, even in the ancient Christian Church. Already in the second cen tury, they were accustomed in Africa (as appears from Tertullian. De pudic. c. 19. De bapt. c. 15.), to rebaptize heretics, and the same was done in many provinces of the East. This was not the case, on the other hand, in Rome, and in the other European Churches ; here they simply laid hands upon those who were re stored, when they were received back, and appealed for this to the apostolic tradition, that whoever has been baptized according to the command of Christ, is rightly baptized, although it may have been done even by a heretic. In the third century there arose a ve hement controversy on this point between Stephanus, Bishop of Rome, and the African party, whose usage Cyprian zealously de fended. But they could not agree, and each party still adhered to its previous usage. These opinions, however, were abandoned by degrees in the African Church, as in most others ; they were howev er revived in the fourth century by the Donatists, and other fanat ics of the succeeding century, who would acknowledge no baptism RESPECTING REPEATING BAPTISM. 533 as valid which was administered by a heretic, or any teacher who did not stand in fellowship with them. The same opinion was revived by the enthusiastic sect known by the name of Anabap tists, in the sixteenth century. They, however, altered their theo ry afterwards to this, that they merely rejected infant baptism, and admitted only adult persons to baptism ; and this is still the doc trine of the Mennonites and the other Anabaptists ; hence they re- baptize those who were baptized in infancy, because infant baptism is not regarded by them as valid, and those baptized in this way on ly, are considered by them as not baptized. They therefore re ject the name of Anabaptists (Wiedertaiifer). The opinions of all Anabaptists of ancient and modern times, flow partly from unjust ideas of the power and efficacy of baptism, and partly from erroneous opinions respecting the Church. It is true, indeed, that many who have denied that baptism should be repeated, have held these same erroneous opinions ; but they would not admit the con sequences which naturally result from them. (a) The Africans of the second and third centuries held this point in common with their opponents, that forgiveness of sin and eternal happiness are obtained by means of baptism, and the Holy Ghost by means of the laying on of the hands of the Bishop ; and indeed both imagined, that a sort of magic or miraculous influence belongs to these rites ; vid. § 139, IV. The Africans concluded now, that as heretics do not hold the true Christian doctrine, they are not to be considered as Christians, and consequently, that their baptism is not Christian baptism, and that they, therefore, like unchristian persons, are not susceptible of the Holy Ghost. (b) The Donatists, now, maintained plainly and decidedly, that the Church can consist only of holy and pious persons, and that this genuine Christian Church could be found only among them selves ; vid. 135, II. Wherefore they rebaptized all who came over to their sect. For they maintained, that the gratia baptismi does not exist among heretics, that the ordination of teachers out of their own communion is invalid, that others have not the Holy Ghost, and can not, therefore, baptize in a valid manner. In short it was their opinion, that the efficacy of the ordinances depends on the worthiness of him who administers them. (c) The Anabaptists of the sixteenth century proceeded from the same position, that the Church is a community of mere saints 534 ART. XIV. § 142. INFANT BAPTISM. and regenerated persons. They and their followers therefore reject ed infant baptism, as it could not be known as yet concerning chil dren, whether they would live pious or ungodly lives; nor could children promise the Church, that *they would live righteously. Adults only, in their view, might therefore be baptized. Cf. the work written by an Anabaptist, entitled " Ueber die moralischen Zwecke und Verpflichtungen der Taufe," which, aside from this point, contains much which is good ; translated from the English, Leipzig, 1775 — 8. Vid. also D. A. J. Stark, Geschichte der Taufe und der Taufgesinnten, Leipzig, 1789, Svo. [Note. On the general subject of Baptism, cf. Bretschneider, Dogmatik, B. II. S. 672, ff. Hahn, Lehrbuch, S. 556, § 122, ff. The literature of this doctrine is here very fully exhibited. For the early history of this doctrine, cf. Neander, K. Gesch. B. I. Abth. II. S. 533— 63; also B. II. Abth. II. S. 682, ff. ; for the more recent history, cf. Plank, Gesch. der protest. Lehrb., B. V. Th. 1.— Tr.] §142. Of Hie Baptism of Infants. Many of the ancients and moderns have disapproved of Infant baptism. It was first expressly dissuaded by Tertullian (De bapt. c. 18), although he does not entirely reject it, as it was at that time in common use. But it was also quite common then to delay baptism ; and those who approved of this, could not at the same time approve of infant baptism ; vid. § 141, I. Infant baptism was also rejected by the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, and their followers, for reasons mentioned in §141, ad finem. Mich. Ser- vetus too, in the sixteenth century, would have no one baptized un der thirty years of age. There is no decisive example of this prac tice in the New Testament ; for it may be objected against those passages, where the baptism of whole families is mentioned, viz. Acts 10: 42, 48. 16: 15, 33. 1 Cor. 1: 16, that it is doubtful wheti> er there were any children in these families, and if there were, whether they were then baptized. From the passage, Matt. 28: 19, it does not necessarily follow, that Christ commanded Infant bap- ITS LAWFULNESS AND ANTIQUITY. 535 tism ; (the pa&tjzeveiv is neither for nor against ;) nor does this follow any more from Johri 3: 5, and Mark 10: 14, 16. There is, therefore, no express command for Infant baptism found in the New Testament; as Morus (p. 215. § 12) justly concedes. Infant baptism has been often defended on very unsatisfactory d priori grounds ; e. g. the necessity of it has been contended for, in order that children may obtain by it the faith which is necessary to salva tion, etc. It is sufficient to show (1) That Infant baptism was not forbidden by Christ, and is not opposed to his will and the princi ples of his religion, but entirely suited to both. (2) That it was probably practised even in the apostolic church. (3) That it is not without advantages. I. Proofs of the lawfulness and antiquity of Infant baptism. (1) That Infant baptism, considered as a solemn rite of initiation into the Church, cannot be opposed to the design and will of Christ, may be concluded from his own declaration, Matt. 10: 14, " Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, zmv ydg xoi- ovzmv iazlv tj fiaaiXeia zov &eov." This is indeed no command for infant baptism ; but if children may and ought to have a share in the Christian Church, and in all Christian privileges (fiuatXeia &e- ov) ; it cannot be improper to introduce them into the Christian Church by this solemn rite of initiation. Indeed if it is according to the design of Christ, that children should have a share in the rites and privileges of Christians, from their earliest youth up, it must al so be agreeable to his will, solemnly to introduce them, by this rite of initiation, into the nursery of his people ; cf. 1 Cor. 7: 14. (2) Christian baptism is so far similar to circumcision, as that the one was the rite of initiation into the ancient Church, the oth er, into the new; § 137, II. ad finem, and Morus p. 253, note. But Christian baptism represents and imparts far greater spiritual benefits, than circumcision. Now we know, that the sons of Jews and Proselytes, according to divine command, were circumcised on the eighth day, when they certainly had as yet no idea of the in tent and meaning of this religious rite. According to this analogy, children among Christians may be baptized, even during those years, when they cannot as yet understand any thing of the de sign of the rite, or make any profession of their faith. At least, this analogy must have been very clear to the first Christians, and 536 ART. XIV. § 142. ANTIQUITY OF INFANT BAPTISM. to the Apostles, who themselves were Jews. When therefore in the times of the Apostles, a whole family was baptized, would not the children be baptized too ? And did not Paul say with out limitation, that all were baptized, at a time when there were those grown up in the Christian society, who were born of Christian parents? Vid. 1 Cor. i. and xh. and Gal. m. Again, were it entirely decided, that Jewish proselyte baptism was common dur ing the life of Christ, this circumstance would establish the po sition still more. For the children of Proselytes were also baptized. But even if proselyte baptism was not introduced until the end of the second or beginning of the third century, and was then adopted in imitation of Christian baptism ; even in this case, it might still be concluded, that at that time the baptism of infants must have been common among Christians. (3) The most decisive reason is the following : Christ did not indeed ordain infant baptism expressly ; but if, in his command to baptize all, he had wished children to be excepted, he must have expressly said this; Matt, xxvin. Since the first disciples of Christ, as native Jews, never doubted that children were to be intro duced into the Israelitish Church by circumcision ; it was natural that they should include children also in baptism, if Christ did not ex pressly forbid it. Had he therefore wished that this should not be done, he would have said so in definite terms. (4) That infant baptism was very common shortly after the times of the Apostles, both in the Eastern and Western church es, admits of no doubt, if all the historical data are compared ; vid. Morus p. 251 , not. ad § 10. Some have endeavoured to find evidence for this practice even in the writings of Justin the Martyr and Ire- nseus ; but they are not sufficiently decisive on this point.* The most weighty evidence that can be produced, from the oldest church fathers, and from church history, is the following ; viz. (a) From Tertullian (De bapt. c. 18), it is clearly seen, that already in his time the baptism of infants was very customary in Af rica and elsewhere ; although he himself does not speak favorably of this practice. (6) In the time of Cyprian, in the third century, there arose a * [The evidence from Irenaeus is thought valid and incontrovertible by Neander; vid. K. Gesch. B. II. Abth. II ,S. 540, 550.— Tr.] USES OF INFANT BAPTISM. 537 controversy concerning the day when the child should be baptized, whether before the eighth day. But there is no question on the point, whether children ought to be baptized ; in this they were all unanimously agreed. (c) Augustine calls infant baptism apostolica tradilio, and says, totam ecclesiam id traditum tencre. (d) But far more important is the testimony of a much earlier, and therefore more valuable witness ; viz. Origen, of the third cen tury, who says, in his Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. VI., that the Church had received this as a tradition from the Apostles (nagaSoaig anoa- xoXixyj). Here it might indeed be objected, that the church fathers appeal much too freely to apostolic tradition, for the sake of giving to their own opinions and to the appointments of the Church, the more authority. But if infant baptism was not practised in the oldest Church, it is hardly conceivable, how it should have become so general a short time after, and this too without any controversy or contradiction. When Origen was born, about the year 185, it was universally prevalent in the Christian church, and he was, as he says himself, a baptized child. If it was not customary at the time of the Apostles, we must suppose that afterwards single individuals or churches began to baptize children. But in those times in which they adhered so strictly, even in the smallest trifles, to ancient usage, such an innovation could not possibly have taken place, without great excitement, controversy, contradiction, and without occasioning many councils. These effects were produced by some very insignificant matters ; but we cannot find the least trace of op position to the first practice of infant baptism. There can then be no time mentioned, in which the baptism of infants was first intro duced after the death of the Apostles. Therefore it must have ex isted from the beginning. Neither Tertullian nor Pelagius knew of a later origin of it, when the former censured it, and the latter de nied that it is necessary to procure the forgivness of sins for chil dren. For the history of infant baptism and its opponents, vid. Guil. Wall, Historia baptismi infantum, and John Walch, Historia psedobaptismi, Ssc. IV. priorum, Jenae, 1739. ' II. The uses and effects of infant baptism. Although children at the time of their baptism know nothing respecting this rite, and are not capable of any notion of it, and can Vol. II. 68 538 ART. XIV. § 142. USES OF INFANT BAPTISM make no professsion (and these are the principal objections on the other side) ; still it does not follow, that infant baptism is without ad vantages ; any more than that Jewish circumcision was. It has two-fold advantages. (1) For the children themselves. The advantages to them are both present and future. (a) The present effect, as far as it appears clearly to us, is prin cipally this, that by this means they are admitted into the nursery of the church, and, even while children, enjoy its rights and privileges, as far as they are capable of so doing. This is sufficient ; and there is no need of adopting the doctrine about a children's faith, so far at least as that implies any thing which can exist with out comprehension, and capability of using the understanding; vid. § 121, II., and Morus p. 249. In the general position, that just as far as they have subjective capacity, and as soon as they have this, God will work in them that which is good, for their salvation, there is not only nothing unreasonable, but it is altogether rational and scriptural. It is also certain, that we cannot surely tell how soon, or in what way and by what means, this subjective capacity may be shown and developed. (b) As soon as their mental powers begin to unfold themselves in some degree, children are capable of an obvious inward, moral effect of baptism, or of God in and through baptism. In the Christian in struction imparted to them, they must, therefore, be continually refer red to this event ; it must be shown them that they too have obtain ed by baptism, a share in all the great and divine blessings and prom ises which are given to Christians, and that they are solemnly obliga ted by baptism, through God's assistance and guidance, to fulfil all the conditions on which Christians receive these great promises. In the youthful age, this means is exceedingly efficacious, in exciting pious reflections ; and it operates upon the whole succeeding life. It is on this account, (as Morus well observes,) a very suita ble and commendable practice in fhe Protestant church, that the children, before they approach the Lord's Table for the first time, are thoroughly instructed in the doctrinal and practical truths of Christianity, to the acceptance and obedience of which they are ob ligated by baptism. This is called the Confirmation (of the cove nant of baptism). It has upon many, as experience teaches, the most salutary efficacy through their whole life ; and it is the duty of FOR CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS. 539 the evangelical teacher, to lay out all his strength upon this instruc tion, and to make it, as far as he can, appropriate and practical. And if in some the advantages of it do not appear immediately, still in late years they are often seen. The good seed sown in the heart often lies a long time concealed, before it comes up. — Baptism can not indeed exert any compulsion upon children, any more than when one is enrolled, as a child, to a Canonry, or as an academic citizen. They must act according to their own conscientious conviction, choice, and determination, after they come to the exercise of their understanding. (2) For the parents, relatives, or guardians of the children. To these, too, is the baptism of infants eminently useful in many re spects ; and it may be said, that this advantage alone is a sufficient reason for instituting infant baptism. For (a) the assurance is giv en by this rite to parents, in a solemn and impressive manner, that the great privileges and promises bestowed upon Christians, will be imparted to their children also ; and thus religious feelings, pious thoughts and resolutions, are awakened and promoted in them. (b) By this rite, they are engaged and encouraged to educate their children in a Christian manner, in order that their children may re ceive the privileges bestowed upon them, and attain one day to the actual exercise and enjoyment of them. These duties should be urged upon parents by the Christian teacher, especially at the time when their children are baptized ; and he may find instruction re specting the manner in which this should be done, in the passages above cited. Respecting the usages properly connected with In fant Baptism, vid. § 139, ad finem. CHAPTER SECOND. ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. §143. Of the names of the Lord's Supper ; and the occasion and object of its institution. I. Names of the Lord*s Supper. (1) The scriptural names, (a) Kvgiaxdv Stlnvov, the festival which Christ appointed, and which is held in his honor, and is com memorative of him, 1 Cor. 11: 20. Hence the common appellations, the Lord's Supper, cana domihi, or sacra cana, because it was in stituted at supper time. Entirely synonymous with this, is the phtfase (b) Tgdne£a Kvgiov, 1 Cor. 10: 21, where we also find the name nozqgtov Kvgiov. With these the term xXaaig zov dgzov, Acts 2: 42, is frequently mentioned. But this seems rather to ap ply to the feasts of love (Agapffi), after which the sacrament of the Supper was frequently, though not always, administered in the prim itive Church ; cf. v. 46, pezaXappdveiv Tgoq.>rjg. The term Smgea inovgavlog, Heb. 6: 4, is rendered by Michaelis heavenly manna, and applied to the Lord's Supper. This term seems, however, to denote more generally the unmerited divine favors conferred upon the primitive Christians. (2) The ecclesiastical names of this sacrament. These are very many ; some of the principal are the following. (a) Koivmvla, commnnio, — a festival in common. This name is borrowed from 1 Cor. 10: 16, where however it denotes the profes- NAMES OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 541 sion which Christians make, by partaking in common of the Supper, of their interest in Christ, of the saving efficacy of his death for them, and their own actual enjoyment of its consequences. (6) Evxagiazla and evXoyia (for these terms are synonymous). This sacrament is so called, because it is designed to promote a thankful remembrance of Christ, and of the divine favors bestowed upon us, through him. He himself commenced the Supper by a prayer of thanks, which has always been justly retained in adminis tering this ordinance. The appellation eucharislia (eucharist) was used even by Ignatius, Justin the" Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. [This name seems also to be of scriptural origin, and to be taken from the phrase noztjgiov evXoyiag 6 evXoyovpe v, used by Paul. — Tr.] (c) 2vva%ig, ovval-ig dyia. This signifies primarily a collection ; then, a collection for celebrating the Lord's Supper, and finally, the Lords Supper itself. This name was probably taken from I Cor. 11: 18, 20, avvegxopevmv vpdtv. (d) Aeizovgyia, [primarily ministeriitm], then, the sacrament of the Supper, as the principal act of religious service, especially on account of the sacrifice of Christ which is there commemorated, since Xeitovgyia signifies, by way of eminence, that part of religious service which consists in sacrifice. (e) Mvaztjgiov, cana mystica and missa, — so this sacrament was called, because the catechumens were excluded from it, and none who were not Christians could be present when it was administered. They were sent away by the Deacons with the words; Ite, missa est (ecclesia). Missa signifies properly dismissio catechumenorum et poenitentium. (f) There are other names which were taken from sacrifices, and the offering of sacrifices ; e. g. ngoaqiogd, ablatio, &vaia, &v- aia dvalpaxzog, altare, sacramentum altaris, etc. Many such names are found in the ancient liturgies ; vid. Morus, p. 271, not. 2. Christ instituted the Supper chiefly in commemoration of his death, or his offering up of himself for man ; and he employs in do ing this, the terms borrowed from sacrifices. Now it was customary for the Christians who had most possessions, to bring food and drink to their love-festivals, and from the remnants of these gifts (ngoa- qjogd), they held the Supper in commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ. This gave the first occasion for comparing this sacrament with an offering ; and this was done the more willingly by Chris- 542 ART. XIV. § 143. TEXTS RELATING TO THE LORD'S SUPPER. tians, as it was often objected against them by Jews and heathens, that they had no sacrifices. And by degrees they became accus tomed to regard the Lord's Supper, not merely as a festival in me mory of the sacrifice of Christ, but as an actual repetition of this sacrifice, — an idea which gave rise afterwards to the grossest er rors. The first traces of these opinions are found in Justin the Martyr, Irensus, Tertullian, and still more in Cyprian, Augustine, and others. Vid. Ernesti in " Antimuratorius," in his " Opusc. Theol." p. 80; and with respect to these ecclesiastical names in general, Casaubon, Exerc. in Baron. — Ex. 16, p. 445. II. Texts relating to the Lord's Supper, and the occasion and object of its institution. (1) The institution of the Supper is described in the following texts ; viz. Matt. 26 : 26—28. Mark 14 : 22—24. Luke 22 : 19, 20. Luke is more full and distinct in his narrative, than the others ; in John, there is nothing said respecting it, since he presupposed it, as already well known. Paul, however, gives an account of the insti tution of the Supper, and agrees most nearly with Luke, 1 Cor. 11: 23 — 25. He is speaking of the disorders which had crept into the Corinthian Church in their observance of the Agapa3, and of the Lord's Supper in connexion with them ; and takes this opportunity, to discourse at large (in the entire passage from v. 17th to 34th) re specting the design and the efficacy of the sacrament of the Supper, and the proper mode of celebrating it. Cf. 1 Cor. 10: 16, 17. The ologians are not agreed among themselves, whether the passage, John 6: 50, sq., where Christ speaks of the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood, relates to this sacrament; vid. Morus p. 269, n. D. As the Reformed theologians often appealed to this passage in behalf of their theory, the Lutherans (e.g. even Ernesti) would not allow, that it could be used to explain the language in which the Supper was instituted. So much is certain, that nothing is said in this passage itself respecting the Lord's Supper, since this was not yet instituted. But the terms here used have a striking resemblance with those employed at the institution of the Supper ; and since this discourse of Jesus produced at the time a great sensation, on account of its remarkable phraseology, it can hardly be supposed that his dis ciples would forget it, or that it should not have occured to their minds when terms so similar were employed at the institution of the OCCASION OF ITS INSTITUTION. 543 Supper. They doubtless could explain many things in this whole transaction, from their recollections of this discourse. This will ap pear the more probable, if we consider that these words of Jesus re corded by John (ch. vi.), were spoken shortly before the Passover (v. 4), — that the images employed by him were taken from the cus tom of eating the flesh of the victims at the festivals attending the sacrifices, and especially at the Passover, the most solemn of them all, — and that it was exactly at the Passover, that the Supper was instituted by Christ. But allowing that these words may be used to illustrate those employed by Christ on the latter occasion, the Lu theran opinion is not invalidated. For every Lutheran will allow, that it was a great object in the establishment of the Lord's Supper, to remind us, in an impressive manner, of the body of Jesus offered, and his blood shed for us, and to exhibit and convey to us the great blessings which we owe to him. Now in John adgS. ahd alpa Xgiazov plainly denote the doctrine of Jesus, so far as he offered up his body, and shed his blood for the good of man ; vid. John 6: 51, 63. To eat and drink of this body and blood, is the same as niazeveiv elg Xgiazov iozavgmpevov, vid. vs. 47, 50, 51, 56. What food and drink are to the body, as contributing to its nourishment and vigor, the same is a living faith in this doctrine to the soul, — spiritual nourishment, pabulum animi. This language then is to be understood to denote, " the truth of Christ's sacrifice or Atonement, and the inward experience of its benefits." And this was the very object of the Lord's Supper, viz. to preserve the memory of the death of Christ, visibly to set it forth, and to convey its benefits to those who partake of this sacrament. It cannot therefore be de nied, that the passage in John (so far as it is figurative and sym bolical), serves to illustrate the language in which the Lord's Sup per was instituted, and indeed the whole nature of this ordinance. Cf. especially, Storr, Doctrinal Christians pars theoretica, p. 314, seq. (2) What was the occasion of Christ's instituting this festival? What was the immediate cause of his doing it ? He was accustom ed to take occasion from the circumstances by which he was sur rounded,' to give instruction ; and at the Passover, every thing was symbolical, and the father of the family, (the character which Christ now sustained among his disciples,) referred every thing back to the events in the life of the ancestors of the Jewish nation It seems 544 ART. XIV. § 143. OCCASION FOR THE INSTITUTION now, that this Jewish Passover gave the first occasion to Christ for instituting his Supper. (a) Christ abolished the ancient dispensation (naXaidv Sia&tj- xtjv) ; consequently all the Jewish festivals, sacrifices, and the so lemnities connected with them, were set aside, and among these the Passover, one of the principal festivals of the Jewish Church. This was done, as we are taught everywhere in the New Testament, by the death of Christ. Still it could not be denied, that this and oth er Jewish festivals had many advantages, and that they tended to keep alive a sense of the divine benefits, and to awaken pious feel ings, vid. § 137, III. 1. Besides, it was altogether customary, both among the Jews and the heathen nations, to have sacrificial festivals, standing in immediate connexion with religion ; hence Paul objects to it, that Christians, who drink from the cup of the Lord, and eat at the table of the Lord, should drink from the cup, and eat from the table of idols, 1 Cor. 10: 15 — 21. Still it cannot be properly said, that the common sacrificial festivals among the Jews and heath en, furnished Christ the principal or only inducement to institute his Supper, as was asserted by Cudworth in his work, " De vera no- tione sacra? coenEe," which is found in his " Systema Intellectuale," accompanied by Mosheim's remarks, — an opinion toVhich Warburton and others have acceded. It is also false to assert, that the . Lord's Supper is properly a sacrificial festival, like the Jewish Passover, al though it is a cana religiosa or sacra, and although it may be com pared, and is in fact compared by Paul (1 Cor. x.), with these festi vals. Vid. Morus p. 261, Not. and p. 271, not. 2. It is more just to say, that Christ merely took occasion from the Jewish sacrificial festivals, and especially from the Passover, all of which were now abolished, to institute this festival, to maintain among his followers the memory of his offering up of himself. — But in entire conformity with the spirit of his religion, and of all his other institutions, he left it undetermined, at what times it should be held, and how often it should be repeated. He simply said, Do this, as oft as ye do it, in rememberance of me, 1 Cor. 11: 25. , (b) The Passover was designed to commemorate the rescue of the Israelites from Egypt, and their deliverance from many afflic tions ; and was to be repeated by their descendants, as an occasion for thankful rememberance of the divine favors; vid. Ex. 13: 9, coll. 12: 26, 27. It took its name from this circumstance, viz. nos , OF the lord'sjsupper. 545 feast of deliverance or rescue. In the same way was the Christian festival designed to promote the grateful remembrance of Christ, on accountof the deliverance from sin and its punishment, and all the other spiritual blessings which we owe to him, and it was to be re peated, elg zt]v iptjv dvdpvtjaiv, Luke 22: 19. 1 Cor. 11: 24, 26. Hence Paul says, 1 Cor. 5: 7, to naaya rjpmv vnig tjpmv ixv&tj, Xgiazog . He does not, indeed, here mean the Lord's Supper itself; but still it is very easy to see from this passage, the intimate connexion of these ideas. The words, however, by which the Supper was instituted, This is my body, etc. cannot be explained from the formula used at the celebration of the Passover, This is the bread of suffering which our fathers ale, etc. For this formula was not adopted until after the destruction of the second temple, neither can it be found in the Talmud, as Schottgen has shown (Hor. Tal mud, ad Matt. 26: 26), and also Deyling (Obs. Miscell. P. I. Exerc. IV. p. 221). The words of Christ on this occasion are rather to be compared with the Mosaic formula employed at the solemn sanction ing of the Law, at which time sacrifices were also offered, Ex. 24: 8, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you ; cf. Morus, p. 260, n. 2. (c) Christ did not institute his Supper during the continuance of the Passover, but after it was finished, in order to give his new ordinance an additional solemnity from its connexion with the Pass over, and at the same time to make it entirely distinct from the lat ter. This example was so far imitated by the ancient Christians, that while they celebrated the sacrament of the Supper in connexion with the Agapa or feasts of love, they yet observed it as a separate festival, after the former was ended. At the social festivals of the Jews, at the Passover, etc. a cup was passed round, over which thanks were said, while the cup was drank to the praise of God, — a custom which we find in other ancient nations; cf. Ps. 116: 13. 1 Chron. 16: 1, sq. also the noitjgiov Saipovimv, 1 Cor. 10: 21. — It was with this ceremony that Christ concluded the Passover, Luke 22: 17. And now, after they had eaten (ia&iovzmv avzmv, according to Matthew and Mark, or pezd zo Seinvtjaai, according to Luke and Paul), he again offered a prayer of thanks, as was customary at the commencement of a festival (evyagiaztjaag), in order to distinguish this ordinance from the one which had preceded, and then distribut ed the bread and passed round the cup, the second time. He took Vol. II. 69 546 ART. XIV. § 143. PRINCIPAL OBJECT OF CHRIST the materials for this sacrament from what remained of bread and wine (as the ordinary drink of the table), after they had eaten. And this was entirely conformed to his design, that the rite com memorative of him should be as simple as possible, and such that it could be often observed, and in any place, without much trouble or difficulty. In this respect the Lord's Supper differs widely from the Jewish Passover, where every thing was complicated, and cir cumstantially arranged ; vid. Ex. 12: 3, sq. Note. Christ recommended the observance of the Supper, not merely to the apostles, but to all Christians ; vid. Morus p. 259, § 1, ad finem. Nor was it his meaning, that they should merely sometimes remember him at their or dinary social meals, and while they partook of the bread and wine on the table, think of his death. On the contrary, the apostles understood the words, da this in rememberance of me, to relate to all Christians; and they distinguished this festival from all other social festivals, and introduced the observance of it into all the Christian Churches. This appears especially from 1 Cor. 11: 23, 24, coll. 10: 16, where it is also described as an ordinance of Christ, and in deed as one, which Paul himself, as well as the other Apostles, had received immediately from Christ. It is said expressly, v. 26, that this ordinance should be observed until the end of the world (aypig ov i'X&rj oKvpwg). The Supper was designed to be a perpetual Sermon on the death of Christ, until he shall come again, to bring his followers into the kingdom of the blessed; and every one who partakes of it, is supposed hereby to profess, that he be lieves Christ died even for him. There have always, however, been some who have supposed that this institution is needless, or that the precept to ob serve it does not extend to all Christians: the Pauliciani, e. g. supposed that I bread and wine are here figurative terms, denoting the doctrines of Christ, ' which nourish the soul. So the Socinians, and several fanatical sects. (3) More particular explanation of the object of Christ in in stituting the sacrament of the Supper. (a) The chief object of Christ. From what has been already said, it appears, that this festival was designed to be in commemor ation of Christ, — of all the blessings for which we are indebted to him, and especially of his death, from which these other benefits all proceed. This is evident from the very words in which this ordi nance was established, ampa vnig vpmv SiSopevov, (or as Paul has it, xXmpevov, *"D,i5 > ladere, vulnerare, to which the breaking of the bread alludes,) and alpa vnig vpmv (or negl noXXmv, according to Mark and Luke,) ixyvvopevov, elg dqioiv dpagzimv. Christ often repeated these words during the eating and drinking of the Supper, and interchanged them with others of the same import. And hence IN INSTITUTING THE SUPPER. 547 we may account for the different phraseology recorded by the differ ent Evangelists. The same thing is evident from the express declar ation of Paul, 1 Cor. 1 1: 26, " So often as ye partake of this festival, you profess yourselves among the number of those who believe, that Christ suffered death for their sakes" (&dvuzov Kvgiov xazayyiXt- tt) ; cf. 1 Cor. 10: 16, and also the fine paraphrase of this passage given by Morus, p. 259, § 3, n. 1. But this needs more particular explanation. On the day of Christ's death, the ancient Mosaic dispensation ceased, and the new covenant, or the new dispensation instituted by God through Christ for the salva tion of men, commenced. The memorable event of that day, which had such vast consequences, he and his apostles celebrated by this fes tival, and he commanded them to continue to observe it in future time. It is therefore the uniform doctrine of the apostles, that the new dis pensation of God (xaivtj Sia&tjxtj) began with the death of Christ, and was thereby solemnly consecrated ; cf. the texts cited § 118, II. 1. Hence Paul says, Heb. 9: 14, 15, that even as Judaism was inaugu rated by sacrifices ; so was Christianity also, by the sacrifice of Je sus Christ. And now as Moses, Ex. 24: 8, calls the blood of the sacrifice by which the Mosaic laws and the whole Mosaic institute were consecrated and received a solemn sanction, the blood of the Covenant ; so does Christ, with a most indisputable reference to this expression, denominate his death, — his blood which he shed, the blood of the new Covenant ; and the words zo alpa xaivt\g Sia&tjxtjg, (or as Luke and Paul plainly have it, zo noztjgiov (iazi) tj xaivtj Sia- &t\xt] iv tm a'lpazi pov,) are to be regarded as explanatory of the words zovio iazi zo odipd pov, zo aipapov. The meaning therefore is, " ye celebrate, while ye eat this bread and drink this wine, the memory of my body offered up, and of my blood shed for you ; by which the new Covenant, the new dispensa tion for the good of the world, whose founder I am, is consecrated." The sacrament of the Supper is, therefore, a significant Sermon on the death of Jesus, and requires, in order to a proper celebration of it, a personal experience of the benefits of this death. Christ says, " drink ye all of it ; for it is my blood." By this he means, that they should so divide the wine among themselves, that each should receive a portion of it. He himself did not partake of the sacramental bread and wine ; for his body was not offered, nor his blood shed, for his own sake ; and those only for whom this 548 ART. XIV. § 143. SECONDARY OBJECTS was done, should eat and drink of it. The z ov zo iazi ampa and alpa refers, therefore, principally to the act itself, like the following xovzo noinze, i. e. this act (which you shall hereafter repeat) shall serve to impress your minds with the great importance of my body offered up for the good of men, and of my blood shed for their sake.'and shall remind you of all the salutary consequences flowing from my death, and shall convey these benefits to you personally. It is not, therefore, the then present and living body of Jesus which is here spoken of ; but the body which was sacrificed, i. e. Christy so far as he died for us. This is illustrated by the formula used by Moses respecting the Passover, Ex. 12: 11, 27, Nlii HOB , i. e. by this act you solemnly commemorate the deliverance from Egypt. And as the Passover was appointed and first celebrated shortly be fore this deliverance ; so was the sacrament of the Supper instituted and celebrated just before the death of Christ : and as the former was to be repeated in commemoration of the great event, on account of which it was first instituted, and for the sake of awakening grate ful and religious feelings ; so it was also with the latter. This an alogy seems to have been perfectly understood by the Apostles, and hence they do not inquire of Christ, as they were accustomed to do in other cases. (6) But in connexion with this principal object, Christ had also others in view, all of which however are related to this, and depend upon it. Especially does it appear to have been an object with Christ in this ordinance, to make plain, and impressively to recom mend to his disciples, that great precept of his religion, Love one another, as I also have loved you, 1 Cor. 10: 17. 12: 13. He de signed, that by this symbol his disciples should mutually pledge their cordial love. It is a thing well known by old experience, that friendships are founded, cherished, and sustained by social festivals. Of this fact, many of the ancient legislators and the founders of re ligions, availed themselves, in the appointment of festivals ; and this was also done by Moses. In many of the Oriental nations, therefore, the guest who had but once eaten with them, even if it had been only bread and salt, and who had drunken with them, was consider ed as a pledged and inalterable friend ; and it was in this way, that the league of friendship and of mutual service was contracted. This noble custom was now made more general, and as it were consecrated, by religion, or the association of religious ideas. All FOR THE INSTITUTION OF THE SUPPER. 549 the followers of Christ were to unite in this celebration, and to hold this festival in common, and without any distinction, in memory of their great benefactor and 'Saviour. For the followers of Christ were required to love each other as brethren, and this for Christ's sake, i. e. because it is the will and the command of Christ, their common Lord. Vid. Joh. Gottlob Worb, Ueber die Bundes-und Freundschaftssymbole der Morgenlander, Sorau, 1792, 8vo. But we must remember, in connexion with this, the uniform doc trine of the New Testament, that Christ, in his exalted state, is as near to all his followers, at all periods, even until the end of the world (Matt. 28: 20), and that he equally guides and supports them, as when he was with his disciples, by his visible presence, upon the earth; vid. §98. He was visibly present when he first held this festival with his disciples then living, and he then took the lead. But while he commands all his followers to continue to observe this rite until his visible return, he gives them the assurance, that they stand equally under his inspection, and enjoy equally his care, with those who lived with him while he was upon the earth. Theolo gians say truly, Christus prasentiam suam suis in sacra cana de- clarat adspectabili pignore. So certainly as they see the bread and the wine, even so certain should it be to them, that he still lives, and that he is especially near to them, as he was formerly to his disciples while upon earth. Note. From what has now been said, it appears, (a) that the theory of the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacramental sym bols, is not essential, or is not to be looked upon as the great point in this doc trine, and that it cannot be decisively proved from the words of Christ. The Reformed theologians take thou, here in the sense of signifying, showing forth, — a sense in which it is indeed often used ; e. g. Sept. Gen. 41: 26, 27. Gal. 4:24. Rev. 1:20. Christ himself uses tort in a similar connexion, instead of m/uairti, John 15: 1. The objections to this explanation which are of any weight, may be seen in Storr's '¦ Doctrina Christiana," p. 305, sq. Cf. also §146. This particular theory ought never to have been made an Article of faith, but rather to have been placed among theological problems ; vid. § 146. It also appears from the foregoing, that we are not to suppose in the sacra ment, any actual offering up of the body of Christ, repeated every time the sa crament is observed. This false idea became gradually prevalent in the Rom ish Church ; vid. No. I. of this section, ad finem. This sacrament may in deed bo called, as it is by the fathers, a sacrifice, but only in a figurative sense. For Christ offered up himself once for all, Heb. 9: 25 — 28 ; and the Lord's Sup per is the means of appropriating to each one the benefits of this one sacrifice. 550 ART. XIV. § 144. USE OF BREAD It is taught, however, by the Romish Church, that the priest offers to God, as a literal atoneing sacrifice, both for the dead and the living, the sacramental symbols, which become, by consecration and transubstantiation, the real body and blood of Christ. From this doctrine respecting Masses, many other false ideas have originated. § 144. Of the distinction between what is essential and unessential in the celebration of the ordinance of the Supper. Some things pertaining to this ordinance are essential, i. e. of such a nature, that without them the whole act would not be the true Lord's Supper ; others are unessential or contingent. The lat ter depend upon the circumstances of time, place, society, etc. ; and with regard to these things, we feel ourselves justified in deviating even from that which was done on the first institution of the Sup per, since these are regarded as indifferent matters, Christ having given no express precepts respecting them. Thus all agree, that the time of the day in which it is observed is unessential, although Christ observed it in the evening ; the same as to the posture at ta ble, whether silting or lying ; and with respect to the place, wheth er it be a public or a private house ; and other things of the same kind. But on some points opinions are divided. In the Protestant Church the use of the bread and wine (materia or res terrestris, elementa, symbola), is reckoned among the essential things; and the use of them too in such a way, that each of the elements shall be separately (scparatim) taken. Protestants too contend, that none but real Christians may partake of the Lord's Supper. Other things are regarded by them as unessential. These points will now be briefly considered, and illustrated by some historical observations. I. The use of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. (1) With regard to the nature of the bread to be employed in this sacrament, the opinions of theologians have been diverse. (a) It has been asked, whether the bread should be leavened or unleavened, or whether this is a point of indifference. In the Pro- IN THE LORD'S SUPPER. 551 testant Church, the latter opinion is maintained, and justly, since Christ left no precept respecting this point. So much is beyond doubt, that at the institution of the Supper, Christ made use of un leavened bread, because no other was brought into the house during the celebration of the Jewish Passover, still less was any other kind eaten. We have indeed no express information respecting the cus tom of the primitive Christians in this respect ; but from all circum stances it appears, that they regarded it as a matter of indifference, whether leavened or unleavened bread is employed. They came together almost daily to partake of the Supper ; and they carried with them the bread and wine for this festival. In this case, they took the bread which was used at common meals, and this was leavened bread. Ephiphanius (Ha?r. 30) notices it as something peculiar in the Ebionites, that once in the year, at the time of the Passover, they celebrated the Lord's Supper with unleavened bread. It was customary at a subsequent period in the Oriental Church, to make use of leavened bread ; yet not always and in all places. In the Western Church, on the contrary, unleavened bread was more commonly (though not always) employed; and Rabanus Maurus, in the ninth century, declares this to be an apostolical tradition in the Romish Church. There was, however, at this time no law upon the subject, either in the Eastern or Western Church. But in the eleventh century, a controversy arose on this point between the two Churches, as the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, reproached the Western Church for the use of unleavened bread, and made it heresy. After this period it was contended in the Rom ish Church, that no other than unleavened bread should be used, and this was so established by many papal decretals. The opposite ground was taken by the Greek Church, and is still maintained at the present day. Vid. Joh. Gottfried Herrmann, Historia concerta- tionum de pane azymo et fermentato in coena Domini, Leipzig, 1737, 8vo. (6) Another thing which must be considered unessential, is the breaking of the bread, which was done at the first institution of the Supper, according to the custom of the Jews, who baked the bread thin, and were accustomed therefore to break, instead of cutting it. We see, however, from 1 Cor. 11: 24 (coll. 10: 17, elg dgzog, from which pieces were broken off), that this custom was retained in the primitive Christian Church, and was regarded as emblematical of 552 ART. XIV. § 144. USE OF WINE IN THE SUPPER. the wounding and breaking of the body of Jesus. It would have been better, therefore, to have retained this custom afterwards, for the same reason that the custom of immersion is preferable in per forming the rite of baptism. Luther at first declared in favor of the breaking of bread, though he afterwards altered his opinion. It has been customary in the Romish Church, especially since the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, to cut the host or holy wafer in a peculiar way, so as to represent upon it the crucified Saviour, and to make the pieces more and more small, that no one might receive too much of this costly food. (2) In respect to the wine, it has been commonly supposed, that Christ used such, in the institution of the Supper, as was mingled with water. For it was very customary with the orientalists, to drink mingled wine at table, and one was regarded as quite intem perate, who drank pure wine (merum). Still this is very uncertain, since water and wine were frequently drunk separately at table. In the ancient Church, however, the custom prevailed in most pla ces, of mingling water with the sacramental wine. It was also de termined how much wine should be taken ; though this was vari ously settled. Diverse allegorical significations were given to the mingling of these two elements. E. g. it was said, that the wine is the symbol of the soul of Christ, and the water of the people who are united with him ; etc. Such allegorizing is seen even in the writings of Cyprian. Clement III. expressly enacted in the twelfth century, that the wine should be mingled with water. This was not insisted upon by Luther, on account of the superstition connect ed with it. The color of the wine is also indifferent, nor is it cer tain, that Christ used the red wine. (3) In order to the right celebration of the Lord's Supper, neith er the bread nor the wine must be taken without the other, but both must be used (communio sub utraque specie), though one sep arately from the other (separatim). (a) As to the latter point, it is probable from the institution of the Supper by Christ, that he distributed each of the elements separ ately to his disciples. But we find that in some of the Oriental churches, an exception was made in behalf of some sick persons, and that bread merely dipt in wine was given them. The same thing was done in the West, especially during the tenth century ; where in some places, the bread only was consecrated, and then DENYING THE CUP TO THE LAITY. 553 dipt in the wine, and so given to the Communicants,— a practice which was justly condemned. (b) It is also a well founded opinion, that the cup should not be withholden from any who partake of this sacrament ; vid. Morus p. 272, n. 3. From 1 Cor. 11: 26. 10: 16, 21, it appears undeniably, that in the Apostolic Church all Christians partook both of the bread and the wine. And this was the practice throughout the whole Christian Church during the ten first centuries. The Manicheans, who abstained wholly from wine, did not use it even at the Lord's Supper ; but they were strongly opposed by the teachers of all other parties, e. g. Hieronymus, Leo the great, etc. Particularly import ant is a decree of Pope Gelasius I. of the fifth century, against some sectarians who used only bread in the celebration of the Sup per. He calls their practice grande sacrilegium, and is very strong in his opposition to it. But when the doctrine of transubstantiation began to prevail in the West, especially after the eleventh century, the schoolmen sug gested the question, whether considering that the bread is changed into the body of Christ, the blood is not also there, and so, whether it is not enough to partake merely of the bread ? This question was answered in the affirmative ; and it was suggested as an additional reason in behalf of this opinion, that drink may be easily spilt, and that it is more difficult to lose any portion of the bread. This ground was taken even in the twelfth century by Hugo of St. Victor and Peter of Lombardy, and in the thirteenth century was defended with great zeal by Thomas Aquinas. Some churches in the West began, therefore, to introduce the custom of withholding the cup from the laity, and giving it only to the clergy. The first examples of this occurred in someEnglish churches about the middleof the twelfth century. The scarcity and dearness of wine in northern Europe dur ing this period, may have furnished an additional motive for this prac tice. It was not until the thirteenth century, that these examples were followed in France and Italy. Still this observance did not be come universal either in this or the following century, although it was becoming more and more prevalent in the Churches in the West. This doctrine de communione sub una was zealously opposed by Wickliff and Huss and their adherents ; and this led the Coun cil at Costnitz, 1415, wholly to interdict the use of the cup by the laity. It was established by that Council, " that in each of the two Vol. II. 70 554 ART. XIV. § 144. WHO ARE PROPER COMMUNICANTS ? elements, the whole body of Christ is truly contained," This doc trine has been maintained in the Romish Church ever since this period ; although many theologians, and even some of the Popes, have objected to it. Luther and Zuingle adopted the principles of Wickliffand Huss, and introduced again the general use of the cup into their Churches ; and hence the decisions of the Council at Costnitz, were re-enacted by Council at Trent in the sixteenth cen tury. Besides the older works of Leo Allatius, Schmid, Calixtus, on this subject, cf. Spittler, Geschichte des Kelch's im Abendmahl, Lemgo, 1780, 8vo. ' II. By whom should the Lord's Supper be observed ! who should administer it '. and may it be celebrated in the private dwellings of Christians : These questions come under the general inquiry respecting what is essential and not essential in the observance of the Lord's Supper. (1) None but actual members of the Christian Church can take part in the Lord's Supper ; those who are not Christians are ex cluded from it. On this point there has been au universal agree ment. For by this rite, we profess our interest in the Christian Church, and our belief in Christ ; vid. 1 Cor. 10: 17. 11: 26. The passage Heb. 13: 20, seems also to belong in this connexion. Every actual member of the Church may, therefore, be admitted to the en joyment of this ordinance, without distinction of regenerate and unre generate persons (though this is denied by some). This is evident from the fact, that it is the object of the Supper to make an external profession of Christian faith"; vid. § 145, I. ; and because it may be, and is designed to be, a means of promoting a change of heart, and often produces this effect. As unregenerate persons are not ex cluded from hearing the divine word ; neither should they be from partaking of this sacrament. Nor do we find that persons who gave no evidence of a regenerate mind, and who were yet members of the visible Church, were excluded from the sacrament in the primi tive Christian Church ; although such persons were advised to ab stain from the sacrament, so long as their hearts were not in a prop er frame, still it was left to their own consciences. Since therefore a mixed multitude of good and evil must be allowed in the visible Church ; it is the same as to the Lord's Supper. Christ himself ad mitted Judas to the first celebration of this ordinance ; and thua BY WHOM SHOULD THE SUPPER BE ADMINISTERED 1 555 taught us our duty with regard to this subject. Many have indeed denied that Judas, the betrayer of Christ, partook of this sacrament with the other disciples ; but from Luke 22: 20 — 22, the fact ap pears too plain to be denied. This is admitted even by Augustine on the third Psalrn. This fact is important ; since many conscien tious Christians, and even teachers, have had great doubts as to uniting with unconverted men in this ordinance, and have become separatists. In respect to children, however, it is maintained, that they are excluded from partaking of the Lord's Supper. It was com mon in Africa in Cyprian's time, i. e. in the third century, to give the sacramental elements even to children ; and this custom was gradually introduced into other Churches. But in the twelfth centu ry this practice fell into disuse in the West, although in the East it continues to the present day. The passage John 6: 53, is appealed to in behalf of this practice. Vid. Peter Zorn, Historia eucharistia? infantium, Berlin, 1736, 8vo. It cannot be said, that the exclusion of children is expressly commanded by Christ; because there is nothing about this subject in the New Testament, nor do we read that in the apostolic Church they were excluded from the sacrament. (The children of the Israelites were not excluded from the feast of the Passover.) Yet as children were not admitted during the first centuries of the Christian Church, (except in Africa, in the third century,) we judge that they cannot have been admitted in the apos tolic Church ; for in that case, this practice would not certainly have been disused in all the churches. The cause of the exclusion of children, is plainly, that they cannot as yet understand the impor tance of the transaction, and must be unable to distinguish this re ligious festival from a common meal ; 1 Cor. 11:29. It would thus become to them a merely formal and customary thing, and make no salutary impression. (2) By whom should the Lords Supper be administered? As the administration of the other religious rites of the Church is en trusted to the teachers of Religion ; it is proper and according to good order, that this also should be administered by them. This however, is by no means their right exclusively and necessarily, but only ordinis et decori causa, as Morus well observes, p. 272, ad fin. In extreme cases, therefore, where no regular teachers can be ob tained, this sacrament may be administered by other Christians, to 556 ART. XIV. § 144. PRIVATE COMMUNIONS. whom this duty is committed by the Church ; vid. § 136, II. 2 ; § 139, III. This has been uniformly maintained by Luther and other Protestant theologians. In the ancient Christian Church, it was as regularly administered by the teachers, as baptism. Justin the Martyr (Apol. I. 85, sq.) says, that the ngoeazmztg consecrated and distributed the elements ; and Tertullian (De cor. mil.) says, nee de aliorum manu quam pr*sidentium sumimus. (3) The question has been asked, Whether private communions (e. g. in the case of sick persons) may be permitted, and wheth er they accord 'with the objects of the Lord's Supper ? This has been denied by some modern writers, particularly by Less m his "Praktische Dogmatik," and by Schulze of Neustadt, " Ueber die Krankencommunion," 1794. Cf. the work " Ueber die Kranken- communion, mit besonderer Hinsicht auf ihren Missbrauch und ihre Schadlichkeit," Leipzig, 1803, 8vo; in which, however, the practice is not wholly rejected. These writers have been led to make their objections, by seeing the frequent abuse of private communions, by knowing that they are frequently resorted to from pride, or from some superstitious ideas with regard to their efficacy. Hence they have been led to maintain, that it is essential in order to a right cel ebration of the Lord's Supper, that it should be held in common by the mixed society of Christians constituting a church, and that Private Communions cannot be regarded as constituting the Lord's Supper. This opinion, however, has been justly rejected by many theolo gians ; e. g. by Doederlein. The following reasons have been urg ed against it ; viz. (a) It is doubtless true, that in the Apostolic Church, the Lord's Supper was commonly and regularly celebrated in the public assem blies of Christians ; 1 Cor. 11: 20 — 34. And this must always re main the rule, from which there can be no exception in respect to those Christians, who are able to attend the public meetings, but who refuse so to do, either from pride or self-will. There may, however, be an exception made in behalf of Christians, who are ne cessarily detained from attending on the public ordinances of divine service ; e. g. in the case of sick persons. And it would be, as Mo rus well remarks, inconsistent with the rule of love, which is one of the chief commands of Christ, if sick persons should be prevent ed from partaking of the Lord's Supper in their own houses. UNESSENTIAL RITES IN THE SUPPER. 557 (6) A public place cannot be made essential to the proper ob servance of the Lord's Supper, for it was held at its first institution in a private house ; nor is the number of Christians present at all important, since it was first celebrated only by a select few of the five hundred disciples of Christ then living ; but every thing de pends upon the feelings and character of the communicants. The Christian who in this act commemorates the death of Jesus, profes ses his relation to the Church, and forms pious resolves and purposes, — he truly celebrates the Lord's Supper, whether he performs this act in public or private. (c) Even in a private dwelling, a profession may be made, by this act of faith in the death of Christ, before the teacher and others present ; 1 Cor. xi. ; and persons not present still learn, that such a profession has been made. This object of the Lord's Supper is therefore attained, even by the private celebration of it. There was a regulation among the Bohemian Brethren in the the fifteenth century (about the year 1461), that when a sick person desired the Lord's Supper, other members of the Church should partake of it with him, in order that it might be a true Communion ; — an example which is worthy of imitation ! And even among us this might be done without great notoriety, by admitting the near relations, ac quaintances, or friends of the sick person, or those occupying the same house ; and they, too, might perhaps receive a salutary impres sion from such a celebration of this ordinance. The assertion of Less, that private communions were unheard of in earlier Christ ian antiquity, is not true. Justin the Martyr says (Apol. 2), "that the Deacons first distributed bread and wine to those present, and then carried it to the absent." ill. Unessential rites in the administration of the Supper. It is important that the Lord's Supper, so far as it is an external rite, should be so administered, as to distinguish it from common and ordinary repasts, as a special festival in commemoration of Christ. This is called by Paul, 2 Cor. 11: 19, Siaxglveiv zo ompa zov Kvgiov. This may indeed be done without any external cere monies ; and it cannot therefore be said, that such external rites and usages are essential to the ordinance. Still it is wise and adapt ed to promote the ends for which the Supper was instituted^to em ploy such external solemnities, as will remind the communicants of 558 ART. XIV. § 144. CONSECRATION OF THE ELEMENTS. the great object of this festival, and give it an obvious and marked distinction from other meals. Here, however, caution must be used, lest superstition should be encouraged by the introduction of these ceremonies, and they should be supposed to possess some spe cial power. Christ distinguished this ordinance from the Passover which im mediately preceded, by offering up a prayer of thanks (ivxagiazrr aag or evXoyrjaug), which was probably one of the brief thanksgiv ings common among the Jews, as neither of the Evangelists have thought necessary to record the words. He then stated briefly the object of this ordinance. In both of these particulars, the ex ample of Christ is properly followed in the administration of the Supper. It is customary to offer thanks to God, briefly to state the object of this ordinance, and thus solemnly set apart the bread and wine to this sacred use ; vid. 1 Cor. 10: 16, noztjgiov evXoylag, 6 evXoyovpev, i. e. the wine in the cup, which we consecrate to this use by the prayer of thanks. It is also said elsewhere respecting those who thank God for the enjoyment of other foood, that they partake of it pez' evXoyiag, 1 Tim. 4: 5. Luke 9: 16. This solemn opening of the Supper with prayer and reference to the command of Jesus, is called Consecration, and is proper and according to the will of Christ. Consecration, therefore, in the Lord's Supper consists properly in a solemn reference to the object of the Supper, and in the devout prayer accompanying this ; and not in the repetition of the words, this is my body and this is my blood. These words are uttered merely in order to make the nature and object of the ordinance then to be celebrated properly understood ; so our symbolical books uniformly teach. Hence these words were frequently repeated by Christ during the celebration of the or dinance, and were used alternately with other expressions. This Consecration is not to be supposed to possess any magical or mirac ulous power. Nothing like this was attributed to this rite by the older Church fathers, who used consecrare as synonymous with dyi- a£eiv and sanctificare, to set apart from a common, and consecrate to a sacred use. By degrees, however, a magical effect was attribut ed to consecration, and it was supposed to possess a peculiar power. This was the case even with Augustine. And when afterwards the doctrine of transubstantiation prevailed in the Romish Church, it was supposed that the change in the elements was effected by pro- § 145. EXTERNAL USES OF THE SUPPER. 559 nouncing over them them the blessing, and especially the words of Christ, this is my body, etc. Besides this, there are various other contingent and arbitrary usages, some of which are goodfand adapted to promote the ends of this ordinance, and others are extremely liable to become perverted into means of superstition. More full information on this point may be obtained from Christian Antiquities. Many of the rites introduc ed by the Romish Church have been retained in the Lutheran Church, such as the singing of the words of consecration, the mark ing of the bread and wine with the cross, the holding a cloth beneath, etc. These and other usages originated for the most part in the doc trine of transubstantiation, and the extravagant opinions respecting the external holiness of the symbols resulting from this doctrine. They admit, however, of a good explanation ; and where they are customary, and must be retained, they ought to be so explained by the religious teacher. Marking with the cross, e. g. should remind us, that this ordinance is held in commemoration of Christ crucified ; etc. § 145. Of the uses and the efficacy of the Lord's Supper ; and in ferences from these. We must here presuppose much of what was said, § 140, re specting Baptism. The uses and efficacy of the Lord;s Supper, as of Baptism, are twofold ; viz. external and internal, and may be easily deduced from the design of this ordinance as stated, § 143. I. External usos and efficacy. By celebrating the Lord's Supper, a person publicly professes himself to be a member of the external Christian Church, and as such receives and holds all the rights belonging to Christians, to the enjoyment of which he is introduced by baptism. For Christ enjoined this sacred duty only upon his followers. Every one, therefore, who partakes of the Lord's Supper, by so doing professes, 560 ART. XIV. § 145. INTERNAL USES OF THE SUPPER. that he is a real me'mber of the external Church, that he believes in Christ, and yields him reverence. Hence Paul says, 1 Cor. 10: 16, that bread and wine are xoivmvla a'ipuzog xal ampatog Xgia zov. Paul here, and in this whole passsage, teaches, that the sym bols (bread and wine) stand in the most intimate connexion with the body of Christ slain on the Cross for our sins, and are the means by which we become partakers of the benefits of this death, and tes tify our interest in them. The meaning is : Whoever celebrates the Lord's Supper becomes partaker of the body and blood of Christ, and professes the same ; or, by this ordinance he gives it to be un derstood, that he believes in Christ, and especially that he believes, that Christ offered up his body and shed his blood for him ; and he thus becomes partaker of the benefits of this sacrifice. The terms, xoivmvol &vaiaazt]giov, spoken of those offering sacrifice, v. 18, of the same chapter ; also xoivmvol Saipovimv, v. 20, are used in the same way, and are explained v. 21, by the phrase pexeyeiv xgane'Ctjg Kvgiov xal Saipovimv. The opposite of this is seen v. 14, " flee idolatry," have no fellowship with idolaters ! and v. 17, " while we all eat of one and the same bread (a portion of which is broken for each), we profess to be all members of one body," i. e. of one Church. The same is taught by the pas sage 1 Cor. 11: 26, " for as often as ye partake of the Lord's Supper, xov &dvazov Kvgiov xazayyeXXeze," i. e. you thus profess your selves to be of the number of those, who believe that Christ died for the salvation of man. II. Internal uses and efficacy. (1) With regard to the effects of the Lord's Supper, as well as of Baptism, there were various mistakes, even among the ear lier fathers ; vid. § 140, II. The opinion is very ancient, that the Holy Spirit so unites himself with the symbols when they are consecrated, that they are transmuted (ptzaazoixtiova&ai, trans- elementari) into an entirely different element, become the body and blood of Christ, and possess a power and efficacy, which cannot be expected from mere bread and wine. These thoughts occur even in the Apostolic Constitutions, in Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basilius the Great, Ambrosius, and others. It was on this account, that the invocation (inlxXtjOig) of the Holy Spirit was introduced in many places before the holding of the Supper ; vid. Morus p. 202, ITS EFFICACY NOT MAGICAL. 561 n. 2, 6. They say also, that the bread and wine, through the invo cation of the name of Christ, and by the power of the same, are sanctified, so that they no more continue what they were, but re ceive a special spiritual and divine power. So say, e. g. Theodo- tus, (as quoted by Clemens of Alexandria,) Tertullian, and others. Hence we often find in the ancient liturgies, both oriental and occi dental, frequent invocations of the Holy Spirit of God and of Christ, in which they were entreated to unite themselves with the bread and wine, and to communicate to them this power. At a very early period, therefore, a kind of magical and miracu lous effect was ascribed to this ordinance, and it was supposed that as an external act it has a mechanical agency, not only upon the soul, for the remission of guilt and punishment, but also upon the body. It is very often said by some of the fathers after the fourth century, in conformity with this latter opinion, that this sacrament has power to heal the sick, to secure one against magical arts and the assaults of the Devil, and even to effect the salvation of the souls of those who are dead. Hence originated the missa pro de- functis, and innumerable other superstitious opinions and practices, which fruitfully multiplied, especially in the Western Church, dur ing the dark ages, and which were then brought by the schoolmen into a formal system. (2) This magical or mechanical efficacy is never ascribed in the New Testament to the Lord's Supper. The opinion that man ob tains faith, remission of sin, and new spiritual power, merely by the external celebration of this ordinance, as an opus operatum, and by an external participation in the sacramental symbols, without being himself active in repentance and faith, receives no countenance from the sacred writers. The same is true respecting baptism and the other means of grace. The efficacy of the Lord's Supper upon the human heart, stands in intimate connexion with the divine Word, and with the power inherent in the truths of the Christian doctrine. Without the knowledge and the proper use of the Word of God, this ordinance, in itself considered, and as an external rite, has no efficacy. And so the effect which the Lord's Supper has upon the human heart, is not magical, miraculous, and irresistible, but in ac cordance with our moral nature ; exactly as we have represented it to be with baptism, § 140, coll. Art. XII. § 133. It is therefore truly said, that the Holy Spirit acts upon the Vol. II. 71 562 ART. XIV. § 145. TWO-FOLD INTERNAL EFFICACY hearts of men through the Supper, or through the bread and wine, and that he, by this means, produces faith and pious dispositions. But he produces this effect through the Word, or through the truths of Christianity, exhibited before us and presented to us in this ordi nance. The effect of the Lord's Supper is, therefore, an effect which is produced by God and Christ, through his Word, or the truths of his doctrine, and the use of the same. In the sacrament of the Supper, the most important truths of Christianity, which we com monly only hear or read, are visibly set before us, made cognizable to the senses, and exhibited in such a way as powerfully to move the feelings, and make an indelible impression on the memory, Hence this sacrament is justly called verbum Dei visible. Some of the most weighty doctrines of Religion, which are commonly taught us by audible words, through the outward ear, are here in culcated by external visible signs and actions. Among the doctrines more especially exhibited in the Lord's Supper, is the doctrine of the redemption of man by the death of Christ, and the universal love of God shining forth from this event (Rom. 8: 32. John 3: 16), and all the duties both to Christ and our fellow men, which result from it. The contemplation and applica tion of these important truths, to which we are excited by the Lord's Supper, awaken in the hearts of pious Christians the deepest love and gratitude to God and Christ, and a readiness to comply cordial ly with their requirements. And it is only when we possess this disposition and this temper of mind, that we are truly susceptible of the influences of divine grace through the Word, §§ 130, 131 ; it is then only that we can expect to enjoy that special presence and aid of Christ, which he has promised at his Supper ; vid. § 143, ad finem. These are the things, which, according to the Scriptures, are essential to the proper efficacy of the Lord's Supper ; and we need not trouble ourselves with inquiries respecting the manner of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the symbols. — Hence it appears that the internal efficacy of the Lord's Supper, or of the Word of God through the Supper, is two-fold. First. This ordinance is the means of exciting and strengthen ing the faith of one who worthily celebrates it, so far as he refers to the divine promises, and stands firm in the conviction of their certain fulfilment ; vid. § 123. For we are reminded by this ordin ance. OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 563 (a) Of the death of Christ. He instituted this ordinance on the day of his death, and the breaking of the bread and pouring out of the wine, represent the violence done to his body, and the shedding of his blood ; vid. § 144, I. 1. (6) Of the causes and the salutary results of his death,— the founding of a new dispensation, tlie forgiveness of sins, and our title to everlasting happiness ; vid. Heb. 8: 6, sq. (c) Of the special guidance and assistance which Christ has promised to his disciples until the end of the world ; vid. § 143, ad finem. (d) Any one who from the heart believes these great truths of Christianity, obtains, in the Lord's Supper, the personal appropria tion of these benefits procured through Christ's death, i. e. he re ceives in the Lord's Supper the most solemn assurance and pledge, that Christ shed his blood for him and on his account, and that he therefore may participate in all the salutary results of his death. This is the xotvmvia a'ipazog and adjpazog Xgiazov, 1 Cor. 10: 16, or the spiritual enjoyment of the body and blood of Christ. It should be as certain to us, as that we see the bread and wine, that Christ died for us, and that he still cares for us, as he did formerly for his disciples while be was upon the earth, and still promotes our eternal welfare. This is the true, inward enjoyment, which may be experienced at the table of the Lord. Secondly. In this way does this ordinance contribute to main tain and promote piety among believers. The contemplation of the death of Christ, of its causes, and the great and beneficial results which flow from it, fills our hearts with gratitude and love to God and Christ, and makes us disposed and ready to obey his precepts. In this frame we are prepared to enjoy those divine influences upon our hearts, and that assistance of Christ, which it is promised we shall enjoy at the Lord's Supper. Again ; Christ inculcates the love of God and the love of our neighbour, as the two great precepts of his doctrine. Of both these duties we are reminded by this sacred rite, and derive from it new motives to perform them. All Christians, without distinction, are required to participate in this rite ; — high and low, rich and poor, to eat in common of one bread, and drink of one cup. As followers of Jesus, they are all brethren, and all equal, and mutually bound to live in peace; friendship, and brotherly love. All share equally in 564 ART. XIV. § 145. INFERENCES AS TO THE RIGHT OBSERVANCE the rights which Christ purchased for them. Christ is the Lord and Master of them all, and is the same yesterday, to day, and forever. Cf. 1 Cor. 10: 17. 12: 13, " For whether we be Jews or Greeks, bond or free, we are all baptized into one body, and made to drink into one Spirit (inozla&nptv)," i. e. we partake of one festival, so that we compose but one Church (elg ev ampa), and are mutually obligated to cherish the most cordial brotherly love and harmony of feeling, iv evt nvevpazog. Cf. 1 Cor. 6: 17. Eph. 4: 3, 4.— It was one object even of the Mosaic sacrificial feasts, to bind more strongly the band of friendship and brotherly love among the Israelites. But here we have xgelzzovtg inayyeXlai. Vid. § 143, 1. 3. From these remarks respecting the object and efficacy of the Lord's Supper, several important practical consequences may be de rived. (1) Whoever partakes of the Lord's Supper, takes upon himself the sacred obligation, to live in all respects conformably to the rule given in the Gospel, and there made the condition of enjoying the salutary consequences of the atoning death of Jesus. Theologians therefore say, that in enjoying the Lord's Supper, a covenant is made with God ; since man engages, on his side, to yield obedience to the divine precepts, and God, on his part, promises, assures, and actually imparts to men his benefits ; as it is in baptism, § 140, ad finem. (2) Since the uses and the effects of the Lord's Supper are not magical, miraculous, or irresistible, but entirely adapted to the mor al nature of man ; he only can derive the proper benefits from this rite, who falls in with the moral order above mentioned. Therefore, (3) Whoever devoutly contemplates the great truths of salvation represented and made present to us in the Lord's Supper, and suf fers himself to be excited by these means to feelings of lively grati tude to God, to diligence in the pursuit of holiness, and to a truly Christian temper in all respects ; he .fulfils, on his part, the design of this rite. It follows from this, of course, that this festival in com memoration of the death of Christ, can be properly celebrated only in the exercise of a grateful heart, and of pious reverence. But on the other side, the communicant must endeavour to re move from his mind all superstitious fear and scrupulous anxiety about this ordinance. These fears are often cherished by the in- OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 565 cautious expressions which religious teachers sometimes use ; and even by theologians has this rite been called tremendum mysteri um. Reverence and love for God do, indeed, go together ; and in this sense such representations are proper. But anxiety and slavish fear are inconsistent with love. I John 4: 18, qjofiog ovx iaziv iv dyantj. The celebration of this festival should rather be a cheerful occasion ; and it should promote pious and thankful joy, since it brings to our mind an event so fraught with happy consequences for us. What Paul says on this subject, I Cor. 11: 27 — 29 and 34, is very true, but often misunderstood. He speaks here of the extern al conduct of the communicants, so tar as it indicates his internal disposition or state of heart. Many of the Corinthians partook of the Lord's Supper, without thinking at all of its great object. They did not regard it as a religious rite ; but rather as a common meal (ptj Siaxglvovxeg ampa Kvgiov, v. 29). They permitted themselves those disorders and excesses, in which many think it right to indulge at common meals, — quarrels, gluttony, drunkenness, etc. ; vs. 17 — 22. This is called by Paul dva^ioig ia&ieiv xal ni- veiv, i. e. indecore, in an unbecoming, improper manner, so as to shew by one's conduct an irreligious disposition, an indifference with regard to this important rite, and a contempt for it. Paul pro nounces this to be in the highest degree wrong and therefore deserv ing of punishment, e'voxog e'axai ampazog xal a'tpatog Kvgiov, v. 27 ; i. e. worthy of punishment on account of the body and blood of Christ undervalued by him ; and v. 29 (coll. v. 34) xgipa iavzm ia&lei xal nivei, he draws upon himself divine judgments, On ac count of his improper observance of this ordinance; (4) The observance of the Lord's Supper does not require, there fore, in the pious Christian, any severe and anxious preparation ; he may partake of it at any time with advantage, as he may at any time die happily. And the unconverted man has no other exercises and preparations to go through, .than those which in general he must go through, in order to his conversion (pezavoia). It is with rea son, however, that Paul makes it the duty of every Christian, care fully to examine his feelings and his conduct, before approaching the table of Christ. 1 Cor. 11:28, SoxipaCe'zm dv&gmnog iavzov, xal ovzmg (i. e. after he has examined himself) ix tov dgzov ia&ii- kb' cf. v. 31. The meaning is : ' let him examine himself to see, 566 ART. XIV. § 145. HOW OFTEN SHOULD IT BE CELEBRATED? whether he approaches the Lord's Supper with pious feelings, really designing to do what this action implies,' viz. make a profession of the death of Christ in the fullest sense of this term. Note. Times for Confession, or rather for preparation for the Lord's Supper, may and should be employed for the purpose of this personal self-exam ination. These occasions should also be improved for the purpose of show ing the evils which result from a thoughtless partaking of the sacramental Sup per; according to 1 Cor. xi. It must not, however, be said, that every uncon verted man receives the Lord's Supper to his own eternal condemnation. This is not a scriptural doctrine; vid. 1 Cor. 11: 32. Nor does it belong to the teacher, to exclude any one from this ordinance, because he regards him as unconverted, even supposing him to have power so to do; vid. § 144,11, It is his duty, however, to warn such a person, and represent to him his case, as Paul does, 1 Cor. xi. (5) How often should the Lord's Supper be celebrated? Christ gave no definite precepts on this point, and this was very wise. Every thing mechanical, confined to a particular time or a par ticular place, is contrary to the spirit of Christianity. Christ has therefore left it for every Christian to determine, according to his conscientious conviction and judgment, how often he will freely repeat this solemn observance. And thus in this respect also, does this Christian ordinance differ from the passover and other religious ceremonies of the Israelites. It is to be expect ed of every sincere Christian, that finding how salutary these com munion seasons are in their influence upon him, he will welcome their return, and wish them to be often repeated. But to the ques tion, how often, no answer, from the nature of the case, can be given, which will apply to every individual. In the early Christian Church, they were accustomed to celebrate the Lord's Supper almost daily. But the too frequent repetition of this ordinance, will be apt to pro duce coldness and indifference with regard to it. This perhaps had been the case in Corinth: cf. 1 Cor. 11:20 — 30. The zeal with which this ordinance was first observed gradually abated, and for this reason, among others, that but few good fruits were seen to re sult from it. At the time of Chrysostom and Augustine, the ob servance of the Supper had become far less frequent. Between the sixth and eighth centuries it was customary, especially in the West ern Church, for every Christian to commune at least three times dur ing the year ; and this was even established as a rule by many ec- § 146. HISTORY OF OPINIONS, ETC. 567 clesiastical Councils. In the Protestant Church, no laws have been passed on this subject ; and this is as it should be. § 146. The various opinions and forms of doctrine respecting the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Sup per, historically explained; and also a Critique respecting them. I. History of opinions respecting the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. (1) It may be remarked in general, that the opinions of the an cients on this subject, from the first establishment of the Christian Church until the eighth century, were very diverse. After the eighth century, there were some controversies respecting the mode and manner of this presence of Christ ; and in the thirteenth centu ry, one of the many theories on this subject was established as or thodox. The Church fathers in the first centuries agreed on many points relating to this matter, and on other points differed, without however, mutually casting upon each other the reproach of hetero doxy. The first germs of the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran, and the Cal- vinistic theories are found already in their writings ; but it was not un til a later period, that they were developed, and new consequences de duced from them. We cannot, therefore, conclude, when we meet with expressions in the ancient fathers which sound like those which are used in our own times, that they adopted the whole theory of one or the other modern party. Their ideas are so vague, their expres sions so indefinite and unsettled, that each of the dissenting parties in modern times, may frequently discover passages, even in the same father, which seem to favor its own particular theory. In the sixteenth century, when the Catholics, Lutherans, and the Reformed theologians were in controversy with each other on this point, each party collected passages from the fathers, in order to show the antiquity of its own theory ; thus Melancthon in opposi- 568 ART. XIV. § 146. DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S PRESENCE IN THE SUPPER tion to Oecolampadius, and the latter against the former. In the seventeenth century, many controversial books passed back and forth between the learned Roman Catholic theologians of France and the Reformed theologians of France and the Netherlands, in which Nicole, Arnaud, and others, endeavoured to prove on one side the antiquity of the doctrine of transubstantiation ; and Albertiuus, Claude, Blondell, Laroque, and others, attempted on the other side to secure the authority of the ancients in behalf of the doctrine of the Reformed Church. Ernesti also, in his Antimuratorius (Opus. Theol. p. 1, sq.), has collected many passages from the ancients in behalf of the Lutheran theory, and in opposition to transubstantia tion, etc ; also in his " Brevis repetitio et assertio sentential Luther - anae de prasentia corporis et sanguinis Christi in sacra coena," (Opus. Theol. p. 135, sq.), which is one of the most important mod ern works on the Lutheran side. It was called forth by Heumann's " Proof that the doctrine of the Reformed Church respecting the Lord's Supper is correct and true," Eisleben, 1764. — It is a very easy matter, however, for any one to find his own ideas expressed in the vague and indefinite phraseology of the fathers. The testi mony of the sacred writers in favor of the essential part of the doc trine of the Lutheran Church has been exhibited partly by Ernesti, and partly by Storr, in a very plain and lucid, though brief manner, in his " Doctrinse Christianas pars theoretica," p. 305 — 318. [The later works of most value on this department of historical theology, are Phil. Marheinecke, Sanctorum Patrum de prssentia Christi in coena Domini, sententia triplex, Heidelberg, 1811, 4to. — Neander, Kirch. Geschichte, B. I. Abth. II. S. 577— 596. Abth. III. S. 1084.— B. II. Abth. II. S. 697—712. Abth. III. S. 1394. Cf. Gieseler, B. I. § 96. B. II. §§ 15, 17.— A full account of the literature of this doctrine, in all periods, may be found in Hahn's Lehrbuch, S. 570, ff. ; also in Bretschneider's Syst. Entw. S. 728, ff— Tr.] (2) Sketch of the History of this doctrine from the second to the ninth century. (a) The fathers of the second century proceeded on the princi ple, which is in itself true, that the Lord's Supper must be consid ered as entirely different from an ordinary repast. Justin the Mar tyr says (Apol. I. 66), ov xoivog dgzog, ovSe xoivov nopa. They however entertained, even at that early period, many ideas respect- AS HELD BETWEEN THE SECOND AND NINTH CENTURIES. 569 ing this ordinance, which have no scriptural authority. Neither in the writings of the Apostles, nor in the words of Christ, is there any , trace of the opinion, that a certain supernatural and divine power is imparted, in a miraculous and magical way, to the symbols, and that in this manner the Lord's Supper exerts an agency upon men. But this opinion, (which resembles that entertained by many respecting the water in baptism,) is found very frequently in the writings of Justin, Irenaeus (iv. 34), Clemens of Alexandria, and other fathers even of the second and third centuries ; and it is entirely in accord ance with the spirit and taste of that age, which bdheld everywhere something magical and mysterious, and could not be contented un less it found something surpassing comprehension. In order to express their opinion, that the bread and wine are changed by the divine power, or by the Holy Spirit, and thus obtain a new virtue and efficacy, totally different from that which naturally belongs to them, they used the terms peza§dXXea&ai, peza§oXt], pezapogqjova- &ai, pezaazoixeiova&ai, pezaazoixelmaig, pezanoltjaig. Still they did not suppose any such change in the elements, that they cease to be bread and wine ; i. e. they did not believe in tran substantiation, in the proper sense of the term : neither does the Grecian Church, which employs these terms, especially peza^o- Xtj, but still opposes the doctrine of the Romish Church. Some of the fathers understood these terms in a perfectly just sense, and meant only to say, that the bread and wine cease, by consecration, to be common bread and wine. (b) Again ; it was maintained, that the Word of God (Xoyog &eov) is added to the bread and wine, thus ennobled and endowed with divine power. If by the Word of God is meant the Christian doctrine, it is very true that the efficacy of the Lord's Supper is connected with it, and depends upon it ; vid. § 145. So it was un derstood by many of the ancient fathers, e. g. Ireiiasus. But some of them understood by 6 Xoyog, the divine nature of Christ. And from the fact that this Logos was united with the man Jesus and his human body, they were led to the idea, that after the same man ner he is united with the bread and wine in the' Lord's Supper. And they endeavoured to illustrate this union of Christ with the sa cramental bread and wine, from the union of the two natures in his person. In this comparison which was made by Justin the Martyr, we Vol. II. 72 570 art. xiv. § 146. Christ's real presence in the symbols find the true origin of the doctrine concerning the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the elements on his Table ; vid. Morus p. 263, n. 4. According to this view, Christ is present in a supernatural way in the symbols, and in an entirely different man ner from that in which, according to his promise, he is everywhere present with his disciples, until the end of the world. (c) After this period, the idea became more and more current, that communicants, in partaking of the visible bread and wine, also partake of the invisible body and blood of Christ. Especially did this idea prevail after the fourth century. Thus e. g. Gregory of Nyssa affirms, " that as the body of Christ, by his union with the Logos, was so changed and transformed, as to become participator in his divine glory ; so also the sacramental bread elg ampa zov &t- ov Xoyov pezanotelz at." Chrysostom and Cyrill of Jerusalem also say, that we must believe the divine declaration, that we receive the body and blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, although this may seem to be opposed to the evidence of our senses. But although this doctrine seems to approach very nearly to tran substantiation, these fathers did not yet teach that there is any change of the elements, by which they lose their own nature, and cease to be bread and wine ; on the contrary, they often taught in other passa ges, that the elements retain their own natural properties, that when partaken of by us they become assimilated to the nature of our bodies, that in the Supper we do not receive the natural body of Christ, but only the significant signs of it, that we ought not to stop short with the mere sign, but to turn our thoughts to that which is signified and imparted by it. There are many passages of this import in the writings of Origen, of Augustine, Theodoret, and others. But in subsequent periods, the conceptions which prevailed on this subject, even in the Grecian Church, became more and more gross and sensual ; as appears from the writings of John of Damas cus in the eighth century, and others. Still the opinion, that the consecrated bread and wine lose their substance was not received in the Greek Church; nor is it known among them to the present day, although they employ the term pezapoXn to denote the change. Vid. Kiesling, Hist, concertationum Greecor. et. Latinor. de tran- subst. Leip. 1754. (3) History of this doctrine from the ninth to the sixteenth cen tury in the Western Church. AS HELD DURING THE DARK AGES. 571 It is known from Beda Venerabilis, that during the eighth cefl- tury, there were violent contests in the Western Church respecting the manner of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, and on the question, how the elements are changed. And even at that time, they began to give various explanations of the passages found in the writings of the earlier Latin and Greek fa thers on this subject. After the ninth century, the tone and taste which began to prevail made it certain, that of different theories on any theological point, that which is the most gross and material would gain the predominance. It is no wonder, therefore, that the following opinion, first dis tinctly advocated by Paschasius Radbertus, a Monk at Corvey, in the ninth century, should have received so general approbation ; viz. " that after the Consecration of the bread and wine, nothing but their form remains, their substance being wholly changed, so that they are no longer bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ. Their form continues, that no one may take offence at see ing Christians eating human flesh and blood." This doctrine was not, indeed, current at that time ; for it caus ed much commotion, and was strongly opposed by the Monk Ra- tramnus and John Scotus Erigena, and many others. They did not deny the presence of the body and blood of Christ ; but they taught that this conversio or immutatio of the bread and wine, is not of a carnal, but a spiritual nature ; that these elements are not transmuted into the real body and blood of Christ, but are signs or symbols of them. In many points they approximated to the opin ion of the Reformed theologians. As yet the Councils and Popes had determined nothing on this subject. In the meanwhile, the doctrine of Paschasius became more and more general, during the tenth and eleventh centuries. When therefore, Berengarius of Tours, in the eleventh century, at tacked this doctrine, he was strongly resisted, and obliged to take back his opinion. He denied any transmutation of the elements ; but maintained, that the bread and wine are more than mere symbols, and that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the Lord's Supper. In short, he took a middle course between Paschasius and Scotus, and came very near, in the main points of his doctrine, to the Lutheran hypothesis. Vid. Lessing's Work, Berengarius von Tours, Braunschweig, 1770, 4to. 572 ART. XIV. § 146. OPINIONS OF PROTESTANTS After the twelfth century, the theory of Paschasius was farther developed by the schoolmen, and carried out into its results. Even Peter of Lombardy, in the twelfth century, declared himself in be half of this opinion, although he still speaks somewhat doubtfully re specting it. The inventor of the word transubstantiatio is suppos ed to be Hildebert, Bishop of Mans, in the eleventh century. Be fore him, however, the phrase commutatio panis in substantiam Christi had been used by Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres. This term became current in the twelfth century, through the influence of Pe ter of Blois. It was not, however, until the thirteenth century, that this dogma became universally prevalent in the Romish Church. At the IV. Concilium Lateranense, 1215, under Pope Innocent III., it was established as the doctrine of the Church, and confirmed by the Council at Trent, in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestants. According to this doctrine, this transmutation is pro duced by the sacerdotal consecration. Vid. Calixtus, De transub- stantiatione, Helmstadt, 1675. (4) Principal opinions respecting the manner of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, among the Protestant theologians since the Reformation. There were three forms of doctrine on this subject, which for many centuries had prevailed in the Western Church ; viz. (a) the theory of transubstantiation, advanced by Paschasius Radbertus, which afterwards became the prevailing doctrine of the Church ; (6) the theory, that the bread and wine are merely symbols of the body and blood of Christ, advocated principally by Joh. Scotus Eri- gena ; (c) a theory which takes a middle course between the other two, maintaining that the body and blood of Christ are actually pre sent in the sacramental elements, but without any transmutation of their substance ; supported by Berengarius in the eleventh century. These theories continued, though under various modifications, after the sixteenth century, and were designated by the characteristic words, transubstantiatio, figura, unio. The Greek Church still adhered to its old word pezaftoXij. Both the German and Swiss reformers were agreed in rejecting the doctrine of transubstantiation, as wholly unfounded. In this too they were agneed, that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the sacramental elements, and are imparted to the com municant, when he partakes of the bread and wine ; since Christ is as to Christ's real presence in the elements. 573 near to all whom he counts his own, imparts himself to them, coun sels and guides them. But in explaining the manner of this presence, they differed from each other. Luther had a great attachment to many of the scholastic opinions and distinctions, and at first entertained a very high idea of clerical power and the preeminence of the Priesthood. He therefore retained the doctrine of the schoolmen de prasentia reali et substantiali, in such a way, however, as to exclude transub stantiation. His doctrine at first was, that " in, with, and under (in, cum, and sub, terms which he took from Bemhard) the consecrated bread and wine, the true and essential body and blood of Christ are imparted to the communicant, and are received by him ; although in a manner inexplicable by us, and altogether mysterious." He held, therefore, that the body of Christ, which in its very essence is present in the sacred symbols, is received by the communicant, not spiritually merely, but (and here is the point of difference between him and the Swiss Reformers) realiter et substantialiler ; so that both believing and unbelieving communicants, partake of the real, substantial body and blood of Christ ; — the former to their salvation, the latter to their condemnation. The bread and wine are visibly and naturally received ; the body and blood of Christ, invisibly and supernaturally ; and this is the unio sacrament alls, such as takes place only in this sacrament In one passage he explains this unio sacramentalis by the image of heated iron ; and in employing this illustration, borders close upon the error of Consubstantiation. He says also, that what the bread and wine do or suffer, the same is done or suffered by the body and blood of Christ, — they are broken, distributed, poured out, etc. By degrees, however, he abandoned these views, and was content with affirming the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, and with an indefinite manducatione orali. The doctrine of the Swiss theologians, on the contrary, as ex hibited by Calvin, who in some respects modified the view of Zuin gle, was this : " the body and blood of Christ are not, as to their substance, present in the sacramental elements, but only as to power and effect ; they are vere ct efficaciter represented under the bread and wine ; dari non substantiam corporis Christi in sacra cana, sed omnia qua in suo corpore nobis beneficia prastitit." Accord ingly the body and blood of Christ are not present in space, and are 574 ART. XIV. § 146. OPINIONS OF LUTHER, CALVIN, ETC. not orally received by communicants, but spiritually, with a kind of mandncatio spiritualis. Zuingle, however, maintained that the bread and wine are mere symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and seemed wholly to reject the idea of his real presence in these symbols. Many of the Reformed theologians did not therefore at first assent to Calvin's doctrine, and many even subsequently adher ed to that of Zuingle. Calvin, then, designed to take a middle course between Luther and Zuingle. Luther appealed to the words in which this rite was instituted, especially to iazi. He referred also to the divine omni potence, by which the body of Christ might be made substantially present in many places at once ; cf. Morus p. 266, § 8. This was wholly denied by the Swiss theologians, as being contradictory. They contended, also, that there is no occasion or use for this sub stantial presence and communication of the body and blood of Christ ; since it cannot contribute to make one more virtuous, pious, or holy. With regard to iazi they remarked, that according to com mon use even in the New Testament, it often means to signify, show forth ; vid. § 143 ; and the subject here requires, that it should be so understood, since otherwise Christ is made to say what is un true. Luther, however, adhered to his opinion, especially after it be came the subject of controversy. Melancthon was more calm and impartial, and wished to promote peace between the two parties. He therefore took the ground, especially after Luther's death, that it is better merely to affirm the presence and agency of Christ in the sacred symbols, without attempting minutely to define and limit the manner of this presence. He was not favorable either to the pra- sentia corporalis Christi, or to the manducatio oralis, but only af firmed prasenfiam realem et efficacem Christi in sacra cana. He therefore chose a middle way between Luther and Zuingle, and very nearly agreed with Calvin, who also pursued this middle course. Many of the more moderate Lutheran theologians agreed with Melancthon, and seemed with him to incline to the side of Calvin. On the other hand the zealots for the Lutheran theory insisted upon all the distinctions which Luther adopted, and even on some points went farther than Luther himself. But in the electorate of Saxony the party of Melancthon became more and more numerous, and af- as to Christ's real presence. 575 ter his death, the dreadful Crypto-Calvinistic controversies and per secutions broke out (A. D. 1571). These and other controversies and disorders in the Lutheran Church, and the necessity of doing something to establish the Lu theran form of doctrine, led to the adoption of the Formula of Con cord, in the year 1577, which was then made a standard of faith, and adopted as an authorized symbol. In this, the most minute boundary lines are drawn between the theories of the Lutheran and the Reformed church, by applying the new distinctions introduced into the doctrine of the union of the two natures in Christ, and the communicatio idiomatum ; vid. § 103, II. and § 104. The Luther an theologians of that period, especially Andrea, Chemnitz, and their followers, endeavoured to show, by the theory of the intimate union of the two natures in Christ, and the communicatio idiomatum resulting from it, how Christ, as God-man, might be everywhere present, even as to his bodily nature, and that therefore he might be present at the sacrament of the Supper, and might unite himself with the elements, and through them with the communicants, and thus act upon them. This doctrine was called ubiquitatem corporis Christi, and the advocates of it were named contemptuously by their opponents Ubiquitista. The manner of the union of the body of Christ with the bread and wine, was declared to be a mystery (mysterium. unionis sacrament alls). And on this account the fra- mers of the Formula of Concord would not decide positively of what nature it is, but only negatively, what it is not. It is not a personal union, as it is explained to be by many of the older fathers, vid. No. 2 ; nor is it consubstantiatio ; still less is it a union in which a change of the substance is effected (transubstantiatio) ; nor is it a union in which the body and blood of Christ are includ ed in the bread and wine (impanatio) ; but of an entirely different nature from any of these mentioned, and one which exists only in this sacrament, and therefore called sacramentalis. Cf. Plank, Geschichte des protestantischen Lehrbegriff's bis zur Einfiihrung der Concordienformel. But these fine distinctions established in the Formula of Con cord, were never universally adopted in the Lutheran Church. And especially in those places where this Formula had no symbolic authority, were its subtleties rejected. Many of the Lutheran theolo gians are more inclined to the moderate theory of Melancthon, or 576 ART. XIV. § 146. OBJECTIONS TO THE LUTHERAN HYPOTHESIS. rather have approximated towards it. Morus truly remarks (p. 268, n. A.), that the whole theory established in the Formula of Concord respecting the omnipresence of the human nature of Christ, from the union of natures in his person, is justo subtilior. II. Critical remarks on these different hypotheses. (1) All the different theories here stated are attended with dif ficulties. Transubstantiation contradicts the testimony of our sen ses, and has no scriptural authority, since these symbols are called in the Scriptures bread and wine, and are therefore supposed to have the substance of bread and wine. With regard to Luther's theory, there is the difficulty abovemen- tioned, that there appears to be no object or use in the substantial or corporeal presence of Christ; though this objection in itself is by no means decisive, since there are many things whose utility we cannot understand, which are yet useful. But besides this, there are other objections to the Lutheran theory. If the substantial body and blood of Christ are present in the sacramental elements, and are received by the communicants, how it might be asked, (a) Could Christ, at the institution of the Supper, give his real body to his disciples, to be eaten by them, and his real blood to be drunken by them, while they saw this body before their eyes, and he, yet alive, sat with them at table ? (6) How can the body of Christ be present, as to its very sub stance, in more than one place at the same time ? and what object is answered by such a supposition ? The conclusions deduced from the doctrine of the union of natures, afford no satisfactory an swer to these questions. (c) How can the theory of the substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ, and of their being eaten and drunken by com municants, be reconciled with the words in which this supper was instituted 1 For Christ did not speak of his body then living upon the earth, which they saw before their eyes, and of the blood flow ing in it ; still less of his glorified body in heaven ; but of his body slain on the cross (vnig vpmv SiSopevov), and of his blood there shed (alpa ixyvvopevov). If therefore the substantial and corpore al presence of Christ were meant, it must be the substance of that martyred body and of that perishable blood. But in this case we OBJECTIONS TO THE CALVINISTIC THEORY. 577 cannot understand, how either of these can be still present, and im parted to communicants. Difficulties of this nature induced Melancthon, as has been be fore remarked, to modify the Lutheran doctrine, and to adopt a the ory less repulsive. But the theory of Calvin, though it appears to be so easy and natural, is also attended with difficulties. For even he admits of the presence of the body and blood of Christ, only not as to the'ir substance ; but according to his view, believers alone re ceive the body and blood of Christ. But as soon as I admit that the body of Christ is present to believers only, this cannot be re conciled with 1 Cor. 11: 27, 29, as the opponents of Calvin have al ways remarked. The better way, therefore, in exhibiting either the Lutheran or Calvinistic doctrine, is, to avoid these subtleties, and merely take the general position, that Christ, as man and as the Son of God, may exert his agency, may act, wherever, and in whatever manner he pleases. He therefore may exert his power at his Table, as well as elsewhere. This is perfectly scriptural (vid. § 98, and § 143, ad finem) ; and it is also the sense and spirit of the Protestant theory. And this doctrine respecting the nearness of Christ, his assistance, and strengthening influence, in his present exalted state, secures eminently that proper inward enjoyment, which Lutheran and Re formed Christians, and even Catholics, with all their diversity of speculation on this point, may have alike in the Lord's Supper. Christ, when he was about to leave the world, no more to be seen by his followers with the mortal eye, left them this Supper, as a vis ible pledge of his presence, his protection, and love. (2) There are some theologians who think, that the whole doc trine respecting the presence of Christ is destitute of proof, and is derived merely from the misunderstanding of the passage 1 Cor. xi., and from the false interpretation of it given by the fathers. Their hypotheses, it is said, have not been sufficiently examined ; but have been too credulously admitted, and other theories have been built upon them, after they had been previously assumed as true. This opinion might be called the Pelagian theory ; not because it can be shown, that it was held by Pelagius himself; but because it has been usually adopted by those who are of the Pelagian way of think ing respecting the influences of grace ; on this subject, vid. Art. xn. They contend, that in partaking of the Lord's Supper we are Vol. II. 73 578 ART. XIV. § 146. OBJECTIONS TO THE PELAGIAN THEORY. merely reminded of Christ, especially of his body offered and his blood shed on our account. According to this view, his body and his blood, while we thus commemorate his death, are present to our thoughts, in the same figurative way, as the body of a deceased friend or benefactor may be present to our minds, when we are thinking of him. This view is contrary to the New Testament ; for it comes to nothing more than a mere remembrance of Christ, and an assistance from him, improperly so called ; vid. § 98. They go on to say, that Paul, indeed, in 1 Cor. 11: 27, 29, uses the words awpa xal alpa Xgiazov with reference to this ordinance ; but that he does not affirm, that the communicant eats the body or drinks the blood of Christ, but merely the bread and wine, v. 28 ; and that although the ancient Christians sometimes spoke as if the body and blood of Christ were really received by communicants (as was very natural, in accordance with John vi.) ; yet the same is true here, which was spoken by Cicero (Nat. Deor. III. 16), Cum fruges Cererem, vinum Liberum dicimvs (panem. corpus Christi, vinum, sanguinem Christi), genere nos quidem sermonis utimur usi- tato ; sed quern tarn amentem esse putas, qui ilhid, quo vescatur, Deum (corpus Christi) credal esse ? The difficulties in the way of this Pelagian theory, which leaves the Lord's Supper a mere ceremony, are stated by Morus p. 267, not. 5. He shows very clearly, that this theory is not in the spirit of the other Christian ordinances. Cf. Storr on this Article in his System. The attempts of many modern writers, who have discuss ed this point, (those e. g. cited by Morus p. 266, § 7, in the Note,) come to the same thing. For to many of them, the doctrine of the nearness of Christ and his assistance, i. e. of his uninterrupted ac tivity in behalf of his followers, is extremely repugnant, because they do not see how they can reconcile it with their philosophical hypoth eses, which however are wholly baseless. But this doctrine is clear ly taught in the Holy Scriptures, and is one of the fundamental truths of apostolical antiquity. (3) Many moderate Protestant theologians are now of opinion, that nothing was plainly and definitely settled by Jesus and the Apostles respecting the manner of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, and that this doctrine cannot therefore be regarded as essential, but rather as problemati cal. Formerly this doctrine relating merely to the manner of this MANNER OF CHRIST'S PRESENCE UNESSENTIAL. 579 presence, was regarded as a fundamental article of faith. Hence each of the contending parties adhered zealously to its own theory, regarding it as the only scriptural one, and looking upon all who thought differently as heretics. This was the cause of that unhap py and lasting division which took place in the sixteenth century between two churches, which agreed on fundamental doctrines, and which ought mutually to have tolerated their disagreement on this particular point. So judged Melancthon, and disapproved of the vio lent controversies of his age. Even in his learned writings, he passed briefly over topics of this nature, and assigns as the reason of his not going more deeply into them, " ut a quastionibus illisjuven- tutem abducerem." Speculations respecting the manner of the presence of the body and blood of Christ, have not the least influence upon the nature or the efficacy of the Lord's Supper. What the Christian needs to know is, the object and the uses of this rite, and to act accordingly : vid. § 145. He must, therefore, believe from the heart, that Christ died for him ; that now in his exalted state, he is still active in pro viding for his welfare ; and that hence it becomes him to approach the Lord's Table with feelings of the deepest reverence and most grateful love to God and to Christ. Upon this every thing depends, and this makes the ordinance truly edifying and comforting in its influence. These benefits may be derived from this ordinance by all Christians ; and to all who have true faith, or who allow this ordinance to have its proper effect in awakening attention to the great truths which it exhibits, it is a powerful, divinely appointed means of grace, whatever theory respecting it they may adopt, — the Lutheran, Calvinistic, or even the Roman Catholic transubstantia tion, gross as this error is. It is obvious, then, that all subtle -speculation respecting the manner of the presence of the body and blood of Christ, should have no place in popular instruction, but should be confined to learned and scientific theology. In the present state of things, however, these disputed points cannot be wholly omitted in public teaching. But the wise teacher will skilfully show, that he does not regard these as the principal points in this doctrine, according to the views just given ; in such a way, however, that even the weak will not be offended. It will be best for teachers, in the practical exhibition of the theory of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, to pro- 580 ART. XIV. § 146. GREAT PRINCIPLE AS TO CHRIST'S PRESENCE. ceed on the principle before laid down ; viz. " that Christ, in his present state of exaltation, as God and man, can exert his power when and where he pleases ; and that, as he has promised to grant his presence, his gracious nearness and assistance to his true follow ers till the end of the world, they may rejoice in the belief, that it will be especially vouchsafed to them during this solemn festival in commemoration of him." This principle is wholly scriptural. ARTICLE FIFTEENTH. ON DEATH, AND THE CONTINUANCE AND DESTINY OF MEN AFTER DEATH; OR THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING THE LAST THINGS. §147. Of Death. I. Different descriptions and names of death. (1) No logical definition of death has been generally agreed upon. This point was much contested in the seventeenth century by the Cartesian and other theologians and philosophers. Since death can be regarded in various points of view, the descriptions of it must necessarily vary. If we consider the state of a dead man, as it strikes the senses, death is the cessation of natural life. If we consider the cause of death, we may place it, in that permanent and entire cessation of the feeling and motion of the body, which results from the destruction of the body. Among theologians, death is com monly said to consist in the separation of soul and body, implying that the soul still exists, when the body perishes. Among the eccles iastical fathers, Tertullian (De anima, c. 27) gives this definition, Mors, — disjunctio corporis animaque; vita, — conjunctio corporis an- imaque. Cicero (Tusc. 1.) defines death, discessus animi a corpore. The passage, Heb. 4: 12, is sometimes cited on this subject, but has nothing to do with it. Death does not consist in this separa tion, but this separation is the consequence of death. As soon as the body loses feeling and motion, it is henceforth useless to the soul, which is therefore separated from it. (2) Scriptural representations, names, and modes of speech re specting death. 582 ART. XV. §147. SCRIPTURAL NAMES OF DEATH. (a) One of the most common in the Old Testament is, to return to the dust or to the earth. Hence the phrase, the dust of death. It is founded on the description, Gen. 2: 7, and 3: 19, and has been explained in §§ 52, 75. The phraseology denotes the dissolution and destruction of the body. Hence the sentiment in Eccles. 12: 7, " The body returns to the earth, the spirit to God." (b) A withdrawing, exhalation, or removal of the breath of life; vid. Ps. 104: 29. Hence the common terms, dqjt]xe, nagiSmxe zo nvevpa, reddidit animam, i^envevaev, exspiravit, etc. (c) A removal from the body, a being absent from the body, a departure from it, etc. This description is founded on the compari son of the body with a tent or lodgement in which the soul dwells during this life. Death destroys this tent or house, and commands us to travel on ; vid. Job 4: 21. Is. 38: 12. Ps. 52: 7, where see my Notes. Whence Paul says, 2 Cor. 5: 1, the iniyeiog vpmv oiy.la tov a xr] vovg will be destroyed; and Peter calls death and &e- aig zov axtjvmpazog, 2 Pet. 1: 13, 14. Classical writers speak of the soul in the same manner, as xazaaxtjvovv iv zm ampazi. They call the body axtjvog. So Hippocrates and Aeschines. 2 Cor. 5: 8, 9, ixStjprjaai ix tov ampazog. (d) Paul likewise uses the term ixSvea&ai in reference to death, 2 Cor. 5: 3, 4 ; because the body is represented as the garment of the soul, as Plato calls it. The soul, therefore, as long as it is in the body is clothed ; and as soon as it is disembodied, is naked. (e) The terms which denote sleep, are applied frequently in the Bible, as everywhere else, to death ; Ps. 76: 7. Jer. 51: 39. John 11: 13, et sq. Nor is this language used exclusively for the death of the pious, as some pretend, though this is its prevailing use. Hom er calls sleep and death twin brothers, Iliad XVI. 672. The terms also which signify, to lie down, to rest (e. g. 35a , occumbere) also denote death. (f) Death is frequently compared with, and named from, a de parture, a going away. Hence the verba eundi, abeundi, disceden- di, signify, to die; Job 10: 21. Ps. 39: 4. The case is the same with vndym and nogevopai in the New Testament ; Matt. 26: 24, and even among the classics. In this connexion we may mention the terms dvaXvelv and dvaXvaig, Phil. 1:23. 2 Tim. 4:6, which da not mean dissolution, but discessus. Cf. Luke 12: 36. Vid. Wet stein on Phil. I. DIFFERENT SENSES OF THE WORD DEATH. 583 Note. We have before remarked, in the Article respecting Sin, that death, when personified, is described as a ruler and tyrant, having vast power and a great kingdom, over which he reigns. But the ancients also represented it under some figures, which are not common among us. We represent it as a man with a scythe, or as a skeleton, etc. But the Jews before the exile fre quently represented death as a hunter, who lays snares for men ; Ps. 18: 5, 6. 91: 3. After the exile they represented him as a man, or sometimes as an an gel (the angel of death), with a cup of poison which he reaches to men. From this representation appears to have arisen the phrase, which occurs in the New Testament, to taste death, Matt. 16: 28. Heb. 2:9; which, however, in common speech, signifies merely to die, without reminding one of the origin of the phrase. The case is the same with the phrase to see death, Ps. 89: 49. Luke 2: 26. II. Scriptural senses of the words death and to die ; and the theological distinctions to which they have given rise. (1) Death frequently denotes the end, or the destruction of every thing. It is therefore applied to countries and cities which perish. The inhabitants of them are compared with dead men. The resto ration of them, is compared with resurrection from the dead. So Is. 26: 19, 20. Ezek. 3: 7, sq. (2) Hence arise the figurative modes of speech, to be dead to any thing, as to the law, to sin, etc. ; Gal. 2: 19. Rom. 6: 2, 5, etc. (3) But this term is used with great frequency in a moral sense ; e. g. to be dead to all goodness, to be dead to sin ; i. e. to be disqual ified for all goodness by the sin reigning within us, Ephes. 2: 1, 5. 5: 14. Likewise the opposite, to live, to be alive for goodness, i. e. to be active in virtue and capable of performing it. (Mors et vita spiritualis et moralis.) (4) Death is conceived to be the substance and sum of all mise ry ; and the punishment of death as the severest punishment. Ac cordingly death denotes, (a)every unhappy condition in which human beings are placed, as to body and soul. The opposite life denotes welfare, prosperity, Ezek. 18: 32.33: 11. Rom. 7: 10, 13. (b) Pun ishments, as the unhappy consequences" of the transgression of the law. In this sense ma is frequently used in Syriac and Chaldee, and death in the New Testament; Rom. 1: 32. 1 John 3: 14. James 5: 20. (c) The Jews called the punishments of the lost in hell, the second death, i. e. the death of the soul, which follows that of the body. Traces of this use are found in Philo, in the Chaldaic 584 ART. XV. § 147. UNIVERSALITY OF DEATH. paraphrases of the Old Testament, and very frequently among the Rabbins. In this sense is 6 Sevzegog &dvazog used in Rev. 2: 11. 20: 6, 14. 21: 8. Vid. Wetstein on Rev. n. So too oXe&gog, anmXeia, x. z. X. From these various senses of the word death, theologians have taken occasion to introduce the division of death into temporal or bodily, spiritual (by which is meant a state of sin and incapacity for virtue), and eternal (the punishments of eternity). The latter is what is otherwise called the second death, mors secunda, cujus nulla est finis, as Augustine remarks. Vid. § 79, No. 2. The Bi ble, too, gives the name of death (mors spiritualis) to the state of sin, inasmuch as it is (a) an unhappy state, and (6) a state which incapacitates sinners for all goodness. Hence sinners are said, Ephes. 2: 5. Col. 2: 13, to be vexgol iv nagunzdipuat, partly be cause they are unhappy in consequence of sin (vid. the opposite), and partly because they are dead to all goodness, or are incapacitat ed for it. Hence, too, those sinners who are secure, ignorant, and regardless of the misery and danger of their situation, are said to sleep or to dream, Jude v. 8. (iwnviu&pevoi). III. The universality or unavoidableness of death : also a consideration of the questioa, wheth er death is the punishment of sin, and how for it is so. (1) Death is universal and inevitable. None in the present state are excepted. This is the uniform declaration of Scripture, Ps. 49: 8—12. 89: 49. Rom. 5: 12. 1 Cor. 15: 22. Heb. 9: 27. Christ himself was not excepted from this general lot of mortality (though he submitted to it of his own accord), John 10: 17, 18; since Paul declares, Heb. 2: 14, sq., that he became man, that he might be able to die for our good.* Some exceptions to this general lot are mentioned in Scripture. (a) In ancient times, Enoch, of whom it was said, Gen. 5: 24, that God took him, because he led a pious life. Some of the fathers in correctly understood this passage to mean, that he died. Cf. Heb. 11: 5. Elias is another exception, 2 Kings 2: 1 1. Similar narratives are found among the Greeks and Romans ; from which we learn, that it was a common notion among the ancient people, that men who were especially beloved by the Deity, were removed from earth to heaven alive, or after their death, (b) In future times. Those who are alive at the day of judgment, according to Paul, 1 Cor. 15: HOW FAR DEATH IS A PUNISHMENT. 585 51, coll. 1 Thess. 4: 15, shall not die (xoiptj&vaovTai), but shall be changed (aXXaytjaovz ai), i. e. their body, without previous dissolu tion (death), shall be ennobled by a simple renovation or change ; since this mortal body is incapable of the enjoyment of heavenly blessedness ; vs. 50, 53, 54, coll. 2 Cor. 5: 2—4, inevSvaaa&ai olxztjgiav l| ovgavov (to be clothed). (2) The mortality of the human body is expressly derived in the record of Moses, Gen. 2: 17, also chap. III., from the taste of the forbidden fruit or of the poisonous tree. It was by this means, that our first parents themselves became mortal, and thus propagated their disordered and dying bodies to all their posterity ; vid. §§ 74, 75, 78. The universality and unavoidableness of death, is therefore, according to the Scriptures, the result and consequence of the trans gression of the first parents of the human race. And so in all cases, the Bible derives death from the sin of the first man ; Rom. 5: 12, " Through one man came sin into the world, and death by sin, and so death became universal among men (tig navzag av&gmnovg St- yX&i)." 1 Cor. 15: 21. Here the question is thrown out, whether the death of the poster ity of Adam is to be regarded as the punishment of his sin? To this the answer commonly given by theologians is, that with regard to the wicked, death is to be regarded in the light of a punishment, but not with regard to the pious, but that to them, on the contrary it is a benefit. Since as the latter are, by means of death, translat ed into a more happy condition, it must be looked upon as a benefit, as far as they are concerned ; and so the Scripture represents it ; vid. § 148. Still (a) death does not cease to be a great evil, in it self considered, to the whole human race, and even to the pious. Hence Paul denominates it 6 ix&gog, 1 Cor. 15: 26 ; and considers it one of the calamities befalling our race, with regard to which even the pious man cannot be indifferent. He says expressly, 2 Cor. 5: 4, that even to the Christian it is no pleasant thing to be unclothed, i. e. stripped of his body by death ; but that he would rather be clothed upon, i.e. be invested with his heavenly body immediately, without the intervention of death. (6) When it is said, that death, in the posterity of Adam, is the punishment which tbey must un dergo on account of his transgression, the term punishment is used in that general sense in which- it is employed in common life, and often in the Scriptures. But if it be taken in the strict philosophical Vol. II. 74 586 ART. XV. § 148. INSTRUCTIONS OF CHRIST sense (in which punishment always presupposes personal guilt), death can be properly called the punishment of sin only in reference to our first parents themselves ; with regard to others, it is indeed the consequence and result of the sin of our first parents, but not properly its punishment ; vid. § 76, III. § 78, III. 3, etc. This was remarked by many of the Church fathers, especially before the time of Augustine; and they therefore objected to calling the death of the posterity of Adam, the punishment of sin ; vid. § 79, No. 1, 2. (c) When it is said of Christ, that he frees or redeems men from (bodily) death, the meaning is, that men owe it to him, in gene ral, that the terrors of death are mitigated with regard to those who believe on him ; and in particular, that our bodies are restored at the resurrection; cf. John 11: 25, 26. This is what is meant by the redemtio a morle corporali per Christum, § 120, coll. § 111, II. 1. From the necessity itself of dying, we could not be freed, unless God should produce an entirely new race of men. Cf. Cotta, Theses theologies de novissimis, speciatim de morte naturali, Tubingen, 1762. [Also the treatise of Dr. Wm. Bates, " On the four last things," and particularly on Death, Chap. III. and IV. Tr.J § 148. Of the Christian doctrine of the continuance of the human soul, and its state after death. It is the doctrine of Christ, that the life of man is not bounded by this earthly state, but that, although he does not exist solely for the future, his life extends into eternity. The general doctrine of the Bible respecting the destination of man, as a rational and moral being, has been already exhibited in the Article on the Creation of man, § 51, II. ; and it wasthere shown to be, holiness, and temporal and eternal happiness, standing in the most intimate connexion with it. The superiority of our knowledge of the state of man after death, in comparison with that possessed by the ancient world, is not to be ascribed so much to the progress of science, as to the work of Christ, and the influence of the Christian doctrine. Those RESPECTING THE STATE AFTER DEATH. 587 who lived before Christ were not indeed wholly destitute of knowl edge respecting this important truth; indeed, many heathens, both before and after the time of Christ, suggested very important ar guments in behalf of immortality ; still they were unable to attain to any thing more than a high degree of probability on this subject ; vid. § 149. Every impartial man must concede, that Christ has] high claims to gratitude for what he has done in relation to this sub-J ject, even if he does not allow, that he has disclosed any thing new with regard to the future state of man. (1) He has connected this truth most intimately with the other/ practical truths of religion, and referred all the rest to this, in sucli a manner as no teacher before him ever did. And now, any one who acknowledges the divine authority of Christ and of the Chris tian religion, obtains a satisfactory certainty respecting this doctrine, which at best can be rendered only highly probable by the light of nature. And from believing this doctrine, all religion comes to possess for him a new interest ; and he finds in it the greatest con solation in sufferings and hardships of all kinds, — the most effectual encouragement to holiness, and the greatest dissuasive from sin. Note. The strongest philosophical proofs in behalf of immortality are de rived from the impossibility of reconciling the destruction of the whole man, with the object of his existence, and with the divine attributes ; vid. § 149. But a satisfactory certainty on this subject, and a conviction of the truth of immortality raised above all doubt, cannot be attained in this way. For the simple fact, that we, by our reason, cannot reconcile any two things, does not prove that they are irreconcilable; nor can we conclude as to the reality of any thing, merely from the fact, that it is to be wished for by us. Cf. Seneca, who says, Ep. 102, Philosophi rem hanc gratissimam peomittunt, magis quam PROBANT. (2) By the plain instruction which Christ has given respecting this subject, and the obvious reasons he has adduced for it, he lias made it universally intelligible, and in a very high degree compre hensible, even by the great mass of mankind. He has done this es pecially, by the connexion in which he has placed it with the history of his own person, by which every thing^s rendered more obvious, and receives a greater and more lively interest ; vid. § 120. Hence the remark of Paul, 2 Tim. 1: 10, is very true, that Christ by his doctrine has taken away the power of death, so that it is no more to be feared ; he has made us certain of blessedness, and for the first 588 ART. XV. § 148. SCRIPTURE PROOF OF IMMORTALITY. time placed the doctrine of eternal life (fw»J xal dqj&agala) in it clear light (qjmziaag). Cf. Einiges, Ueber das Verdienst der christ- liehen Religion um die Lehre von der Unsterblichkeit der Seele, Flensburg und Leipzig, 1788, 8vo. The following are the chief points of Christian instruction re specting the life of the soul after death. I. Scripture proof of immortality, and what is implied in h. In death, the body only dies ; but the soul survives the body, and lives on uninterruptedly, and is immortal. Here belongs the text, Matt. 10: 28, where Christ says, that tyrants and persecutors have power only over the body, and can kill that only ; but have no power to kill the soul, over which God alone has rule and power. Again, Luke 16: 19, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, vs. 22, 23, sq. Luke 20: 38, " God is not a God of the dead, but of the living." Also many passages in John, in which Jesus promises an im mortality, and that too of blessedness, to his true followers ; and as sures them, that in death their souls shall not perish ; e. g. John 5: 24. 8: 51. ch. xi. 12: 24—26. 14: 2, 3, where he says, that in his Father's house there are many mansions, and that he was going to prepare a place for them, and to bring them thither unto himself (by death) ; cf. the promise given to the malefactor on the cross, Luke 23: 43. But he always connects this doctrine with that respecting his own person. He it is to whom we are indebted . for this truth ; wjlbauthim we should not have had it. He is the purchaser and the giver of life, and of a blessed immortality ; whoever believes in him, although he may die, yet lives ; John 11: 25, 26. With this, the doctrine of the Apostles agrees ; vid. 2 Cor. 5: 1 — 10. 2 Tim. 1: 10. 1 Thess. 4: 13, seq. Phil. 1: 23. 1 Pet. 4: 6, departed Chris tians (vexgol) are regarded by men as evil-doers, and as miserable persons, who have been justly persecuted and punished ; but their spirit is introduced by God into a happy life ; so Matt. 10: 28. It pertains essentially to the immortality of the soul, that our self-consciousness will remain, and that we shall then have the con viction, that our state after death is the consequence of the life that now is ; as the Parable, Luke 16: 22, seq. plainly shows ; cf. Luke 20: 27, and John 8: 56, 'Aftgadp — tlSi tjJv t'jpigav ttjv iptjv, xal DOCTRINE OF THE SLEEP OF THE SOUL. 589 ixdgt]. Cf. also 2 Cor. 5: 8, 9, and the other texts cited by Morus, § 2, not. The doctrine respecting the sleep of the soul, does not agree with the declarations of Christ, and is directly opposed to them. Some have maintained, that the soul after death remains, for a time at least, in a state of insensibility and unconsciousness, which they! compare with sleep ; vid. § 150, where some of the texts to which \ they appeal are examined. They suppose that it is first awakened from this sleep at the last day, when it is reunited to the body, j The state in which they suppose the soul to be in the mean time is called, lethargus, and those who hold this doctrine are called vnvo- xpvxizai, and those who wholly deny the immortality of the soul, tpvxonavvvxtzai. They support their doctrine in part by an appeal^ to some figurative representations in the Holy Scriptures respecting '., the kingdom of the dead, by which it is set forth as the land of si- ' lence, darkness, and forgetfulness ; and in part by the common ex-; perience, that our souls do not feel and receive sensations except} through the body, and the organs of sense, and that, when the brain; is injured, consciousness and memory often wholly disappear. To this it is justly objected, that it is impossible to conclude, without the greatest fallacy, merely from the present constitution of man, in Which soul and body are intimately connected, how it will be hereafter, when the soul and body shall have been entirely sepa rated. Christ and the Apostles held no principles, that could lead to : the doctrine of the sleep of the soul. They rather regarded the earthly body which we inherit, as the nearest spring and source of human depravity, and of the sins arising from it, and of all conse quent pain and misery ; vid. §77, II. According to this doctrine, we obtain by death a release from many sufferings ; the disembodi ed spirit can exert its energies more freely than before, and enters upon a far greater and wider sphere of action. Cf. Rom. 8: 23, dnoXvzgmaig zov ampazog, Rom. 7: 5, 18, 23, 24, adipa &avdzov, 1 John 3: 2. — Vigilantius, in the fifth century, was accused, though unjustly, by Hieronymus of holding this opinion respecting the sleep of the soul. In the twelfth century it was condemned by Innocent III. In the sixteenth century it was advocated again by some An abaptists and Socinians, and in the seventeenth and eighteenth cen turies, by Christopher Artobe, John Heyn, and others. 590 ART. XV. § 148. INTERMEDIATE STATE II. The connexion of the life to come with the present. On this point, Christ and theapostles teach, (1) That the life after death is an immediate continuation of the present life. The soul is not altered in death, but takes along its dispositions, its habits, and whole tendency, into the future world. The life to come, taken in connexion with the present, make togeth er one whole, even as manhood is only the continuation of youth. Morus justly observes, tenore continuo necti finem vita et initia fu- tura sortis. (2) That the life to come is to be regarded as the consequence of the'present, since the consequences of all our present dispositions, inclinations, and actions, continue there. Death determines the des tiny of men in the future world. It is here that man lays the foun dation either for his future happiness or misery ; this is the state of probation, that of retribution. All this is taught in the New Testa ment, sometimes literally, and at other times figuratively ; e. g. it is sometimes represented under the image of sowing and reaping, a contest and the crowning, etc. Vid. Luke 16: 25. Heb. 9 : 27. Rom. 2: 5—12. 2 Cor. 4:7. 5: 10. 1 Tim. 6: 18, 19. Gal. 6: 7, 10, " what a man sows, that shall he also reap; he that follows his carnal appetites, shall reap q>&ogdv, the pious Christian, £mtjv alm viov." III. The intermediate state between death and the Judgment. The restoration of the body (the raising of the dead) will not take place until the end of the world, — the last day of the present constitution of things, — a period which no one knows beforehand; vid. § 151, seq. And then will every one, for the first time, receive the full measure of reward or punishment allotted him, according to his conduct in the present life ; vid. Luke 10: 12. Rom. 2: 16. 2 Cor. 5: 10. Before this time shall arrive, the disembodied spirit will be in a certain intermediate state. The exact nature pf this state, is not in deed particularly described to us ; and we are unable even to con ceive of it distinctly ; but so much the Bible plainly teaches, that immediately after death the soul passes into that state, for which, from the nature of its previous life, it is prepared. Immediately af- BETWEEN DEATH AND JUDGMENT. 591 ter death, retribution begins ; the pious are happy, and the wicked miserable, each in exact proportion to his feelings and actions ; vid. Luke 16: 22 — 25 (the Parable respecting Lazarus). This truth, too, is always placed by Christ himself and his Apostles, in inti mate connexion with his own person ; e. g. Luke 23: 43, " To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." Phil. 1: 23, dvuXvaai xal avv Xgiazm tivai. 2 Cor. 5: 8, ixStjptjaai ix zov ampazog, xal ivStjptj- aai ngog zov Kvgiov. In what the rewards and punishments of this intermediate state will consist, cannot be determined ; nor whether, in addition to those which are natural, — the necessary consequences of action and feeling, — there will also be, even then, those which are positive, and result from the free appointment of God. As to those who are lost, the Bible teaches us only this, that their punishment, — their whole state of misery, will commence immediately after death; Luke 16: 22, sq. And for this, we have the analogy of what the New Testa ment teaches respecting the miserable intermediate state of the Evil Spirits, which will last .until the day of Judgment, 2 Pet. 2: 4. Jude' v. 7 ; vid. §63. For the fate of lost men is described as one and] the same with that of Evil Spirits ; vid. Matt. 25: 41. On the oth er hand, the happy intermediate state of the pious commences also immediately after death. The texts in proof of this are cited by Morus, p. 289, § 1, not. 2. — Their blessedness is likened to that of the Holy Angels ; hence they are called by Jesus himself ladyyeXoi, Luke 20: 36. Since, now, the destiny of man is decided immediately after death, and since among men such a decision is usually made by a judgment and sentence ; there is no more proper way of representing this arrangement of God with respect to the future destiny of men, than by comparing it with a Judgment ; since it has the same effect as a formal judgment. — This has given occasion to the division of Judgment into particular or preceding (judicium particulare or an- tecedens), which denotes nothing more than the determining of the fate of men immediately after death ; and universal or subsequent (judicium universale or consequens). It is respecting the former that Paul speaks, Heb. 9: 27, " It is appointed to all men once to die, pezd Si tovzo xgiaig," i. e. then follows the determination of their destiny, whether it shall be happy or miserable ; cf. 2 Cor. 5: 10. The Pharisees also, according to Josephus (Antiq. XVIII. 2), 592 ART. XV. § 148. INTERMEDIATE STATE, ETC. taught that the soul is immortal, and after death is judged under the earth, and rewarded or punished according to its works. According to the doctrine of fhe New Testament, therefore, there is no third place, or medium, between heaven and hell, or be tween being happy and miserable ; although there are very different degrees both of the one and of the other. The intermediate condi tion of which we have spoken, must not be understood to imply any thing like this. Still an opinion like this got footing very early in the Christian church ; vid. § 150. And this gave rise to the cus tom of praying for the dead ; since men were foolish enough to im agine, that there is room to obtain an alteration in the yet unde cided destiny of departed spirits, while in truth, their destiny must depend solely upon their own actions during the present life. This custom had become very general in the fourth century, and was at that time opposed by Aerius, Presbyter of Pontus, as we learn from the testimony of Epiphanius (Haer. 75), who is very in dignant against him on this account. It was also opposed by the Spanish Presbyter, Vigilantius, in the fifth century, in reply to whom Hieronymus wrote a violent book. This doctrine was af terwards brought into connexion with that respecting Purgatory, vid. 150; and then followed masses for souls, as sacrifices for the de parted. There are also some traces of prayers for the dead even among the Grecian Jews ; e. g. 2 Mace. 12: 43 — 46, vnig vexgmv ngoaevxea&ai. Note. From what has now been said, it appears, that death, so far as it is the transition to a higher and more perfect life, and the means of bringing us to the enjoyment of it, ought not to be terrible to us, but should rather be re garded as a benefit. Those only, however, can regard it in this light, who have lived here according to their destination, who have obtained the forgive ness of their sins (Sixaiov/xcvoi) , and who go out of the world with pious and godly dispositions ; vid. 2 Cor. 5: 6—10. Phil. 1:21, 23. John 14: 1—4. IJohn 3:2,3. 1 Pet. 1:4, 5; etc. § 149. HISTORY OF OPINIONS ON IMMORTALITY. 593 § 149. Historical illustrations of the various opinions which have prevailed in ancient and modern times respecting the continuance of the soul after death ; and the proofs drawn from reason in favor of it. I. Ideas of rude nations. The ideas of most rude heathen nations respecting the state of man after death, are indeed dark and obscure, as well as their ideas respecting the nature of the soul itself, which they regard as a kind of aerial substance, resembling the body, though of a finer material; vid. §51, I. 3. Still it is found, that the greater part of mankind/ even of those who are entirely uncultivated, though they may be in capable of the higher, philosophical idea of the immortality of the soul, are yet inclined to believe, that the soul survives the body, and^> continues either forever, or at least for a long time. Their suscepti bility for this faith, and their inclination to it, depend upon the fol lowing circumstances ; viz. (1) Upon the love of life, which is deeply planted in the human breast, and operates powerfully, and leads to the wish and hope, that life will be continued even beyond the grave. (2) Besides the traditions in behalf of this faith which unculti vated nations received transmitted from their fathers, they often had dreams, in which the dead appeared to them, speaking and acting; and in this way they found their wishes, and the traditions they had received from their fathers, confirmed anew ; so that the hope of immortality was always sustained in them, and never extinguished. Thus Homer represents (II. XXIII. 103, sq.), that Achilles first be came convinced, that souls and shadowy forms have a real existence in the kingdom of shades, by the appearance to him of the departed Patroclus in a dream. So too it is represented in the parable of Christ, Luke 16: 27, where the rich man wished that LazarUs might be sent to appear before his living brethren, since if one of the dead should teach them respecting the state and destiny of the dead, they would believe. Moreover, these visions were often regarded as di vine, — dvag ix Aiog iazi, II. I. 63. But we find that many heathen nations, long before they had any philosophy, or enjoyed the light of revelation, or before they endeav.^ Vol.11. 75 594 ART. XV. § 149. IS THE DOCTRINE OF IMMORTALITY :oured to prove the immortality of the soul by arguments drawn from .reason, still possessed a firm belief of the continuance of the soul. So it was with the Egyptians, the Indians, the Thracians, the Cel ts;, the ancient Germans, the ancient Greeks and Romans ; and so it is with many of the rude heathen nations of our times. Vid. Mei- ners, Geschichte aller Religionen, S. 174, f. Hence we find nec romancy practised among the most barbarous people of all ages ; vid. § 66 ; and the prevalence of this presupposes of course, a be lief in the existence of the soul beyond the grave. Vid. Scripta Varii Argumenti, Num. III., " Orlgo opinionum de immortalitate animorum apud nationes barbaras atque a cultu veri Dei alienas.' II. Ideas of the Jewish nation. ( 1 ) Many have maintained, that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is not taught in the Old Testament. This was especial ly maintained by many Socinian writers of the sixteenth and seven teenth centuries. Others have gone so far as to construe the sup posed silence of the Old Testament writers on this subject, into a formal denial of the doctrine ; and have attempted to justify their opinion by some texts in which it seems to be said, that all is over with man at his death ; e. g. Eccl. 3: 19, sq. Is. 38: 18. Ps. 6: 6. 30:10. 88:11. 115:17. Job 7: 7—10. 10:20—22. 14:7—12. 15: 22. The Fragmentist of Wolfenbiittel attacked the divine au thority of the Jewish religion, in the most odious manner, by these objections; cf. the fourth Fragment from Lessing's Beytragen zur Geschichte und Literatur aus der Wolfentiittel'schen Bibliothek, Th. 4. S. 484, f. On the other hand, Warburton (Divine Legation of Moses) derived one of his main proofs of the divine mission of Moses, from this his supposed silence on the subject of immortality. Moses, he argues, being sustained in his legislation and government by immediate divine authority, had not the same necessity that oth er teachers have, for making use of threatenings and punish ments drawn from the future world, in order to furnish motives to obedience." (2) But even if it were true, that there is no text either in the books of Moses, or the writings of a subsequent period, in which the immortality of the soul is distinctly mentioned ; it would by no means follow, that this idea was at that time wholly unknown among TAUGHT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT? 595 the Israelites. Even from this supposition, we must draw the con trary conclusion. For, not to mention that the Israelites and their ancestors were in Egypt, where this faith was very ancient ; (accord ing to Herodotus, II. 123, the Egyptians were the first who enter tained it ; ) it is proved that the Jews held this doctrine, (a) From the laws of Moses against necromancy, or the invocation of the dead, which was very commonly practised by the Canaanites also, Deut. 18: 9-— 12, and which, notwithstanding these laws, was for a long time afterwards retained among the Israelites, as appears from 1 Sam. xxvm, and the prophets. (6) From the appropriate an cient Hebrew name for the kingdom of the dead, blNTS (aSrjg), which so often occurs in Moses and the other books of the Old Tes tament. That Moses did not, in his Laws, hold up the punishments of the future world to the terror of transgressors, is a circumstance which redounds to his praise, and cannot be alledged against him as a matter of reproach, since other legislators have been reproached with being either deluded or themselves impostors for doing this very thing. And Moses did not design to give a system of theol ogy in his Laws. (3) But from passages in his writings, it may be seen, that this doctrine was not unknown to him. These passages have been col lected by different writers with different success. Vid. Michaelis, Argumenta pro iramortalitate animi e Mose collecta, in Syntagm. Comment. T- 1. Gbttingen, 1759. Liiderwald, Untersuchung von der Kenntniss eines kiinftigen Lebens im Alten Testamente, Helm- stadt, 1781. Semler, Beantwortung der Fragen des wolfenbiittel'- schen Ungenannten. Seiler, Obserr. ad psychologiam sacram, Er- langen, 1779. The following texts from the writings of Moses may be regarded as indications of the doctrine of immortality : viz. Gen. 5: 22, 24, where it is said respecting Enoch, that because he lived a pious life, God look him, so that he was no more among men. This was de" signed to be the reward and consequence of his pious life, and it points to an invisible life with God, to which he attained without previously suffering death ; vid. § 147, III. l.-Gen. 37: 35, Ja cob says, " I will go down into b.i WIS unto my son." We have here distinctly exhibited the idea of a place, where the dead dwell connected together in a society ; vid. § 150. In conformity with this idea we must explain the phrase, to go to his Fathers, 596 ART. XV. § 149. DOCTRINE OF IMMORTALITY Gen. 15: 15; or, to be gathered to his people (more" correctly, to en ter into their habitation or abode), Gen. 25: 8. 35: 29. Num. 20: 24, etc. In the same way, many of the tribes of North American savages express their expectation of an immortality beyond the grave, by saying respecting one who is dead, that he will now see his father, grandfather, greatgrandfather, etc. Paul argues from the text, Gen. 47: 9, and similar passages, where Jacob calls his life a journey, that the Patriarchs expected a life after death, Heb. 11: 13 — 16. Only he says very truly, noggm- &ev ISovztg zdg inayyeXiag. — In Matt. 22: 23, Christ refers, in ar guing against the Sadducees, to Ex. 3: 6, where Jehovah calls him self the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (i. e their protector and the object of their worship) long after their death. It could not be, that their ashes and their dust should worship God ; hence, he con cludes, that they themselves could not have ceased to exist, but j' that, as to their souls, they still lived. Cf. Heb. 1 1: 13 — 17. And this passage was interpreted in the same way by the Jews after the time of Christ ; vid. Wetstein ad h. 1. In the subsequent books of the Old Testament, the texts of this nature are far more numerous. Still more definite descriptions are given of bitfip, and the condition of the departed there ; e. g. Is. 14: 9, sq., also in the Psalms and in Job ; vid. § 150. Even in these texts, however, the doctrine of the reward of the righteous and the pun ishment of the wicked in the kingdom of the dead is not so clearly developed, as it is in the New Testament ; this is true even of the book of Job, vid. § 151. All that we find here, with respect to this point, is only obscure intimation ; so that the Pauline noggm&tv ISovzeg is applicable, in relation to this doctrine, to the other books of the Old Testament, as well as to those of Moses. In the Psalms, there are some plain allusions to the expectation of reward and pun ishment after death ; particularly Ps. 17: 15. 49: 15, 16. 73: 24. There are some passages in the prophets, where a revivification of the , dead is spoken of, as Is. 26 : 19. Dan. 12: 2. Ezek. xxvn. But although these do not teach a literal resurrection of the dead, but rather refer to the restoration of the nation and land ; still these, and all such figurative representations, presuppose the proper idea, that an invisible part of man survives the body, and will be hereaf- ; ter united to it. — Very clear is also the passage Eccl. 12: 7, " The body must return to the earth from whence it was taken ; but the spirit to God who gave it," evidently alluding to Gen. 3: 19 AS HELD BY THE JEWS. 597 From all this we draw the conclusion, that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was not unknown to the Jews before the Babylonian Exile. This appears also from the fact, that a general expectation existed of rewards and punishments in the future world ; although in comparison with what was afterwards taught on this point, there was at that time very little definitely known respect ing it, and the doctrine, therefore, stood by no means in that near relation to religion and morality, into which it was afterwards brought ; as we see to be the fact often in other wholly uncultivat ed nations. Hence this doctrine is not so often used by the pro phets as a motive to righteousness, or to deter men from evil, or to console them in the midst of suffering. But on this very account the piety of these ancient saints deserves the more regard and admiration. It was in a high degree unpretending and disinter ested. And although the prospect of what lies beyond the grave was very indistinct in their view, and although, as Paul said, they saw the promised blessings only from afar ; they yet had pious dis positions and trusted God. They held merely to the general prom ise, that God, their Father, would cause it to be well with them, even after death. Ps. 73: 26, 28, " When my strength and my heart faileth, God will be the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever." But it was not until after the Babylonian Captivity, that the ideas of the Jews on this subject appear to have become enlarged, and that this doctrine was brought by the prophets, under the divine guidance, into a more immediate connexion with religion. This result becomes very apparent after the reign of the Grecian kings over Syria and Egypt, and their persecutions of the Jews. The prophets and teachers living at that time, (of whose writings, howev er, nothing has come down to us,) must therefore have given to their nation, time after time, more instruction upon this subject, and must have explained and unfolded the allusions to it in the earlier pro phets. And so we find, that after this time, more frequently than be fore, the Jews sought and found, in this doctrine of immortality and of future retribution, consolation and encouragement under their trials, and a motive to piety. Such discourses were, therefore, fre quently put in the mouths of the martyrs in the second Book of Maccabees; e. g. 6: 26. 7: 9, sq. coll. 12:43-45; cf. also the Book of Wisdom 2: 1, sq. and especially 3: 1, sq., and the other apocryphal books of the Old Testament. 598 ART. XV. § 149. PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS At the time, of Christ and afterwards, this doctrine was univer sally received and taught by the Pharisees, and was indeed the pre vailing belief among the Jews*; as is well known from the testimony of the New Testament, of Josephus, and also of Philo. Tacitus also notices this firm belief of the Jews in the immortality of the soul. In his history (v. 5) he says, animas pralio aut suppliciis perempto- rum aternas putant. Cf. an' Essay comparing the ideas of the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament on the subjects of immor tality, resurrection, judgment, and retribution, with those of the New Testament, written by Frisch, in Eichhorn's Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur, B. IV. Ziegler's Theol. Abhand. Th. II. No. 4. Flugge, Geschichte des Glaubens an Unsterblichkeit, u. s. w. Th. I. — But the Sadducees, and they only, boasting a great attach ment to the Old Testament, and especially to the books of Moses, denied this doctrine, and at the same time the existence of the soul, as distinct from the body. But Christ did more to illustrate and confirm this consoling doc trine, than had been before done among the Jews or any other peo ple ; and he first gave to it that high practical interest which it now possesses ; vid. § 148, at the beginning. III. Philosophical arguments. As soon as they began in heathen nations to philosophize, and to investigate more closely the doctrines relating to God and the nature and destination of man, they saw the importance and great practical interest of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. It was found to exist already as a popular belief; but they now en deavoured to give it philosophical proof and demonstration. Here, , as in other things, the Greeks distinguished themselves above other nations. They laid the first ground of those philosophical proofs which were afterwards enforced anew by Christian philosophers, and corrected and farther developed. In the varied web of proof in our modern philosophical schools, the chief threads, and as it were the entire material, are of Grecian origin. According to the testi mony of Cicero, the first Grecian philosopher who investigated this subject was Pherecydes ; but according to Diogenes Laertius, it was Thales. The followers of Socrates, however, did the most for this doctrine, and especially Plato in his Phsedon. The Platonic ar- IN BEHALF OF IMMORTALITY. 599 guinents are found collected in the Tusculan Questions of Cicero (1. 23), and also briefly stated in his Treatise,De Senectute, c. 21 , sq. With regard to these proofs, it is difficult for us, with our present ideas, to see how the soul, separated from the body, could maintain its own subsistence or personality, since according to Plato, it is on ly a part of the soul of the world, to which after death, it will re-. turn. There were, however, some among the Grecians who denied, or at least doubted, the immortality of the soul. Among these was Epicurus. The Stoics contended, indeed, for the continuance of the soul after death, but not for its absolute immortality, with regard to which they were accustomed to speak doubtfully ; as, for exam ple, Seneca often does in his Epistles. The opinions of Aristotle on this subject are doubtful ; many of his disciples have concluded from his principles, that the soul is not immortal ; e. g. among his old followers, Dicaearchus ; among the later Aristotelians, Averrhoes, in the twelfth century, and Peter Pomponatius, in the fifteenth and six teenth centuries, in his book, " De animi immortalitate," edited anew by Prof. Christi. Gottfr. Bardili, Tiibigen, 1791, 8vo. He en deavours in this work to show, that according to the principles of the Averrhoistic-Aristotelian philosophy, the immortality of the soul cannot be demonstrated on natural grounds. Even among Christians, there have been some who have denied the immortality of the soul. There was, for example, an Arabian teacher, in the third century, against whom Origen wrote, who maintained that the soul dies with the body, but is again raised with it at the last day, — an opinion which was revived in the seventeenth century by William Coward, a London physician. Still more strange is the opinion of H. Dodwell, who in a work published in London, 1706, contended that souls are naturally mortal, but become immor tal only by means of Christian Baptism. The opinions of some of the grosser materialists of modern times are well known ; e. g. of Toland, Helvetius, de laMettrie, and the au thor of the Systeme de la nature, who were followed in this by many of the so called philosophers who wrote during the French Revolu tion ; — also many of the sceptics, who thought nothing could be de termined on this subject; e. g. Hume. A few words respecting these philosophic arguments themselves. It has been justly remarked by philosophers of modern times, espe- 600 ART. XV. § 149. METAPHYSICAL AND MORAL PROOFS dally by Wolf, that three things are involved in the immortality of the soul : (a) the uninterrupted continuance of the substance of the soul ; (6) the continuance of its consciousness; and consequently (c) the lasting recollection of the soul, that its state after death is a conse quence of that which preceded. This is very true ; but long before these philosophers wrote, all these points were taught in the Christ ian doctrine ; as we have already seen in § 148 ; cf. the single pas sage Luke xvi. These philosophical proofs are either metaphysical, i. e. drawn from the idea which we have of the nature and attributes of the hu man soul ; or moral, i. e. deduced from the relation between God and the human soul, or, which is the same thing, from the attributes and designs of God, and the destination of man, as a moral being, as learned from the attributes of God. — The foundation for all these arguments was laid by the Greeks, and by those who drew inimedi- ately from them. In modern times, however, they have been revised and rendered more accurate, and better adapted to the pre vailing systems of philosophy. (1) The metaphysical proofs are derived from the simple nature of the soul (its immateriality), from its inherent and essential activ ity, and from the maxim that simple things and elementary powers do not perish; vid. Cic. de Senectute, 21, sq. None but God can destroy the essential being of the soul ; but it cannot be shown, that he either will destroy it, or wishes so to do. But from this argu ment nothing more than the bare possibility of the immortality of the soul could be shown. But this possibility, if it depends merely upon the will of God, is quite as obvious, even if the soul has not that absolutely simple nature which is ascribed to it. In general, a complete metaphysical proof is impossible, because we know so lit tle of the true nature of the soul. The doctrine of the simplicity of the human soul, in the strict philosophical sense of this term, is a mere philosophical hyphothesis ; vid. § 51, I. 3, Note. (2) The moral proofs are far more conclusive ; though still not strong enough wholly to exclude all doubt and solicitude ; vid. the introductory remarks to § 148. Some of these moral proofs were urg ed by Plato and Cicero, in the passages above cited. The supposi tion of the mortality of the soul contradicts all our^ ideas of the attri butes of God, — his wisdom, goodness, and justice. Is the duration of man limited to the present life, then the destination of man, and OF THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL 601 the designs of God with regard to him, are the most inexplica ble riddle, and every thing is full of contradictions. But if this life ijnot the last, decisive state of man, but is to be regarded only as a state of education, trial, purification, and preparation for a future life; then the plan and connexion of things becomes clear and obvi ous. We are moral beings, and find in our souls capacities for ev er increasing moral improvement, and we feel a longing after im mortality, in order to make higher advances in that moral and spir itual perfection, in which the attainments of the best during the present life are so imperfect. These capacities and this longing, are to be regarded as promises from the Creator. For were they never to be satisfied, he would not have placed them in the soul, as it could not have been his design to deceive us. If our souls are not immortal, then the beasts, which have merely an animal nature, and no rational and moral part, are far better in their condition, than we, to whom a higher destination has plainly been given ; for they can develope their constitutional capacities, and can satisfy the innate propensities of their natures. And shall not we, the nobler creation of God, be able to develope the far more perfect spiritual and moral powers which he has given us, and to satisfy our spiritual wants 1 The whole system of the r ights and duties of moral beings would appear to be a web of incongruities, if the present life were the only one. And, in fine, the disorder and injustice which are obvious in the destiny of men in their earthly life, almost irresistibly compel us, to admit this doctrine to be true, and to console ourselves in the midst of these disorders by the belief of it. The manifest disorders of the present state occasioned great difficulty to all think ing men of former times, who did not fully and distinctly admit the truth of a future life and future retribution; vid. Job 24: 1, sq. Eccl. 8: 10, 11, 14. 9: 1—3. Vid. § 71, especially No. VI. ad fin. Cf. L. H. Jacob, Beweis fur die Unsterblichkeit der Seele aus dem Begriffe der Pflicht, Zullichau, 1790, 8vo. This proof is drawn out on the principles of the Kantian philosophy, and was written in an swer to the prize-question, proposed by the Stolpic Institute atLeiden, " Whether there are any duties, which, on grounds of reason, a man would feel himself bound to perform, if he did not believe the soul to be immortal 1" Vol. II. 76 602 ART. XV. § 150. DOCTRINE OF TRANSMIGRATION. Note. The following are some of the principal modern writers on the im mortality of the soul : Clark, Sherlock, Addison, Reinbeck, Canz, Reimarus, Vornehmste Wahrheiten der natarlichen Religion, 10 Abhand. Spalding, Die Bestimmung des Menschen. Jerusalem, Betrachtungen Qber die Wahr heiten der Religion, Th. 1. 6 Beytr. Noesselt, Vertheidigung der christlichen Religion. Mendelsohn, Phsedon. Villetle, Unterredungen Uber die Gluck- seligkeit des ktlnftingen Lebens. Kant, Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, and the work of Jacob above cited. — The history of this doctrine has been given by Oporin, Franz, Cotta, Hennings, and Flugge, with which cf. Strovius, Historia doctr. Grsecor et R.omanorum philos. de statu animarum post mortem, Alten. 1803, 8vo. Simon, Geschichte des Glaubens an die Fortdauer der Seele nach dem Tode, an Gespenster, u. rs. w. Heilbronu, 1804, Svo. Nic. Aug. Herricb, Sylloge Scriptorum de Spiritibus puris et animabus humanis earumque materialitate, immortalitate, et statu post mortem, deque anima bes- tiarum, Regensburg, 1790, 80. [Matth. Claudius, Wandsbecker Bote, Th.(5.— Hahn, Lehrbuch, S. 634, fT. and his history of this doctrine, S. 641, ff. — Tr.] §150. Of some of the most important of the various opinions re specting the place of departed souls, and their condition there. I. The place i of their abode. (1) Among many rude nations, and also among some which are cultivated (e. g. in America, Thibet, and Hindostan), the opinion is found to prevail, that the soul passes from one body into another, sometimes another human body, sometimes that of beasts, or even into plants and trees. This was called ptztpipvxmatg, by Pliny transfigurutio. Originally this transmigration of souls was not re garded as a matter of retribution, or as a means of purification. This turn was not given to the doctrine until a period of higher cul tivation. It came to be understood in this light, for example, by Pythagoras and Plato among the Greeks. The belief in this doo- trine seems rather to have rested, at first, upon a certain supposed analogy in nature, where one body is observed always to pass into another, and even when it seems to perish, only alters its form, and returns in a different shape. This belief may have also sprung in part from the almost universal idea, that every thing in the whole HADES SUPPOSED TO BE SUBTERRANEAN. 603 creation is animated by a soul, especially every thing possessing an internal life and power of motion, e. g. plants. This doctrine of the transmigration of souls has also been held in modern times by many of the Jews; vid. Eisenmenger, Entdeck- tes Judenthum, Th. II. cap. 61. It cannot however be shown, that this opinion prevailed among the Jews at the time of Christ, partic ularly among the Pharisees, either by the passages of the New Testament cited in favor of it, or by those from Josephus, Antiq. XVIII. .2. Bell. Jud. II. 12. Among Christians, this notion has met with but little favor ; and it has without reason been ascribed to the Gnostics, Manicheans, and even to Origen. The reason of its being ascribed to the latter, was his belief in the preexistence of the soul ; vid. § 57, II. 1, — a belief which in some philosophical systems, is intimately connected with the doctrine of the transmigration of the soul. — Since the seventeenth century, this has been again regarded as a probable doc trine, on account of some analogy in the material world, and has been again advocated by Helmont, Edelmann, Lessing (Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts). [Note. The doctrine of the transmigration of souls has received new light from the investigations which have been made of late in Eastern literature. A deeply interesting exhibition of this subject is given by Fred. Schlegel in his " Philosophic der Geschichte." B. I. S. 147. He there shows, that this is one of the most fundamental doctrines of faith in the Eastern world, that it rests upon a religious basis, and, even in the earliest periods, was connected with the idea of retribution and sanctification. The soul, it is supposed, after having been soiled and corrupted by its contact with the body and the world, must expiate its sins by wandering, for an appointed cycle, through various forms of uncongenial matter. By enduring these penal sufferings for a. long time, it becomes purified, and prepared to mingle again in the original, pure fountain from which it proceeded. At the bottom of this whole belief, lies the deep and just feeling, that after man has wandered so far from God, in or der to approach him again, he must travel with great labor through along and dreary way ; and also the conviction, that nothing which is imperfect or stained with sin, can enter into the pure world of blessed spirits, or be forever united with God. Tr.] (2) Far more general was the opinion among the ancient na tions, that the abode of departed spirits is under the earth ; because the dead are laid beneath the ground, and their body returns to the dust. The souls there separated from their bodies, were regarded as a sort of aerial beings, or shades (t'ISmXa, umbra) ; vid. § 66, II. 604 ART. XV. § 150. VARIOUS OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENTS coll. §59, 1. Taken as a whole, the ancient Eastern nations and the Greeks agreed in this point ; while still it is not necessary to sup pose, that the latter borrowed their ideas from the former. This place was denominated by the Hebrews blN'ii , by the Greeks 'dSrjg, — the word by which the LXX. always translate bitfttj . The term aStjg is explained by Plutarch (De Is. et Osir.) by deiSig, dogazov, dark, where one sees nothing. It is allegorically explained by Plato in his Cratylus, as the invisible world, because the place is unseen. — Neither of these terms is used in the Scriptures, to signify exactly the grave, still less the place of the damned; nor are they used in this sense by any of the fathers in the three first centuries; vid. § 96, I. The same place is called among the Hebrews rri'Firin y?.Ntl , as in Homer JW yalav, vno xev&eai yalag, and the en trance to it is placed by the Greeks in the extreme West. Where the sun goes down, and his light and fire are extinguished, there, it was naturally supposed, is the place where all things perish, and where darkness reigns. Both the Hebrews and Greeks describe this Under-world as a great kingdom, and both use the phrase, gates of death or Hades ; cf. Homer. Here, according to the ideas of men in the earliest ages, the shades of the good and the bad dwell together, without any distinction, or any marked separation. Thus it is where bi&WJ is introduced in the Old Testament; e.g. Is. xiv., where there is a kind of distinction of rank, and kings sit upon thrones ; but where nothing definite and clear is said, respecting a distinction in the places of the pious and the wicked. Thus in Homer, too, even those who are punished are in the same place with the other shades, Odys. XI. 575, sq. But after a time, these places in the lower world were divided, and the residences of the righteous and the wicked were conceived of as separate. Thus Tartarus among the Greeks, which during the time of Homer and Hesiod was regarded merely as the prison of the Titans, became gradually the universal abode of the damned. So it is with Plato and others, who are followed by Virgil, ^En. VI. In the same way did the conceptions of the Jews on this subject become more developed in later periods. According to Luke 16: 23 — 26, both the rich man and Lazarus are in Hades ; but a wide gulf (yaapa piya), as it is figuratively represented in the parable, separates the fields of the blessed from the place of the damned ; no AS TO THE KINGDOM OF THE DEAD. 605 one may or can pass from the one to the other. The Jews too, in imitation of the Greeks, called the place of punishment where wick ed men and angels are reserved unto the day of judgment, zdgzagog, vid. Joseph. Bell. Jud. II. 7. 2 Pet. 2: 4, where zagzagom appears, cf. § 63, II. From this it appears, that the sacred writers retained the phrase- \ ology common among their contemporaries, in order to be more easily | understood by them, and to make a stronger impression upon their minds. They, however, used all this only in the way of figure and < figurative representation, by which they designed to set forth the, most important truths with regard to the state of departed spirits ^ as any one may see from Luke xvi. 2 Pet. n. etc. The whole kingdom of the dead is described by the ancients in a threefold method ; viz. (a) as a dark, desolate, silent region, the land of forgetfulness, rest, and inactivity ; since the dead rest si lently in the grave under the earth, and are cut off from all connex ion with the living world ; cf. the texts cited from the Old Testa ment, § 149, II. (in ink.). This gave rise to the idea respecting the sleep of the soul in after times. (6) Again it was described as a king dom full of motion and activity, and as resembling as nearly as pos sible the present world ; cf. Is. xiv. (c) But in process of time, these two representations were connected together, in a great variety of ways. Now the sacred writers, and Christ himself, often make use of figurative expressions, borrowed from these ideas, though they also frequently exchange them for others which are more literal. Thus what Christ represents in Luke xxi., under the image of a steep wall ed grave, he describes elsewhere without a figure ; viz. that the states of men in the future world will be very diverse, but exactly apportioned, both as to happiness and misery, according to their con duct in this life, and that it will not depend upon the choice of men to pass from one state to the other ; cf. Matt. xxv. The hindran ces here are as great and insurmountable, as a deep chasm is, to one who would pass from one place to another ; cf. § 148, I. The ancient languages were still more deficient than those of the present day, in philosophically definite expressions for objects be yond the cognizance of the senses. Indeed, many things could not be so much as conceived of, without a symbolical representation ; hence such are often found even in the writings of Plato, and other 606 ART. XV. § 150. OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENTS Grecian philosophers. According to this method, one coiild not in deed teach in so exact and definite a manner ; but he would make a stronger impression upon the feelings and desires, and succeed better in awakening religious dispositions among those who were unacquainted with philosophical language. This hint is very im portant for the religious teacher. If he follows the method of in struction pursued in schools of philosophy, and adopts their phrase ology, he will accomplish but little, and often be entirely unintelligi ble to his hearers. He must follow the example of the Bible, and make use alternately of figurative and literal representations. In fact, the whole representation of the invisible world must be figura tive and symbolical, even when we make use of the most literal ex pressions in our power. It is all a mere comparison of the invisible world, with something like it in the world of sense. For what the Apostle said, " eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard," etc. is liter ally true in application to this subject. With regard to Orcus, and the different views entertained on this subject among Christians, cf. Cotta, De inferno ejusque sede, Tubingen, 1775. As to the ideas of the Hebrews, cf. the works of Ziegler and Amnion, Ueber das Todtenreich der Hebraer, Erlan- gen, 1792. Cf. also, an excursus of Heyne on the fourth ^Eneid, and other works cited below. Note. To any unprejudiced observer it cannot but appear a great excel lence in the Bible, and especially the New Testament, that it takes no part in the absurd conceptions which have often prevailed on this subject, and from which the greatest philosophers are not altogether free ; e.g. Plato. And on the other hand, the Bible is equally deserving of praise for not exhibiting pure truths in metaphysical language, and making them the object of dry and curious speculation, but, on the contrary, in the highest degree intelligible, so that their practical application is obvious to every one. (3) But many believed, that departed souls remain in or about the graves or dwellings of the dead, either forever, or for a long time. So many nations of different degrees of cultivation. The opinion was formerly very widely diffused, that departed spirits linger for a long time around the dead body, or at least sometimes return to it from the kingdom of the dead ; and hence in part the belief in spec tres, § 66, II. These* ideas prevailed to some extent among the Jews and many Christians ; and even at the Concil. Iliberit. in the year 313, it is forbidden, to kindle a light in burying grounds, lest the spirits of the saints should be disturbed. AS TO THE STATE OF DEPARTED SOULS. 607 & 11. Opinions respecting the state of departed souls. (1) It is apparent from what has been said, that according to the ideas of the ancients, the employments, the state and life of departed souls resemble the life of men in this upper world, — an idea in which many germs of truth are involved. We find nothing said re specting the sleep of the soul either in the Old or New Testaments, nor in the earliest monuments of other nations ; vid. § 148. Quite as foreign frqni the conceptions of the earliest periods is the idea, that the dead have no recollection of their earthly life,, and take no interest in human affairs. The opposite of this is clear from the earliest records, e. g. from Homer (Odys. XI- poll. !'• XXII. 389, 390), and from tlie Holy Scriptures (Is. xiv. Luke xvi). It was for this reason, that so many nations believed, that the dead some times return, appear to men, and have personal intercourse with the living. And hence too the error of invoking the saints. These su perstitious conclusions, however, are not favored by the dqctrine of Christ; vid. Luke 16: 27—31. It was very natural, even for nations having no direct revelation, to come to the thought, that the shades in Hades recognize each other, have mutual intercourse, and perpetuate the friendship begun in the present life. This idea might, indeed, like many others, have been abstracted from the mere phantoms of a dream. For in dreams, our departed friends appear to be cognizable, as Patroclus did to Achilles, even as to his eyes, voice, and stature, II. XXIII. 66, sq. 107. This may be justified also by an appeal to Scripture, Luke xvi. Heb. 12: 23, and Revelation. The soul, indeed, is no longer regarded as a fine material substance, as it often was in an cient times ; but these delightful views lose nothing on this account, as some have most unphilosophically supposed. For one may be recognized otherwise than by his body, and may be loved too other wise than corporeally. Why then should not departed souls recog nize each other, even when they no longer possess bodies ? (2) In the childhood of nations, the ideas of men have been com monly very vague and indefinite with regard to the happy or miser able state of departed souls ; cf. Meiners, Geschichte der Religionen, S. 174 — 178. With regard to what the Israelites in the earliest times knew on this subject, while they yet saw the promises in an 608 ART. XV. § 150. OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENTS obscure distance, cf. § 149. II. — Many of the heathen nations rep resented the state of the dead, not indeed as wholly miserable ; still they regarded it as not altogether desirable, and often as rather worse, than better, in comparison with their state in this world. Achilles in Hades does not speak of death very favorably ; but would rather till the field on earth, as a day-laborer, than to rule all the hosts of the Shades ; Odys. XI. 487. For the Elysium in Ho mer is not as yet the residence of the departed souls of men, but on ly the abode of heroes or demigods. But by degrees they advanced to more enlarged and correct con ceptions. The Greeks then supposed, that good men participate hereafter, in the joys of Elysium, and that crimes are punished in Hades. At first, however, only the grosser offences were supposed liable to punishment there ; and in Homer, one offence only, perju ry, II. III. 278. XIX. 259, 260. This indicates the great simpli city, and the very defective ideas on moral subjects, which still pre vailed, since only the very grossest crimes were regarded as worthy of punishment. Afterwards, in the greater advance of cultivation, and the higher perfection of mora] ideas, the number of crimes pun ished in Hades was very much increased ; and at length it was be lieved, that every virtue is there rewarded and every vice punished. So it is represented by Plato, and other Grecian philosophers ; so also, in imitation of them, by Virgil, ^Eneid VI. ; vid. Heyne, Ex- curs. 1 and 8. A gradual developement of ideas is also noticed among the Isra elites. In general, the great multitude among them, as among oth er people, formed very gross conceptions respecting the joys and pains following death, and regarded them as merely corporeal; since they were unable to conceive of any other. Many understood liter ally the expressions, to be in Abraham's bosom, to sit down at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; the more enlightened, however, used them only as figurative expressions, as Christ himself always understood and explained them in his instructions ; e. g. Luke xvi. • (3) The doctrine respecting an intermediate state of departed souls, and respecting purgatory ; cf. § 148, III., and Morus, p. 290. Such a state, in which the fate of men is undecided un til the day of Judgment, — a state which is neither heaven nor hell, neither being blessed nor damned, was supposed by many of the Church Fathers, e. g. Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. RESPECTING PURGATORY. 609 Only some eminent saints and martyrs, it was supposed, come at once into heaven ; and only the grossest sinners go at once to Hell. ' This intermediate state they call, taking the appellation from Luke xvi., Sinum Abrahami. To this they referred the text 1 Pet. 3: 19, / xa iv qvXaxtj nvevpaza ; vid. § 96. Thither Christ went, and res cued from thence the patriarchs and other pious men, who had died before his atonement was made. This place was afterwards called, limbus (superior or exterior pars inferni) patrum ; and a limbus infantium was also supposed (and is is still believed by the Romish Church), into which children go, because they are not ac tually condemned, having committed no peccata actualia, while still, in consequence of original sin , they are unable to attain to the blessed vision of God. The foundation for the doctrine of purgatory is found even in i the second and third centuries. Its origin may be traced back to the Pythagorean or Platonic philosophy. Souls, according to Plato, are a part of the divine nature, which, however, are confined in the body, as in a prison ; vid. § 74, I. ad finem. Now, even after the soul of man is disembodied, there still cleaves to it much sin and impurity, acquired from its contact with the body, and this impurity is regarded by Plato, as a natural sickness. It cannot, therefore, immediately on leaving the body, return again to its original source. With some, the disorder is incurable, and these are the lost, who go at once to Tartarus ; with others, it is curable ; and these are purged and purified in Hades. This process Plato compared with purification (xd&agaig) by water, air, and fire ; and represented this state as an intermediate one. Vid. Plato, Phaedon, c. 62 ; and Virgil, Mneid VI. 735—751, and Heyne, Excur. XIII. This, with many other Platonic doctrines and fables, was early transferred to Christianity. We find traces of it among the Gnos tics (according to the testimony of Irenaeus, II. 51, sq.), in the writ ings of Clement of Alexandria, in the second century, and of Ori gen, in the third. But after the fourth century, it was more widely diffused through the Latin Church. It is found in Hieronymus, Lactantius, Ambrosius, and even Augustine ; the latter of whom, however, though he speaks of ignis pur gatorius, regards the subject as doubtful. In the sixth century, this doctrine was taught by Gregory the Great, in the eighth by Beda, Boniface, and others- It was supposed, that those Christians only who commit no delibe- Vol. II. 77 610 ART. XV. § 150. ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY. rate sin after baptism, are exempt from this punishment ; or such as become martyrs, or who, by assuming the monastic life, have made atonement for their sins. — Gross offenders, — those who, according to Plato, are irrecoverably disordered, pass immediately after death into Hell. Those who have not sinned so grossly (who are recover able), or whose repentance commences in the present life, but remains imperfect, although they are not eternally condemned, yet do not attain at once to the enjoyment of God. Such persons, it was sup posed, need to be purified, and to make expiation for their sins, by the endurance of certain penalties appointed by God, conceived of under the image of purifying by fire. The advocates of this view endeavoured to support it by such texts of Scripture as the follow ing ; viz. 1 Cor. 3: 13 (as by fire), Jude v. 23. Mai. 3: 2. 2 Mace. 12: 39. This doctrine became connected with many opinions and prac tices equally unscriptural, especially with offering prayer for the dead, and making satisfaction to relieve them from punishment ; and also with the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, as a sacrifice for the dead, — a doctrine which prevailed during the eleventh and twelfth centuries ; at which time also, masses offered in order to free souls from purgatory, became common. As early as the eleventh century, the feast of all souls was appointed by Pope John xvm. This doctrine was now adopted by the schoolmen into their systems, e. g. by Peter of Lombardy, Thomas Aquinas, and others. The most frightful representations were given of purgatory, founded upon stories of the apparition of souls from thence, etc. The theologians, too, con tended respecting the place, manner, and duration of this punish ment. And the Council at Florence, in 1439, gave this doctrine the authority of a formal article of faith. As such, it still continues in the Romish Church, and was re-established by the Council at Trent. This doctrine, however, of the Romish Church respecting Pur gatory, as it has been gradually developed by the schoolmen, and as it was established by the Council at Florence, differs in two es sential points from the old Platonic notion, which was adopted by Origen and other Church Fathers; viz. (a) According to Or igen and the Platonists, all without exception are subjected to this purification, although some need it more, and others less. But according to the opinion of the Romish Church, those only go into § 151. RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 611 Purgatory, who, though they have been baptized and believe, are not of perfect virtue. (6) According to Origen and the Platonic idea, the whole design of this suffering is'to promote the moral improve ment and perfection of men ; but according to the conception of the Romish Church, it is designed to make atonement and expiation for Note. Works on this subject, (a) Historical : Jac. Windet, ^rpajpazeig iitioroXixog de vita functorum statu ex Hebraorum et Grsecorum compar- atis sententiis concinnatus, Londini, 1663 — 64. — Systeme des anciens et des modernes sur l'etat des aines separees de corps, a Londres, 1757, 2 Tom. 8vo. — Thorn. Burnet, De statu mortuorum et resurgentium, London, 1757, against which, and in behalf of the Romish doctrine, there were treatises written by Muratori, Columna, and others. — Baumgarten, Hist, doctrines de statu anima- rum separatarum, Halse, 1754. — Cotta, Recentiores qusedam controversise de statu animi post mortem, Tubingen, 1758. — (b) Philosophical and doctrinal works. — Wernsdorf, de animarum separatarum statu, earumdemque cum vivis commercio, in his " Collec. Disputt." Tom. I. Num.15. — The best and latest works on the state of the soul after death are collected by Loscher, Dresden, 1735. — Meier, Philosophische Belrachtung vom Zustande der Seele nach dem Tode, Halle, 1769. — J. E. Schubert, Gedanken vom ewigen Leben, undZu- stand der Seele nach dem Tode, Jena, 1747. — J. C. Lavater, Aussichten in die Ewigkeit, Zurich, 1773, 3 Th. 8vo. Other works are cited § 160. § 151 . What is understood by the resurrection of the dead ; the meaning of the word resurrection ; and what is taught re specting it by the Jews. I. What is understood by the resurrection of the dead. By this is meant, the revivification of the human body after it has been forsaken by the soul, or, the reunion of the soul hereafter with the body which it had occupied in the present world. Death was compared with sleep, and the deau body with a sleeping person, bTaiiia , xoiptj&evzeg, § 147, I. Hence the terms which literally signify, to awake, to rise up, to rise out of sleep, are also used to de note the resurrection of the lifeless body ; e. g. in Hebrew the terms, Dip,tr>pn; and in Hellenistic Greek, aviattjpt, dvdoTaoig (with 612 ART. XV. §151. THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION the Rabbins Maipfi), eyelgm, and eyegaig ix vexgmv. Of the literal sense of these terms, examples may be found every where ; cases of the derived signification occur, where these terms are used with the qualification ix vexgmv, e. g. where the resurrection of Christ is spoken of, and that of others whose body is to be restored like his ; vid. John 5: 21, 28. 1 Cor. 15: 3, 4, 20, 53. The Jews were also accustomed to speak of the resurrection of the dead under the image of a new or second birth, to which they were led by the passage Is. 26: 19, " the earth will again bring forth her dead;" vid. Michaelis's Commentary on Heb. 1:5. — Again, dviaztjpi was used even by the ancient classical Greeks, to denote the returning of the dead to life. So it was in Homer, II. XXI. 54, sq., where Achilles says, " What a wonder ! all the Tro jans slain by me shall again arise from the kingdom of the dead (dvaaztjaovzat) ;" cf. II. XXIV. 756. Cicero and Livy designate this idea by the phrase ab inferis exsistcre. In Aeschylus, the term dvdazaaig is used for the same thing. But the same terms which signify arising, and the being aioak- enedfrom sleep, also denote figuratively, (1) a restoration to a more happy condition, in opposition to a state of fall and prostration. In this general sense, they are used in two ways ; viz. physically, e. g. a sick man rising from his bed and recovering his health, is said avaaztjvai, Is. 38: 9; and again in a moral sense, used with refer ence to the reformation of a man, who rises from his fall. And so (2) the terms resurrection from the dead,, and being raised from the dead, denote figuratively (a) external and physical restoration to a happy condition, death being the representative of misery, and life of happiness ; e. g. Is. 26: 19, 20. Ezek. xxxvn., where the subject is the restoration of the Jews after a long and terrible persecution, and the reward of the virtuous, cf. Dathe, a. 1. ; (6) a moral restora tion or renovation of men ; e. g. Eph. 5: 14, eyeige .... dvaaza ix vexgdtv, coll. 1: 19, 20, and Rom. 8: 10, etc. II. Doctrine of the Jews respecting the resurrection of the dead. (1) There are obvious traces of the doctrine, that the soul will survive the body, even in the oldest Jewish writings ; vid. § 149, II. ; but of the doctrine, that the body will hereafter be raised to life and the whole man be restored, there are no very clear intimations in the UNKNOWN TO THE EARLIER JEWS. 613 earliest writings. There is nothing in these writings which is in consistent with such a doctrine, or opposed to it ; but neither, on the other hand, was there, in those early ages, any distinct information or revelation communicated on this subject. The passage Job 19: 25, sq. is indeed cited in behalf of this opinion, and such a con struction of this passage is strenuously vindicated by Michaelis and Schultens. According to the Vulgate, which Luther for the most part follows, this passage very clearly teaches this doctrine ; and many persons, having been accustomed to this rendering from their youth, are startled by any doubts with respect to it. But, (a) It is remarkable, that neither the ancient Jewish teachers, nor Christ or his apostles, ever appealed to this passage, which ap pears so plain to us. This explanation, therefore, appears to have been unknown to them ; nor can there be found any trace of it in the Septuagint. (6) It is not in itself probable, that this doctrine should have been at once so clearly revealed in so ancient a writing. This would be contrary to all analogy. For knowledge of this kind has always been gradually developed, and the revelations made to man follow in regular gradation one after another. J (c) If Job had such distinct expectations and hopes, it is hard to account for it, that he did not earlier express them, that he did not oftener console himself with them, and that he constantly recurs to his old complaints and doubts, which would have been entirely set aside and answered by the knowledge of any such doctrine. (d) Nor can it be accounted for, that his friends should have replied nothing to the statement of such a doctrine as this, since they take up, one by one, all his remarks, his complaints, and his consolations, and refute them. Would they, now, have passed by unnoticed this most important of all his arguments ? (e) From many passages in the book of Job it is clear, that he was indeed acquainted with a life after death (he speaks of iitfp) ; but there is no satisfactory evidence, that he believed in a state of retribution beyond the grave ; vid. ch: 14: 7 — 12. 7: 6. 9: 25. 17: 11—16. 16: 22, sq. (f) The common translation of this passage, according to which it is made to teach so plainly the doctrine of the resurrection, does violence to the words of the original, and is contrary to the whole usus loquendi of the Bible. This Michaelis perceived. He there- 614 ART. XV. § 151. EXPLANATION OF JOB 19: 25, Sq. fore alters the text, and by a comparison with the ancient dialects, makes out an artificial rendering, according to which the passage treats of the resurrection. The most natural construction of this passage is, to understand it as relating to Job's restoration to health and recovery from sick ness, which he so ardently wished and hoped for ; vid. Morus, p. 293. This text would then be illustrated by one still more plain in the same book, viz. ch. 42: 5. He refutes thenational prejudice, which his friends were continually objecting against him, that sickness and other external calamities are always to be regarded as the conse quence of sins committed by the sufferer. He pleads, that even piety and rectitude are not always exempt from these calamities. It is on this account, that he cherishes the hope, which he elsewhere expresses, that God will justify him, in the view of his enemies and accusers, by an entire restoration ; and this hope becomes here so strong, that it leads him to look upon his recovery as certain. Cf. Eichhorn's Essay, Hiob's Hoffnungen, in his " Allgemeinen Biblio- thek. der biblischen Literatur," B. I. S. 367 ; also Henke, Narratio Critica de interpretatione loci Job 19: 25, 27, in antiqua ecclesia, Helmst. 1783, 4to. (in his "Opusc") According to this view, the text may be translated as follows: " I know that my Redeemer lives. And ere long he, who now lies in the dust, will arise (he who is deeply bowed down by sickness and pain, will recover) ; although my skin is consumed, I shall yet in this body see God (i. e. have in him a gracious God, be bles sed and restored by him) ; as a friend shall I see him, and no more as an adversary. I wait, full of longing desire, for his help. Then shall ye say, when my innocence is clear, why did we persecute this man?" — Ilgen, in his work, " Jobi antiquissimi carminis hebraici natura atque virtutes," p. 161, seq. thus translates : " Vivit, scio enim, causa? raeae patronus. Qui contemtus in pulverejacet, victor caput attolet. Haerebo adhuc in cute, dira hac vi contusa : ex hac cuticula videbo Deum. Quern ego mihi videbo propitium, quem hisce oculis cernam animo non alienatum. O quam enecat renes desiderii ardor !" There are no distinct intimations of the doctrine of the resurrec tion of the body in the writings of Moses, or in the Psalms ; for Ps. 49: 15, does not relate to this subject ; still less does Ps. 104: 29, 30, though cited by Theodoret as one of the proof-texts of DEVELOPEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF RESURRECTION. 615 this doctrine. Isaiah is the first writer who compares the restora tion of the Jewish people and state, 'with a resurrection from the dead ; ch. 26: 19, 20. In this he was followed by Ezekiel at the time of the exile ; ch. xxxvn. From these passages, we must con clude, that something respecting this doctrine was known at that time among the Israelites ; still they do not seem to have seen it in that clear light, in which it was afterwards revealed ; since in that case, the prophets would probably have mentioned it oftener and more distinctly in their writings. But the text, Dan. 12: 2, leads very plainly to this doctrine ; for here is something more than a mere civil restoration. " Those who lie sleeping under the earth \ will awake ; some to eternal life, others to everlasting shame and contempt." Judging then from the writings of the Jews, they appear to have been destitute of any complete knowledge of this doctrine until the exile, and indeed, for a considerable period after. Still, there is nothing in the Old Testament which contradicts this doctrine ; it is only not plainly revealed. For where it is said (e. g. Ps. 88: 11), " that the dead shall not rise again and praise God," it is plainly meant, that they will never return to this upper world, and into the society of men living upon the earth ; — they can never again, in company with us, and in the circle of the living, praise God. Cf Ps. 6: 6. 30: 10. Is. 38: 18, coll. v. 20. (2) It was not, then, until the Babylonian exile, and more espe cially after this period, that this doctrine was developed and diffused among the Jews. We are not acquainted with the more particular occasion which led to this developement, or what prophets or teach ers, after Daniel, were employed in giving this doctrine a wider circulation. For just in this place, there is a great gap in the doc trinal history of the Jews; since no writings of the prophets or teachers of this period have come down to us. So much only is known on this subject from the information which has come down to us : viz. (a) About the time when the Jews came under the Grecian do minion, the doctrine of a future retribution was more developed among them, than it had before been, and was employed by them in a practical way, as a means of consolation under suffering and persecution ; vid. § 149, II. (6) It is known also, that even at that time, the doctrine of the 616 ART. XV. § 151. OPINIONS OF THE JEWS resurrection of the body was most intimately connected with the doctrine of retribution. It was then taught, that the^erfect and happy condition of man would first commence, when his soul should be hereafter united again to his body. They did not therefore com monly separate these two things in their conceptions -T but always connected the thought of the continuance of the soul after death with the idea of its future union with the body ; indeed they sup posed, that the blessedness of man could not be complete, until his soul should be reunited to his body. Hence they comprehend un der the term dvdazaaig, the entire future condition of man. For according to the doctrine of the Jews, with which the Holy Scrip tures accord, man is not merely in this life a being compounded of sense. and reason ; but he will continue the same in the life to come; except only that, in case of the good, there will be none of that pre ponderance of sense over reason, which has its foundation in our earthly bodies. Cf. the Essay, " De nexu resurrectionis J. C. e- mortuis et mortuorum," in Scripta Varii Argumenti, Num. ix. Thus we find it, for the first time, in the second book of Macca bees, where the martyrs are made to express the hope, by which they were consoled, of a coming resurrection ; e. g. 7: 9, tig almviov ava- (limaiv £mtjg tjpag dvaaztjaei, and v. 14, ndXiv dvaaztjaea&ai vno &eov, and dvdazaaig elg £mr]v, also vs. 23, 29, 36 ; but especially chap. 12: 43 — 45, where it is said, it would be foolish to pray for the dead, if they did not rise again. And so we find, both among the later Jewish and earlier Christian writers, that there is no distinc tion made between immortality and the resurrection, but that both are considered as the same thing ; vid. the passages from the Rabbins cited in Schottgen's Hor. Heb. ad Joh. V. — It is the same frequent ly in the New Testament ; e. g. Matt. 22: 31, where the dvdazaaig vexgmv is argued from the fact, that God calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even after their death ; although, ac cording to our present usage, in which resurrection and immortality are distinguished, this fact would only prove the continuance of the soul after death. Again ; 1 Cor. 15: 32, el vexgol ovx iyeigovzai, qidyoipev xal nimpev, x. t. X. But wherever dvdazaaig a m paxog, or a a g x 6 g is spoken of, the resurrection of the body and its con nexion with the soul, are alone intended. The Jews, therefore, would regard the restoration of man as in complete, unless his body were restored. They believed the latter es- RESPECTING THE RESURRECTION. 617 sential to the entire restitution of man, because in the present life he consists of both soul and body. And as the body here partici pates in our virtues and vices, and their consequences ; so, they sup posed, it would hereafter participate in our reward or punishment. Hence they represent the intermediate state, in which the soul ex ists without the body, as an imperfect state. It is compared by them to nakedness (and the same is done by Plato), e. g. in the Chal daic paraphrases, Job 3S: 14, etc. So Paul, ov yvpvol evgtj&tjoo- pe&u, 2 Cor. 5: 2—4. The greater part of the Jews formed very gross conceptions re specting the rewards and enjoyments of the blessed in the future state, and many of them perverted the doctrine of the resurrection of the body to suit these conceptions. For they were for the most part better acquainted with the grosser corporeal pleasures, than with the higher spiritual joys, for which indeed they had but little taste or capacity. They thus pictured to themselves the future life as entire ly resembling the present, except in being exempt from all sufferings and unpleasant sensations. They believed that men would eat and drink, and satisfy their other animal appetites, in the same way there as here. Doctrines like these were taught by many of the most dis tinguished Rabbins who lived after the time of Christ, and even by Maimonides. It is said in Rev. 2: 7, and 22: 2, 14, that the tree of life is placed in Heaven, and its fruit is there eaten, as the means of obtaining immortality. This representation is figurative; but many of the Jews understood such descriptions literally, and believ ed in a kind of food for angels or gods, like nectar and ambrosia. — It was against such gross material representations, which have no necessary connexion with this doctrine, but which were often asso ciated with it, that the Sadducees directed their wit ; and they made these incongruities ridiculous. This was their object, when they proposed to Jesus the case of the woman, who had several brothers, one after another in succession, for husbands, Matt. 22: 24, sq. Others, better instructed, separated from their conceptions of the future state, these grosser indulgences, and thus escaped this ridi cule. They taught, that we shall hereafter possess a more refin ed body, which will not be dependent for its nourishment upon food, and which will not propagate the race. This was the opin ion of most of the Pharisees at the time of Christ, and the same was afterwards maintained by most of the Jewish teachers. For when Vol. II. 78 618 ART. XV. § 151. OPINIONS OF THE JEWS Christ said, that " the risen saints would not marry, but be as the angels of God," the Pharisees entirely assented, Matt. 22: 30, coll. Luke 20: 39, and the texts cited from the Rabbins in Wetstein on Matt. 22: 30. — With regard to the use of food, Paul says expressly, that it will entirely cease in the future world, &tog xoiXlav xal figm- paza xazagytjaei, i. e. he will take them away, and enable us to do without them. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body was, therefore, common among the Jews at the time of Christ and the Apostles. Vid. Matt. xxn. Luke xx. Acts 23: 6—8. So, in John 11: 24, the Jewess Martha speaks of the resurrection of the dead, as a thing well known and undoubted. Josephus indeed (Ant. XVIII. 2), ex presses himself doubtfully with regard to the Pharisees, — " they be lieve that the soul is immortal, and can easily return to life (dvafilm- aai)," and again (Bell. Jud. II. 7), "they maintain that the souls of the pious pass into other bodies (pezufiulveiv elg i'ztgov ampa)." Here Josephus, in his usual manner, so represents designedly the Jewish doctrine, that the Greeks and Romans, to whom the resur rection of the body appeared absurd, should suppose the transmigra tion of souls to be intended, while at the same time the Jews should understand, that the resurrection of the dead was spoken of. But, from the texts cited from the New Testament, it appears that the Pharisees, like the other Jews, believed in a resurrection. There were some among the Jews of the opinion, that the wick ed would not receive a body in the future world. Josephus says, in the passage cited, that even the Pharisees believed, that the souls of the wicked would not pass into other bodies (i. e. that the wicked would not rise again), but that they would be eternally punished. It may perhaps be, that this was taught by some at the time of Jose phus; but during the first century, it was the more prevailing be lief, even among the Pharisees, that both the righteous and the wicked would share in the coming resurrection. For in Acts 24: 15, Paul says expressly, that he agrees with the Pharisees and other Jews (in opposition to the Sadducees), in maintaining the dvdazaaiv, and that not only of the righteous, but also of the wicked (Sixaimv tt xaldSixmv). But frequent traces of this opinion are to be found in the Chaldaic Paraphrases, and in the writings of the Rabbins af ter the time of Christ ; although it never became general among the Jews. This opinion came naturally from the idea, that the happi- RESPECTING THE RESURRECTION. 619 ness of the good would be incomplete without the body ; and so it was made a part of the wretchedness of the wicked, not to come again into possession of a body. Another cause of this opinion, is the allegorical explanation which they gave to some passages in the Old Testament; e. g. Ps. 1 : 5, trs-jjn WjV-tfb, Sept. ovx dvaaztjaovzai ol doefielg. Indeed, many maintain ed the entire annihilation of the wicked, both as to soul and body. Vid. Theod. Dassovii Dissert, qua Judaeor. de resurrectione mortuorum sententia explicatur, c. 4 ; also Menasse ben Israel, De resur. mort. L. III. Amst. 1636, where many of the Jewish fancies respecting the resurrection of the dead are collected together. — This opinion respecting the non-resurrection of the wicked, has found advocates even among Christian writers, especially of the So- einian party. Note. The term dvdoTvvat ix vexpojv is used once in the New Testament, to denote the return of a departed soul to the world, and its reappearance in its supposed body of shade, viz. Luke 16: 31, coll. vs. 27, 28, 30 ; like the sense in which the phrase, ab inferis exsistere, is sometimes used. (3) Since the doctrine of the future resurrection of the body was not very plainly taught in the books of Moses, or elsewhere in the Old Testament (as it seems not to have been fully revealed in those earlier ages) ; it is not to be wondered at, that some of the Jews took occasion or derived a pretext from this, either to deny this doctrine, or to doubt respecting it. This was done, not merely by the Sad- ducees, who denied in general that the soul of man is of a nature different from his body, and that it can continue after death (vid. Acts 23: 8,sq. and Josephus in the passage before cited), on the ground that this doctrine is not taught in Moses or in all the Old Testa ment ; but also by other Jews, especially those, it seems, who had imbibed the Grecian (the Pythagorean or Platonic) philosophy, or who at any rate entertained ideas respecting the body similar to those taught in this philosophy, making it a prison for the soul, from which it is freed by death, when it returns to God. Thus, according to Josephus (Bell. Jud. II. 7), did the Essenes believe. They seem, therefore, not to have maintained the resur rection of the body, although they believed in the immortality of the soul. Even Josephus carefully avoids the words dvdazaaig and dvlaztjpi, when he describes the doctrines of the Pharisees and Sad- ducees, and expresses himself ambiguously, in order not to displease 620 ART. XII. § 152. CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE the Greeks and Romans for whom he principally wrote, and to whom the doctrine of the resurrection of the body would appear not only new, but, according to the principles of the philosophy prevail ing among them, offensive and absurd. And so Paul was ridiculed at Athens by the Grecian philosophers, when he taught the resur rection of the dead, Acts 17 : 32, coll. 26: 6—8, and vs. 23, 24. At a later period, Lucian and Celsus employed their wit against the same doctrine in Origen and others ; and Pliny says (Hist. Nat. II. 7), that if it is impossible for God to destroy himself, it is equally impossible for him, mortales aternitate donare, et in vitam revocare defunctos. — There have always been some among the modern Jews, who have been inclined to the doctrine of the Sadducees, and who have frequently been opposed by the Rabbins ; vid. Wetstein on Matt. xxn. § 152. The Christian doctrine respecting the resurrection of the body. I. What Christ and the Apostles have done for this doctrine, and respecting the douhts of some Christians. At the time of Christ and the apostles, this doctrine had already become prevalent among the Jews, § 151, II. ; although it was not clearly revealed in their older religious books. Through Christ, it was now for the first time distinctly established anew, and revealed on divine authority. In those very discourses of our Sa viour, in which he designs to prove himself divine in the highest sense, he plainly and definitely brings forward this doctrine, as a constituent part of his religious system ; e. g. Matt. xxn. John v. vm. xi. Without this explanation and positive assurance, on his part and that of his disciples, this doctrine would still have been doubtful. But those who regard Christ and his apostles as being what they profess to be, ought not, and cannot be any longer in doubt. Christ and his Apostles, however, corrected the false notions on this subject, which at that time prevailed among at least a large OF THE RESURRECTION. 621 portion of the Jews, and made the whole matter more obvious and intelligible. But this doctrine has derived a special interest and demonstration from the fact, that it is placed in the most intimate connexion with the history of the person of Christ, and that he is represented as the one to whom we are indebted for this benefit. It is most intimately connected with his death, his resurrection, and his exalted state in heaven ; vid. § 1 19, ad finem, and § 120, I. — The Apostles rested the doctrine of our resurrection mainly upon that of Christ, cf. 1 Cor. xv. 1 Thess. 4: 14 ; they preached through Jesus (iv zm 'itjaov) the resurrection of the dead, Acts 4: 2; and hence they call him the first that rose from the dead, Acts 26: 23. 1 Cor. 15: 20, et alibi. And from this Paul argues, that if it is ac knowledged that Christ rose from the dead, there can be no reason to deny or think it impossible, that there should be a general resur rection of all men, 1 Cor. 15: 12, sq. Cf. Mosheim, Diss. " qua docetur Christum resurrectionem mortuorum corporum, qualem Christiani credunt, e tenebris in lucem revocasse et demonstrasse," in his Dissertations " ad hist. eccl. pertinent." Vol. II. p. 586. Cf. also the Essay, " De nexu resurrectionis Christi e mortuis et mortu orum," in " Scripta Varii Argumenti," Num. IX. But this doctrine has been doubted or denied by many Chris tians in modern times. (1 ) It appears from 1 Cor. xv. and 2 Tim. 2: 18, that even dur ing the life of the Apostles, there were Christians to whom this doc trine seemed doubtful, if they did not wholly deny it, because it did not accord with their preconceived opinions ; although it cannot be shown, that they at the same time denied the immortality of the soul. These may have been either Gentile converts (for this doc trine was peculiarly offensive to the heathen, vid. § 151, ad finem), or converts from Judaism, who had agreed on this point with the Essenes or the Sadducees. To the latter class belong Hymenals and Philetus, Xeyovzeg xyjv avdazaaiv tjSrj yeyovevai. They proba bly understood the term dvdazaaig, as used in the Old Testament and by Christ, to signify, the introduction of a person into a better state, or improvement of life, vid. § 151, I. This, they supposed, was already accomplished by Christ, and that a resurrection, in the literal sense, is not to be looked for. Hence Paul endeavours, 1 Cor. xv. in part to obviate the objections of the Sadducees and Gentiles, and in part to separate and distinguish the true doctrine from the gross and earthly conceptions of many of the Jews. 622 ART. XV. § 152. BIBLICAL REPRESENTATION Still the opinion, that there will be no restoration of the body, has always found place among some Christians ; especially among the Gnostics, who were led to reject this doctrine by their views respect ing matter, and by their method of interpreting Scripture. So thought Manes, in the third century, and his numerous followers in after times ; also the Priscillianists in Spain ; likewise Hierax, at the commencement of the fourth century, who would allow of only a spiritual resurrection, or a resurrection of the soul. And so in all succeeding ages, there have always been those among Christians, who have either secretly doubted, or openly rejected this doctrine. Cf. Dr.' Hammer, Mortuorum in vitam revocatio, sermonibus Chris ti histories interpretationis ope vindicata, Lips. 1794. (2) In modern times, many Prostestant theologians (e. g. Ecker- mann, Henke, Ammon, etc.) have endeavoured to explain away from the New Testament the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, notwithstanding the many clear passages by which it is supported. They have maintained, that this dogma is no part of the Christian System. It was, in their view, through mere condescension to the prevailing opinions of the Jews, that Christ and the Apostles em ployed the common language on this point, which must accord ingly be understood in a different sense, viz. a sense agreeing with the philosophical ideas prevailing in the nineteenth century. There is not, however, the remotest hint, in all the words of Christ and the Apostles, that they meant to be understood figurative ly ; and if this method of interpretation were adopted, nothing of the Christian System would be left behind. That the words of Christ and the Apostles are to be understood literally on this sub ject, is plain from this, that it is affirmed of Christ, that he himself now possesses a body in his heavenly state in the kingdom of the blessed, and that we shall hereafter resemble him in this respect, and possess a body which will be like his glorious body ; § 153. II. Biblical representation. The principal texts of Scripture which relate to this subject, are John 5: 21—29. 6: 39, 40. Matt. 22: 23, sq. 1 Cor. xv. Acts 24: 14, 15. 1 Thess. 4: 13. Phil. 3: 21. With regard to the principal points taught in these passages, we remark, (1) The raising of the dead is ascribed expressly to Christ, OF THE RESURRECTION. 623 and it is represented as the last work which will be undertaken by him for the salvation of man. Paul says, 1 Cor. 15: 22, sq., " As through Adam all die, so through Christ shall all be made alive ; — through him shall death, the last enemy, be conquered ; — and then shall his work as Messiah be completed, and he will lay down his government." Christ himself said, that he had received power for this purpose from the Father, John 5: 21, " The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and live. For as the Father £mtjv e'xei iv iavtm (i. e. is the original source of all life, and possesses, as Crea tor, all-quickening power); he hath given to the Son also power, to quicken the dead." And in John 11: 25, where he is about to raise the lifeless body of Lazarus, he says respecting himself, that he is t] dvdazaaig xal t] ^mtj, the one who' would raise the body, and give life to the dead. Cf. 1 Thess. 4: 14 and Rev. 1: 18, e'xei xXelg zov aSov xal zov &ayazov. (2) All the dead will hereafter be raised, without respect to age, rank, or moral character in this world. So the New Testament teaches throughout ; especially in opposition to the opinions of some Jews, §151, II. 2, ad finem, coll. § 120, I. 2, Note. So 1 Cor. 15: 22, iv 'ASdp ndvzeg dno&vtjaxovai, to which is opposed iv Xgiazm ndvzeg ^monoitj&tjaovzai. Acts 24: 15, dvaazaaig vexgmv, Stxaioiv Tt xal dSlxmv. And Christ himself says, John 5: 28, 29, " All who are in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and those who have done well ixnogevaovzai elg avaazaaiv £mtjg (i. e. elg £wjji/), those who have done evil, tig avaazaaiv xglotmg. This was a common mode of speech among the Jews (vid. Mace. 7: 14, coll. 12: 43, dvdazaaig tig fwrjj/), which is obviously taken from Dan. 12: 2. (3) The resurrection of the body, however, will not take place before the end of the world, or the general judgment.— This, too, was the common doctrine of the Jews at the time of Christ; hence Martha says, John 11: 24, "that she knows her brother will rise at the last day, (iv ztj iaxdztj npiga)." And this opinion is everywhere confirmed by Christ. In John 5: 21 , he not only connects the res urrection and judgment most intimately together, but in John 6: 39, 40, he expressly promises his followers, dvaaztjam [tig £mt]v] iv'zj iaxdztj npiga. And so in 1 Cor. 15: 22—28, the resurrec tion is placed in obvious connexion with the nagovaia of Christ, af ter which the end of the world will immediately come ; and in 624 ART. XV. § 152. VARIOUS REPRESENTATIONS 1 Thess. 4: 15, it is said, that those who survive the nagovalav of Christ, will not attain either sooner or later to the enjoyment of heavenly blessedness, than xoiptj&evteg ; but that the dead 'and liv ing will meet Christ at the same time, that they may be forever with him ; cf. Rev. 20: 11, sq. The resurrection of the dead, then, will take place, when the Christian Church on earth shall cease ; but this, according to the clear declarations of Christ, shall last un til the end of the world. This cannot be reconciled with the hypothesis of Priestley, who attempts to show, that the resurrection will take place immediately after death. The same hypothesis has been advocated in a work enti tled, " Auferstehung der Todten nach der eigentlichen Lehre Jesu Christi," by Joh. Fr. des Cotes, Court preacher at Nassau ; and still better in the " Beytragen zur Befbrderung des vernunftigen Den- kens in der Religion," 2tes Heft, S. 76, f., and 3tes Heft, S. 39, f. It is indeed true, that the disembodied existence of the soul beyond the grave is comprehended in the writings of the Jews and of the New Testament, under the term dvdazaaig- but this is not all which is comprised in this term ; and the dvdazaaig will not be complete and perfect, until the body also is raised ; vid. § 151, II. 2. Again, these Pauline texts are opposed to the opinion of the Chiliasts, that there is a twofold resurrection ; an earlier, that of the pious, and a later, that of the wicked, or of the heathen. An dvdazaaig ngmzt] is, indeed, mentioned in Rev. 20: 5, 6, but the phrase admits easily of another interpretation. (4) As to the manner in which the resurrection will take place, the New Testament gives us no definite information, by which our curiosity can be wholly satisfied ; and this, doubtless, because such information could be neither intelligible to us, nor of any use. The whole matter lies beyond the sphere of our knowledge. In speaking on this subject, Christ and the Apostles sometimes make use of ex pressions which are figurative (and of such there were many current among the Jews) ; and sometimes, they content themselves with proving the possibility and intelligibleness of the thing, in opposi tion to doubters and scoffers, and with making it plain by ex amples. (a) Among the more figurative representations and expressions, at least, among those in which there is some intermixture of what is figurative, the representation contained in John v., is commonly reck- RESPECTING THE MANNER OF THE RESURRECTION. 625 oned ; viz. the representation, that the voice of Christ will penetrate the graves, in order to awaken the dead. The image is here that of a sleeper, who is aroused by a loud call ; and some understand the representation as so entirely figurative, that they exclude any audible or perceptible sound. It cannot, however, be shown that Christ meant to exclude these. For in the resurrection of Lazarus, of the young man at Nain, and the daughter of Jairus, the voice of Christ was heard by them, and was the means of raising them to life. Still the voice, merely as such, is not the efficient cause of the work, but the almighty power accompanying it; and so it is said of God, when he produces any effect by his creative power, that he speaks, his voice sounds forth. The Jews supposed, that the dead would be awakened by the sound of a trumpet. Traces of this opinion are to be found in the Chaldaic paraphrasts. At first this representation belonged only to the figurative phraseology of prophecy ; for the people were com monly assembled by the sound of the trumpet, as was the case in the assembling at Sinai ; and in general, a trumpet was used to give signs and signals, e. g. for an onset in battle, etc. Afterwards, this representation was literally understood, and the size of the trumpet was supposed to be a thousand yards, and that it was blown seven times ; vid. Wetstein and Semler on 1 Cor. 15: 52. In this passage, Paul uses the term iv iaxdztj adXniyyt, (aaXnlaei ydg,) — vexgol iy- tg&tjaovzai. The same poetic phraseology is employed in 1 Thess. 4: 16, " Christ will come with a shout, with the voice of the arch angel, and iv adXmyyi &tov (the trump given him by God), xal ol vtxgol avaaztfiovzai." In this representation, there is much, indeed, which is figurative, and which belongs to the prophetic imagery (as in Matt. xxiv. and in the Apocalypse) ; and we are not now able to determine the meaning of all the particular traits in the picture. But the great thought which we must hold fast, is very obvious, viz. Christ will solemnly and visibly appear in his majesty, and by his divine pow er raise all the dead. In other passages, this truth is literally ex pressed e.o-. Phil. 3:21, where it is said, that Christ will do this by the power, by which he is able to subdue all things to himself, i e by his ivigytia, his omnipotence, which surmounts all difficul ties and hindrances, and brings to pass, what appears to men im- possible. Vol. II. 79 626 ART. XV. § 152. PROOF OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A RESURRECTION. (6) The possibility of the resurrection of the dead, is illustrat ed by Paul in opposition to those who regarded it as impossible or contradictory, I Cor. 15: 35, sq. by comparing it with events of common occurrence in the natural world, which seem to us less wonderful only because they are common. " How is it possible," it was asked, " that the dead should be raised t" (ndig iytlgovzai vex- gol;) He replies : "The grain of corn cast into the ground, can not rise (CmoTioielzai) until it die" (dno&dvtj, vid. John 12: 24). This appears unintelligible ; and we should regard it as impossible, if we did not see it actually accomplished. Why then should not God be able to raise men, and from their present bodies, to produce others ? This is a fine comparison to illustrate the possibility of this event. — Again, he shows by the example of Christ, that the dead can be raised, vs. 12 — 14. And so the Apostles always, e. g. Acts 4: 2, xazayyiXXeiv iv zm 'ftjaov ztjv dvdoTaatv vexgmv. Cf. Morus, Diss. Inaug. ad 1 Cor. 15: 35 — 55, Lipsiae, 1782. Note. Many modern writers also have endeavoured in various other ways, to show the possibility of the resurrection, and in this have availed themselves of the observations of naturalists. The common fault with these comparisons, is, that either the alledged facts are untrue and imaginary, or have nothing resembling the resurrection. It must be considered a fault of the first kind, to endeavour, as Fecht, von Frankenau, and others have done, to illustrate the resurrection by the alledged palingenesia of plants, or their restoration from their ashes by means of a chemical process, which in fact is nothing more than an exhibition of the image of the plant ; vid. Wiegleb, Natdrliche Magie. It is a fault of the other class, to apply to this subject the observation, that there is only one mass of matter upon the earth, and that nothing is lost, nothing perishes, but still revives again, only under forms which are ever new. But this revivification is very different from the resurrection of the dead. For in the former case, there is no consciousness of the previous state. The inanimate body of a man may furnish nourishment to a beast of prey or to a vegetable, so that its parts will become incorporated with those of the beast or the plant, and contribute to their nourishment and growth. But is this resurrection ? The principal thing in the resurrection, is the reunion of the soul with the body. But if these attempts have not succeeded, it is equally vain to attempt, by reasons a priori, to prove the impossibility of the restoration of the body. Respecting the question, whether our souls will remain after death without a body, nothing can be definitely determined by philosophy; but the negative opinion is not only liable to no philosophical objection, but has in its favor this fact, which is universally observed, that the different species of beings are not essentially altered, or as it were made anew, through all the changes to which they are subject, but still preserve their peculiar and characteristic fea- § 152. NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL BODY. 627 tures ; so that the wonderful gradation in the works of God is preserved un broken. Thus there are beings wholly spiritual (as the angels are described to be in the Scriptures); there are beings composed of reason and sense (as men, and perhaps many in other worlds) ; and finally, there are animate beings con sisting wholly of sense, and having no moral nature (such as the beasts). Since now the latter class subsists by itself, and is so separate from the forego- ing, that there is no example of a mere animal becoming a rational being ; it may from this analogy be expected, that it will be the same with man, and that, even in the future world, he will not become a merely spiritual being, but remain, as now, compounded of spirit and matter, and consequently will hereafter become again possessed of a body. § 153. Doctrine of the New Testament respecting the nature of the body which we shall receive at the resurrection ; and the opin ions of theologians on this point. I. Difference of the future body from the present. That there is a difference between the two, in respect to their entire constitution and the objects of their existence, we are taught by the New Testament. The body received at the resurrection will be immortal, and, is designed for an entirely different world from the present. The chief characteristic of the resurrection-body is placed by the New Testament in its dqj&agaia, and its other excellencies are derived from this ; vid. the texts cited by Morus p. 292, not. 8. It cannot therefore be wholly constituted like our present body, which is designed only for this world. One of the most important texts on this subject is 1 Cor. 15: 50, adg% xal alpa §uaiXtiav &eov xXtjgovopelv ov Svvazai, i. e. man, in the present imperfect state of his body (Theodoret well says, tj &vtj- tt) cpvaig), is incapable of heavenly bliss. For the mortal body (qs&ogd, i. e. adipa qj&agzov), cannot partake of eternal life (dqj&ag- aia, immortality). Blood; according to the conception of the whole ancient world, is found only among men and other animals, who are nourished by the food of our earth ; and not among the immortals, who do not taste of this food. The gods, therefore, in the opinion of the ancient Greeks, had no blood (they were dvuipovtg), and were immortal, because they ate no bread and drank no wine. 628 ART. XV. § 153. THE SPIRITUAL BODY In Homer, (II. V. 341, sq. VI. 142,) men are called, in opposi tion to the gods, (igozoi, those who eat the fruit of the field. The body of the gods was regarded by them as a true" body and in human form, but only framed more perfectly, and from a finer material ; it was by no means that shadowy body ascribed to departed souls ; vid. § 150, § 66, II. And so was the body of those raised up at the last day conceived of, as no mere shadowy form, but as a true body, though without flesh and blood. The Greeks supposed that their gods ate a food peculiar to them selves, nectar and ambrosia ; and so the great multitude of the Jews supposed, that those who are raised to be inhabitants of heaven, partake of a kind of heavenly food; vid. § 151,11. 2, and § 59, II. respecting angels. There have always been Christians who have maintained the same thing ; and even in modern times, some have expressed themselves at least doubtfully on this point ; e. g. Mich aelis. But the passage 1 Cor. 6: 13, (already cited § 151,) teaches exactly the contrary. The gods of the Greeks were supposed to mar ry, and to indulge in the sexual propensities ; and some Jews imag ined the same thing with regard to the angels and those raised from the dead ; but this idea is rejected by Christ, Matt. 22: 30; cf. the sections before cited. Here then is a separation between what is true and false in the prevailing popular conceptions, which is worthy of notice. In these conceptions, there is often much which is true, and the germ of truth, which is fully developed. But the learned often mistake in re jecting certain ideas, merely because they are the common con ceptions of the people. Not so Christ ; he only distinguishes be tween what is false and true in these conceptions. > Respecting the nature of the heavenly body, and its difference from the earthly, Paul expresses himself very fully in 1 Cor. 15: 35, sq. noim ampaxi egyovzai; sc. e sepulcris. (a) He takes a compar ison from' a grain of wheat, from which an entirely new body is developed, whose form and properties are very different from those of the seed sown. (6) God makes material things in very different forms, and with different constitutions, on account of their different destination. The body of fishes, of birds, and of beasts, is not the same; their nature and attributes are wholly different, vs. 39 — 41. And so must our heavenly body be organized differently from the earthly, because it has a different end. (c) The heavenly body will WILL BE LIKE THAT OF CHRIST. 629 have great preeminence over the earthly. V. 42, sq., aniigezai (i. e. sepelitur, sc. ampa) iv q>&ogq, i. e. qj&agzov, perishable. The se quel is to be explained in the same way ; for iv dzipia read azi- pdv, deformed, disfigured; aa&tvig, feeble, powerless; xjivxi^o, carnal, animal, because in this life, the animal propensities must be indulged. But when it is raised, it will be a body, iv dqt&agola, i. e. dqj&agzov, immortal, indestructible ; ivSo^ov, beautified, glorious ; Svvazov, strong and mighty ; and nvevpatixov, spiritual, exempt from every thing which is imperfect in the material body. In short, our earthly body is, like Adam's, from the earth (ix yijg, jjoVjcoi/); the future body will, like that which Christ now possesses, be a heavenly body (i% ovgavov). And here Paul makes the observation, that Christ had not at first (ngmzov, while he here lived upon the earth), that more per fect, spiritual body (nvevpazixov),"bat that which was natural (ipvxi- xov); and afterwards (t'neiza, after his ascent to Heaven) that which was spiritual. . Therefore he did not possess it immediately after his resurrection, while he was yet upon the earth, for he then ate and drank, John xxi. ; but he first received it, when he passed into the Heavens ; cf. § 97, II. That our body will be like that of Christ, is plainly taught, v. 49; qsogiaopev zrjv tlxova tov inovgaviov [Xgiazov]; and still more plainly, Phil. 3: 21, "Christ will transform (pezaaxnpaziaei) our earthly' perishable body (ampa zaneivmaemg), into the resemblance of his heavenly body (ampa oo^s); cf- Rom. 6: 9. This heavenly body is commonly called glorified, for so SeSolaapevov is translated. This translation, however, may give occasion to unfounded accessory conceptions with regard to the splendor, etc of the heavenly body. The simple idea conveyed by this expression is glorious, excellent, perfected, ennobled; vid. Morus, p. 292, n. 8. Those who are alive at the last day, will not indeed die, like other men, § 147, II. Still, according to the doctrine of Paul, their bodies must undergo a change, like that which it was necessary for the earthly body of Christ to experience, before it entered the heav ens • vid 1 Cor. 15: 51, ndvzeg piv o v (non sollicitanda lectio) xoiL&naope&a, ndvzeg Si dXXaynoopt&a, i. e. their bodies must be changed, in order that they may be adapted to their future destina tion and abode, and be no more perishable and destructible. For the mortal body must become immortal, v. 53, coll. 2 Cor. 5: 4. 630 ART. XV. § 153. WHAT IS MEANT BY 1 Thess. 4: 15, sq. In Phil. 3: 21, this change is expressed by the word pezaaxripazl£eiv. Some of the Jews also appear to have main tained, that such a change would take place with those alive at the last day ; vid. Wetstein on 1 Cor. 15: 54. Such is the doctrine which we are plainly taught in the New Testament respecting the constitution of our future body. Let not, therefore, the Christian doctrine be charged with all the absurdities and fancies which dreaming heads have suggested respecting the nature, form, size and uses of the spiritual body ; nor with the fic tions even of some theologians respecting cor pore pellucido,penetran- ti, illocali, invisibili, prafulgido, impalpabili, etc. — From the texts already cited, as well as from others, it is plain, that the more perfect body which we shall hereafter receive, will contribute very much to our heavenly blessedness, as on the other hand, our present frail body greatly conduces to our present suffering and imperfection. But how far our glorified body will affect our future blessedness, cannot be definitely determined from the Holy Scriptures; vid. Mo rus pp. 299, 300, § 10. Note. The Bible says indeed plainly, that the bodies even of the wicked will be again raised, but it no where informs us particularly what their nature and state will be. The first Christian teachers, however, imagined without doubt, that their state would be such, as to agravate the sufferings of the wicked ; as they supposed, on the other hand, that the body which the right eous would receive, would contribute to the heightening of their joys and blessedness. II. Identity of the future with the present body. Notwithstanding the difference between the body which we now have, and that which we shall possess hereafter, it is still taught in the schools of theology, that our future body will be, in substance, the same with the present ; vid. Morus p. 291 sq. § 3, not. 6. This, however, is denied by some, who maintain, that the body which be lievers will receive at the resurrection will be entirely new, of a to tally different kind, and not having a particle of the present body be longing to it. So in modern times, have some Socinian theologians taught; also Burnet in his work, De statu mortuorum et resurgen tium, c. 9 ; likewise Less, in his " Praktische Dogmatik," and oth ers. They ground their opinion upon the fact, that the parts of our body in the process of time, and in the ordinary course of nat ure, became incorporated with many thousand other human bodies. THE IDENTITY OF THE FUTURE AND PRESENT BODY. 631 To which, therefore, they ask, of all these thousand, do they appro priately belong ? And if every human body should again receive all the parts which ever belonged to it, it would be a monster. In order to obviate these difficulties, it is justly remarked by others, that there is no reason to suppose, that each and every part of the earthly body will be hereafter raised ; but only that its finer elementary materials will be restored. For the grosser parts of the body, which appear to exist only for the filling out of the whole, and for holding it together, (like the stones for filling up, in a building,) are in constant flux, and fall off from the body, while yet it cannot be said, that we have lost our body, or received a new one. In re spect to these grosser parts, our body in early childhood was totally different from our present body ; and in old age, it will be differ ent from that which we now have. Still we call it, through these different periods, our body, and regard it as being the same. In common language we say, with our eyes we have seen, or with these hands we have done, what took place twenty or thirty years ago. In this way, we may speak of identity in a more general and popular sense ; and understood in this sense, the identity of the body through all the periods of its existence may be spoken of, with out impropriety. It is not implied in this, that the body will be hereafter constituted of precisely the same materials which it here possesses ; nor that it will again have the same form, limbs, and or gans, which it now has ; but that, from all the parts of which our present body is composed, the most fit and the most noble will be chosen by God, and of these the heavenly body will be constructed. What conceptions the first Christian teachers formed as to the manner of this, we cannot clearly ascertain ; nor is it possible, that while we remain upon the earth, we should be able to understand this matter fully. So much, however, is plain, that the inspired teachers did not believe, that an entirely new body would be hereaf ter created for us ; but that there would be a kind of identity, in the popular sense of the term, between the heavenly and earthly body. Such is the implication of the terms so often employed by them, to awaken or call forth the dead from their graves, vid. John 5: 28, 29 ; also of the representation, that the sea and Sheol should give up their dead, Rev. 20: 13, seq ; and especially of the passage, 1 Cor. 15: 35—38. It is here plainly implied, that the present mor tal body contains the germ of the heavenly body, in the same way 632 ART. XV. § 153. OPINIONS OF THE FATHERS as the germ of the plant lies in the seed, from which, after it is dis solved and dead in the earth, the plant is developed, and as it were raised to life. - Hence according to Paul, the future body has at least as much in common with the present, as a plant has with the seed from which it springs. It will be still the same body, which we shall hereafter possess, only beautified and .ennobled (pezaaxnpazi^opevov), Phil. 3: 21. 1 Cor. 15: 42, 52, 53. This is thus expressed by theologians : there will be a renovation of one and the same substance, and not the production of a wholly new mate rial ; vid. Morus, pp. 291, 292, not. 6 ad § 3. — Some modern wri ters have endeavoured to illustrate this matter, by the application to it of the whole of Bonnet's theory of developement ; but this is not contained in the words of Paul, although his doctrine bears some resemblance to it. The Church-fathers are not entirely unanimous in their opinions respecting the identity of the body. The earlier fathers gave no very definite opinion on the subject, but contented themselves with saying in general, that we should receive again the same body ; so Justin the Martyr, and Athenagoras and Tertullian in their books, De resurrectione. They appear, however, to have had rather gross conceptions on this subject. Origen, in the third century, was the first who philosophized with regard to the heavenly body, and un dertook to determine accurately respecting its nature. He defend ed the resurrection of the body, against those who denied it ; and taught at the same time, that the substance of the human body, — the essential and characteristic form by which it is to be discerned and distinguished from others, remains unaltered. He also contro verted the opinion of some who supposed, that those who are raised will again be invested with the same gross, material body, as before. It was his opinion, that the grosser parts will be separated, and that only the germ or fundamental material for the new body will be furnished by the old. He and others expressed their views by the following formula, viz. we shall hereafter have ampa tovto (idem) piv, aXX' ov toiovto (ejusmodi), De prin. II.E10. But such a statement was far from being satisfactory to many at that period, and especially to the gross Chiliasls. They wished to keep alive the hope of having still the same flesh as at present, in order to their eating, drinking, etc. So Nepos, Methodius, Theophilus of Al exandria, and others. With these Hieronymus, in the fourth centu- RESPECTING THE GLORIFIED BODY. 633 ry, agreed, and opposed the opinion of Origen, contending that the same body would be raised, with the same limbs and nerves, and with flesh and blood in the proper sense, and even with distinction of sex, although he did not, indeed, affirm that the animal and sexual appetites would be indulged in the heavenly world. Epi- phanius, however, who was a declared opponent of Origen, says ex pressly, that the bodies of the raised must have teeth, since other wise they could not eat. What kind of food they would have, he did not pretend to say, but left for God to determine. The opinion of Origen was adopted, in the fourth century, by Gregory of Nazianzen, Basilius, Chrysostom, and all the opponents of the Chiliasts. Those who maintained the resurrection of the body in its grosser parts were all, with the exception of Hieronymus, Chiliasts. The opponents of Origen , among the Greeks and Latins, began now to insist, that not merely the resurrection of the body (corporis) should be taught, but also carnis (crassa). The older fathers used corpus and caro interchangably (as was also done in the older symbols), and intended by the use of these terms to denote only, that there would be no new creation of a body ; since both of these terms, according to the Hebrew usus loquendi, are synonymes ; as when we speak, in reference to the Lord's Supper, of the corpus and caro Christi. But since the term caro implies, according to the same idiom, the associated idea of weakness and mortality, it was abandoned by many who wished to use language with more precis ion, and, instead of it, the phrase resurrectio corporis was adopted. It was on this account, that the Chiliasts insisted so much the more ; urgently upon retaining the terms adgl and caro. Note Works on this subject, Cotta, Theses theol. de novissimis, in specie de resurrectione mortuorum, Tub. 1862.-Hermann, Pflug, Beweiss der Mog- lichkeit und Gewissheit der Auferstehung der Todten, 1738.-On the history of this doctrine, besides the works of Hody and Burnet, cf. Ge. Calixtus, De immortalitate animi et resurrectione carnis, and especially, W. A. Teller, Fidei dormatis de resurrectione carnis, per quartuor priora saecula enarratio, Halle and Helmstadt, 1766, Svo, with which however the student should com pare the additions and corrections made by Ernesti in his « Neues theoLBib- V th k " B IX S 221—244. [Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, S. 658, § 152. Nean der, All. K- Geschichte, B. I. Abth. III. S. 1088 and especially 1096; also B. II. Abth. III. S. 1404-1410.-Tr.] Vol. II. 80 634 art. xv. § 154. the last appearing of christ. § 154. Of the last appearing of Christ before the end of the world; the various opinions on this subject ; also respecting the Millen- ial kingdom, and the universal conversion of Jews and Gentiles. I. The last appearing of Christ. Christ often spoke of his future coming (nagovaia), using this phrase in different senses. It sometimes denotes figuratively the destruction of the Jewish state, and the consequences of this event, particularly the advantages which would result from it to the Christian doctrine and Church ; as the spiritual kingdom of Christ could not be truly established in the earth until this event should take place ; Matt. xxiv. and 16: 27, 28. Again, it denotes his visi ble appealing to judge the world ; Matt. 25: 31, sq. When Jesus spoke of his appearing, his disciples during his life commonly con ceived at once of his Coming to establish an earthly kingdom. And when he spoke of his coming at the destruction of Jerusalem, they supposed that he would then, with his followers, destroy the hostile Jerusalem, triumph over' his opponents, and commence his new earthly kingdom. The xxiv. of Matt, was for the most part understood in this way by many at that time. With this they then connected the idea, that the end of the world was near at hand ; because, according to the opinion of the Jews, Jerusalem and the temple would stand until the end of the world ; vid. § 98, II. 3. Hence in the passage, Matt. 24: 3, the disciples of Jesus connect the two questions, when will the temple be destroyed ? and what are the signs of the end of time ? In what Christ said, Matt, xxiv., he referred to the diffusion of his new religion, the establishment and confirmation of his spiritual and moral kingdom, on which the destruction of Jerusalem would have a favorable influence, vid. Matt. 10: 23. Luke 12: 40. But he said this in part, in the style of prophetic imagery, as in Matt. xvi. xxiv. To these questions Christ replied with great wisdom and forecast; — to the first, in Matt. 24: 4 — 25, 30 ; and to the second, Matt. 25: 31 — 46. He taught them plainly only so much as it was need ful for them to know at that time. The rest he taught them in prophetic figures, which were not as yet entirely intelligible to them, and the meaning of which they afterwards learned. Their false ex- BELIEF OF A MILLENIAL KINGDOM. 635 pectations were not therefore cherished and approved, but neither were they prematurely contradicted. Full information on this sub ject was among those things which they were not then able to bear, and respecting which they were to receive more full information after the ascension of Christ to Heaven ; John 16: 12. And this more full information they actually received. For from that time they abandon ed their expectations of a Jewish kingdom, and thenceforward look ed for no other coming of Christ, than that at the general Judgment. As to what Christ and his apostles taught respecting the nature and extent of his spiritual and heavenly kingdom, vid. §§ 97 — 99. II. The belief of a Millenial kingdom of Christ upon the earth or Chiliasm. (1) Origin of this belief . The Jews supposed, that the Messi ah at his coming would reign as king upon the earth, and would reside at Jerusalem, the ancient royal city. The period of his reign, they supposed would be very long, and therefore put it down at a thousand years, which was at first understood only as a round^num- ber. Respecting the Jewish ideas of (the Messianic kingdom, cf. § 89, and §.118, 1, together with Wetstein' s selections from Jewish authors on Rev. 20: 2. This period was conceived of by the Jews, as the return of the Golden Age to the earth, and each one formed to himself such a picture of it, as agreed best with his own disposi tion, and that degree of moral and intellectual culture to which he had attained. Many anticipated nothing more, than merely sensual delights; others entertained better and more pure conceptions; etc. The same remark applies to many of the Judaizing Christians. Although Jesus had not yet appeared as an earthly king, yet these persons were unwilling to abandon an expectation, which to them was so important. They hoped, therefore, for a second coming of Christ, to establish an earthly kingdom, and transferred to this kingdom, every thing which the Jews had expected of the first. The apostles wholly abandoned this opinion after the ascension of Christ, and expected no other coming, than that at the Judgment of the world; 1 Cor. xv. and elsewhere. The fact, however, that these Jewish ideas had taken deep root in the minds of many Chris tians in the apostolic age, may be argued from 1 Thess. 4: 13, sq. ch. v. and 2 Thess. II. 636 ART. XV. § 154. EARLY OPINIONS Many have endeavoured to find this idea even in the Apocalypse, especially 20: 1 — 8. But John does not there speak of Christ reign ing visibly and bodily on the earth, but of his spiritual dominion, resulting from the influence of Christianity, when it shall at length be universally diffused through the earth, — a kingdom which will last a thousand years, used as a round number, to denote many centuries, or a long period. — Thus does it appear, that even during the first century there were many opinions upon this subject among Christians which deviated widely from the doctrine of the Apos tles. [Note. The scriptural ideas upon which the belief in a milleniurn rested, are more specifically stated by Neander, Kirchengesch. B.I. Abth. III. S. 1089. As the world was made in six days, and according to Ps. 90: 4, a thou sand years is in the sight of God as one day ; so it was thought the world would continue in the state in which it had hitherto been, for six thousand years: and as the Sabbath is a day of rest ; so will the seventh period of a thousand years consist of this millenial kingdom, as the close of the whole earthly state. Tk.] (2) In the second century, the doctrine of the future, earthly kingdom of Christ became more and more widely diffused, and in a large portion of the Christian world, it was finally predominant. Its first zealous advocate was Papias, in the second century ; and he was followed by Justin the Martyr, Tertullian, and most of the Montanists. This doctrine was also adopted by some of the here tics, e. g. by Cerinthus. It was not, however, held by all in the same manner. Most taught, that the Church would have to suffer much from Antichrist (the seducer and persecutor); and that Christ would then visibly return, and destroy his power, 2 Thess. n. Then, it was supposed, all worldly power would cease, the pious be raised from the dead (ngmztj dvaazaatg), assemble in Jerusalem, and standing under Christ, their king, would reign with him a thou sand years. As to the pleasures then to be enjoyed, — the conceptions of some were very gross, those of others more chastened. In forming their pictures of this period, they drew largely from the Apocalypse; which they interpreted in many different ways. Origen, in the third century, was the first who wrote in opposition to this doctrine, and who gave a different interpretation to the texts of Scripture to which appeal was made by the Chiliasts. On this account, this RESPECTING CHRIST'S MILLENIAL KINGDOM. 637 doctrine fell into disesteem among the learned. In the third cen tury, Dionysius, Bishop at Alexandria, wrote against Chiliasm in opposition to Nepos, Bishop in Egypt ; and in his work, denied that John wrote the Apocalypse, because his opponents were accus tomed to derive their doctrine principally from this book. [Note. It was in Phrygia, the seat of the spirit of religious enthusiasm, that Chiliasm chiefly prevailed ; and from thence it spread. Here belonged Papias, Irenteus, Justin the Martyr, etc. — Two causes contributed to prevent this doctrine from becoming more universally prevalent in the early Church, viz. opposition to Montanism, and the influence of the school at Alexandria. The visionary conceptions which the Montanists entertained and inculcated, respecting what would take place in the Millenium, brought the whole doc trine into disrepute ; and all the opponents of Montanism, opposed these gross Chiliastic conceptions, as belonging essentially to that scheme. — The allegoriz ing method of interpretation adopted by the teachers of the Alexandrine school, enabled them to avoid the gross conceptions of the Millenium to which those who adopted the literal mode of interpretation were led. By applying this principle to the interpretation of tha Apocalypse, they could take away the support which the Chiliasts derived from it, without excluding the book from the sacred canon. Tr.] (3) The seed of the doctrine of gross Chiliasm, has always re mained in the Christian Church. This doctrine, however, has shown itself in different forms, and has been taught sometimes in a more visionary manner, and at other times less so. Respecting the time when this Millenial kingdom will commence, there has been no general agreement of opinion. Many suppose it will take place before the resurrection; others, not until afterwards. At the time of the Reformation, this belief in a millenial, earth ly kingdom of Christ was revived and widely spread by the enthusi astic Anabaptists, Thomas Munzer and his adherents. They them selves wished to establish this kingdom of Christ with fire and sword, and to put an end to all worldly power ; they encouraged rebellion. Hence Luther and Melancthon set themselves against this doctrine with great zeal and earnestness ; vid. Augsb. Conf. Art. XVIII. It showed itself again, however, in the Protestant Church. In the seventeenth and eighteenth century, Spener was charged with teaching Chiliasm. But he was far removed from this. He only expressed frequently the hope, that the spiritual kingdom of Christ would not only continue in the world, but would be much 638 ART. XV. § 154. OF THE MILLENIUM. more widely diffused than it now is, and hereafter would become absolutely universal. And this expectation (spes meliorum tempo- rum), is perfectly accordant with the Holy Scriptures. This is the point to which all the middle part of the Apocalypse refers ; viz. from ch. 12: 18 to 20: 10, the victory of Christ over heathenism, and all sin and corruption on the earth, and the general diffusion of Chris tianity ; after which the end of the world and the kingdom of the saints will follow, ch. 20: 11 — 22: 5. This, one might call (if he wished) biblical Chiliasm ; in this there is nothing of enthusiasm ; and even for those who do not live to see this period, the anticipa tion of it is consoling and animating. But Petersen, who came from the school of Spener, at the end of the seventeenth, and commencement of the eighteenth century, inculcated in his writings various enthusiastic ideas on this subject. The same doctrine was taken into favor about the same time by Burnet in England, in his work, " De statu mort. et resurg." At a later period, Bengel in Germany went a great deal too far in many points in his interpretation of the Apocalypse. So, many Theolo gians of Wurtemberg, Crusius and his disciples, and Lavater in Switzerland. A good developement of the History of this doctrine is contain ed in Corrodi's " Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus," Frankfort und Leipzig, 1781 — 1783. It was principally occasioned by Lava- ter's views on this subject. [Note. Neander, in his history of this doctrine (B. I. Abth. III. S. 1090), suggests the important caution, that we should not allow ourselves, through disgust at the extravagant visions of enthusiasts about the Millenium, to de cide against what we are really justified in hoping and expecting, as to the fu ture extension of the kingdom of Christ. As the Old Testament contains an intimation of the things of the New ; so Christianity contains an intimation of a higher order of things hereafter, which it will be the means of introduc ing ; but faith must necessarily come before sight. The divine revelations en able us to see but a little, now and then, of this higher order, and not enough to form a complete picture. As prophecy is always obscure until its fulfill ment ; so must be also the last predictions of Christ respecting the destiny of his Church, until the entrance of that higher order. There are three degrees in the manner of holding this doctrine, described as crassus, subtilis, subtilissimus, according to the proportion in which enthu siastic and visionary conceptions are mingled with the scriptural idea of the future kingdom of the Messiah. The lowest kind is characterized by the be lief of the visible appearance and reign of Christ upon the earth, a resurrection CONVERSION OF JEWS AND GENTILES. 639 of the saints before the general Judgment, and their living with Christ in the enjoyment of worldly splendor and luxury, for a thousand years." In this form it was held by many of the ancient Montanists, and by the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century. The more refined and scriptural doctrine of the Millenium, as held by Spener, Vitringa and others, excludes the idea of the vis ible appearance of Christ, and does not insist upon the definite period of a thou sand years, but only holds to the future universal extension of the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, S. 665.— Tr.] HI. Future conversion of Jews and Gentiles. The doctrine of the universal conversion of the Gentiles, and es pecially of the Jews, to be hoped for hereafter, has been for the most part taught by the advocates of the grosser kind of Chiliasm. Still the former doctrine stands in no necessary connexion with the lat ter. And many Protestant theologians, who are far from assenting to any unscriptural views of the Millenium, have adopted this doc trine, e. g. Michaelis, Koppe, and others still more lately. But some theologians connected with both of these doctrines other opinions which do not entirely accord with Scripture, or which at least are not in all parts clearly demonstrable from Scripture ; e: g. Burnet, Bengel, Crusius. Hence Ernesti and his whole school were very much opposed to this doctrine, and would not at all allow, that even the remotest hope of the conversion of the Jews is authorized by the New Testament. It has happened with regard to this subject, as it often does in all the departments of human knowledge, that opinions, in which there has been an intermixture of what is erroneous and incapable of proof, have been on this account entirely rejected, instead of being carefully sifted, in order to separate the true from the false, that which may be proved from that which is incapable of demonstra tion. The doctrine itself of the future conversion of the Jews in volves nothing questionable or enthusiastic, if it be understood only to imply, that the apostles believed and taught, that the Jews would hereafter abandon their prejudices and their hardness of heart, pos sess a taste and susceptibility for Christianity, and cordially unite themselves with the Christian Church. When this will take place, and by what means it will be brought about, the apostles determine nothing ; and with regard to these points, nothing is known. But an expectation of this event is found in their writings. Two things on this subject are certain ; viz. (1) That it was 640 ART. XV. § 154. CONVERSION OF JEWS AND GENTILES. always a current doctrine among the Jews, that all the gentiles would at last become incorporated in the kingdom of the Messiah ; and with reference to this event they explained many passages in their prophets, which, -when read impartially, plainly teach this very thing ; e. g. Ps. 22: 28. Is. n. xn. xl.— lxvi. Zech. 14: 9, 16, coll. Rev. 15: 4. And this same hope is clearly expressed by Paul, especially in Rom. xi. (2) The Jews, at the time of the apostles and afterwards, ex plained many passages in their prophets as referring to the future restoration of their people at the time of the Messiah (Deut. xxx.); and these passages are referred in the New Testament, and by Paul, to the same event ; from whence it is clear, that the apostles taught and inculcated the same thing with the ancient prophets ; e. g. Is. 10: 21. 59: 20. Jerem. 31: 1, sq. Hos 3: 5. Zech. 14: 6. 9: 10. These passages indeed, have all been differently interpreted in mod ern times. Cf. Doederlein's work, Giebt uns die Bible Hoffnung zu einer allgemeinen Judenbekehrung 1" But the Jews under stood these passages to refer to the restoration of their nation, and the New Testament gives them the same explanation. This is his torically certain ; and upon this every thing depends, when the question is, Whether the New Testament teaches this doctrine ? Vid. Schottgen, in the book, " Jesus, der wahre Messias." Eisen- menger, Entdecktes Judenthum ; and Koppe on Rom. XI. We may come now more easily to the examination of the cele brated passage, Rom. 11: 25, sq. Ernesti and others understand the nag' JagatjX am&tjatzai, thus : all " Israel can be delivered ;" but this does not accord with v. 31, iva avzol iXetj&mai, and v. 32, zovg navzag, iXtriatj. We cannot render these clauses : in order that God can have pity ; no, he will actually have mercy upon them. Nor can we see any reason, according to this interpretation, why Paul should adopt such a high and elevated tone with regard to a matter which is self-evident, or how he could call this pvaztj- giov. It is also equally unintelligible, if this were all, what should have induced Paul so solemnly to celebrate and magnify the divine wisdom, vs. 33 — 36. But every thing is plain and consistent, if Paul is understood here to speak the language of prophecy. He proceeds on the ground of the expectation, universally prevalent among his countrymen, and authorized by the ancient prophets ; he rectifies their ideas with regard to their future restoration, dis- CONVERSION OF JEWS AND GENTILES. 641 cards their false conceptions, their hopes of earthly good, and then says, with great assurance, that all Israel will hereafter be converted to Christ, as all the Gentiles will come to worship him ; although, when he wrote, there was no human probability of either of these events. But in all this, he does not give the least countenance to the enthusiastic conceptions frequently entertained on this subject. He does not fix any definite time. But theologians have often been unwilling to allow, that Paul affirmed the final conversion of the Jews, because enthusiastic ideas have often been connected with this doctrine, or because they have regarded this event as either impossible or improbable, since after the lapse of eighteen centu ries, there are no signs of its accomplishment. The sentiment of this passage is as follows : ' I must propose one other important subject for your (i. e. the Gentile converts) consideration, — a subject with which you have been hitherto unac quainted, and which has therefore been disregarded by you, in or der that you may not be proud of your advantages over the un believing Jews. Namely, some of the Jews will continue unbeliev ing until all the Gentiles who are chosen by God (nXtjgmpu t&vmv) shall have believed in Christ. (This will, therefore, first take place.) But when this is first brought about (xal ovxm for xal zoze or eneiza vid. Koppe), i. e. when all the Gentiles have first become believers (now follows the pvaztjgiov), then will the nation of the Israelites also experience salvation (am&tjaezut), by embra cing the Christian faith. For, thus it is said in the Scriptures, the Deliverer (Messiah) will come out of Zion (David's line), and then will I free Jacob from his sins (Is. xlix.).' Cf. Koppe, on this pas sage. Paul here quotes the same passages of the Old Testament, from which the Jews had always proved, that an entire restoration of their nation was predicted by the prophets; though he did not understand them, as they often did, to refer to an external, civil res toration. Vol. II. 81 642 ART. XV. § 155. OF THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. § 155. Of the general Judgment, and the end of the present consti tution of the world. I. The general Judgment. The following .texts may be considered as the most important re lating to the last Judgment ; viz. Matt. 25: 31. John v. 2 Thess. 1: 7 —10. 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. 2Pet.3:7— 13. 1 Cor. xv. and Rev. 20: 11. — In illustration of this doctrine, it may be observed, (1) According to the uniform doctrine of the Scriptures, the Judgment of the world will follow immediately after the general Resurrection; and then will be the end of the world, or of its pres ent constitution. Cf. 1 Cor. xv. (2) This doctrine of a general judgment of the world, was also prevalent among the Jews at the time of Christ and the Apostles ; although they frequently associated with it many incorrect notions. This doctrine, as well as that of future retribution and resurrection, was without doubt, more and more developed and illustrated, under the divine guidance and direction, by the prophets and teachers of the Jewish nation, who lived after the Exile ; vid. § 149, II. 2. This was done more particularly at the same period of time in which those other doctrines were developed. But there are also passages in Daniel which allude to this event; e. g. ch. xn. Before the Exile, the doctrine of the Judgment as a solemn, formal transaction at the end of the world, was not clearly taught. At that time, the Jews held only the general truth, that God is the righteous Judge of the world, who in his own time would pronounce righteous sentence upon all men, according to their deserts, and bring all their works, even the most secret, to light ; vid. Ps. 9: 5 — 9. Eccl. 9: 9. 12: 13, 14. The doctrine which was afterwards de veloped among the Jews, and in the form in which it existed among them at the time of Christ, was expressly authorized and confirm ed by him as true, and as constituting a part of his religious sys tem ; in such a way, however, as to exclude the false additions of the Jewish teachers. (3) The holding of this judgment, as well as the raising of the dead, is commonly ascribed in the New Testament to Christ, and NAMES AND TIME OF THE JUDGMENT. 643 represented as a commission or plenipotentiary power, which the Fa ther had given to the man Jesus, as Messiah. Thus it is said, Rom. 2: 16, &eog (cf. v. 6.) xgivel zd xgvnzd dv&gmnmv did 'itjoov and Christ himself says, John 5: 22, 25, xglaiv ndauv Sidmxe zm vim. Vid. Matt. 16: 27. Acts 10: 42. 17: 31. Cf. § 98, II. 3, ana Mo rus p. 294, not. 8, and p. 296, not. 3. Christ himself assigns it as the reason, why God had entrusted to him the holding of this Judgment, that he is a man (vlog dv&gmnov) ; John 5: 27, coll. Acts 17: 31, dvtjg. God has constituted him the Judge of men,' because he is man, and knows, from his own experience, all the sufferings and infirmities to which our nature is exposed, and can therefore be compassionate and indulgent; Heb. 2: 14; — 17, coll. 1 Tim. 2: 5. (4) Names given in the Scriptures to the last Judgment. The time of this Judgment, and the Judgment itself, are called in the passages already cited, tjpigu (tri1) xvglov or 'ftjaov, Xgiazov, x. z. X. ; also tjpiga ptyaXt] (biia D:P), Jude v. 6 ; xglaig (sometimes written xazaxgtatg), xglpa, nagovala Xgiazov, 1 Thess. 4: 15. 2 Thess. 2: 1 ; iaxdztj tjpiga, John 6: 39, 40, 44. Hence the ec clesiastical name of this transaction, judicium extremum, or novissi- mum, the last Judgment, because it will take place at the end of the world that now is. The term, the last Judgment, is not used, how ever, in the New Testament. Nor are the phrases iaxdztj tjpiga and to iaxdzov tdiv vpe'gmv used exclusively with reference to the end of the world. They often designate merely the future, coming days, e. g. 2 Tim. 3: 1. 2 Pet. 3: 3 ; like tPn^n rvnfts , Gen. 49: 1. They sometimes also denote the last period of the world, or the times of the Messiah ; e. g. Heb. 1: 1. 1 Pet. 1:20, like teXtj alm- vmv, almv pe'XXmv, Heb. N3M tib"B> . (5) The time of the Judgment or of the end of the world, and its signs or precursors ; vid. Morus p. 304, § 13. — According to the as surance of the Apostles this time is unknown. Yet many of the Jewish Christians at the times of the Apostles, supposed that it would take place immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish state, because the Jews believed that their temple and city would stand until the end of the world ; vid. § 98, II. 3. But the Apostles never affirmed this ; they never pretended to the knowl edge of a divine revelation respecting the time ; but contented them selves with saying, that it would come suddenly and unexpectedly, 644 ART. XV. § 155. PRECURSORS OF THE JUDGMENT. like a thief in the night ; 1 Thess. 5: 2. 2 Pet. 3: 10. In the first of these texts, Paul shows that this event was not so near, as some at that time supposed ; and in the second, Peter shows, that the actu al coming of this event could not be doubted, merely because it seemed to some to be long delayed. In 2 Cor. 4: 14, Paul considers himself and his contemporaries as being among those, whom God would raise from the dead through Christ ; he did not, therefore, expect himself to survive the Judgment of the World, although from other passages it might seem, that he at least wished he might. It is not by chance, that the declaration of the Apostles, that they could not determine the time and the hour of this event, is so clearly pre served to us. Were there any reason to charge them with the op posite, to what contempt would their doctrine be exposed ! As to the signs and precursors of this event, nothing can be very definitely determined from the New Testament ; nothing certainly by which we can draw conclusions with any safety, with regard to the precise time of its occurrence. No indications, pointing defi nitely to the day and hour, can be expected, especially for this rea son, that the coming of this event is always described as sudden and unexpected; cf. 2 Pet. 3: 10. Even with regard to the far less im portant revolution among the Jewish people, in the overthrow of their state, it is said, Matt. 13: 32, that the exact time when it would take place, no one but God knew, not even the angels nor the Son of Man, in his humiliation. And yet there have never, at any period, been wanting persons, who have undertaken to determine definitely the time and hour of this event. They have commonly reasoned from some, and often very arbitrary, explanations of the Apocalypse, and from calculations drawn from the same. This ingenious search after the time and hour of the fulfilment of the divine predictions, is not according to the mind and will of Christ, since it usually leads to the neglect of what is more important ; and besides, nothing is gained by it ; vid. Acts 1: 7. ln the earliest age of the Church, many supposed, that the end of the world would follow immediately upon the destruction of Jerusalem. When this event was passed, other calculations were made. In the tenth century the opinion was very prevalent in the Western Church, that the end of the world was near at hand, because, according to Rev. 20: 3, 4, the Millenial kingdom should commence after a thou sand years. This belief had the effect, upon the multitudes who SCRIPTURAL VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT. 645 adopted it, to render them inactive ; they squandered and consum ed their goods ; they suffered their houses to go to ruin ; and many families were reduced to want. Hence in the eleventh century there was more building and repairing done, than at any other pe riod. From this we may conclude, that the way to promote the conver sion of men, is not as it were to compel them to it, by the fear of the proximity of the last day. Even in modern times many theolo gians, and those too of some celebrity, have entered into calculations of this kind, drawn chiefly from the Apocalypse; e. g. Bengel, Cru- sius, and others. What we are definitely taught on this subject in the New Tes tament may be stated as follows : the Christian Church will hereafter be subjected to great temptation from heathen profaneness, from false, delusive doctrine, and extreme moral corruption, and will seem for a time to be ready to perish from these causes ; but then Christ will appear, and according to his promise, triumph over this opposi tion ; and then, and not till then, will the end of the world come ; Christ will visibly appear, and hold the general Judgment, and con duct the pious into the kingdom of the blessed. This is the distinct doctrine of Paul, 2 Thess. 2: 3 — 12, and is taught throughout the Apocalypse, 12: 18 — 22: 5, and this is sufficient for our instruction, warning, and comfort. (6) As to the nature of the general Judgment, and the manner in which it will be conducted by Christ, we can state on scriptural authority only the following particulars. (a) That Christ will pronounce sentence upon all men, even on those who have lived in paganism, Rom. 2: 6, sq. Acts 17: 71, vid. § 98, II. 3. Final sentence will then, too, be pronounced upon the Evil Spirits, Jude v. 6. 2 Pet. 2: 4. Matt. 25: 41. For other texts, cf. Morus p. 294, not. 1. and 3. (b) This sentence will be righteous and impartial, 2 Tim. 4: 8. Every one will be judged according to the light he has enjoyed, and the use he has made of it. Those who have had the written law, will be judged according to that ; the heathen, according to the light of nature, Rom. 2: 13—10. Those who have had greater knowledge, and more opportunities and powers for doing good than others, and yet have neglected or abused them, will receive a sever er sentence; etc. Matt. 10: 15. 11. 23, 24. 2 Thess. I: 5. Morus p. 294, not. 4. 646 ART. XV. § 155. SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE (c) This will be the final and irrevocable sentence, by which re wards, will be bestowed upon the righteous, and punishments allot ted to the wicked, for their good and evil actions, and the thoughts of the hearts ; Matt. 25: 31—46. 2 Cor. 5: 10. 1 Cor. 4: 5. Rom. 2: 6, 16. Note. It has for a long time been disputed among theologians, whether the Judgment of the World will be an external, visible, formal transaction, or whether the mere decision respecting the destiny of man, the actual taking effect of retribution, is represented under the image of a judicial proceeding, like what is now common among men ? The reasons alledged on both sides of this question, are stated by Gerhard, in his Loci Theologici. Cf. Morus p. 295, not. 1. The latter opinion is adopted by many theologians at the present time, e.g. Eckermann, Henke, and others, who contend that this whole representa tion was intended by Christ and the Apostles to be merely figurative, and should be so understood. It is clear, however, from the New Testament, un less its language is arbitrarily interpreted and explained away, that the first Christian teachers every where represent the Judgment of the world, as a sol emn, visible transaction, distinct from retribution ; though its more particular nature cannot be distinctly determined or made plain to us; and is, therefore, described in the New Testament for the most part by figures. This is very well expressed by Morus p. 295, § 6. If the New Testament taught the con trary opinion, its doctrines would not be consistent with each other. For ac cording to the New Testament, man will possess a body, even in the future life, and continue to be, as ho now is, ii being composed both of sense and rea son; and so there, as well as here, he will have the want ol something cogni zable by the senses. With regard to this subject, as well as many others, the Bible is accustom ed to connect figurative and literal phraseology together, and to use these two modes of speech interchangeably, in order to render clear and impressive to our minds many things which could not otherwise be represented plainly and forcibly enough. Thus it is, for example, in the discourses of Christ on this subject, Matt. 16: 27, sq., and ch. xxv. By all which he has there said in a figurative style, the idea should be impressed that Christ will visibly appear, in a majestic manner, pronounce some innocent and others guilty, and treat them accordingly. In the courts of the ancients it was a custom, to place the former on the right hand, the latter on the lift ; and every one who heard this discourse of Christ knew what he meant by this representation. He taught the same truth without a figure, when he declared, that some should be par doned and made happy, and others pronounced guilty and punished. II. Scriptural doctrine respecting the End of the World. (1) Even the ancient Hebrews believed, that as the world had a beginning, it would also have an end ; and so their prophets RESPECTING THE END OF THE WORLD. 647 speak of the growing old of the heavens and the earth. They teach, that hereafter the whole material creation will become unfit for its purposes, and useless to its inhabitants, and that God will then lay by the aged heavens, like an old, worn out garment, and create a new heaven, and a new earth. Vid. Ps. 102: 10 — 12, where this is described, in opposition to the eternity and unchangeableness of God. Cf. Heb. 1: 19—12. Our seeing the constant fluctuations and changes of all things, the wasting and falling away of the hardest rocks, and other obser vations of a similar nature, may lead to the same thought, and give it confirmation. Hence we find, even in the Old Testament, such expressions as the following, until the heavens are no more, until the sun and the moon are no more ; e. g. Job 14: 12. So in Ps. 72: 5, 7, 17, where a time far removed is expressed by this phraseology ; for this period was naturally conceived of as far distant, since changes of this na ture are found by experience to require a long time. Moreover in the prophets, such expressions as the destruction of the Heavens and of the Earth, the growing pale and darkening of the Sun and Moon, are often used figuratively, to denote great changes in the world, — the calamity and downfall of particular states and countries, etc., e. g. Is. xm. (respecting Babel) ; ch. xxxiv. Ezech. xxn. Rev. vi. Matt. 24 : 29, sq. On the contrary the phrases new heavens, new earth, the clear shining sun, etc., are used to denote the welfare, and returning prosperity of states ; e. g. Is. 65: 17. 66: 22. 13: 10, et passim. But these very figurative expressions presuppose the lit eral idea. (2) From these more general ideas and expectations respecting great changes hereafter to take place in the Universe, there was de veloped among the Jews and other nations, the more definite idea of the future destruction of the world, and especially of our earth. Every thing, it was supposed, would be hereafter shattered and de stroyed, but not annihilated ; since from the ruins of the ancient structure, there would come forth again a renewed and beautified creation. Philo says (De vita Mosis, Tom. II. p. 144, ed. Mangey), via dvaqjalvezai t] yt], pezd xd&agaiv, the earth shall appear new again, after its purification, even as it was after its first creation. He calls this renovation naXiyyevtatav, vtmztgiapdv tmv aTOixeimv, x.z.X; as the Greeks also denominated the same thing naXiyytve- 648 ART. XV. § 155. SUPPOSED WAYS IN WHICH alav zmv bXmv, — an expression used by the Stoics with reference to this subject. This end of the world was not, then, described as its entire destruction or annihilation. Now Christ and the Apostles taught the doctrine of the End of the World very distinctly and plainly, and sanctioned what was pre viously known on this subject by their own authority ; vid. Matt. 5: 18. Luke 21: 33. 2 Pet. m. 1 Cor. xv. Rev. 20: 11, et passim. But among the Jews and some others, the doctrine prevailed, that this change would be effected by a general conflagration. This be lief in such a conflagration did not at first rest upon any arguments drawn from a profound knowledge of natural philosophy; such, for example, as the supposition of a fire burning in the centre of the earth, or the approximation of a comet, as many modern writers have thought, but they were first led to this belief, and afterwards confirmed in it, by thoughts like the following : Water and fire are the two most powerful and efficient elements, by which the most violent changes are produced in the earth, and by which desolations and renovations are effected. Now we find traditions among all nations respecting great floods of water, and the desolations occa sioned by them in the earliest times. According to Moses, the wa ter originally covered the whole earth, and the dry land issued from thence, and then followed Noah's flood. It was now the expecta tion, that hereafter the other still more fearful element, thefire, which even now often causes such terrible desolations, would effect a still more amazing and universal revolution, than that effected by the water, and that by this means the earth would be renewed and beau tified. It was by such analogies as these, that this traditionary belief was confirmed and illustrated among the heathen nations where it prevailed. It was afterwards adopted by many philosophers into their systems, and advocated by them on grounds of natural philoso phy. Thus, for example, Heraclitus among the Greeks contended for such a conflagration and regeneration of the earth by means of fire ; and so after him the Stoics. Cf. Cicero, De nat. Deor. II. 46 ; and Seneca, Ousest. Nat. II. 28—30. This doctrine of the perishing of the world by fire, was unques tionably prevalent among the Jews at the time of Christ and the Apostles, although Philo does not accede to it in his book ntgl «og tov axozovg, Matt. xxv. Jude v. 6, sq. ; nvg almviov, qiXoj; nvgog, Matt. 25: 41. 18: 8. 2 Thess. 1:9; the worm which dies not, Mark 9: 44, where the comparison is taken from Is. 66: 24 ; nogeitea&at dno &eov, in opposition to beholding the countenance of God, Matt. 25: 41 ; having no rest day or night, Rev. 14: 11, etc. Many of the Jews, and some even of the Church Fathers, took these terms in an entirely literal sense, and supposed there would be literal fire, etc., in Hell. But nothing more can be inferred with certainty from the words of Christ and the apostles, than that they meant by these images, to describe great and unending misery. The name adopted by the schoolmen, damnatio aterna is founded upon Heb. 6: 2, where we find xgipa (i. e. xazdxgipa) almviov, cf. 2 Thess. 1: 9. II. Nature of future Punishments. It is certain from the plainest declaration of the Holy Scriptures (cf. § 155), and may also be proved on grounds of reason, that the happiness or misery of the future world, stands in most intimate con nexion with the present life. The rewards and blessedness of the world to come, are to be regarded as the salutary and happy conse quences of the present life and conduct of men ; and on the contrary, the punishments there to be endured, and future misery, as the sad and fatal consequences of their character and actions in this world. Our future good or evil estate is dependent upon our present life and character. The divine punishments are divided into natural, and positive or arbitrary, and both these kinds belong to future punishment. Vid. §§ 31, 86, 8? 652 ART. XV. § 156. NATURAL PUNISHMENTS. (1) Among natural punishments we may reckon the following ; viz. (a) The loss or deprivation of eternal happiness, poena damni, Matt. 7: 21—23, dnoymgelzt an ipov. Matt 22: 13. 25: 41 ; in all of these texts the representation is figurative. Cf. 2 Thess. 1: 9, Sixtjv zlaovaiv — dno ngoao'mov zov xvgiov, i. e. removed from Christ, and from the happiness which he enjoys. (b) The painful sensations which are the natural consequence of committing sin, and of an inpenitent heart, poena sensus. These punishments an inevitable, and connected as closely and- inseparably with sin, as any effect with its cause. From the consciousness of being guilty of sin, arise, regret, sorrow, and remorse of conscience, and it is these inward pangs, which are the most grievous and tor menting. The conscience of man is a stern accuser, which cannot be refuted or bribed, and the more its voice is disregarded or sup pressed here upon earth, the more loudly will it speak hereafter. For man will then be no longer surrounded, as he is in this world, with external circumstances which distract the mind, and prevent him from seeing the heinousness of sin, and from reflecting on his unhappy situation. He will pass at once from the noise and tumult of the things of sense, into the stillness of the future world, and will there awake to reflection. He will then see, how he has neglect ed the means of improvement and salvation, and to what irreparable injury he has thus exposed himself. Add to this, that the propensity to sin, the passions and evil de sires, which in this world occupy the human heart, are carried along into the next. For it cannot be supposed, that they will be sudden ly eradicated, as by a miracle ; and this is not promised. But these desires and propensities can no longer find satisfaction in the future world, where man will be placed in an entirely different situation, and surrounded by a circle of objects entirely new ; hence they will become the more inflamed. From the very nature of the case it is plain therefore, that the state of such a man hereafter must necessa rily be miserable. Shame, regret, remorse, hopelessness, and abso lute despair, are the natural, inevitable, and extremely dreadful con sequences of the sins committed in this life. (2) But there are also, according to the most incontrovertible declarations of the Scriptures, positive or arbitrary punishments, J. e. such as stand in no natural and necessarv connexion with sin ; POSITIVE PUNISHMENTS. 653 vid. Morus, p. 297, not. 2. This is, indeed, denied by those who will not allow that God inflicts any arbitrary punishments, vid. § 31, 86, 87. But even if they suppose they can make their opinion ap pear probable on philosophical grounds, they ought not still to as sert, that the doctrine of positive punishments is not taught in the Bible. All the ancient nations, who believed in the punishments of Hell, regarded these punishments, at least the most.severe and terrible of them, as positive or arbitrary, i. e. as depending on the will of the Legislator ; as on the other hand, they regarded the re wards of the pious, as not merely natural, but principally arbitrary. There are, in fact, but few men in such a state, that the merely natural punishments of sin will appear to them terrible enough to deter them from the commission of it. And so for this reason, if for no other, the doctrine of positive punishments should be retain ed in popular instruction. Experience also shows, that to threaten positive punishment has far more effect, as well upon the cultivated as the uncultivated, in deterring them from crime, than to announce and lead men to expect the merely natural consequences of sin, be they ever so terrible. Hence we may see why it is, that the New Testament says little of natural punishments, (although these be yond a question await the wicked,) and makes mention of them in particular far less frequently, than of positive punishments ; and why, in those passages which treat of the punishments of Hell, such expressions and images are almost always employed, as suggest and confirm the idea of positive punishments ; cf. No. I. of this Section ad finem. Those, therefore, who consider Jesus to be a teacher of truth, in whose mouth there was no guile, must necessarily believe also his of ten repeated declarations on this subject. It is very inconsistent in some modern philosophers and theologians to admit of positive re wards for the pious, and yet deny positive punishments for the wick ed. We are indeed compelled to admit positive rewards, because those which are merely natural are not sufficient to complete the measure of our happiness. If the positive rewards are probable on grounds of reason, how can it be said, that positive punishments are impossible and contradictory t It was, moreover, the prevailing doctrine among the Jews at the time of Christ, that punishments are for the most part positive, and that they affect even the body. Hence the words of Christ, dnoXiaai yvtnv xal ampa, Matt. 10: 654 ART. XV. § 156. OF POSITIVE PUNISHMENTS. , 28. For since the impenitent will be again clothed with a body at the Resurrection, this body must participate in their punishment, as the body of the righteous will participate in their reward. As to the question, In what these positive or corporeal punish ments will consist; no definite answer can be drawn from the Bible; because it is plainly intended, that all the representations made of this subject should be understood figuratively and by way of com parison ; i. e. these punishments will consist of pains like those, e. g. arising from fire, or from a gnawing worm. We are so little ac quainted with the state in which we shall be hereafter, and with the nature of our future body, that no strictly literal representation of future punishments could be made intelligible to us. Even the place in which the wicked are confined will contribute much to their misery ; also the company of other sinners, and of evil spirits, a circumstance, particularly mentioned in Matt. 25: 41. Note. The efforts of those who have endeavoured to persuade even the common people and the young, that no positive divine punishments are to be expected in the world to come, have ever had a most injurious tendency, as the history of all ages will show. For the deep-rooted expectation of such punishments among all nations, has always been a check upon the more gross out-breakings of sin. It was from this expectation that the oath derived its sacredness and inviolableness. It is often said by Cicero and others, that all philosophers, both Greek and Roman, are agreed in this, that the gods do not punish, deos non nocere. But as soon as this opinion of the philosophers be gan to prevail among the people, it produced, according to the testimony of all the Roman writers, the most disastrous consequences, which lasted for centuries. No subsequent efforts could ever succeed in awakening a fear of divine punishments in the minds of the great multitude. Hence resulted the deplorable degeneracy of the Roman Empire. Truth and faith ceased, chasti ty became contemptible, perjury was practised without shame, and every species of luxurious excess and of cruelty was indulged. To this corruption, no philosopher was able to oppose any effectual resistance ; until at length its course was arrested by Christianity. Among Christians themselves such efforts have always been followed by similar disastrous consequences. (1) The papal sale of indulgences, which became general during the twelfth, and the succeeding centuries, and especially after the Crusades, had a tendency, in the same way, to diminish the fear of positive divine punish ments ; because it was supposed one might purchase exemption from them. The result of this delusion was equally deplorable in this case, as in the one before mentioned ; the greatest immoralities prevailed throughout Christian lands ; until this evil was arrested by the Reformation, and the fear and the love of God were both awakened anew in the hearts of Christians. JUSTICE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENTS. 655 (2) A similar result took place in England in the latter half of the seven teenth century, when some rationalist philosophers, during the reign of Charles II., undertook to emancipate the minds of men from the fear of posi tive divine punishments. The effect of their efforts is well known from his tory. Frivolity of spirit, immorality, sins of impurity, and all the dreadful con sequences of forgetting God, suddenly prevailed. (3) The principles of these English philosophers were gradually diffused through France, by the writings of Voltaire, Diderot, and others ; and after 1740, they were also adopted and disseminated by some even in Germany. The histo ry of our own times shows us sufficiently what has been the result of these prin ciples here. It is agreeable to the Gospel, — it is, indeed, the very spirit of the Gospel, to represent God as Love. It is also right for the evangelical teacher, indeed it is his duty, to preach respecting the infinite love of God, especially as it is manifested in Jesus Christ. In this his whole heart should live. But he must never forget to teach, in what order and on what conditions alone man becomes susceptible of these proofs of the divine favor. The Gospel itself, though at a loss for words sufficiently to magnify the infinite love of God, repre sents also his penal justice in a light extremely terrifying to all who do not fall in with this prescribed order, and threatens them with the most severe and inevitable punishments in the world to come. Both of these views should, therefore, be connected together. Cf. the small werk written by Jacobi, Was soil ick zur Beruhigung meiner Seele glauben ? Was soil ich hoffcn bey den man- nichfaltigen Meinungen der Gelehrten ?" 1790, S. 83 — 96. III. The justice and necessity of the punishments of Hell; the sins, which bring condemnation in their train; and the different degrees of punishment. (1) That there will be punishments in the future state, has been believed by nearly all men who have reflected impartially upon the world, the destiny of man as a moral being, and upon the attributes of God. It is obvious to every one, that the earth is not the theatre of the divine justice, and that the lot of man here below is not just ly apportioned to his moral conduct. The greatest criminal often goes unpunished, and lives perhaps in external peace and prosperi ty ; and the pious, good man is often unrewarded, lives in adverse external circumstances, and frequently is severely persecuted. All this now appears to contradict our ideas of the divine justice, good ness, and wisdom, and makes the destination of man an inexplica ble riddle.As soon, therefore, as men came to believe in a future life, and began to reflect upon the disproportion which now exists between the moral character and the happiness of men, the thought would 656 ART. XV. § 156. CAUSES OF CONDEMNATION. naturally suggest itself to their minds, that the proper theatre of di vine justice will be first opened in the world to come, and that the punishment of the sinner there, may be as confidently expected, as, the reward of the righteous ; since in this way only can either the justice or goodness of God be vindicated. Vid. the Article on Prov idence, especially § 71, VI. ad finem. Also Michaelis, Ueber die Lehre von der Siinde, S. 314. — Such accordingly is the uniform rep resentation of the New Testament ; vid. 2 Thess. 1:5, sq. Rom. 2: 6, sq. (2) Causes of condemnation. According to the conceptions of men possessing' only a very limited and imperfect knowledge of moral things, it is only a few of the grosser crimes which are pun ished after death. In proportion as their ideas on moral subjects become enlarged and perfected, the number of offences which they regard as liable to punishment, is increased ; and they come at length to the just result, that every sin must be punished ; vid. § 150, II. 2. And so, according to the express doctrine of the New Testament, all irreligiousness (an ungodly disposition, forgetfulness of God, dai@na), every transgression of the divine precepts, all kinds of vice and moral corruption, will be inevitably punished in the future world. And this punishment will be inflicted not only upon those who, like Jews and Christians, have the express, writ ten law of God, but also upon the heathen, who have merely the law of Nature; vid. Rom. 2: 6—16. Gal. 4: 8. Matt. 25: 41, sq. 1 Cor. 6: 9. 2 Pet. 2: 1—3. Especially is aniazia or dnet&eia represented as a cause of condemnation. So Mark 16: 16, "he that believeth not, is con demned." John 3: 18. and v. 36, 6 dnei&mv vim ovx o\pezai fw- tjv, dXX' tj ogytj &eov pivei in avzov. By this unbelief is meant, the deliberate rejection of the doctrine of Christ, and disobedience to His precepts, against one's better conviction. It includes also, apostasy from the Christian doctrine when it has been once receiv ed and acknowledged as true ; Heb. 10: 26, 39. — Every thing, therefore, which draws after it punishment in the future world, may be comprehended under aniazia and avopia, — a criminal disbelief and transgression of the divine precepts. Whoever, then, is dnia- tog or dvopog, will be unhappy hereafter, however different the de grees of unhappiness may be. On the contrary, niatig and e'vvo- pog (llog (evoifieia) will be followed by blessedness, however great DEGREES OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 657 the difference in degree may be.— It will be understood of course, that among the unbelieving who will be punished, those are not in cluded, who have no opportunity to become acquainted with the di vine will or with the Christian doctrine, or who are naturally inca pacitated for this; in short, those who do not believe without any fault of their own ; e. g. children and many of the heathen • vid § 121. Note. As to the number of those who will be saved and lost, the Bible says nothing definitely. When, on a certain occasion, the question was proposed to Christ, Whether tlie number of the saved would be small? he gave an answer, according to Luke 13: 23, sq., of the following import : " Ask not such ques tions from an idle curiosity ; but act as if thou wert alone among many thou sands." There are, indeed, many who will be saved, cf. vs. 28, 29, and Rev. 7: 9 ; but among them there will be many, whose lot it was supposed would be different; and not all of those who account themselves the heirs of salva tion, and are so esteemed by others, will be found in this number, vs. 29, 30. It is often distinctly affirmed by Christ, that among those who profess his name there are many, who will not obtain eternal life, although he desires to lead all to salvation. E. g. Matt. 20: 16. 22:14, " many are called, but few are chosen," i. e. many who hear me, suffer themselves to be instructed in my doctrine, and become externally professors of my religion (xXrftoi) ; but few, however, belong to the number of the chosen saints, the elect, those who are well-pleasing in the sight of God, who do that which is commanded them, who are what they should be. It is the same as to Matt. 7: 13, 14, where Christ shows, that the way in which many teachers lead the people, is not the right way for attaining salvation, i. e. their instruction is not true and salutary, al though followed by the majority of men (latavia) ; the right and sure way which he points out, meets with less approbation (it is narrow and forsaken, trodden by few), because it is more difficult and^requires many sacrifices. For there were at that time but few who believed on him, and kept his, command ments with the whole heart. (3) As there are future punishments, they must be different in degree ; vid. Morus. p. 298, § 9. This might be concluded a prio ri, and might be reasonably expected from the justice of God : for there are different degrees in sin, and one is greater than another; vid. §81, II. ; and hence punishments, both natural and positive, must be proportionately varied. Now this is the uniform doctrine of Jesus and the Apostles. The more knowledge of the divine will a man has, the more opportunity and inducement to avoid sin, the greater the incentives to faith and virtue which are held up before him ; by so much is his responsibility increased, and the greater will be his punishment, if he does not make a faithful «=° ~f *-:- ad- Vol. II B° 658 ART. XV. § 157. DURATION OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. vantages. " The servant who knows his Lord's will, and does it not, deserves to be beaten with many' stripes." " To whom much is given, of him will much be required." Matt. 10: 15. 23: 15. Luke 12: 46. Hence Paul says that the Heathen, who act against the law of nature, will be punished ; but that the Jews will be pun ished more than they, because they had more knowledge, and more was given to them. But we can go no farther than this general rule, that this differ ence of degree will be apportioned xaza yvmaiv, ntoziv, and tgyu. For God alone is able rightly to appoint punishments, and to fix their degree, since he alone is able by his omniscience to deter mine infallibly the degree of sin and its ill-desert. It may, there fore, be, that many whom we regard as utterly damnable, may not, in God's judgment deserve damnation, or not that degree of it which we award them. Others, on the contrary, to whom we might ad judge reward, may appear in the eyes of God, to deserve severe pun ishment. § 157. Duration of future punishments ; reasons for and against their eternal duration. I. Reasons in favor of the eternal duration of future punishments, and what is, or may be, objected against these reasons. (1) From the Holy Scriptures. In the New Testament, the punishments of Hell are expressly described as eternal. In Matt. 25: 41, 46, we find nvg almviov, and xoXaaig almviog opposed to fcoj; almviog- in both of these sentences, therefore, must almviog be taken in the same sense, per legem disjunctions . And so, if in connexion with fco?j, it means unending, eternal ; it must mean the same in connexion with nvg. In accordance with this, must other texts be explained ; as where it is said respecting the fallen angels, that they are bound in Seopol d'tSioi, Jude v. 6, coll. 2 Pet. 2: 4. Rev. 14: 11; oXe&gog almviog, 2 Thess. I: 9. Mark 9: 44, 46. Rev. 20: 10. So in John 3: 36, where it is said respecting unbe- SCRIPTURAL VIEW OF THE DOCTRINE. 659 lievers, pt'vti t] ogytj &tov—ovx oipezat ^mtjv. In Matt. 26: 24 Christ says, respecting Judas, " that it would have been better for him, never to have been born." With regard to these texts we shall here subjoin some observa tions. (a) On the texts in which almv and almviog are used. These are regarded by some as not decisive. For trris> and almv are used to denote any long duration, or period of time. Sometimes they re fer to the past, and denote ages gone by, ancient days, antiquity ; thus, nvXai almvia, Ps. 24: 7, 9 ; ezt] almvia, years of antiquity, Ps. 77: 5 ; yQovot almvioi, Rom. 16: 25 ; dn almvog, Acts 3: 21. ,, Sometimes they refer to future time, and are applied to every thing which lasts long, although in time it may come to an end, or has come to it already. For the Hebrews and other ancient people have no one word for expressing the precise idea of eternity. Cf. Vol. I. § 20, III. respecting the eternity of God. Thus Paul, 2 Cor. 4: 18, opposes almviov to ngoaxaigov. Thus Sia&tjxtj almviog is used with reference to the Mosaic Institute, although it came to an end, Ex. 31: 16 ; the same as to legazeia almviog, Num. 25: 13. From this, as some suppose, it follows, that xoXaaig almviog, may mean either the pain and condemnation ordained by God of old (as Christ says, with regard to the blessedness opposed to it, that it was ngotjzoipaapivtj, Matt. 25: 34, 41) ; or misery and happiness long continued, lasting for ages, without yet designating a duration absolutely endless ; or, both of these senses may be comprehended under this expression. In the invisible world, every thing is alm viov and di'Siov. There, — according to the conceptions of all na tions, — time is not measured by years and short human periods, as it is here in the world ; but by long periods, by ages. To this some add the remark, that nvg and xoXaaig almviog properly denote the place, the kingdom, the residence of the lost, — the state of condemnation ; as ^aaiXtia &eov and fcu>j almviog de note the place, the abode of the blessed. Tljis place, they say, may be eternal, because it will never be without occupants, or persons who endure punishment on account of sin. There will always be two different kingdoms, one of happiness, the other of misery, the distinction between which will never be removed, and which can never be united. But from this it does not follow, that every per son who has once been there, or suffered punishment, will remain there forever. 660 ART. XV. § 157. ARGUMENTS FOR THE (b) As to the phrase, their worm dieth not, etc. Mark ix., this, it is said, occurs also in Is. 66: 24, with reference to the unhappy fate of the idolatrous Israelites, and is transferred here to the punish ments of Hell. Since, however, in the former case it does not denote an absolute eternity of suffering, but only its dreadfulness and long continuance ; so it is at least possible, it may mean the same here. — And as to the term pivei in John in., the idea of eternity is still less implied in this. As used by John, it may stand for elvai, and denote only the certainty, and inevitableness of future punishments. (c) In the passage with regard to Judas, Matt, xxvi., the lan guage employed, it is said, may be proverbial and popular, not ad mitting of a strict construction. It is as much as to say, " such an one makes himself extremely miserable; well would it be for him, had he never been born !" But those texts in which there is a clear contrast between feojj almviog and xoXaaig almviog, cannot be so easily explained away, as some suppose. And if any one considers them impartially, and without attempting to prevent their obvious meaning, he will not fail to derive from them, as Morus justly observes, (p. 300, ad finem), " idea sempiternitatis, non autem longi temporis." For since £o»} almviog in all the other discourses of Jesus, is understood, without contradiction, to denote a blessed life lasting forever ; there is no reason for understanding it differently here. And if £mt] almviog here means eternal life, then per legem disjunctions, must xoXaaig almviog denote eternal, unending punishment. — And the other texts relating to this subject, must now be explained in accordance with these. (2) Other arguments d priori have been employed in behalf of the eternity of future punishments. (a) The guilt (culpa reatus) of sin, it is said, is infinite, and its punishment must therefore be the same. The injured majesty of the law-giver is infinite, and hence punishment for the injury must be infinite too. This argument was employed by many of the schoolmen, e. g. Thomas Aquinas ; and has also been urged by Mosheim, and other modern theologians. Answer. There is no infinitus reatus peccatorum ; nor can the object against which sin is committed, be made in every case the measure of its criminality or ill-desert ; certainly this cannot be done with regard to God. Vid. § 81, ad finem. ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENTS. 661 (6) Every sin is followed, to all eternity, by injurious consequen ces to him who commits it; as every virtue, or good action, is fol lowed by good consequences. The wicked therefore must be mis erable to all eternity, and endure the punishment of their sins. Answer. This is very true, as far as natural punishments, or the natural evil consequences of sin, are spoken of. And if these are meant, when the eternity of future punishments is mentioned, then indeed must they be called eternal; since something will al-. ways be detracted from the happiness of the sinner for his having ' sinned, even if he repents, and all positive punishments are remov ed from;him or repealed ; as it cannot be otherwise, than that the natural consequences of sin should always remain. Those who have sinned, will always stand proportionably below others, in point of happiness, as there are degrees both of blessedness and misery. Here, Jhowever, two things should be remarked; viz. first ; all the consequences of our actions cannot be imputed to us, and so all the evil consequences of our actions cannot be regarded as punish ment, especially in case it was impossible for us to foresee these con sequences, or when we sinned unintentionally. Secondly ; divine Providence has wisely ordered it, that good and useful consequences shall often result even from the sins of men, and these consequen ces are equally unending ; e. g. through the unbelief of the Jews, the heathen are saved, according to Paul, Rom. xi. This now should be taken into consideration, in mitigation of the guilt and punishable ness of many sins. (c) Another argument in behalf of the eternity of future punish ments is drawn from the scientia media Dei ; vid. § 22, I. With re gard to some men, God foresaw, that if they continued hereupon the earth, they would sin without cessation. Since now these persons are such, as to their whole constitution and disposition, that they would go on forever to sin ; they are justly punished forever. This argument was employed by Fulgentius, and Gregory the great ; and it has been again used of late by Drexel, Baumgarten, Troschel and others. Answer. It cannot be reconciled with our ideas of justice, that sins which were never actually committed, should be punish ed as if they had been committed. If a human ruler should pun ish an individual for crimes, of which he was never actually guil ty, but which he knew with certainty he would perpetrate, if he 662 ART. XV. § 157. ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENTS. had means, time, and opportunity, it would doubtless be pronounced unjust and tyrannical. The fact, too, is very questionable, whether there are any men who would go on to sin without interruption, in every possible situation and under all circumstances in which they might be placed in this world. Nothing like this is taught us in the Christian doctrine. According to this, God punishes only zd i'gya or a tnga^ev ixaazog. Rom. 2: 6. 2 Cor. 5: 10. (d) The eternity of the punishments of Hell is inferred by others from the bias to sin, which will continually acquire strength in those who are lost, and finally make repentance impossible. It is often seen, even here upon the earth, how deeply this propensity to sin takes root, when it is long indulged, and how difficult, and indeed impossible, repentance becomes. Besides, the use of the means of grace is confined to the present life. Hereafter there will be no preaching of the word of God, and no sacraments and the grace of God will no longer be there given to bring men to repentance. Answer. In these statements, there is much which is vague and incapable of proof. First. The state of things in the future world, is very different from the state here. The reason why the bias to sin takes such deep root, and why reformation is so difficult in the present world, often lies in the external circmstances by which man is surrounded, and which make an irresistible impression upon his senses. As soon as these objects can be removed, or the impression which they make upon the senses can be weakened, it is seen that reformation becomes more easy. But now in the future world, the spirits of lost men will no longer be surrounded by these external objects which prove so exciting to the senses. So that, even if the impression before made upon them by these objects should for a while remain, they must still, from the very nature of the human soul, become weaker and weaker, in the absence of these excitements. It would seem, therefore, that sometimes at least, the propensity to sin must grad ually decrease in the future world ; especially when we consider, that those who are lost, being no longer deceived by external and sen sible objects, and being no longer withdrawn from reflection as when upon the earth, will now see and deeply feel the evil' consequences of sin. Secondly. From hence we may conclude, if the use of reason is FINITENESS OF FUTURE PUNISHMENTS. 663 not wholly denied to the damned, and if their moral nature is not wholly destroyed, that it is not improbable, that even in hell they may possibly conceive an abhorrence of sin, and renounce their love for it, although the word of God is not there preached, nor the sa craments there administered. Morus p. 301. The knowledge which they will carry with them from this life into the next, cannot be en tirely obliterated ; nor can it be supposed, that God will compel them to sin, or so entirely withhold from them his grace, that they will not be able to come to the knowledge of their sins, and to re nounce the prejudice and wickedness cherished during the present life. For God to do this, would be to punish sin with sin, and to be himself the author of new offences. It may be asked, then, whether the end of the divine punishments, to promote the actual reformation of those upon whom they are inflicted, may not be at tained even in the case of those who will hereafter be condemned 1 Thirdly. But should any one say, that these punishments will be so severe, and will cause, so great pain, that they will rather drive those upon whom they are inflicted to despair, distraction, or fury, than promote their repentance ; he does not consider, that such a statement can hardly be reconciled with our ideas of the justice and goodness of God. These ideas do not permit us to suppose, that he will punish any one as an offender, from whom he himself has with drawn all opportunity for repentance, and all freedom of action. He only can be rightly punished, who enjoyed freedom, but would not employ the means and opportunities for reformation which were offered him. II. Arguments for the finiteness of future punishments, and objections to these arguments. Besides what is commonly said to invalidate the prevailing opin ion of the eternity of future punishments, the following arguments are often employed to support the opinion, that they are finite in duration. These arguments are of very unequal weight. (1) Arguments from the New Testament, (a) The advocates of this opinion appeal to the declaration of Peter, Acts 3: 21, where Xgovoi dnoxazaazdaemg ndvzmv are spoken of, which God had be fore promised by the prophets. This is understood by many, to de note the future recovery of lost spirits and men to a happy condition, which is on this account called Restoration, (b) The finiteness of 664 ART. XV. § 157. ARGUMENTS FOR THE FINITE future punishments is inferred by others, from the efficacy and uni versality of the merits of Christ, There is no reason, they say, to limit the salutary consequences of his work merely to the present life. It will contiuue to be efficacious in the future world, if man is only willing to reform. Such is the reasoning of many, and they re fer to 1 Cor. 15: 22 — 28, where &dvatog denotes misery and the punishment of sin ; and also other texts. Answer. From the New Testament, however, no clear argu ment can be derived in behalf of the finite duration of future punish ments. For, (a) The passage in 1 Cor. xv. treats of Death in the literal sense ; since &dvazog is there opposed to the Resurrection of the dead, and it is there expressly said, that Christ, in raising the dead to life, will conquer this last enemy of the human race. Cf. § 98, ad fin. This is, therefore, described as his last great work for the good of the human race. And so, judging from this passage, one could expect no influence of Christ, or of his work for the good of men, beyond the grave. (b) That the passage referred to in Acts m. does not relate to this point, is beyond all question. Vid. Ernesti's Programm on this text, in his " Opusc. Theol." p. 477, sq. Cf. § 97, ad finem. The meaning of this passage is as follows : " The heavens have re ceived Christ, or retain him within themselves, as long as (dygig ov) the happy period of the New Testament continues." He will not come again to found an earthly kingdom. In v. 20th, these ygovot dnoxazaazaaemg navzmv are called xaigol avaipv^emg ano Kvgiov, and in Heb. 9: 10, xaigog Siog&maemg. Thus it is said in Matt. 17: 11, ' HXiag (i. e. John) dnoxazaaztjoei navza, where the phrase is taken from the Sept. Version of Mai. 4: 6. ITdvza refers to every tbing which needs reformation in religious affairs, and ta every thing which is predicted by the prophets. Cf. Morus p. 301. (c) Nor is there in the discourses of Jesus a single passage, which encourages the hope that there will be a termination of future punishments. Cf. e. g. Luke xvi. (2) Arguments from reason for the finite duration of future punishments. The principal of these are drawn from our ideas of the divine attributes, the goodness, wisdom, and justice of God. How can it be reconciled with these attributes, it is asked, that God should make so large a number of his rational creatures forever DURATION OF FUTURE PUNISHMENTS. 665 miserable ? How can God, who is love itself, punish his creatures eternally, because they have lived a few years only in a thoughtless, wicked, and irrational manner? This seems to be wholly dispro portionate. Again it is asked ; how could God create beings whose eternal misery he foresaw 1 To these questions it may be replied. (a) That although the views expressed in them are in general true, yet our limited understanding is unable to determine, in partic ular cases, what is to be expected from the divine goodness, wis dom, and justice, and what is accordant with these attributes, and what otherwise. And so, although it may appear to us to be agreea ble to the goodness, and the other attributes of God, to put a period to the punishments of Hell, still it does not follow, that he must necessarily, or will actually do this. Did we not see it to be a fact, that God has created a world in which there is so much physi cal and moral evil, we should proceed to argue, on this principle, that it would be inconsistent with his perfections to give such a world existence, and should think that we had reasoned conclu sively. (b) Again ; in reply to the above questions it may be said, that God does not look merely at single individuals, but has respect to the whole of his creation, and that he must prefer the welfare of the whole to that of a few. The offender himself may not always be benefited by the divine punishments visited upon him ; but his example may yet serve for the warning of others, and thus conduce to their good ; cf. Rom. 9: 17, 22. Thus the eternal punishments inflicted upon some, may perhaps serve, through all eternity, to de ter from sins many other beings in the boundless empire of God — good angels, and men redeemed, and perhaps still other classes of beings not belonging to this world. By this punishment, therefore, a good may be done for many which will overbalance the evil inflict ed on a few. The subject is exhibited by Michaelis in this light in his Work, " Von der Sunde," S. 325, sq. Plato in his Gorgias, near the end, ascribes a similar thought to Socrates ; " he believed, that the irreclaimable part of mankind would be eternally punished as nugaSetypaza, iva aXXot ogmvzeg, q,o§ovpevoi ^eXtiovg yivmv- T(U." — There is much probability in this thought. The force of it, however, some endeavour to invalidate by saying, that it is conceiv-- ing of God too narrowly, and too much after the manner of men. Vol. II. 84 666 ART. XV. § 158. GENERAL REMARKS God cannot be wanting in other means, by which this object could be more easily and surely attained. Again ; it is very much to be doubted, whether the example of persons condemned to eternal pun ishment, would have such a powerful effect upon all, and actually de ter them from sin. This effect is not certainly produced upon many here in this world, who believe most confidently in the eternity of future punishments. Moreover it is an imperfection belonging to human legislators and rulers, and not therefore to be transferred to the supreme legislator, that the punishments inflicted by them often serve merely for the warning of others, and cannot secure the re formation of those who are punished. Vid. Vol. I. §31, No. 2, re specting the positive justice of God. § 15S. Result drawn from comparing and examining the different arguments for and against the eternal duration of future punish ment ; and a sketch of the history of this doctrine. I. Result of the reasons for and against this doctrine. (1) There is not a single text in the New Testament, either in the discourses of Christ or in the writings of the Apostles, which clearly authorizes the hope of an entire and universal removal of all future punishments ; but exactly the opposite of this sentiment is expressly affirmed in many passages; vid. § 157, I. I, and II. 1. (2) The following remarks, drawn partly from Scripture and partly from reason, may serve to illustrate and confirm, what we are taught in the Bible respecting the duration of punishment in the future world. There are two kinds of punishment which the wick ed will be made to suffer ; viz. (a) Natural punishment. As every action morally good is fol lowed by endless good consequences to him who performs it ; so it is with every wrong action. This is founded in the wise constitution of things which God himself has established. When, therefore, nat ural punishments are spoken of, it is obvious to reason, how an eter nal duration of them may be affirmed. Indeed, reason cannot con- RESPECTING THE DOCTRINE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENTS. 667 ceive it to be otherwise, since there is no promise of God, either in the Holy Scriptures or elswhere, that the natural evil consequences of sins once committed will ever cease. In order to this there must be some incomprehensible miracle performed ; and this God has not promised to do. Hence as far as natural punishments are con cerned, their eternal duration may be affirmed, both on grounds of Scripture and reason. Cf. §157, I. 2. (6) Positive punishments. With regard to these we may conceive that they may be removed ; indeed, much can be said, on grounds of reason, to render this opinion probable. To hope that God would re move the positive punishments of sins, in case the sinner, even in the future life, should come to the knowledge of himself, and truly repent, would seem to be agreeable to the divine goodness and justice. That the repentance of the sinner in the future world is absolutely impossi ble, is not taught in the Scriptures ; vid. 157, 1.4, coll. §63, II. Note, respecting the fallen angels. And that even these miserable beings are by no means wholly excluded from the active proofs of the good ness and justice of God, is evident from the fact, that the Bible ex pressly teaches, that the lot of some of the damned will be more light and tolerable, than that of others, vid. Matt. 11:22, 24. 10: 15. Luke 12: 48- The phrase xoXaaig almviog may perhaps relate therefore merely to the natural punishments of sin, and not to the positive. Still it cannot be shown, that this phrase does and must refer exclusively to these natural punishments ; and it is still possi ble that both these kinds of punishment may be comprehended in its meaning.— In short, no arguments which are merely philosophi cal, furnish any thing more than a certain degree of probability, on this subject ; they cannot enable us to decide any thing definitely with regard to it. We know too little what the positive punish ments of the future world will be, to speak decidedly with regard to them. Where the object is unknown to us, we cannot pronounce decidedly, that the predicate of eternal duration may not be applied to them. But allowing that positive punishments may be wholly re moved from one who may have actually repented ; still, the natural evil consequences of sin will not therefore, of necessity come to an end. These may, indeed, become more light and tolerable to one who has repented ; but even such an one can never be happy in the same degree as another, who has never sinned. Such an one will always stand on a lower point of happiness than others, and there will al ways be a great gulf fixed between him and them. 668 ART. XV. § 158. FUTURE PUNISHMENTS. (3) The wisdom which Christ and his apostles always showed in exhibiting this doctrine, should be imitated by all Christian teachers. In our practical instructions, we should never indulge in specula tions, or suffer ourselves to enter upon the investigation of learned questions, which the unpractised cannot understand, and will but too easily misconstrue and pervert. Even the distinction between natural and positive punishments cannot be made perfectly plain to the unlearned ; and hence it is never insisted upon in the Sacred Scriptures ; and that positive punishments will ever wholly cease in the future world, can be shown incontrovertibly neither from the Bible nor any other source. It is moreover impossible to prevent the doctrine of the finite duration of future punishments, let it be stated ever so guardedly, from being perverted in various ways by the great mass of mankind, to their own injury. Let the teacher, therefore, adhere to the simple doctrine of the Bible ; the more so, considering how little we know of the future world, and how liable we are, through our ignorance, to mistake. Had more full disclosures on this subject been necessary or useful for us in the present life, they would have been given to us by God either through nature, or direct revelation, or in both these ways. But since he has not seen fit to do this, let the Christian teacher ex hibit faithfully and conscientiously, that only which Christ and the Apostles taught on this subject, without either adding any thing to their testimony, or diminishing aught from it. Note. Some modern writers, who admit that eternal punishments are threat ened in the Bible, but who are unable to reconcile this doctrine with their preconceived philosophical or theological principles, have hit upon the thought, that God has merely threatened these eternal punishments, in order to deter men more effectually from sin, and to sustain more firmly the authority of his law ; but that it depends upon Himself, to what degree he will fulfil his threat- enings. In executing the sentence, he can and will, it is said, abate some thing from the severity of the punishment threatened. So thought Tillotson, in his Sermon on the pains of Hell. And this view has appeared not impro bable to many German theologians, e. g. Bushing, Bahrdt (in his " Dogma tik"), Less, and others. But such a supposition is unworthy of God. Human legislators do, indeed, in consequence of their weakness, sometimes resort to such expedients, in or der to sustain the authority of their laws. Still such measures, even among men, are generally followed by injurious consequences, and are rarely adopted except by weak princes. But with regard to God, who is faithful and true, HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE. 669 such a supposition is incongruous. Nor does he need any such expedients, since he cannot want for means to effect this object, without going contrary to his veracity. Besides, the whole strength and efficacy of all the threatenings connected with the divine laws, would by this supposition be diminished. For men are always inclined enough to believe, that they shall not, after all these threatenings, be dealt with so strictly and severely ; because they have been accustomed to see some abatement of the penalty annexed to human laws, when it comes to be inflicted. But against so hurtful a mistake, the Holy Scriptures labor with the greatest earnestness, and every where insist upon the doctrine of the divine veracity, and the unfailing fulfilment of the divine threatenings; e. g. Heb. 4: 12, 13. II. Sketch of the History of this doctrine among Christians. Cf. Burnet, De statu mortuorum et resurgentium ; also J. A. Dietelmair, Hist, antiquior commenti fanatici de dnoxazuazaaemaig ndvzmv, Altorf, 1769, Svo ; and Cotta, Historia succincta dogmatis de poenarum infernalium duratione, Tubing. 1774. (I) We are not to expect any deeply learned and philosophical investigations and distinctions, with regard to this subject, from the simplicity of the earliest Christian period. The teachers were then contented with the simple doctrine of the apostles which has been already exhibited, and they made use of this, with the most happy success, in their didactic and hortatory discourses. Afterwards, since the second century, when they began to mingle the philoso phy of the schools with Christianity, they fell into speculation upon this doctrine. Some undertook to define the idea of almviog more accurately, and to show, that it does not necessarily imply punish ments which are strictly unending. Others insisted upon the literal meaning of this term, and would have it taken in its strictest sense. Thus two parties were formed. These might perhaps have found some points of union, or at least of approximation, if they had prop erly considered the distinction between natural and positive pun ishments. But no traces of this distinction can be found in most of the ancients ; certainly they did not see it, and all the consequences which can be derived from it, with sufficient distinctness. (2) The doctrine that the pains of Hell are finite in duration, was first clearly taught by some of the Christian teachers of the Al exandrine school, in the second century. They obviously derived their mode of representation from the principles of the Platonic phi losophy. Plato regarded punishments merely as medicinal, design- 670 ART. XV. § 158. HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE ed to effect the cure of the disorders of men. He supposed that all spirits and souls not wholly irreclaimable, would be morally purified and-renovated, by means of punishments, and would in this way "at tain to happiness ; which however would be very different, as to its degree. But still he, as well as Socrates, believed in the unending punishment of the irreclaimable. Cf. § 150. Even in Clement of Alexandria, we find a clear exhibition of these Platonic ideas ; cf. Strom. 4 and 6. But Origen, in the third century, taught still more plainly, anoxazdaxaaiv Saipovimv xai datfidjv dv&gmnmv, and ngoaxaigov eivai xoXaaiv \uae§mv dv&gmnmv, and endeavoured to establish this doctrine by many ar guments. In the works of his which are still extant, there are pas sages which are clearly of this import ; e. g. in his works " Contra Celsum," V. 15. " De principiis," II. 5. Homil. 19, in Jerem. ; and Athanasius, and other ancient writers are agreed, that he taught this doctrine. Some modern writers have undertaken to dispute this, though without sufficient reason.* Origen was followed in this doctrine by many of the learned Grecian fathers, e. g. Diodo- rus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and others of the school of Origen. Even in the Latin Church this opinion was widely dissem inated in the fourth century, as we learn from Augustine and Hiero nymus. But in opposition to these, the doctrine of the eternity of future punishments was affirmed by other equally distinguished teachers ; e. g. Gregory of Nazianzum, Basilius, John of Constantinople, and among the Latins by Hieronymus, Augustine, and others. Even in the fourth century, Origen and his adherents were severely re proached on account of this and other doctrines, which had been already freely circulated. At length the ecclesiastical anathema was pronounced upon this doctrine. — Among the opponents of the school of Origen and of their doctrine on this subject, Theophilus of Alexandria in the fourth and fifth centuries, was especially dis tinguished. The doctrine of Origen was therefore condemned by the fourth Council at Carthage, in the year 398, and afterwards by many other Councils, and in opposition to it, the doctrine of the * [Neander, while he concedes that Origen taught this doctrine, thinks it is one of those points respecting which his opinion afterwards changed. Cf. Neander, Allg. Kirch. Gesch. B. I. Abth. III. S. 1098.— Tr.] OF FUTURE PUNISHMENTS. 671 eternity of future punishment was established as the faith of the Church. (3) Still, the doctrine of the limited duration of future punish ment has never wanted defenders. Even during the dark ages and among the schoolmen, there were some who took this ground, espe cially Scotus Erigena in the ninth century, and the Abbot Raynal- dus in the twelfth. But the great majority of teachers during, this period, held fast to the opposite opinion, and endeavoured to con firm it by new arguments ; so e. g. Thomas Aquinas, and others. But this doctrine of the limited duration of future punishment fell into very ill-repute in the Western Church, on account of its being professed by some of the enthusiastic and revolutionary par ties in the sixteenth century, (e. g. by the Anabaptists,) and from its being intimately connected with their expectations and schemes. The mere profession of the doctrine came to be regarded, as im plying assent to the other extravagancies of these parties, and as the signal for rebellion. Hence it is rejected in the Symbolical books of the Lutheran Church, as an Anabaptistical doctrine ; Augs. Con fess. Art. XVII. In the form in which this doctrine was held by these sects, it deserves the most unmingled disapprobation. Again ; among the ill-famed Christian free-thinkers, e. g. the Socinians, there were some who professed it. In modern times, it has been the same. This doctrine has been advocated in the Pro testant Church both by men who have stood in suspicion of enthu siasm (e. g. Peterson, Lavater, and others) ; and by some of the free-thinkers in philosophy and theology, although for very different causes, and on very different grounds, by these two classes. The principal advocates of the common opinion on this subject, in modern times, are Mosheim, in the Appendix to his Sermons ; and among the philosophers, Leibnitz, Baumgarten in his Dogma tik and Vindicise poenarurn asternarum, Halle, 1742; Schubert, Verniinftige Gedanken von der Endlichkeit der Hollenstrafen, 3te Aufg. Jena, 1750 ; Heinr. Meine, Gute Sache der Lehre von der unendlichen Dauer der Hollenstrafen, Helmstadt, 1748 ; Schlitte, Ueberlegung der beiderseitiger Griinde fur und wider die unendli- che Ungliickseligkeit der Verbrecher, etc. Cf. also Michaelis, Von der Siinde, etc. The principal advocates of the doctrine of the limited duration of future punishments, are Soner, (in an acute philosophical work, 672 ART. XV. § 159. ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS to which Leibnitz replied, vid. Lessing's Beytrage zur Geschichte und Literatur, lr Beytr., Braunschweig, 1773, S. 201) ; Eberhard, Apologie des Sokrates, Th. I. and II. ; Gruner, Theol. Dogm. p. 636 ; Basedow, Philalethie, S. 539 ; Steinbart, System u. s. w. A work entitled Ueber die Strafe der Verdammten und deren Dauer, Leipzig, 1782, is composed with much reflection. The arguments on both sides are examined, and a middle course between them is chosen. — Some have supposed that the wicked, after enduring the punishments of Hell for a season, will be at last annihilated, and have called this mortem aternam ; vid. § 151 , ad finem. But ac cording to scriptural usage, &dvazog or oXe&gog almviog or Stvxt- gog is not annihilation, but eternal condemnation. On eternal Blessedness. § 159. Introduction to this doctrine; and explanation of the Scrip tural phraseology with regard to it. I. Grounds for expecting a happier life hereafter. That a more happy life is to be expected after death, appears, even on grounds of reason, in a high degree probable, if either the present state of human life is considered, or the attributes of God, his goodness, justice, and wisdom. Cf. the arguments in behalf of the immortality of the soul, § 149. Man and his destination are the most insolvable riddle, if he has received existence merely for the present life. And this riddle can be explained only on the sup position, that the period of man's existence extends beyond the grave, and that there will properly begin the happy state, where the pious will reap the fruits of what they have sown. The destination of man, as a moral being, is holiness andjpro- portionate happiness. As to holiness or moral perfection, it isr and ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS. 673 remains extremely defective during the present life ; and even those who make the greatest advances in moral excellence, still fall very far short of that high standard which is set up before them and which their own inmost feeling tells them they ought to attain. And as to happiness, it must be confessed, that no one in the pres ent life is perfectly happy, either as to body or soul, although there is implanted in all by the Creator a disposition to seek for happiness, and an inextinguishable thirst to enjoy it. But how scanty and miserable is the satisfaction of this desire in the present life, even with those who in the judgment of others are enviably happy ! Beau tifully and faithfully is this described in Ecclesiastes, — a book which contains the true philosophy of life. It is true, indeed, that agreeable sensations, both bodily and spiritual, are enhanced in their value and charm, by being connect ed with unpleasant sensations, if the unpleasant only go before, and the pleasant follow after. Thus to the convalescent man, after he has endured great sufferings in his sickness, the mere cessation of pain, is an exquisite delight, while to those who have felt none of these sufferings, it is no source of pleasure. But an order exactly the reverse is common in the life of men here upon the earth. The most cheerful time is that of youth ; then we have the full power and bloom of life. The older we grow, the more we become en tangled in business, burdened with cares, oppressed with griefs and distresses, infirmities of body and mind, perhaps with poverty and disgrace. How sad were the lot of man, if he had no future, and happier life to expect ! How many men are born with intellectual faculties and powers, which they can never fully develope here, either because they die early, or are wholly destitute of the means and opportu nities for developement and cultivation. Now if existence ceases with death, this sum of powers is wholly lost. But since our Crea tor does not give us even our bodily powers in vain and for no end, how much less can he have imparted the higher intellectual and es pecially moral faculties without design ! It is no wonder, therefore, that the expectation of a more hap py state after the present life, has as it were forced itself so univer sally upon reflecting men. But equally universarand equally well grounded, is the hope of an unending continuance of this future happy state. For if it is not to continue forever, it ceases to be a Vol. II. 85 674 ART. XV. § 159. NATURE AND NAMES truly happy condition. To foresee the end of a state of bliss, would be of itself enough to disturb the happiness which we might for a time possess, and to embitter its enjoyment ; and when it should ac tually come to an end, it would leave us far more miserable, than we were before we had experience of this blessedness. For one who is born and brought up poor and in a state of servitude, will not feel his situation to be so miserable and oppressive, as a rich or great man, who is cast down from his elevation and brought into the same condition, will find it to be. Great and inestimable, therefore, is the merit of Jesus Christ in giving to this doctrine of an eternal blessedness beyond the grave, that firmness and certainty, which it cannot receive from arguments of reason, by which it can be rendered only probable ; and also in referring every thing, as he does, to this future life. Vid. John 20: 28. 1 John 2: 25. Rom. 2: 7, and § 148. Except for Christ we should have no satisfying certainty, to lift us above all doubt. But now this doctrine is placed in the most intimate connexion with the history of his person, since he always represents himself as the one, through whom we attain to the possession of this eternal hap piness and in whose society we shall enjoy it. Cf. the Sections above cited, also § 120, II. II. Nature and names of future blessedness. On this subject, we have no very clear and definite knowledge, nor can we have in the present life. Men indeed usually conceive the joys of heaven to be the same as, or at least to resemble the pleasures of this world ; and each one hopes to obtain with certain ty, and to enjoy in full measure, beyond the grave, that good which he holds most dear upon earth, — those favorite employments or particular delights, which he ardently longs for here, but which he can seldom or never enjoy in this world, or in the enjoyment of which he has never been fully satisfied. Hence rude men, living only in the indulgence of their passions and appetites, have always expected to find in Heaven the uninterrupted enjoyment of sensual delights of every kind. The indolent man, or one who is exhaust ed by severe labor, regards rest and freedom from employment as the highest good, and places the chief blessedness of heaven in this. But one who reflects soberly on this subject will easily see, that the OF FUTURE BLESSEDNESS. 675 happiness of Heaven must be a very different thing from earthly happiness. This last is of such a nature as to be soon followed by disgust and satiety. We should be very unhappy, if we should live forever in the richest profusion of the highest earthly delights and joys, even could we continue in perpetual and never-fading youth. For all earthly joys and delights of which we know any thing by experience, are of such a nature that after they have been enjoyed for a short time, they lose their relish, and then follows sa tiety. Experience daily confirms the truth of what is said by the Preacher, that every thing upon earth is vanity and vexation of spirit. If it were appointed to us in our present condition, to live forever upon the earth, in the full enjoyment of all it can afford to please and charm, our lot were indeed pitiable. Had we tasted all possible earthly pleasures, and were there none now left which could attract us by their novelty, satiated with a joyless life, we should wish ourselves dead, and even this wish, to our sorrow, would re main unsatisfied. Even that rest, or rather indolence and torpidity, which is so highly praised and so ardently longed for by some drones, would, long continued, render us perfectly miserable, and at length become wholly intolerable. Cicero very justly remarks, that the blessed gods, according to the notion which the Epicureans entertained of them, could not pos sibly be happy, being without employment, and having nothing to think, through all eternity, except belle est mild. Hence the bliss and joys of the future world must be of an entirely different kind, from what is called earthly joy and happiness, if we are there to be truly happy forever. But since we have no distinct conceptions of those joys, which never have been and never will be experienced by us here in their full extent ; we have of course no words in our language to express them, and cannot therefore expect any clear description of them, even in the Holy Scriptures. Cf. Morus p. 298, §7, ad finem, and p. 299 note 1. Hence the Bible describes this happiness, sometimes in general terms designating its greatness (as Rom. 8: 18—22. 2 Cor. 4: 17, 18) ; and sometimes by various beautiful images, and figurative modes of speech, borrowed from every thing which we know to be attractive and desirable. The greater part of these images were already common among the Jewish contemporaries of Christ, but Christ and his apostles em- 676 OF FUTURE BLESSEDNESS. ployed them in a purer sense than the great multitude of the Jews* The Orientalists are rich in such figures. They were employed by Mohammed, who carried them, as his manner was, to an extrav agant excess, but at the same time said expressly, that they were mere figures; although many of his followers afterwards understood them literally, as has been often done in a similar, way by many Chris tians. If all which is figurative is taken away, the main idea which is left, is that of great felicity, which, as it is expressly said, will transcend all our expectations and conceptions. Vid. 1 John 3: 2. Col. 3: 3, £wtj tjpdtv xixgvnzat. The passage, 1 Cor. 2:9, eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, etc. (which is taken from Is. 64: 4) does not properly relate to this subject. Judging from vs. 7, 8, the subject here treated of, is the Christian doctrine, which was before unknown, and which is not the product of human invention. Still the whole passage leads to this, that God made these extraordinary provisions through Christ, in order to bring us to the enjoyment of an unspeakable bliss. Cf. also 1 Cor. 13: 2. The following are among the principal names of future happi ness, both literal and figurative. ( 1 ) The literal appellations. Zmt\, £mt] almviog, which, accord ing to Hebrew usage signifies, a happy life, vita vere vitalis, eter nal well-being. Hence the term ogyrj &eov~ is opposed to it, e. g. John 3: 16, 36 ; also xazaxgiaig, xoXaaig, x. t. X Aol-a, So£a &eov, reward, Rom. 2: 7. 5: 3. — 'Aqj&agala, SoZa, ziptj xal dq>- &agaia, Rom. 2: 7 ; and elgtjvtj, v. 10. — ' Aimviov ftdgog So%tj&agzog, dplavtog, dpdgavtog, a crown ever new and beautiful, in opposition to the fading crowns of earthly victors ; 1 Pet. 1: 4. 5: 10. 2 Cor. 4: 16, 18. Luke 20: 36. 1 John 3: 2, et passim. — From hence, it is also manifest, that the joys of the pious in the future world will be capable of a constant increase, an ever progressive enlargement. For every thing uniform and stationary produces satiety and disgust. In the heavenly world, then, there will be no sameness and stagnant uniformity of joy. Note. The question is here asked, whether the pious, in the future world, will be entirely delivered from natural depravity or the preponderance of sense over reason ? Whether their obedience to God, and their virtue, will be so entirely confirmed, that they will be forever free from all danger of sin ning ? If we would agree with the Holy Scriptures, we must answer this question in the affirmative. The whole analogy of Christian doctrine implies that this will be so ; and so clearly, that it does not need any farther proof. That the state of the saint in the future world, will be one of secure and con firmed holiness, may also be deduced incontrovertibly from the doctrine of the perfectionment and ennobling of the body. The seat of carnal appetite and of sin, is in the earthly and mortal body ; and from this we shall then be freed, and shall possess, like Christ, a heavenly body^§ 77, and § 153. According to 1 Cor. xv. our body will no more then be eojpa yv%ixov, but mvev/xaTixov, There is no need therefore of resorting to Purgatory, to explain how man may be hereafter purged from hereditary depravity. The possibility of sinning will, however still remain, as it was with man in his original innocence, and as it is with the Holy angels. But the blessed saints in heaven will not wish to sin. 680 ART. XV. § DEGREES OF FUTURE BLESSEDNESS. For the preponderance of sense will then be entirely removed ; nor will they any longer meet with those external hindrances — those allurements to sin which obstructed their piety hero upon the earth. On the contrary they will there have the strongest attractions and motives to piety, — more enlarged views, good examples, etc. And these means are sufficient to confirm the saints in goodness. II. Continuance of the happiness of the present life. When the soul leaves the body, it will retain the consciousness of whatever passed within it, while here upon the earth. It carries along with it, into the future world, the ideas, the knowledge, the habits, which it possessed here. And so it takes also good and evil from this life into the next, as its own property, and there receives the fruit of it. It is therefore certain, that a part of the heavenly blessedness will consist in the consciousness and recollection of the good enjoyed and performed in the foregoing life, and in that cheer fulness and peace of mind, which will proceed from the thought of this. As to the wicked, the case will be reversed. This, now, is one of the natural good consequences Or rewards of virtue and pie ty ; and the opposite, is ofle of the natural evil consequences or punishments of sin. Vid. §§ 156, 157. From what has now been said, it follows of course, that there will be a difference of degree (diversitas graduum) in the happiness of saints in heaven. The happiness of all will be equally eternal, but not equally intense. The more good actions, such as are ac ceptable in the sight of God, one has performed, the nobler his vir tues were, the greater the difficulties and hindrances which he had to overcome ; the greater will be his reward. That this should be otherwise, neither the goodness nor justice of God permit us to be lieve. Thus, for example, two men, one of whom had devoted his whole life to virtue and piety, while the other had put off reflection to a late period, and then first renounced his former sins, could not possibly be equal to each other in reward. Vid. § 127, II. In short, the happiness of each individual will be exactly apportioned to his susceptibility of happiness. Great and various as may be his capacity or susceptibility for the enjoyment of happiness ; just so great and various will his happiness certainly be hereafter. The very different talents, powers, and knowledge of men, and the use they have made of them, also make a great difference, as to the ca pacity for happiness. DEGREES OF FUTURE BLESSEDNESS. 681 All this is perfectly accordant with the Christian doctrine. Cf. the parables,. Matt. 25: 14, sq. and Luke 19: 16—19; also 2 Cor. 9: 6, " he who soweth sparingly, shall reap also sparingly ; and he who soweth bountifully, shall reap also bountifully ;" coll. Gal. 6: 7 : 1 Cor. 3: 8, " every man shall receive his own reward, accord ing to his own labor" (xazd zov i'Siov xonov) ; Rom. 2: 10, " to him who worketh good, glory, honor, and peace, will be given, lovSaim ngwTOv (since from his greater knowledge he could do more good), xal" EXXtjvi," in opposition to the punishment spoken of v. 9. This sentiment is not contrary to the declaration of Christ, the last shall be first, etc. ; Matt. 19: 30. 20: 1—16, the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. For all which Christ there says has re spect to the mercenary question of Peter, What shall we receive in return ? In opposition to this, Christ teaches, that men must not undertake to prescribe to God, when and how he shall bestow re wards : in their dealings with him they must not insist upon recom pense ; for men have deserved no reward at the hand of God, which they can claim as a right. They ought' rather, conscious of their own unworthiness, to expect this reward, with humility and submis sion, only because God, of his mere good mercy, has promised it. Cf. Cotta, De diversis gradibusgloriae beatorum, Tub. 1773. Note 1. The Christian doctrine requires of every one who desires to par take of eternal happiness, that he should possess a humble and unpretending spirit, and should be deeply convinced that he deserves nothing by his good deeds, and has not so merited the rewards of the world to come that he can claim them as his right. This disposition is finely represented in Matt. 25: 37, sq., where Christ says, that the pious will be hereafter surprised to find themselves so rewarded, as they will not be conscious of having done any thing to deserve such rewards. On the contrary, the wicked, v. 44, suppose they have done much good, but are notwithstanding sent away into the place of torment. Vid. especially Luke 13: 26, sq. Note 2. According to the Christian doctrine, such actions only as flow from grateful love to God and Christ, can be consistently rewarded ; for these vir tues only are recognized by Scripture as having any good desert. Hence in Matt. 25: 35,36, Christ himself specifies such deeds as are active proofs of faith in him, and of grateful love to him. Vid. § § 124, 125, respecting good works. One who does good from impure motives, has, as Christ says, already received his reward. Vol. II. 86 682 art. xv. § 160. POSITIVE REWARDS III. Positive rewards in the future world. Besides being exempt from all earthly trials, and having a con tinuance of that happiness which we had begun to enjoy even here, we have good reason to expect hereafter, other rewards and joys, which stand in no natural or necessary connexion with the present life. For our entire felicity would be extremely defective and scan ty, should it be confined merely to that which we carry with us from the present world, to that peace and. joy of soul which result from reflecting on what we may have done which is good and pleas ing in the sight of God ; since even the best man will always dis cover great imperfections in all that he has done. Our felicity would also be incomplete were we compelled to stop short with that mea gre and elementary knowledge which we take with us from this world, — that knowledge so broken up into fragments, and yielding so little fruit, and which, poor as it is, many good men, from lack of opportunity and without any fault on their part, never here acquire. Besides the natural rewards of goodness, there must, therefore, be others which are positive and depending on the will of the supreme Legislator. On this point almost all philosophers are for the above reasons agreed, even those who will admit of no positive punishments in the world to come. But for want of accurate knowledge of the state of things in the future world, we can say nothing definite and certain as to the nature of these positive rewards. Vid. § 159, I. In the doctrine of the New Testament, however, positive rewards are con sidered most obviously as belonging to our future felicity, and as constituting a principal part of it. For it always represents the joys of heaven, as resulting strictly from the favor of God, and as being undeserved by those to whom they are given. Hence there must be something more added to the natural good consequences of our ac tions, something which cannot be considered as the necessary and natural consequences of the good actions we may have before per formed. But on this subject, we know nothing more in general than this, that God will so appoint and order our circumstances, and make such arrangements, that the principal faculties of our souls, reason and affection, will be heightened and developed, so that we shall continually obtain more pure and distinct knowledge of the truth, and make continual advances in holiness. IN THE FUTURE WORLD. 683 The following particular remarks may be of some use in illus trating this subject. (1) In this life, God has very wisely allotted various capacities, powers, and talents, in different ways and degrees, to different men, according to the various ends for which he designs them, and the business in which be employs them. Now there is not the least reason to suppose, that God will abolish this variety in the future world ; it will rather continue there, in all its extent. We must suppose, then, that there will be, even in the heavenly world, a di versity of tastes, of labors and employments, and that to one person this, to another that, field in the boundless kingdom of truth and of useful occupation, will be assigned for his cultivation, according to his peculiar powers, qualifications, and tastes. A presentiment of this truth is contained in the idea, which was widely diffused throughout the ancient world, viz. that the Manes will still prosecute, in the future life, the employments to which they had been here accustomed. At least, such arrangements will doubtless be made by God in the future life, that each individual will there de velope more and more, the germs implanted within him by the hand of the Creator ; and will be able more fully than he even could here, to satisfy the wants of his intellectual nature, and thus to make continual progress in the knowledge of every thing worthy of being known, of which he could learn only the simplest elements in this world ; and he will be able to do this in such a way, that the in crease of knowledge will not be detrimental to piety, as it often proves on earth, but rather promotive of it. To the sincere and ar dent searcher after truth, it is a rejoicing and consoling thought, that he will be able hereafter to perfect that knowledge, which here has so many deficiencies; vid. 1 Cor. 13: 9, sq. But there is danger here of going too far, and of falling into those strange conceptions, of which we find so many examples in the writings of Lavater. Various as the tastes and wants of men in the future world will doubtless be, they will still be in many re spects different from what they are here ; because the whole sphere of action, and the objects by which we shall there be surrounded, will be different. We shall there have a changed and more perfect body, and by this single circumstance shall be freed at once from many of the wants and inclinations, which have their seat in the earthly body. And this will also contribute much to rectify, en- 684 ART. XV. § 160. NATURE OF POSITIVE REWARDS large, and perfect our knowledge. Many things which seem to us very important and essential during this our state of infancy up on earth, will hereafter doubtless appear in a different light ; we shall look upon them as trifles and children's play, and employ our selves in more important occupations, the utility and interest of which we may have never before thought of. Some theologians have supposed, that the saints in heaven may be taught by immediate divine revelations (lumen gloria) ; especial ly those who may enter the abodes of the blessed, without knowl edge or with only a small measure of it ; e. g. children; and others who have died in an ignorance for which they themselves were not to blame. On this subject nothing is definitely taught in the Scrip tures ; but both Scripture and reason warrant us in believing, that provision will be made for all such persons in the future world ; vid. § 126, II. Note. In the popular exhibition of the whole doctrine of future blessedness, much prudence and caution are requisite ; and the teacher must pay careful attention to the difference of education and intellectual culture among his hearers. This is particularly necessary with regard to the point introduced in the foregoing paragraph. The importance which the learned and educated man attaches to the culture of his intellectual powers, and to the increase of knowledge, may easily lead him into the mistake of insisting, even in his religious discourses, too much on the importance of this for every one, and of representing it as constituting a chief part of the employments and joys of the future life. But the great mass of mankind have but little taste for this intel lectual culture. They even associate with it the idea of severe labor and toil, because thinking and learning are so difficult to them. It is the same as to the expectation of increased activity hereafter. This has no charm for the great mass of mankind, because their bodily labors are so oppressive. They find more satisfactions in the idea of rest and refreshment, with regard to which, however, they should be taught, that the rest of Heaven is not a state of en tire inactivity ; vid. § 159. They prefer to hear of the cessation of all their pains, and the drying of all their tears ; cf. Rev. 7: 17, etc. — It is therefore very necessary, in presenting this subject before popular assemblies, to have regard to the different wants, conceptions, and dispositions of men, and thus to imitate the example of Christ and the Apostles. (2) A principle part of our future happiness will consist, accord ing to the Christian doctrine, in the enlargement and correcting of our knowledge respecting God, his nature, attributes, and works, and in the salutary application of this knowledge to our own moral benefit, to the increase of our faith, love, and obedience. There has been some controversy among theologians with regard to the Vision of God, (visio Dei intuitiva or sensitiva, or beatifica, or com- prehensiva). The question is, Whether the Saints will hereafter be hold God with the eyes of the glorified body, or only with the eyes IN THE FUTURE WORLD. 685 of the mind, i.e. merely know him with the understanding. On this point, there was dispute even in the ancient Oriental Church among the Nestorians, some of whom advocated the bodily vision of God, and were on this account blamed by others. Even in the Latin Church, too, there was controversy on this point among the school men, and the different theological schools of the Romish Church. And this was transmitted to the Protestant Church of the seven teenth century ; since Mussus, and other theologians of Jena, reject ed the doctrine of the bodily vision of God ; which was, on the other hand, advocated by the theologians of Wittemberg. But in the Scriptures, God is always represented as a being in visible by the bodily eye (dogazov), as indeed every spirit is ; vid. § 19. The texts of Scripture which speak of seeing God, have been misunderstood ; they signify sometimes, the more distinct knowledge of God, as we speak of knowing by seeing, of seeing with the eyes of the mind ; so John 1: 18. 3: 2. 4: 12, coll. v. 20. 1 Tim. 6: 16 ; and Paul uses §Xeneiv and yivmaxeiv as synonymous, 1 Cor. 13: 12, 13, coll. v. 10. — Again, they express the idea of felicity, the enjoy ment of God's favor, the being thought worthy of his friendship, etc. Still more frequently are both of these meanings comprehended un der the phrase to see God. The image is taken from oriental princes, to see whose faces and to be in whose presence, was esteem ed a great favor. Cf. Matt. 5: 8. Heb. 12 14, " without holiness ov- Seig oipezai zov xvgiov." The opposite of this is, to be removed from God and from his face. But Christ is always represented as one, who will be personal ly visible by us, and whose personal, familiar intercourse and guid ance we shall enjoy. And herein Christ himself places a chief part of the joy of the saints, John xiv. xvn. etc. And so the Apostles often describe the blessedness of the pious, by the phrase being with Christ. To his guidance has God entrusted the human race, in heaven, and on earth. And Paul says, 2 Cor. 4: 6, we see " the brightness of the divine glory in the face of Christ," — he is " the visible representative of the invisible God," Col. 1: 15. Vid. § 120, respecting the office of Christ. (3) According to the representation contained in the Holy Scrip tures, the saints will dwell together in the future world, and form, as it were, a kingdom or state of God ; cf. Luke xvi. 20: 38. Rom. 8: 10. Rev. 7: 9. Heb. 12: 23. They will there partake of 686 ART. XV. § 160. NATURE OF POSITIVE REWARDS a common felicity. Their enjoyment will doubtless be very much heightened by friendship, and by their confiding intercourse with each other. We must however separate all earthly imperfection from our conceptions of this heavenly society. But, that we shall there recognize our former friends, and shall be again associated with them, was uniformerly believed by all antiquity ; vid. § 150, II. 2. This idea was admitted as altogether rational, and as a con soling thought, by the most distinguished ancient philosophers ; cf. the speeeh of the dying Socrates, recorded by Plato, and translated by Cicero in his Tusculan Questions, I. 41. This too was the opinion of Cicero, as may be seen from his treatise, De Senectu- te, c. 23, and De Amicitia, c. 3, 4. And yet there have been Christians, and even teachers, call ing themselves Christian teachers, who have blamed, ' and even ridiculed, other Christians for comforting themselves under the loss of those who were dear to them, by cherishing the joyful hope of seeing them again, and renewing after death the friendship here formed. Even reason regards this as in a high degree probable ; but to one who believes the Holy Scriptures, it cannot be a matter of doubt or conjecture. For, (a) The Scriptures assure us, that we shall hereafter see Christ, and shall enjoy his personal intercourse and friendship. So John 14: 3, " I will take you to myself; where I am, there shall ye be also ;" cf. 1 Pet. 1: 8. According to John 17: 24, we shall be eye witnesses and participators of his glory. (6) Paul says expressly, 1 Thess. 4: 17, that we shall be with Christ, in company with our friends who died before us (dpa avv av- Tolg). And this presupposes, that we shall recognize them, and have intercourse with them, as with Christ himself. Paul advises that Christians should comfort themselves, under the loss of their friends, by considering that they are at home with the Lord, and that they shall be again united together. The objections made against this opinion are of no weight. It is said, for example, that the body of the saints will be entirely changed, and cannot therefore be recognized. But it would need to be proved, that this change is of such a nature as to make it im possible to recognize a person to be the same whom we before knew. And even were this allowed, it is not merely through the body that we can recognize each other. Even friends here upon the earth, IN THE FUTURE WORLD. 687 who have never seen each other's faces, disclose themselves by con versation and agreement of soul. Indeed we can, even upon earth, through the instrumentality of others, become again acquainted with old friends whom we had forgotten. And why may not this be the case in the world to come 1 Again, it is objected that Christ himself says, Matt. 22: 30, that the relation of persons connected by marriage will cease in the heavenly world. It is said, moreover, that the love which exists between husband and wife, and also between parent^ and child, is rather of a bodily, than a spiritual nature, and therefore will wholly cease, when this gross earthly body is thrown off. Answer. It is true indeed, that this connexion and love, so far as it is founded in the distinction of sexes and in blood-relationship, will cease ; there will be no wedlock, no sexual propensities, and no gross material bodies in the heavenly world. But friendship, in virtuous and pious minds, does not depend upon these circumstan ces, but rather upon conformity of intellectual tastes and disposi tions. Whatever, therefore, is merely sensual and corporeal in love and friendship here upon the earth, will there fall away ; but what ever is spiritual, which is the essential and nobler part of friendship, will remain, and constitute a great part of the bliss of heaven. Cf. Less, De beatorum in ccelis Consortio, in his Opusc. Theol. P. II. p. 329, sq. ; also Ribbeck's Sermons on this subject ; and En- gel's little Work, " Wir werden uns wiedersehen." Villaume, in his Inquiries on some psychological Questions, denies, in his second Essay (whether, in the future life, we shall remember the present), that we shall hereafter have any recollection of our lives on earth ; because he regards memory as a bodily faculty, affected and often destroyed by bodily injuries. But here he mistakes the exercise of a power, for the existence of the power itself. He also denies, that friends will recognize each other in the life to come. Note. The question is asked, whether the pleasures pertaining to the body, and bodily employments, will continue in the life to come ? There can be no hesitation, if we follow the Scriptures, in answering both these questions in the affirmative. For what purpose will saints in the life to come have a body again, if it is not to be still the organ through which they will feel and act ? It is therefore justly concluded, that the pleasures and employments of Heaven are not merely spiritual, but also bodily. Paul too says, according to the most natu ral interpretation of the passage, Rom. 8: 18, sq. that all nature will be enno bled and beautified, for the residence of the friends of Gpd ; and that they will dwell in a world which will minister pleasure to the refined senses of the spir itual body. But in what these corporeal pleasures and employments will consist, can- 688 ART. XV. § 160. POSITIVE REWARDS IN THE FUTURE WORLD. not now be understood by us, because we know nothing of the nature of the future body, of its organs, or of the objects by which we shall then be sur rounded. So much is certain, however, that these will be different from corpo real pleasures and employments here upon the earth. This is clearly taught in the New Testament. E. g. Christ says, Matt. 22: 20, that the saints, at the resurrection, will be like the angels of God (as we justly conceive of them) ; "they will not marry, nor be given in marriage," because the end of marriage, the propagation of the race, will no longer exist. Nor will the glorified body be nourished and sustained by eating and drinking ; vid. 1 Cor. 16: 13 ; cf. § 153. Hence it is obvious, Hint Christ employed the phrase, to sit down (at ta ble) with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which was common among his contem poraries, in a figurative sense. The following are some of the most important or most celebrated works on the Life Eternal, and the joys of the blessed above : viz. On the History of this doctrine, Burnet, also Cotta, in his " Histo ria dogmatis de vita a;terna ;" vid. § 149, ad finem. This subject is treated doctrinally and philosophically in Cotta's " Theses Theol. de vita sterna," Tubing. 1758. A poetical delineation of this doc trine may be seen in Lavater's " Aussichten in die Ewigkeit." In this work, while we find many very beautiful and happy thoughts, and fine observations, we feel the want of just interpretation of Scripture, and calm and unimpassioned investigation. He gives him self entirely to the wing of his bold imagination, and treats the sub ject rather as a poet than a philosopher. A more strictly philosoph ical and theological investigation of this subject is found in the work of C. L. de Villette, Unterredungen iiber die Gliickseligkeit des" zu- kiinftigen Lebens, translated from the French into the German, and accompanied with a Preface, by Spalding, Berlin, 1766, 8vo. Cf. also Carl Wilhelm Goldhammer's Betrachtungen iiber das zukiinf- tige Leben, u. s. w. 2 Thl. Leipzig, 1791, — a work written with warmth of feeling and in a popular manner. The scriptural grounds of this doctrine are briefly and thoroughly investigated by Storr, in his Comment, de beata Vita post Mortem, p. 75, Tom. II. of his Opusc. Academica. - 9 • T»me y-** • ^IR' IT V :5v : _> *Mt