Fs ¥ yO ay ~~ <2 uP a » . marae. wk Sc’ ie a>, Hees Le) o> ' ne ea hate . BARS; ey > ars aK is e) et i) au nt Sob se + bs b, LON? f a ve * Nate ihe nn a fab iM, Sy ex > Thee tts he wi * nui %, , ‘i hb Wy a NG RE, SY Ri a Me iN oe ee ot ee tah ee pbb obs he eyes i Hab ‘ * iv K pre ay be tet gt Fae ease PLS pon at fob ivi ci ay tb Bory es rs We te aa > Nf m3 4 M5 r ttt CM ntyiyiy: %* iy if { t ty rw, 4 ¥ wht ul ee re rors Auk ine) , rns ’ iy a a : 4 f (b poe cy ary te ra Ee wBy iV. eA Nite tN nye Ios oy, A 7, eA y Pees eee Ke Say oie ANSE Ot yy Ly y om é " y, Pet NG: ae ql 4, Bi of ry SpA be ie vy nen 4 oy 6.4 A ini te ee ih ay ae ) At f ye ay x) AES é ue ¢h vs aA POY poe is sh § 3 a As Ps OR LNA Ae Peses Mas A ae yy 4 iw ‘ AA dA A i ofits eg ee Se ne pace be it AA Sisto SRA aad ave ‘Ss A nat, ed 4 Pes 9 rs 4 rf 4 aa of i Hy } HAS a4 ieee eth nee Pay of ot 26 08 ty 4 3 vans at ss Vf aA ba tt AAS Yaa oe 1926 B, Cy dts i wh ‘ ae if () AR OLS Ae i b) hi Hf ns 4, ; AGE hi | us . hee her Lae? . ‘ vn \ me Ti : 4 Dita bea todo S > a AN27 192 B S Lea oaicat sew Christian Theology A Systematic Statement of Christian Doctrine for the Use of Theological Students By | RUSSELL R. VBYRUM Professor of Systematic Theology in Anderson Bible School and Seminary Anderson, Indiana Author of Shadows of Good Things, Holy Spirit Baptism and the Second Cleansing, Scripture Readings and Sermon Outlines, ete. GOSPEL TRUMPET COMPANY Anderson, Indiana Copyright, 1925 by Gospel Trumpet Company Printed in United States of America PREFACE The purpose of this work is to set forth in concise and sys- tematic form the evidences, doctrines, and institutions of the Christian faith. Much of what is contained in the following pages has been given to students in the classroom as lectures from year to year and in the form of typewritten outlines which I have used in teaching. In preparing this work the aim has been to treat the subject with such a degree of brevity as is consistent with clearness and strength of argument. I have had as my object in writing, the production of such a textbook as I should wish to place in the hands of students in the classroom beginning the study of sys- tematic theology, and also I have sought to adapt the discussion to meet the needs of the many ministers who must gain most of their knowledge of the subject through individual private study. I have also endeavored so to present the subject that even Sun- day-school teachers and other laymen who seek to be informed in doctrine can, by a thoughtful reading of it, obtain a clearer view of Christian truth and a firmer conviction that it is truth. Certainly the truths of Christianity were intended for the aver- age man as well as for the student and ought to be taught so all persons of ordinary intelligence can understand them. With this in view I have purposely avoided as much as possible an abstract style and technical terms, or when the latter are used I have often defined them. The omission of technical terms is also in harmony with the tendency of the more recent writers on theology, about one of whom it has been said that by him ‘theology has been freed from the bonds of a scholastic phrase- ology and taught to speak again an English pure and undefiled.’’ The subjects treated and the order of their treatment are such as are commonly found in a work of this kind. A theo- logical writer can scarcely hope to say much that has not been stated in some of the many works of the past, but with the development of thought in each succeeding’ age a restatement of the truth is needed. New developments in science and relig- ion require a change of emphasis in presenting the truths of Christianity. At the present time the tendencies to undue religious liberalism must be met by conservative Christian the- ology. As the deism of the eighteenth century and the Uni- 5 6 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY tarian defection of the last century were successfully met and overcome by strongly asserting and vigorously defending with sound argument the truths then attacked so it will be in the present conflict. And yet while we strive in defense of the gos- pel we do so with the happy confidence that truth will win, for men can not long deny those great truths that are fundamental to the needs of their natures and to their present and eternal happiness. I have endeavored here to present the truth positively. I believe what I have here written, and my convictions grow stronger continually with the study and reflection of the pass- ing years. I prefer to glory in believing so much rather than in believing so little, because God’s blessings are promised to those who believe rather than to those who doubt and criticize. I have aimed at clearness rather than a flowery style. Inasmuch as theology can be comprehended well only by a practical appli- cation of its truths to the heart and life, I have freely employed the homiletical method in these pages. The attempt to present theology abstractly is not only unscientific but uninteresting and even sometimes repulsive to the truly devout heart. I desire to express appreciation for helpful suggestions for the improvement of this work from C. W. Naylor, E. A. Rear- don, and F’. G. Smith, who have read it in manuscript form. I esteem their judgment highly because of their wide experience as practical preachers of the gospel and as writers on religious and theological themes. With a fervent prayer to Him who is the source of all truth, and whose guidance I have constantly sought while writing the following pages, that by his blessing the perusal of them may be enlightening to their readers, this work is given to the public. Anderson Bible School and Seminary, Anderson, Indiana, December 6, 1924. INTRODUCTORY NOTE BY F. G, SMITH The very fact that books on religious subjects still form the largest part of the literature of the Christian world proves be- yond all question the supreme importance of the theme; that it does not belong to the dim, distant past, but possesses within it- self the germs of immortality. It lives forever. Systematic theology, because of the nature of the subject it- self, calls for frequent restatement. The religion of the Bible embraces in its scope that which is of supreme importance to our race. Men everywhere are called upon to accept it. Its doctrines relate not only to our origin and final destiny, but they make great demands upon us now by impressing the law of account- ability upon the conscience. It is the special province of theology to make these doctrines and obligations acceptable to the reason. But the intellectual demands vary in accordance with the prog- ress and thought-movements of the times. Thus change in the thought-sentiment of any age may require a change in theological emphasis. In other words, the same subject must be stated in a different form or approached from a different angle. If a work on systematic theology had been written in the early part of the fourth century, when the Arian controversy was at its height, its author would have given greater attention to the doctrine of the divine Trinity than has any writer in subsequent ages. In a theology written during the period of the Christo- logical controversies the Person of Christ would have come in for a more elaborate treatment. About a hundred years ago necessitarianism and free will were great topics of theological discussion. Every theologian of the time enlarged upon that sub- ject, from a conviction either that it was necessary for him to argue at length for necessitarianism, or else that since he was free he should use his freedom by opposing it. It is perhaps natural that every generation should consider itself vastly superior to all preceding ones. We now smile when we read concerning some of the theological controversies of the past. But the problems of that day were very real to the people of that day. We should also remember that the law of human progress and development is still at work, and some day others 7 8 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY who are faced with a different situation from ours will form their own estimate of our efforts to meet the problems of our day. So it becomes us to be modest. But these problems are real to us and we must meet them. During the last half-century the work of specialists in geol- ogy, paleontology, biology, and other departments of scientific research has given rise to a new philosophy of life. This philosophy is gradually forcing its way from the institutions of higher learning down to our primary schools. It is already hav- ing its effect within the department of the church of today, and it calls for a fresh examination of the whole problem of theism and theology proper—the doctrine of God, creation, sin, divine revelation, and the relation of God to the world. This alone is sufficient reason for the appearance of another work on theology, a work adapted to the particular needs and demands of our time. There is also another reason why we need a new treatment of the problems of theology. With all due respect to the efforts of past theologians, it must be admitted that most of them have labored either to create unique systems of theological thought or else to defend the particular schools with which they happened to be identified. Because of this particular bias it is practically impossible to point out a work on systematic theology that we can recommend unqualifiedly. We are now learning that no school of theology has a monopoly on the truth, but that elements of truth are to be found in all of them. We also see that the effort to emphasize particular doctrines to the exclusion of others, while effective to a certain extent in defending what may be believed to be true, is, nevertheless, not a very successful method of find- ing the whole truth. It is therefore evident that the only correct method in theology must to quite a degree be eclectic in character. It must bring together and unite in a systematic whole all the scattered principles of truth. Another reason for the present work is worthy of particular mention. While as already intimated the older standard works on systematic theology are, on account of their particular bias, now unacceptable for general use, most of the more recent the- ologians show higher critical bearings and a tendency to capit- ulate to the demands of modern religious liberalism. We can not but regard this as a danger-signal. We believe that the great mass of Christian worshipers still believe in the substantial INTRODUCTORY NOTE 9 character of historic Christianity and are firmly convinced that it has for its foundation eternal truth and verity. It is there- fore fitting that a work on Christian doctrine, adjusted to the needs of our time, should now appear; a work soundly orthodox, committed to fundamental truth: God the supreme ruler of the universe; divine creation, the fall, redemption, divine revelation, miracles and prophecy, inspiration of the Scriptures; a super- human Christ, miraculously begotten, crucified as an appointed offering for sin, resurrected from the dead by omnipotent power, and exalted to the throne of majesty in the heavens, from whence in due time he shall come to earth again, visibly and personally, to ‘‘judge the quick and the dead.’’ It may be appropriate to say a word also concerning what may not properly be expected in any new work on systematic theology. In the first place, a great degree of originality as to subject-matter should not be looked for. Theology has for ages engaged the careful attention of thousands of thoughtful minds. It would seem that truth has been approached from almost every conceivable angle and that the church has met almost every pos- sible kind of heresy. The present-day author is therefore restrict- ed, in that he does not have a fresh and original field of inquiry. At every turn he meets this sentiment, as succinctly expressed by another writer, ‘‘ Whatever is true in theology can not be new: and whatever is new can not be true.’’ He is therefore practical- ly confined to a restatement of what has already been stated a hundred times or more. But as already intimated, there arises frequently the actual necessity of theological restatement. Causes operating both within the church and outside of it shift the points of chief interest and inquiry, and these call for new pre- sentations of theological truth adapted to the particular needs of each succeeding generation. In meeting this demand, however, there may be the newness of additional emphasis and freshness in the individual style of presentation. In view of the present-day conditions already referred to, the author has in this work given particular prominence to theism, apologetics, theology proper, and anthropology. It is not the ordinary doctrines of the Bible that are now made the subject of direct attack; it is rather the very foundations upon which the Christian structure rests. Another contributing factor may also be noticed. This work was designed primarily for a 10 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY text-book in the Anderson Bible School and Seminary. The author having in mind the general drift today toward modern religious liberalism, which subject is not adequately treated in other available books on Christian doctrine, has felt the neces- sity of a more particular emphasis on the foundation principles of the faith. In my opinion this is a fortunate choice, for he has thereby made a more valuable contribution to our department of theological literature. The author is teacher of Systematic Theology in the Anderson Bible School and Seminary, Anderson, Ind. The present book is the natural outgrowth of his work in that institution. And while Christian Theology was designed primarily as a text-book for use in his theological classes, it need not and should not be restricted to them. My purpose in writing these lines is to introduce and commend it to a wider constituency. It is the product of patient, conscientious effort and is worthy of the eareful consideration of students and of all truth-loving people every where. it, ITI. ITI. ITT. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Idea and: Contents of. Theology, yar een ian pasbanncssacecsyanapeaess 25 SRA DIOHTIDLON pie feclecnccete ace Ate xd hy havededraesta es Liar ddcaeecnn dee taheplan maarneacvs 25 Pe ILOILG1ON AMG) WOOL SVN ita teen Res cats uatlce meres tease steer te teceo, chan 25 3. Main Divisions of Theological, Sciences -.....2..2.... 2.2 estes eee 25 4, Other Designating Terms Used with Theology ................... 26 5. Uses of the Term ‘‘Theology’’ as to Extent -.......................... 27 Importance and Value of ‘Theology. ........02..........22.c.eccsseeeceeeeeeeees 27 1. Needed for Clear Conceptions ........................ LO rade Ate TR ge 28 MenNOCdGd: LOr MELON CONVICEIONS iscsi ttohoctnacond:ta-cesapsthcosspseiey <1eeruse 28 3. Needed for Intellectual Satisfaction ..........00..........ccscessseseeeeoeenes 29 BOUTCOST Of cL UOOLOR yarn recor es eek et ee ads SUES ELC Tn SAE tA ae 30 TeRINALUTER Aa SOUFCe LOL wm LUCOLOR Viti tyare tee eke accra tee seeaencges Sees 30 2. Revelation the Source of Theology. 0.2.0.2. cc. llciseesecleeee 31 DeeurrONCOUsMOUTCES. Of LNEOLO Ty mutt. ewe eats nent ceeytdaceseen evoke ce 32 Method of Theology 7... rs seers eee cha ta Ute he eh LP 34 EIN DOC OLS SY SLOTIR ccna teeters eee ers Wey era ce eee an ee 34 2. Various Methods of Systemization BUEN AM UD FHA A Geet Pe 35 DemM ELDON Ofis) NISa WOLKME ries ce sacle Us ce ne fied SA 36 ee AMS APMP ED aegis if Peseta cede 8) AND) CURD SNL ah SOR EEN MOE MOE Ulcer race oP be 37 Qualifications for the Study of Theology ..............0.000.000 ee 37 Le SPIT LUals QUAL NCATIONS tree hues ee tee ery RAS 37 RASHOLICION OS MSN (het eae ce ee avon oe aay Os ty tee Men Sy ea yen 38 SMAUCALIONA ln QUALNCATION Ay ect deed aeuss seasce clasp ino vaurcdiedneey aes 39 Part I EXISTENCE OF GOD, OR THEISM Chapter I ORIGIN OF OUR IDEA OF GOD The Knowledge of God as an Intuition 000000. 43 PLN EUILIONS ats CrENCTAL i ee eet ec BN eae Ae eeh ea 7 43 2. Proofs that the Idea of God Is an Intuition ...........................- 45 Other Supposed Sources of the Idea 2.0.0.2... 48 die Brom tA NIMIgtiCw SUPerstleloN yee cscs. eie ites eee ea a ys te 48 Perluxelusively frome Revelation evel! ei vila eevee ss. 50 So NTOMER.PTOCESS | OF | HEASODIN Oise ten. ele yet eee 50 What Does This Intuition Contadm? 22... cece eect cece 51 Chapter II EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE The First Cause, or Cosmological, Argument ..............0000...000cc000-- 52 De DOULA Wr OLMORUSALION Ie Meant te eLetters aril tae Le late dull 53 2. The Universe an Effect ............ Bice Seoscrtn MMe MMe ph eS Me leG 55 DMA DAL tNOMATOUMONET PLOVGR crite eevee caso os ae silsacnekgcat 56 The Design, or Teleological, Argument -.....000.....0000000cccccececeeeeeees 56 LaNaturerote tha eA ronment cnc sone k ae ete Rs ee 56 2s iividences of i Dosign: In GNALure ahs ess cs cen ct tee clehacenctnetele 59 3. Objections to the Design Argument ............-..-...::ssseelesssecenseeees 63 The Human-nature, or Anthropological, Argument. ........................ 65 ee he vATONMERCM DesCri pedir. ket tee ea SY See yk 65 Zeargument. trom. Mans) intelligence fakes ie kert nes eee te 66 11 12 IV. Ae II. Il. CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 3. Argument from Man’s Freedom ..........-..-:..cccceecs-esserecencensesesecsssconecs 67 4, Argument from Man’s Moral Nature ........-..2...-------cseseerseeeeseene nse 67 5. Argument from Man’s Religious Nature .............-c--ssscccessceeseseseees 68 6. Objections to the Human-nature Argument ............-.. sassatheaeataiae 68 he Ontological Argument .320c00 Se ee 69 1, Statement of the Argument iii 2 2... cn acdasnecencntononrnreneeenes 69 2. Theistic Value of the Argument -........-1----nectesssscsecteseresseresenen 70 Chapter IIT ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES PATTON | soos ocesendesbns oodasonarmedacnsnabaeasete topesgtawereeedhl spell tpith aa tele ena 71 1. {Sense Of AtHeRSm oo acces peteawasnstantysteenanansanasaeenseerechaiestieeeeanaaane 71 2. Unreasonableneas ‘of, Ath pis, 21.1. s.cci cis. cassacucennsonstsuinenepeumeee 71 3. Possibility sof Atheisyns 2 oicg concccescseonseuste=ten>sncenutedeoeetTapase ee nee 72 POL Gy GHA Say | acess canine aie seanagu caess evenatunn on usbanneall i ita 72 1, Megning and Origin ‘of) Polytheism® 2252.2. 72 2. Different Aspects of Polytheismy .........1:..2.i laa 73 POT GM OL Srna se pancenan oes beso ecceweaevendiles rete fein nie ecg oee eee a Ee fs. 1. Definition of Pantheism (2.2 ee 73 2. Monistic,; Aspects of Pantheism (22....22.c.ceeesaesbeee ene 73 3... Déetects-of Pantheism | .../1..4.4.3).2.50 ee eee 74 Materia lien iets heareees het eiseebmceeetacta peaks etee tetas eaten cea 74 1. Antitheistic Character | of Materialiqniy 3 esece ceeeee 74 2. Fruitless Attempt to Account for Thought .....................-ss00-s-. 75 3.) Reasoning from Analogy Defective) ii 2. ain te ee 75 Naturalistic Evolution’ 2 240071 ie eos eens ater ens ee ene 77 1. Evolution Hypothesis ..................... Lesa’ Sepa eychtneomncats en fearetan ea 77 2.. Naturalistic and, Theistic: Bvolution)) 022... -.0..- 4 ee 79 3. Difficulties of Naturalistie “Evolution (.10.2.22.... 00 81 Part II EVIDENCES OF DIVINE REVELATION, OR APOLOGETICS Chapter I PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS AND PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCES Proposition. to bé Proved ios nee 93 1, The Question) Btated i282 ek, tars orcs nang eee ee 93 2. The Incomparable Importance of the Subject ....................... 93 3. Present-day Task of Apologetics i012. 94 Nature and Classification of Evidences -......2......2.. 2 ee-ececeeeeees 97 1..Probable,’ not, Demonstrative,

Various ylneories of , Inspiration ay .tc.t oi, eee ccccewaseae ee ee 167 3, Lroe, Nature) of Inspiration |) o0-h oy eee 169 Objections to Inspiration of Scripture from Aglaged Hrrors. a5 172 NBap SRE roy g Est: SGN Cog tt go Pe RR LEGON pM era CS L735 PO ABGLSTL GALLO TUE TORS clo Voce ce ee eee ee ELS GL a eh ey 174 SCM Orel icdGrrore eee ee Ee Ee 2 175 Ae GONCEACICELOTUS rice ao a ae 176 Part Ill NATURE AND WORKS OF GOD, OR THEOLOGY PROPER Chapter I THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD Possibility of Kuowledge of God 2..000.0.0.... 2. 179 1. (God \as. an Object of Knowledge ont. foci ceterdnsnctaseeseceneteenes 179 2, Extent of. Men’s* Knowledge of God) 222. e tector 180 3; How God) May (Be \Kmnowny 2.5. 2.c li i eestaceanenceenaaene 180 Nature and Classification of God’s Attributes -......0000..200.00000..... 181 1. Relation of God’s Attributes to His Essence .......................2.... 182 ZarClassification, of Attributed jtovic2.csiececieee- se etcetera 183 Metaphysical or Non-Ethical Attributes 2000000000000 183 TcOmity oni God tc.c ai et eae ne ent cage cee 183 Se Spirituality or (God | 14... 05 ence ho iaaie ee ues se 184 So ;immutability tot God cocicp cet sece i casetentscnstcttvescctuns Cenecres aca ana 186 4. LIGternityn Of «Gods ie ea ese eae ee eee e ates ee 186 5, Omnipotenes,” Of | God? iil itihe ssc Wace saceeuceceen ne sone sca oe eae 187 6./ Omnipresence* Of); God | kisses eis eens a a eceees en 189 7) Omniscience’ of ‘God ee eee eee 190 Moral “Attributes 2c oe 193 1. Holiness e562 ee a ee oo occhs cca 194 Dye a) USEICG) acc cdec koe hese taba ncn beeak eoech cn obese cewek oecaehdetcecane ete ee 196 8B. Dove ine ee ae ae Ay 2 9) 1 198 A, Mercy eA eee eas oa esa echoes 202 5 Maes Wg) 1 ds Reet eee LU ee itcheste Mh ye, MME beh 203 Chapter II THE DIVINE TRINITY The Doctrine of the -Trinity (ot. ee ee 206 1. ‘Biblical Hiements - of. the ¢Doctrine:.....4....... eee 206 2. The Doctrine in Early Church Symbols ...W..2.2.........ecccsceceenceees 207 3. The Doctrine: Stated: cin eS ee eee 210 4, Mystery of “the-)Trinity.3 2 eke 211 Bible Proofsi.of- the |: Doctrine)2 A eee 212 1: The Baptismal) Formula ccc ee os ee ee 213 2. ‘Paul a) Benediehon yi. kt Bee ed eS ee 213 3) Other General ‘Trinitanian Téxtat 2:2 ee a eee 214 The Divinity ‘of :Clirist fife es ey eet eee ee 215 Li Divinee Titles of : Christ viene es eee es eke 216 2. Divine zA tiriputes of Christin otic eee te ek aes ee eee 219 S..Davine (Works. of Christy inc5 cle eee ee 0 es 222 £57 DE TW OFSIN |. OL VAIO TISL® i sanrdua® tacarhpssinsetonncuanobccoecstactdene eee 223 LV: LL: III. IV. It: (TI. IV. IT. Conscience ee ee eee ee eee eee ee er eee eee eee CONTENTS 15 The Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit —......000000000... 225 TIP POrSONSIALY HONG GHANA DITIEs acca u mist asecyyrtendtcanaud cicleeuses ei 0btednduvconwaseeas 225 PW ATVINILY OL MEO LLOLY HO DEL II Lie inediternlinensusetatternmenndeseceyseseynesntecan ince: 227 BeEE POGESSAGTIO Li CELLET LI creel oe eer ass seus eeratecl estas inelanasemresacdates 228 Chapter III THE WORKS OF GOD God's (WOrk In (Creator et CO ere ee moa de Le 231 ee VLALLOT Created: OUGHT OE) MNOUIIIGE Y senso nlevba tests caacet te auetad vase catseneie os 232 2. Creative Work Not Necessary to God | uc... te secemececwscoeeesens ----234 BAHT Ha GONes1s MECOLG WV ELISCOTICAL hele se! bot acta age ree nL Er ereu Ree sass 235 45 Création Days ands Geologic "Periods! 2. ise resliecenstlsenteeth-cenecsmeaeete 237 Se Agrecment, OL Moses Wand) SCIONGGI 1... cscqcersntnrresdnctenrapeccntanernceeesencd 241 Creation Alas fe VOLUGLON fie tonsa ter er ecient Maen Ne Me MLG ga) 244 1 Byolution not) Gods si Method 02; Creation ce ee eeu 244 2. Evolution and the Scriptures Irreconcilable ....................--sccsceses 245 3. Facts Reconcilable with Progressive Creation ................2.--.+:+ 248 4 Op ections ton they WivOlUution yr. WCOT Yess ss ceo sseee toe cueten ce 250 God? sea W ork) in A Providen Ge eee eee ee ee ea 253 GWEN ALUTA PGE TOVICENCO ree en ee di pou earns enneeL ae BUM SAL RRC Rete a ge 254 Pa mupermatorale PrOVidGnee Uno ts Mule A Less eanedt ssc debe Cie nu ee bien meee < 257 DTT RE EL? ata BRE A eV NOURI Spy ogee 89 oh UE IR AUT. ee MN eg A 262 Dy exastencan ance Na cure rv Oli Ad OCIS rtm ss oun desc eda caster n iets 262 Led ERaraTe Bs Watered Fath apseomyenened RAM ET ile peat JED ttl Alte PMN ATL BASIE UM, sl IE A 264 ate aL e The we ioe ED Aie nai ernps Meee me mebTD id LER MTEL A UAE CA UAB ol am 265 A eLCTHON-b OSSOSSIOT ge Vert ta ee see ELEC ace Leia we ame cg yee 268 Part IV THE DOCTRINE OF MAN, OR ANTHROPOLOGY Chapter I ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MAN TUNIC OF ThOy RACE eu RUN IU Cues nna ee Luisi lal CRO 274 AMMA TVCLC ULV OL) LOG LeACC WU ue tae teal gey Ge cull Ute kd sedm aknin etic, 274 2. eroblem) ort) Race Distinctions and) Unity eine 277 UPL NY RIOLOICA MT ATO UNE Miley) Mager ctl sete es ermine eeu UL eens 279 4. Psychological Argument .........---.----ssecsssssssecseeseessesseeecenssenenecsenenees 281 DREN UO CICA ATS UIE Gis lec Comes MUL NIM MLee HEA eun EL nyo MK RS ROU SUI 281 DA LOLICHIOIA TOTUINGR bias serth eeetea Ary cement nr Na anaae ue LACT Lg eee Sunny 282 Constituent Factors in Man’s Nature 2....00.02.0200.c....seec cece 283 iby DOAVEBES OFey sich ark g uh a Copeii ce ¥G IPAS bes Wei baclerap salute SON. OCU ere CAA UN SR DNL VUES 283 Pee Dane DGOLYn Ole L TICDOLOMLY Wire ome day Witney dec uet UO RMS A ULB 285 SleLLOWsM Al SISiOUDEIIOTA FO) TNE TUCEIS ee tee ea setae roe nek. 288 Phe Omeiny Ot Suis yea LUA TOR OM NaN ANS NEL AIBN), 290 IL NCOKY FOL ER TCCSISLON CONC et OUna ane niet eo icLee UAVS I VN ae 290 EEL DOOT VE OL) GLOALAODISUT RG gett eer eee ote ULE ne Mee SU UNL HUY UIE! 8) 291 Sel HCOTY? OL WL TACUCIATIIOM Bem e Uris uch ne Meet eon, 1 UREN Sa) 292 The; Question of .LmmMo4rtality, yo a ee Nae i ua ey Ne 293 Ley aT ee DOC V A CLCALCC ML ONtal une te stsue et une ee VIN SSS yc. 293 Dee DONO NAL BP LI MOnEa Lettie wate te alia MuNViOlOo Uae Le aumieyere Agia 295 Chapter II ORIGINAL MORAL NATURE AND STATE OF MAN Primitive: Man! Ofjaelotty Grades ivr acon eu Ta es. 296 Ta Consbitntion) Relatively (hOreeetr de ueNes yt et ea phae seis ict fete as 296 EPREIN OL aL SATO LIST wean irae tue De eee OU Paty Am rE TaN eS 2s FI vita gi 298 SL eENe DTVINGOPRIMAS Ei cules ek ods ee ene Lodi ny SUS Oa Te 299 16 ITI. IV. II. III. (If. CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY LP hey Discriminating) Mane tom |, 2... cccscckesseneitdebovssctcsownanoeeren anaes 301 By MUETITVULETV. d OWE) Sass eae a Bret ted kt ln aroha nae 302 BUAHOLTIDUbLYS WA BDOCE .<..hoscane he notte feds coast togaatonenabenniicebaneneaeees 304 Aap ys) sah WR A) a OSE Ne gM ERP Ao Lie DPE fas a Ad SO BEd ED Hud FLL aA PRP Aer oy Sk 305 1. The Question of Freedom Vital to UHOOL Og 9) os cain smeeseoenone 305 2. Leading Theories of the Will ................--c.sesccsee- BO SERI RRMA 306 BORE POOLS WHOL MUNTOG. VW ALL: occlu te data cesar ent cubcapoceonete decthois SAUnOtaEE eae a elena 308 4. Objections to Free Will Answered ...........--c.--ccssecsse-ssseceeeeesm——- ne BUD BT EOD SET OOCLOLIT: aieseenncsecocs-cnpronceeesson ceed ouieeatdseab Gu teed onan sees salenbtees cet eae 312 Original Bighteo0nsness : )...2: eA Rs aah al eee eee eee 313 1. Nature of Original Righteousness -.......-....-...---escssecncsesesensceseeseereaes 313 2, roofs of Original Righteousness, iii... adarenensten sae inst pernier nee 315 Chapter III FALL AND DEPRAVITY OF THE RACE Original | Probation Obie Oa 317 1. Probation Requisite for Moral Excellence ................-.c-cccccssscsoees 317 2..Positive Probationary Law Given) Gi). Scie see 318 3. No! Injustice; in Adam’s'\Probation 1c ee 319 Origin and ‘Nature of) Sin (cre 6 oo ce 319 dai Nature of the: Purst) Temptation: 20ers ae onsen 319 2) Manso Mall and | Lts -iitectsu ce, occa ceed aera ee 322 Be NADUTE | OL, SSID) VAL eek Les eee anette ab ants betes setae oolaeseamres Dereon 323 4.) Sin Not, @aDivine SMLAthod joc st-c ow see a ecatee testes eres eee ..325 Nature of) Orioinal Sin ieee eae a 326 1: Sense of) thei! Term | eae oe reac idee sae tenes ce eee 326 2, A Derangement, of ithe Moral Natore) 22. ee 327 Si: 9Ay Loss of the “Holy (Spirits, scecicseo cesatesscctcsecn eases een ee 330 4, A’ Bent: to Sin a Result of Depravity ....00)ccc 330 Pxvent of; Native, Depravity, eit. pp nce dat eae ee eee 331 1 The Question: of Total :Depravity,) ee ee 331 Ay Degrees: Of Depravityh J. .cccactelonasterateccetadercnt ctearenetscesi se eeckess oe eee 332 Proofs of; Native ‘Depravity co te 333 1.) Expresaly, (‘Taught in! ther Bible oie Cac 333 ae early implied Tin ithe scrip tures sccet-ccte ccs eee tee 334 3. Ground for the Need of Regeneration 2.1... c.tclcil lessees 335 4. Universality) of | Simmimg yl. ct ttc.cocctscevcneccs-ceeeepnen = ocheteceeeee teeta ame 336 5.) Sinning in’ Spite jor Restraints c0..4. 2c tice tee 337 6.A . Natural) Tendency itor Sin toe ie ee ee 338 Chapter IV MODE OF TRANSMISSION OF ORIGINAL SIN Theories of Original) Sin 300 ee 339 Dy Pelagians | TRO y oe nccseareet trem nr ieee rca ese rciie a tee eee ae ea 339 BD, Augustinian \DAGOry sii ctstarescateenecce dares teateses tase Lamm ae en 340 a: Arminian\ Theory (icec kee Cee Oe ee eh eee oe 341 Unscriptural Theories of the Transmission of Original Sin ........ 342 ef ORLISTAC CO yee eee eee ahae ceetus dees a ted rete ene, ke 343 a. OPTesenta tive), TROOTY | yi csslleeecessmenernnter satan eeeets steeteeee nea 347 Law of Genetic Transmission oo os i i ee ee 349 DS PERG CRISES ere sd hace beeen Caines eat eer 350 2, Men Are! Atter) Their (Kind Morally 04.1 e essen eae 350 Part V SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST OR SOTERIOLOGY Chapter I THE PERSON OF CHRIST The Doctrine and Its Statement dA bs ae, IV. a1 IIT. EV rf, CONTENTS 17 AAA LUAT RS DIOCELIN Gd ees iorecndc ct arene eee ot betes eles Meo tecessccedadecees eaesl 355 Da peMeENntSLOL CRO WOGLTING 4.48 nee tee er eet ee 538 oo ee 356 BACT OOKLA Ls iFy OR COTLOTILH Min Cale a corte sect Nety ok cies codace cece biep sdeoivecebecsstusicwece 356 ‘Two Natures in Christ _....... Meals JAS a EW, 18 flea Py hce air Bo a te NOR) OE 358 PpCompiere Human tN ature 11, OHPISG) o2ct2.00 cle sveuberestegeinineraccerntesee 358 mee compiete Divine) Nature in | Chrigt) nce Ne ieee 359 SNCaENatone OL MoOd iin | CUTIB ta ns Oe Le ae ree 359 AP NLOUG ANE veltld City 1 TIGAPELE GTO Aves ta cet pee tes c ys ceeds see ached sees eu taee sedan ia oat ae 361 Union® of “wor Natures; in} One VPerson: 2. See 362 LAr ersonals Oneness 4.027) GOTISt eet ce ceee ee ath une et Late Lach 22 362 BY TS Pig SUE OCU ERTL cous deer, Tenor enc oaed bua ss feaccdetite sit cth othe Ate rceets cwahemcs 364 3. Effect, of ‘Personal Union. of (E-wo Natures fois... 365 Criticism . of) ChristologicalFirvrors (00 ee 366 bet Te ESOT LCR etree ceca tee re een ti ue tener en ee eee Ri oe B66 Boe On CRTIOSCICH I cereale eee eect tie eet ec etek ee ape ee A eae 366 Sete ICM PUT Sele erm be eee reese ALE SN NR TEN We EA UNA De a 367 OB CN ota) Wit Ge Et CGR Ae Gr ele ieysS CEN LORY hal MeL EL ROR LI a 367 LaSRPAE Bb aT Cae tet ¢ wa ht AY Wis aM A ROTI AoE AL dead De Bai A Ra ta Rl yA Ao 367 Oh) ARPES ON SY tg sd 0: FOP S) Cotati BVA ELD RDN Aa TELS UNAS Ai PE OR ek eg ot Boalt ola 368 PPL REMI ZUM OLA GL DCOTY bcos renret ota cepe reget eee dette Sas tiat Sasomueete 368 ae LG A DOCLIEATI VL MOQY Vaienitesteecap erect telet a cytas case nae sllaU alah leat conk Risks one 369 Pie eHOs ES OTLO GION DHGOTY sea vacien cases tsar etre anacute Mash esetautbasobeti sound stutanboracs 369 Chapter II RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST PPrEUMINaAry VG ILCSULOlis nin car cre ee On a Ce ee gs Dee aamieny (dot 371 DLO POL CITING cece ee ay ere cite Ly cue) aes ee ee 371 2 PONSS) OF TLECONCTIIATIONN let Cin ca as ee dy a Age ae A 371 Sy Lhe Pact) otnAtonement! and) the: Doctrines eka eae 372 Theories of Salvation Without a Reconciliation .......000000000000... 374 ah Bay aa heey) ef UNE 2 Weak 0d Sieh are Loy sig te ean Ml Du ac PMU a Ninn cai eel ea 374 By OF RIVONCRS IV UTVING? Ee TOTORALIV Gy seicinsennctnoactececoususohosdtatasachonupucone 375 Pa ATC OMmOT MEM CDOULATICOSt tect eer trad sui i caus rtycttatanatta tp etaountetddennrn 376 Biblical Statements Concerning the Atonement Anca ithe ei Abe 377 i Christ. Died forthe Salvation! ofaien) ics eat ee ee 377 PPAQUTICES ICO In y OUT aps Peach auc weer teecabreusse acta epee ch cereaath iba eV, 379 ST UUristwa CGM TOPIGIALO! COG Weg tdekicte he ee oot ee ee ae tec 381 | PUTISt: DICURLOmECOOOTIL (IVLOTY ote ane ae od aa een ee, yo 383 5. Christ Died to Declare God’s Righteousness ..................---cssecsseseeees 385 Reconciliation in the Old Testament Sacrifices 2.000000. 387 PaeAMI Male Sacrincenn LY PILy Whisky set eo ett ema d 387 2. Old Testament Sacrifices. were Expiatory -.-:.2.2...2....c0.-cicecesesecsee- 388 Elements in the Biblical Doctrine of Reconciliation —.............2..... 390 ea OC GLY Op AGLCTIOIGS a. tice teen stinee as Ln eed ete Meda udus tebe dedeovaadie sa tases 391 Bae DNCCeVy Om LEIONTS pte taser AOC ee et Sere 392 Chapter III APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION Unconditional Benefits of the Atonement .......00 2... 393 at) VIL AL MARCEL CIC Wisin tm SERN IES uBR et eh sss Teele mS US seces 393 Deu Oosaibility, of (Universaliealvation i. ie ak te 394. 3. oalvation tor those: Dyme jin infancy: i 394 for.t. J Usti fication ence sic cwtcencceccttesseteuceetcceee teary ama 421 PROS OMOT ATION ori sccc ke eat cetakendaeds iciset bite edies cecenece tte. Ose nerd eee eer 423 is) The Doctrine (of Regeneration oii swe. cet ee, cadets ck tececeoe patent eae 423 2. The Ground of the Need of Regeneration .................sscsceccecceeeeoes 425 3. Nature and Effects: ‘of Regeneration | 02.20.0121... sls csesseasesnesntecee 428 4. Possibility of), Present) Regeneration tot... cin. pppoeeoeesceeones Goseacnseees 430 SSOTISINT Dy ee ee NU RUS ee Ue Cae ee 432 13’ Children of Godie eee ee See A ee ee ee ee ee 432 2:0 8Gnship Ay do pLtion ster cee rae ct sceet peek om hoe Cheetah cee 432 3. (HORSE P PUY ASSLT EU a vaeceacensmeacase ae cateu crates ental eave cated tei ds eee ee 432 Consciousness or Assurance of Salvation —....0..0200000 cece eee eeeeeeee 433 Lid act o£ ASSarance scot ee Ok Ol cee ae ee ee ae 433 2 Nature of wAssurance i tceecd scessteseestay es eer ca iLke i ee ee re 434 3... Witness'0L)-God 76 4S pirityid ore oie dae cc tech eee enna nena 435 4. /Witness; of: Our (Spirit ie co) oe eerie eect oe cease eee cee ee 437 5; Assurancevan Relation vito; gon bts) vc sisccscccecosech teneststeennetee 438 Holiness sof | Life ic 2k Beer eR eee Se | ee cee 440 LiThe Sense of the Scriptures nics. erstestencsecstsccsascs acct sence eeeeeeaaeeee 440 2: Detinitive’, Sense! [OL iSin yee ee a ee 442 3. Causes Leading to a Denial of Holy Living .............2........cccsees 444 4. ‘Objections Considered) 0). v oye ee ee eee 445 Chapter V ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION Sense of jSanctification iy: a 8 eee ee ee ee eee 448 1 Other: Designating Terms (0000.2 cic a scn cee ine ele geen ee 448 2) No Speeitic .Seriptural) Sense y a0.) ic/oatonsius soca cucvadeetei eee 448 5. ts *Senceas ‘Hore. Used iti eee ee ee eae ee 449 Weed «of a Second’ Cleans gee Aa saestecs tac tad oe ee ee 449 1, Depravity a Ground for Twofold Cleansing .............,..:.::ccscseeeeees 449 2. Depravity.sin' the ; Regenerated | /.-0.00-226:- sta cede ea ee eee 450 3. Distinctions Between Regeneration and Sanctification ............... 553 Proofs ofa. Second Oleansing 7000s ele ee ee ee 454 1: Sanctification ‘for the» Converted. 2c a ree. 455 3 panctification ‘for the Church nal ee ea ee 456 S$. vAn~ Entire: Sanetification > 22s eee ca ee ee eee 457 4. Coincident with the Holy Spirit Baptism 22.0.0... eeceeeee 457 5. Two Cleansings in Old Testament Type ...............sccecsesccsecsecceneeees 458 IV. ii (II. II. ITI. IV. CONTENTS 19 Naturel of BNtrOr BANChinCatlon Ake eh ce ka lcs 460 Ley AWN TAE WRU ire ge cig tele lole py ements Ls hath. Laci the AoE Bell oh G8 0) 4k dea Ad OR ly 460 Pram EHILOCLS) Oli moTLGE AL CH GLO Tis eet ita cca ates treed recta dic etece tee esc socom 461 Dee Ale GHINILEr VWOOT Rin cver et eet een eee Beeman wee te 462 Attainment of Sanctification _......0....0.00.0000 HRS Ea ae Oe re 463 LSA TEAINA Deen: IRM LiL Gelert ee occ need Oe eet oie) te 463 Be CONGILIONS +1 OF MANCUIIICALIONI. cee ee eee tae ooo eiecetectoosacee ee 464 ULPABSUTADCO HOLE MAT CUITCALIONIA seer it cia es lene sc len cadcasecteastuewesdecs 465 Chapter VI BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT Nature of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit 2.000.000. 466 TR HGXDTeSSIONA) LE PTesentative prOl Wilby naccicltenssscteessesecvasunea cecusedsasvecces 466 2. A Definite Experience ............... npoUBLIR GNA TR AI Na dead patie HORI. 4 ele AL 467 BeMUISNCL TTOM PRO PEHETALON Ware tank tes cavslnedeeestsdtiaene choi omset 468 4, Results of the Baptism with the Spirit: ....................sssceeeceoeeeeeeooeees 470 on One sBaptism bnts Manyabillingainds se eae es 471 Gifts OF them Spirits ce es sa eee eS Oa Tee ud 473 MANS LUT ROLE UALISINA Cree ire be te eh tae eed Maal ee see OY edger eee 473 OEP NOPAGIVOMEALIRGS LOM AIL yics corte Cu teOR ee ee eh Pee WOME yon, cats 474 3. When Spiritual Gifts May be Received .....................--cccseeceeeeeeees 476 Lug? Giltrofe Lon cues seas Som OV PDN Vic as Maes Acer Cons ih 476 i Nature ols New. Lestament. Glossolalia)) aie ee See 477 vo urpose (OL Speaking ain WON gRes ee eee ee ee cto 478 3. Post-Apostolic Speaking in Tongues ...................-ccscccocssescceesceseees 480 4. Not Evidence of the Holy Spirit Baptism ........................se-0+ 482 5. Proper Attitude Towards Speaking in Tongues .................-...-+-2++ 484 Chapter VII DIVINE PHYSICAL HEALING THEAE actor Divine ELOSEN pee RUT Ne Neh eae VR 488 LR ocripturaly oxampies) 01m Healing 2.) tunes oe ears 1 488 pat OSUSA DOSLOLIC EH OID OIE errs teg ae ta Ue aut i, CiLan ee Ce ey A. 489 et ET CSOI UM LUORLIG Yui ccsicea testes uceche nec rort tne Se etc ea an eee luss ceauhe sa Sate 490 The Reasonableness of Divine Healing ................ Ral ours Reba) Bh, 491 1, An Aspect of Christ’s Redemptive Work) -).....:..2022.J..c.eccleccteneose 491 PemmeripLure eTOMIBCOnO Li EPOANIN Se san. teat nee ae aut desk ceva ce nas gS 493 Got Ne MSVIN GR OMPASSLON ME yet etrttacieumenee eb car has apa WiMe Coad 494 Nature of Divine Physical Healing 00.01.20... 494 Py Detnitiony OLmUivine) ELGG te see. ere ee Ce NOME UN SM reco 494 SECO 6h Er OUse miliny Hea Ie y eer Lee em ny eu ee epee ua Sau eenn | 495 Be GOds PMebnodrOl Ca ltt Omer ters Mn MeN tea, eMC esea et cence ey 497 Conditions fora ELealinig ii ee Cierra Va 498 TOM ALU) OULG ee TAY OTe totes ere eee Pe aU Rn buat uit (tle Me 259 498 2. Anointing with Oil and Laying on of Hands ...................ssseeeceoes 499 DMA LINGO LOWAT Cd) ELUIMAR PIOMCOLES Netcool 500 Objections to: Divine: (Healing (urea ce! Te ead is 502 1. That It Is Similar to Spiritualistic eatin ois ackenentexctteen 502 2. That There Are Failures in Divine Healing .....:.............-.........++ 503 ooelhat. GoduGreated) Herbs tore Medicme i Ue 504 Part VI THE CHURCH, OR ECCLESIOLOGY Chapter I ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH Adem Of athe CO TCH we vee ie eee ey he one Pek |e 507 TEECNEGT OL TELE OPIi et ere mer reset ee Le NE COIN rai ple Sees It eae 507 if. Lit. IV. 1a pay III. II. (II. CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY Bene CU niversal Cin trrely i. ssc soceeclsces oct deosste ts decdiree tocsenpeceve tee neenensen 508 PEE A Re vt Sse e B Ga f an! een Pe ere ONES Bol SUE EE Se Uae peed eng BREA SE. 509 4, Relation of the Church and God’s Kingdom ..............-:ec--cceseeeees- 509 THGU ERC) Of eLGRY OTR ATI ZAG ON ie oe scent ceaaeth--oobeer tachment 510 1) Theories: of the’ Time: of) List Organization: icc eosin 510 2. The Fact Stated and Implied in the Bible .........-....--....---ceeceseee 512 3. Figurative Representations of the Church .................c.-ccscessseeeees 513 Nature 10f7-Tts ;Orsantisa tion, i ees ee gitacktesaaes gic ieyoee capt cna res 513 1. Different Forms of Church Organization ................--.-cccsscecesseee 513 2, ohne (Charch *Divinely: Organigedi tans scccsacsiv ub tcthentsemcarennssesieeed 514 3. The Human Element in Church Organization ..................esse+-- 516 Organization of Operative Agencies (icicle eecce te resenane 518 1. Operative Agencies Needed in the Church 2000... .sessecceeses 518 2. Relation of these Agencies to the Church ~.....20..2...-ceccceceeceseeeees 519 Chapter II GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH Officers of ‘the Church veg Ur an dis ccu ecceke ts tee eae cee tans epee 521 Lt Classes jor Oficerm yc. coe es ve Sena tet eee ee ee 521 Due astors,’orr Bishops ie ices APES IS bmi ann fy Seg NM Ex 4 523 Beh Deacons ROU Lee cael or ert se aeeta peed serine tee ae: eae eae 526 Nature of the Government of the Church .......2.......2002-..n...---ecceeeeee 528 TpnA “Divine ;and vay Human VASNeet io cers c ce te ere 528 Zi Nature sot Ministerial A Uthority Gec-sce)cecsseeete cco eee are ee 530 3. Number and Choice of Local Church Officers ...............--sss-cceoe 531 Chapter III APOSTASY AND RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH The Apostasy ‘ofthe Church ti 2e co peer Oar ee fee ect 536 1. Two Aspects of "Apostasy, Predicted (ii eee 536 2. A Rejection of the Teaching of the Word of God .................... 540 3. A Rejection of the Rule of the Spirit of God ......................-.- 541 Sixteenth Century Reformation Partial -......0222000.cc.002cccec ceeneeeneeoeee 544 J CA Partial Retur to the sbi ble ci ree ae ee 544 2. | dluman Ecclesiasticism (Continued, <.c:..c-c-.cse--soo-c-cs-ecceeereteseeeeeesee 545 3.; Protestant; Divistone 12s, Poe ts sree eee cst ckececces eae 546 A‘. Coniplete;} Restoration: (2 so. ee 548 iy) Present; ‘Tendency)to: Umity c.08 2c c ace ors as snavdees cet rete eee 548 2, A Complete Reformation’ Predicted. )—\-.....1 eee 551 $...A ‘Return to they Seriptures: 220 ee 553 4, Rejection of Human Eicclesiasticism ..............csccecescessecencceeceeees 554 Chapter IV ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH Baptism) alee oe ae Se ee ee ee 557 Le bey, Form, of Baptism oo coc: st aceccu cet ences ee ee 557 Zu eCts OL) Baptism, Coo cect dsb eee conn 570 spr MEP OSD, OL, QD TIBI fics dic ited fe uasdale dn senakekd ence ake cet ane me ee 574 47 he | Masentials' of Baptism 030i eee 575 The Lord’s; Supper 2005.02 Bs ao ee eee 576 Ay) AMbristian ‘Ordinance -. ceca caspsecet es saceree eckson ae 576 2, Method sof: Observance ! 2.2. to) Sega ee ee eee 577 3.) Purpose Oty the 1) Bap perc .-tksncpreesdtecckeerecamsonneatenee eaten eee 579 4. (Erroneous iV 16Ws) Oo cie le eee ee 580 Foot- Waning ig ek Fer ys eet 2 SL 583 1, Theytnyoneiton Of) Pesus cel hee lca sca ea ee 584 2. Objections to Foot-Washing Considered ...............2c.-ccccceccceceeees 586 3. Signiticanes of: oats Wasbin gy... cpa lassepestonescsee eestespe ior eoeeeesen 590 IT. ITI. 7II. IIT. CONTENTS 21 Part VII LAST THINGS, OR ESCHATOLOGY Chapter I THE LIFE AFTER DEATH RTUIMNOLCALILY (OT (talon SOUL ips zc bi eect Renae whl olat noatar et oaantcle le banat 595 EE ILALLONALY Si VLOOD COS [omer anette ee nines ewrtenaciatd oul Soseccbecsducete 595 eed TLE) CUCIEINIIN OS boCTS DUT ONaet yl spctseeten rsh atnin itodedveesh ons Respeventeetrorenwerts 598 SB.) Lhoory) OfgConditional Tmmor tality eee eee sess ornsen 601 TROT INGOTINGOLACO SURUO: cing ere ee cere ee tut ee ee LULL 603 1; .Question) ofc an’ Intermediate Place). nit et 603 BHO OG Al GACT OF We VER ALOU isc ssstyes ashe seacrecsessetacaeons ay rm i Da bein ; j ia: fy a i " nie t% wy { pr wy Miitiae re Ll ae 7 Ay ; PF f ‘ oy a Ne 4 “’ Ri ‘ me aru a Punt ete Ms a ie Ke ny ahr eity ety hs iM 2 Ny an oy oh eA i | un ake M : Ny inh “ ‘ He , in y, a Soha Dae ny i i Oe Mh) ‘4 i, 1 | ant Mette hero mane tare Ce Kye INTRODUCTION I. Idea and Contents of Theology 1. Definition Theology is the science about God and of the relations existing between him and his creation. Such a defini- tion is in harmony with the sense of the two Greek terms tedc (theos) and Adyos (logos), from which it is formed, and whose primary meaning is a discourse about God. It is the science of religion, : 2. Religion and Theology.— Religion is man’s experience with the supernatural, with his Creator, and it is so grounded in the constitution of man that he is always and everywhere religious. Theology is the intellectual aspect of religion. Religion is spir- itual experience, and theology is the rationale and explanation of it. Religion and theology are related somewhat as are the heavenly bodies and astronomy, the earth and geology, and the human body and physiology. As the stars and the earth existed before man had any knowledge concerning them, so men are religious before they formulate theology, and believe instinc- tively before they reason. Not alone Christianity, but every religion has its theology. Whatever reason the most degraded fetish-worshiper has for his religious actions, that is his theol- ogy, crude though it may be. And from that degraded form of religion all the way up through all the great ethnic religions and including Christianity itself, theology, or the intellectual aspect of religion, is a necessity of the mind. 3. Main Divisions of Theological Sciences.—Theology in this broad sense is logically and commonly divided into four main divisions: (1) Exegetical, (2) Historical, (3) Systematic, and (4) Practical. (1) Exegetical theology has to do with the interpretation of the Scriptures and includes the study of (a) Biblical introduc- tion both general and special; (b) exegesis proper, or the inter- pretation of the sacred text itself; (c) special departments such as prophetical interpretation, typology, and Biblical theology. In relation to Christian theology as a whole, the function of exegetical theology is to provide the material from which the various doctrines are to be constructed. (2) Historical theology treats of the development and his- 25 26 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY tory of true religion in all past ages and includes (a) the his- tory of the Bible, or the record of God’s dealings with men in revealing the way of salvation ag set forth in the Scriptures; (b) the history of the church, or the record of events relative to Christianity; (c) the history of Christian doctrine, which is in the truest sense historical theology. This branch of theology also provides material that has a bearing upon a proper pre- sentation of Christian doctrine. (3) Systematic theology, which is next in logical order, is Christian doctrine arranged in a system. It is not only a sys- tematic arrangement of the various doctrines of Christianity, but also a systematic presentation of the various elements of a doctrine showing the process of induction by which it is deter- mined. It not only decides that logically the doctrine of God must precede the doctrine of sin, but it shows the reasons in logical order why we believe there is a God and sin, and the nature of each. The subdivisions of this main division of the- ology will be given later. (4) Practical theology has for its foundation systematic the- ology, as the latter has its basis in exegetical theology. It has to do with the application of theology to the individual life and the propagation of it in the world. It is both a science and an art. It includes (a) homiletics, or the preparation and delivery of sermons; (b) Christian ethics, or Christian duties; (¢) pas- toral theology, which includes all other methods and means rela- tive to the propagation of the gospel not included in homiletics. 4, Other Designating Terms Used with Theology.—Theology in its generic sense is also used with various other differentiating terms. Natural theology is used to designate that body of truths which may be learned from nature concerning God’s existence and attributes, and concerning man’s moral obligations to; God. This knowledge includes not only what men actually learn direct and alone from nature without the aid of revelation, but also what may be so learned even though the facts are suggested by revelation. Many of the deeper truths of Christianity, how- ever, can not be known from nature. Natural theology, then, is a classification in respect to its source, and is commonly so called to distinguish it from revealed theology, or that class of truths known to us only by the Scriptures. Revealed theology is also designated according to its source. Dogmatic theology is to be INTRODUCTION 27 distinguished from systematic and Biblical in that it usually is devoted to the setting forth of the doctrines of a particular school of thought or sect. It deals with human creeds as its material rather than the Bible, or at least is not limited to the Seriptures. Biblical theology is the study of those truths of theology furnished us by the Scriptures in the order and accord- ing to the method by which they are there given. It recognizes the progressive revelation in the Bible. As an example, if the Biblical doctrine of sin is to be studied it traces it through the various books of the Old Testament, through the sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, finds what John said about it in his Gospel and Epistles, and also traces it in the Epistles of Paul. It may thus trace a doctrine through the whole Bible or only in a particular portion of it. All true theology is Biblical, but in this technical sense of the term a particular aspect of Bibli- cal study is described. 5. Uses of the Term “Theology” as to Extent —The term ‘‘the- ology’’ is used in three different senses as to extent: (1) It is used in the broad generic sense to include all the various aspects of theology and larger divisions of theological science. (2) It is used in the restricted sense of the original ground-term to designate the study especially about the nature and works of God. This is often called ‘‘theology proper’’ and is but one of the subdivisions of systematic theology. (3) It is used most commonly to designate systematic theology. This is in harmony with our first definition and is doubtless the most proper use of the term, because the true science about God must describe not only God’s nature and works but also all the relations existing between him and his works. Then Christian, theology in its proper sense is synonymous with systematic Christian doctrine. Il. Importance and Value of Theology To speak flippantly or contemptuously of theology is to do so of ‘‘doctrine,’’ concerning which the apostle Paul admonishes Timothy to ‘‘take heed.’’ This erroneous attitude is doubtless the result of abuses and error in attempts at theology and espe- cially a reflection of that disposition of modern liberalism and free-thinking which would reject every divinely given standard of truth and exalt human reason instead. The devout and wise Christian will beware of such an attitude and also remember 28 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY that there are not only false theologies or doctrines, but also true Christian, theology or doctrines from God. 1. Needed for Clear Conceptions—The Christian minister or teacher especially needs a knowledge of theology. It is his mes- sage. He should know what is truth in order that on the one hand he may not omit the teaching of important doctrines neces- sary to the well-being of his hearers, and on the other that he may not add to the truth that which is erroneous. He needs such knowledge that his message may be balanced and consistent with itself. He must not emphasize one aspect of truth or of Chris- tian experience to the excluding or obscuring of other equally important truths. The successful preacher must get past that mere fragmentary knowledge of truth and attain to a compre- hensive grasp of it. The quality of the preacher’s theology determines largely what will be the character of his congrega- tion as a whole and the individual Christian experience of each member. The doctrine preached to and accepted by people is the mold in which they are made religiously. It is the faithful preaching of sound doctrine that has effected all the creat refor- mations of the church. It is also that which will enable the church to maintain a high standard of religious life when it is once attained. 2. Needed for Strong Convictions—And not only the teacher of religion needs a knowledge of theology, but every one will have firmer convictions of truth and be more stable in Christian experience if he knows the Christian doctrines as interdependent and mutually supporting each other. A bringing together of the teaching of Scripture and a careful study in the light of Seripture of any of the great fundamental doctrines of Chris- tianity can not fail to strengthen faith and enrich one in Chris- tian experience. Such study will clear away confusion and inspire to more earnest piety and service. It is true that in the early stages of such study doubts may arise as the mind is con- fronted with problems that were before not supposed to exist; but such doubts are not dangerous as they at first seem, but are necessary to healthful progress. A blind piety that dare not think is certainly not of the enduring nature that can give per- manence to Christian character. Neither will theological study deaden the affections, as has been wrongly supposed, if it is properly pursued. If the truth learned about God and his will INTRODUCTION 29 concerning man is not merely held abstractly but applied to the heart and life, it can not fail to make one a better Christian. It has been well said that ‘‘the strongest Christians are those who have the firmest grasp upon the great doctrines of Christianity,’’ and ‘‘the piety that can be injured by the systematic exhibition of them must be weak, or mystical, or mistaken.’’ 3. Needed for Intellectual Satisfaction—Man has not only an emotional nature, but also an intellectual nature. God is the author of both, and designs that man serve him with both the heart and the mind. In fact, one’s emotions are largely con- trolled by one’s thinking. But the question may be asked: Why a scientific arrange- ment of religious truth? Why may we not receive Christian truths as they are set forth in the Bible, and save ourselves the trouble of theological science? The human mind is constituted with an organizing instinct. The normal mind can not rest in confusion of known facts, nor endure their apparent contradic- tion. The tendency to systematic thinking and arrangement of known facts is proportionate to the degree of one’s mental cul- ture and capacity. The mind is naturally so constituted that it must classify and arrange these facts of which it comes to know. God might have given truth in a scientific form instead of in historical form as it is set forth to a great extent in the Bible, just as he might have provided man food and clothes or secular knowledge without human effort. But work is a law of life throughout the whole creation. And in religion effort is needful, not only for the development of a beautiful Christian character, but also in order to an adequate knowledge of things divine. In nature, God has furnished facts which men classify and systematize and from which, they make inductions of other facts and principles which constitute valuable knowledge. The starry sky supplies the facts of astronomy, but it was only by generalizing from many of those facts carefully gathered that the important principle of gravitation was discovered. Like- wise, in the Bible and in nature God has furnished us the facts of theology. Now he expects us to arrange these facts in logi- cal order, and by such arrangement, reconciliation, and compari- son to clarify our knowledge of those facts and by processes of induction or deduction even to learn other truths. As an ex- ample, the Bible furnishes us the facts that the Father is God, 30 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and that these three are not identical, yet that there is but one God. These are the facts. Theology places the facts into proper relation to each other, and the result is the doctrine of the Divine Trinity. The doc- trine of the twofold nature of Christ is likewise a product of theology, and was wrought out only after centuries of struggle. Still another reason for theology is that God has been pleased in the New Testament to supply us with parts of a system of theology already worked out, which is reason for believing he expects us to work it out still farther. As in other fields of knowledge the mind can not be content with a multitude of undigested facts, so it is in theology. It hag been demonstrated often that only as the mind knows Bible truth in logical order can it know really. This is the reason why in all ages and among all religious bodies systems of theology have been constructed. Ill. Sources of Theology The materials from which a system of Christian theology is constructed may be gathered from any source where they can be found. God himself is the ultimate source of theology, as the earth is of the facts of the science of geology. The two prin- cipal sources are nature and revelation. Nature is a mediate source and revelation is an immediate source of theological truths. 1. Nature a Source of Theology.—By nature is meant God’s creation in its widest extent. We may learn about God, not only from physical nature with all that it includes, but also much may be learned of him from the spiritual creation as we know it in man’s mental and moral constitution. Not only in lower forms of creation, but also and especially in man, who is created in God’s image, may much be learned. And, again, the divine truth nature reveals to us, includes not only that from man regarded objectively, but also those truths that may be known through intuition, the logical reason, and the moral nature. The character of God may be known in a certain measure by what he has made, much as we may know somewhat about a man by the work that he does. That nature is a proper source of knowledge concerning God is also directly stated in the Scriptures. ‘‘The heavens INTRODUCTION 31 declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handi- work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world’’ (Psa. 19: 1-4). Here the inspired writer asserts that nature teaches men about God and that such witness is perpetual though it is not given in articulate speech. The apostle Paul not only asserts this same fact, but also directs attention to the fact that the clear- ness of the revelation of God in nature is such that men’s con- sciences are thereby obligated to serve him. ‘‘That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful’’ (Rom. 1: 19-21). A neg- lect of this important source of divine truth is a great loss. While revelation is far more important as a source of theology, yet the Scriptures are intended not to exclude but to supplement the facts we learn from nature. The reversion from nature as a source of theology by Watson and others is doubtless due to the undue stress on it by the deism, or ‘‘natural religion’’ with which they came into conflict. Both deeper love for God and a clearer knowledge respecting him is the inevitable consequence of a devout contemplation of his works in nature. 2. Revelation the Source of Theology—However much we may study God in nature, yet it is evident that the truth there learned is incomplete and insufficient to enable us to serve him acceptably. It is here that deism unduly stressed the value of natural theology. The history of mankind is evidence enough of the insufficiency of the light of nature to show men the way to God. It failed to deliver the ancient Gentile world from its gross wickedness, and modern heathenism still testifies that even with all its elaborate philosophies ‘‘natural religion’’ has failed to save the individual or lift up society. Something more is needed. The manifestation of God in nature needs the illumination of a supernatural and immediate revelation. This revelation must begin where the natural ends and tell more than can be 32 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY learned from natural sources. Nature makes known the exist- ence of God, but revelation is needed that we may know his relations with men and how to serve him acceptably. Sin is a fearful fact that is evident in the individual heart and life and in the life of the race, but revelation is needed to make known the glorious truth of free pardon through the sacrificial suffer- ing of a Divine Redeemer. Future retribution and life beyond this life is universally recognized because it is an intuition of man’s nature, but what comfort can come from such knowledge if no divine revelation tells us how to be ready? Such a super- natural revelation is needed, and such we have in the Christian Seriptures. This divinely attested revelation is the source of theology. Revelation is not necessarily limited to the Scriptures, as both before and since the Scriptures were given God has been pleased to reveal himself supernaturally to pious persons. Such revelation is desirable and needed under certain circumstances, but it is not valuable as material for theology, and because not divinely attested to men generally is not properly a source of theology except as it harmonizes with and supports the truth already revealed in the Scriptures. Revelation is to be clearly distinguished from natural the- ology, not that its theology is unnatural, but to show that its communication is supernatural and direct. Nature and revela- tion have appropriately been called ‘‘God’s two great books.”’ God is equally the author of both. They are not contradictory, but complementary of each other. Nature is first in order of time, but revelation is first in importance; and except for the reality of the truths of revelation, nature would not be what it is. And with revelation, nature is a more fruitful source of truth than it could otherwise be. 3. Erroneous Sources of Theology—The Roman Catholic Church holds her traditions, according to the decree of the Coun- cil of Trent, to be an equal source of truth or authority with the Scriptures. Doubtless in the period of the apostles the tradi- tions of these holy men had certain value in this respect; but because of the corruption of the church resulting in a consequent corruption of the traditions, they certainly are not now, as represented by the Pope, a proper source of theology. Neither the decrees of the Pope nor those of any other individual or INTRODUCTION 33 company of men representing a body of Christian people are proper material for theology. Creeds, symbols, or confessions, both ancient and modern, even though such are formulated by the concurrence of every member composing a religious body, can not be admitted as a source of true Christian theology. A second mistaken source of theology is mysticism. Mys- ticism claims an immediate insight into truth independent of nature or revelation. In relation to religious truth, it professes a direct and personal revelation from God. It is doubtless Seriptural and in harmony with the facts of the best Christian experience to allow such higher communication with God. There is a true mysticism that means much to the Christian in spiritual illumination and higher experimental knowledge of divine truth. But this is not an additional revelation equal to the Scriptures; it is usually only an illumination of that already revealed. In all the past centuries mysticism has not added any essentially new truth to what is known of God through nature and revela- tion. That false mysticism which pretends to add to the truths of Scripture various ideas, often unscriptural, that ‘‘the Lord showed’’ to the mystic, is to be rejected as a source of theology. A third mistaken source of theology is rationalism. This error is the opposite of mysticism in recognizing too much of theology as from man while mysticism recognizes too much as coming directly from God. Reason in the broad sense hag an important place in receiving and appropriating the facts of revelation. But that common modern tendency is wrong which would make mere human reasoning in the narrow Sense the ulti- mate source of all divine truth, even to the exclusion of the truths of Scripture if those truths do not agree with previous conclusions of reason. Is the inner Christian experience, or Christian conscious- ness, a proper source of theology? Every devout Christian recognizes the reality of Christian experience. He is aware of a remarkable change that took place in his soul at the time he accepted Christ and which has continued to be realized more or less vividly since that time. May he by a careful study of this experience know the essential nature of conversion? Often devout persons have accepted their own experience as a source of truth and preached it as a standard for all men, measuring all others by their own experience. But such standards are as 34 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY various as the number of those whose experiences they repre- sent. Therefore, they can not be a proper source of theology. Another class who hold the Christian consciousness or experi- ence as a source of theology are those too liberal theologians who assume that revelation was originally given only through experi- ence, and not in words; that the truths contained in the Scrip- tures were originally the result of inner experience only, and that consequently truth may as well be learned from Christian experience today as a source of theology. Doubtless Christian experience is corroborative of the teach- ings of revelation, and by such experience one can more clearly interpret the Scriptures. If one has experienced regeneration, he will more clearly understand the words of the apostle Paul, ‘‘Tf any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.’’ The Chris- tian experience of an individual or of a particular age will necessarily modify the conception of theology for that person or age, but this does not mean it is a proper source of divine truth. It can not be a proper source, because of the variation already mentioned. This variation is due to one’s natural tem- perament, environment, and to outside influence, and especially to the theology he holds. The Mohammedan’s religious experi- ence differs much from that of the Buddhist because their beliefs differ. Likewise the experiences of the Roman Catholic and Protestant are not the same; and as a result of varying belief, experience differs between Calvinists and Arminians, and be- tween Unitarians and Trinitarians. Even with those holding the same general creed, experience varies according to their particular individual interpretation of their creed. Evidently, therefore, the law of Christian experience is that such experi- ence is the result of Christian truth, or the individual concep- tion of it, and not its cause; it is the offspring of theology and not its source. IV. Method of Theology 1. Need of System.—Experience has furnished abundant proof that the truths of religion, like any other branch of knowl- edge, can be more clearly grasped by the mind if those truths are presented in a logical order. The constitution of the mind requires such presentation. Also by such systematie arrange- ment of theological facts it is possible to draw out general prin- ciples, and by such generalization to increase theological knowl- INTRODUCTION 35 edge. The results gained by such systematization are sufficient justification of it. And in view of this the ungrounded objec- tions that religion is of the heart and not of the head, or that systematization makes for religious bigotry, need not be con- sidered. The ancient theologians, including even such able writers as Origen, Augustine, and John of Damascus, who is commonly represented as the father of systematic theology, lacked system in their theological writings. And it is safe to say that as a result of this lack of orderly treatment there was a corresponding lack of clearness in their theology. Two opposite dangers must be avoided in the arrangement of theology—oversystematizing on the one extreme, and fragmen- tariness on the other. Oversystematizing has been a not uncom- mon fault of modern theology and has placed an unnecessary burden of repetition and speculation upon it. In an attempt to make a perfectly balanced system, writers on the subject have yielded too often to the temptation to resort to speculation to fill up in their systems the gaps that resulted from a lack of revealed truth on certain subjects, such as the nature of the Divine Trinity or of events at the second advent of Christ. Others in endeavoring to keep away from this danger have fallen into the opposite one of treating the subject in a fragmentary manner that fails to satisfy the mind and to exhibit many truths that may be known. 2. Various Methods of Systematization—A great variety of methods of arrangement have been followed in the treatment of theology. The order of presentation of the different parts of theology is determined largely by the type of mind of the writer. But especially is it determined by the particular aspect of the subject to be emphasized. There is nothing in the nature of the subject to require oneness of method in systematizing the doc- trines of theology. Those who follow the analytic method of Calixtus begin with the idea of blessedness, the assumed end of all things, and reason to the means of securing it. Others, in- cluding Chalmers, begin with sin, man’s disease, and reason to the remedy. Others approach the subject from still other angles and by other processes. The purpose of many theologians of the past and present has been to find one doctrine or principle out of which all others may be developed. Doubtless no such unity is possible. The inductive, not the deductive, is the true 36 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY method of theology. Theology must be constructed from the various elements to be found in nature and revelation, and ean not be deduced from one general principle or doctrine, whether that doctrine be Christ, sin, blessedness, or any other. 3. Method of This Work.—The most common order of treat- ment of theology, and the one followed in this work, may be properly termed the synthetic method. It consists in bringing to- gether the various elements of theology and arranging them into a logical whole. This mode of treatment is in conformity with the nature of the subject. The order of the larger divisions of this work, beginning with God and passing to the consideration of events at the final consummation, is not only a logical order, but to a considerable extent the chronological one. The order of this work is as follows: I. Introduction. II. Existence of God, or Theism. III. Evidences of Divine Revelation, or Apologetics. IV. Nature and Works of God, or Theology Proper. V. Doctrine of Man, or Anthropology. VI. Salvation through Christ, or Soteriology. VII. The Church, or Ecclesiology. VIII. Last Things, or Eschatology. It is probably sufficient as an apology for this division and arrangement of the subject that it is clear and logical, and designed to give a degree of prominence and emphasis to the various leading phases of theology that will be helpful to a com- prehensive grasp of it. Also these divisions in this order do not vary greatly from that followed by the majority of the most respected theological writers of the present day, as shown by the following lists of the main divisions of those named. Strong: (1) Prolegomena. (2) Existence of God. (3) The Scriptures. (4) The Nature, Decrees, and Works of God. (5) Anthropology. (6) Soteriology. (7) Eecclesiology. (8) Escha- tology. Raymond: (1) Apologetics. (2) Theology Proper. (3) An- thropology. (4) Soteriology. (5) Eschatology. (6) Ethies. (7) Eeclesiology. Hodge: (1) Introduction. (2) Theology Proper. (3) An- thropology. (4) Soteriology. (5) Eschatology. Miley: (1) Theism. (2) Theology. (3) Anthropology. INTRODUCTION 37 (4) Christology. (5) Soteriology. (6) Eschatology. Shedd: (1) Theological Introduction. (2) Bibliology. (8) Theology. (4) Anthropology. (5) Christology. (6) Soteriol- ogy. (7) Eschatology. In the present work the results sought seem to require as many main divisions as are made of the subject. ; : Uh J AD iA i. J PART I EXISTENCE OF GOD, OR THEISM «4 i Yy ¥ ¢ . | rt “ f] ra ay i ivi rf if, .¥ J a", a fe iy : a ' ; ‘ * yy ? i ve Ya 4 Fe ah e gay AD ut: ial ia | & ie JV i . 7 ‘Peay sts bY ¥ : ' a , Y : + aay : Mf NE BA ee eS Vi ea idee ae eT eh i? re use Ve a , ¢ o/ yi r Me ve Ady : : \ Y ( , ys H Vr % , Pee ia a lan we aii ; al an iv Web. hy, a $ie 7 » Ay § ya Pe WAP: ; i a ; y in ‘a MVR RNeasy A dl Hien eae ts: hat | | o “ee y : 4)! , L i re ; es Ol: mh AS } sas ‘A x j ' oP. ¢ . 1 Ue ane ae yey , ' } b) L heh ll A tee Aa ar : Ny! Pe, he Ay a et d ‘: My ae) De aed : wre he Ph | or MANE A Se isanet eR ae SU arte aVRE a RNS Un aa MRT RGN Taaty Te TR a De ’ lon dee tiie wk . fio bi ; a ai Us PART I EXISTENCE OF GOD, OR THEISM CHAPTER I ORIGIN OF OUR IDEA OF GOD The ‘‘existence of God’’ as used here means the existence of the Infinite Person, the creator and sustainer of all things, The term ‘‘theism’’ is commonly used in this sense and has more definite meaning than the expression ‘‘existence of God.’’ By the latter expression ig too often meant a pantheistic or other conception of God than that which is revealed in the Scriptures, and which is characteristic of Christianity. Belief in God has been common to men in all ages, nations, and conditions of life. It is practically universal. It has been and is as widespread as religion, and necessarily so, because it is fundamental to religion. There can be no religion in the exact sense of the term without the idea of God, even though that idea may be much perverted. But how came this universal idea of God? If to a particular person were proposed the question of how the idea of God first came into his mind he would probably be unable to tell. It was there from the time of his earliest recollection, though possibly not so clear or in a form so highly developed as he later came to hold. The most important theories of the origin of the idea of God are: (1) that it is an intuition, (2) that it is from reason- ing, (3) that it is by an original divine revelation handed down by tradition. I. The Knowledge of God as an Intuition 1. Intuitions in General.—By intuitions we mean that sort of knowledge that is due to that inherent energy of the mind that gives rise to certain thoughts and which is differentiated from knowledge gained by instruction from without, by reasoning, or by experience. The term is used to designate the source of the knowledge as well as the ideas themselves. Intuitions are also known as first truths, truths of the primary reason, and innate knowledge. Intuitive knowledge is not ideas or knowledge which the infant finds himself in conscious possession of at birth, but 43 44 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY rather ideas that have their birth in the mind spontaneously when the proper conditions occur to give rise to them. ‘‘A first truth is a knowledge which, though developed on occasion of observation and reflection, is not derived from observation and reflection.’’—-A. H. Strong. The mind is so constituted that its nature is to recognize certain things as being true without proof or instruction. And ‘‘there is nothing surer in psychology than the intuitive faculty.’’ Intuitions belong to the three departments of (1) the senses, (2) the understanding, (3) the moral nature. Common examples of them are time, space, substance, causation, moral responsi- bility, self, God. To these might also be added as further illus- trations other ideas obtained intuitively, as beauty, that things equal to the same thing are equal to one another, that the whole is equal to the sum of all its parts. These things are perceived by the mind to be true as soon as they are pre- sented, without any logical processes, demonstration, or in- struction from without. One does not need to be told there is space. On the occurrence of the appropriate occasion the mind at once leaps to the conclusion that space is a reality and necessary—it could not but be. Probably many persons have never reasoned about the necessity of space, yet they have believed space a reality from early infancy and act upon it every time they use a measuring rule. And what is true of space ig also true of substance. Many adults have never rea- soned that substance is a reality nor felt the need of such rea- soning. They know intuitively that substance is, and act on their conviction continually in every use of the senses. Men need not be taught the actuality of time. Duration, like space, can not but be. When the proper conditions occur to give rise to the idea, men simply know time is and act on that knowledge; hence they own clocks and watches. Causality, or the idea that every effect has a cause, is likewise self-evident, and the common sense of mankind has always affirmed it to be true. Only in philo- sophical speculation is this and other intuitive truths denied. So likewise psychologists refer all necessary ideas and truths to intuition. The great moral truths of God, moral obligation, and future existence are also intuitively known, and are questioned only when the mind is influenced by speculative theories. It is not affirmed here that innate ideas are always con- ORIGIN OF OUR IDEA OF GOD 45 sciously held as true. The idealist who denies the actuality of matter yet acts on the fact of his intuitive belief in the reality of matter. He can not do otherwise. Men perceive and act on the great truths of intuition that are necessary to their very being without first reasoning about them. They are, in fact, necessary to reasoning and too important to man’s welfare to be left to a process so uncertain ag fallible human reasoning. The simplest act requires the assumption of important truths. When I take up my pen to write I manifest belief in (1) substance, of which the pen consists; (2) space, in which that substance is; (3) self, as distinguished from externality, without which I can not take the pen; (4) time, without which change of relation to the pen is impossible; and (5) causation, or self-determination, without the fact of which it would be impossible to attempt this or any other accomplishment. The reality of intuitive knowledge is evident from what thus far has been stated. From these more generally recognized intuitions we may learn those characteristics or criteria by which we may in turn test those other truths whose intuitive char- acter is questioned. These criteria of all intuitions then, upon eareful consideration, will be found to be two—universality and necessity. In the nature of things, these are inclusive of each other. If a matter be necessary of belief, it must be a universal belief. On the other hand, if an idea is universally believed and acted upon it must be because no man can reasonably eall it in question. 2. Proofs that the Idea of God Is an Intuition.—In affirming that the knowledge of God is innate, let it not be supposed that a complete apprehension of God in all his perfections as de- seribed in the Scriptures is possible by this means. It is here affirmed only that the idea of a superior being on whom we are dependent and to whom we are responsible is an intuition. Doubtless this original idea of God needs to be and may be vastly broadened and given more definiteness by reasoning con- cerning it, but only by a supernatural revelation can we have accurate knowledge of him. Let us test the idea of God as being an intuition by applying the test of universality and necessity, the criteria of innate ideas. (1) Universality of the Idea of God.—What is the proof that the idea of God is universal? It is a fact of history that 46 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY the vast majority of the race have been, religious, and acknowl- edged thereby their belief in a superior being or beings. This is a matter of common knowledge, and so much so that proof is superfluous. Belief in God has been characteristic of the ancient Egyptians, the Babylonians, Syrians, Phenicians, Greeks, Ro- mans, all European nations past and present, the inhabitants of the populous countries of the Far East, the American Indians, and the African negroes. But it is objected that whole tribes have been found by tra- velers and missionaries which were so degraded that they seemed to possess no idea of God whatever. In answer it may be said that these very tribes who seemed on slight acquaintance to be entirely destitute of the idea of God, upon further investiga- tion were found to hold it. And it is not unreasonable to sup- pose that this will always be found to be true of all such which at first are seemingly atheistic tribes. In some instances mis- sionaries have labored for years among a very degraded people before they found traces of a general belief in the supernatural, due to the natives shrinking from making known to strangers those mysteries which they held sacredly secret. But suppose such an ignorant and degraded tribe of atheists were found to exist? Would such an exception be proof that the mass of mankind in the normal condition are also thus igno- rant? Or if a tribe of idiots should be discovered, would their existence prove that reason is not normal to mankind? Would it not rather be assumed that the extreme degradation of such a tribe had resulted in their losing the use of an important and essential part of human nature? Does the fact that some men are born deaf disprove the sense of hearing as normal to men? Or does the frequency of infanticide among a people disprove the reality of parental affection ? Again, it is objected that some persons born deaf and blind affirm that they had no knowledge of God until taught concern- ing him. It seems scareely possible that such persons should have been void of any feeling of moral obligation, and this im- plies the idea of God in a measure. Doubtless they had no such conception of God as they came to have in the light of divine revelation, and in comparing their lack of knowledge of God with what they afterward came to have they assumed they were entirely without an idea of God in early life. Also the argu- ORIGIN OF OUR IDEA OF GOD 47 ment of the preceding paragraph applies here, that the ignorance of a few such persons no more proves that the vast majority of them are without a normal intuitive knowledge of God than to suppose that a, few idiots blind and deaf from birth would dis- prove rationality as normal in persons born without the senses of sight and hearing. Or again, it is objected to the doctrine that the idea of God has its source in intuition, that there are men here and there, even educated men in a few instances, who are professed athe- ists. The unreasonableness and absurdity of holding atheism will be shown later, but here it may be said that it is only by philosophical speculation that one may have such views. It no more disproves the intuitive knowledge of God than the intuition of substance is disproved by the fact that a certain class of philosophers deny its reality when holding idealism, or than the intuition of free will is disproved by the denial of it on the part of those whose false philosophy requires them to hold necessi- tarianism. With the proof of the universality of the idea of God it is shown to meet the first criterion of intuitions. (2) Necessity of the Idea of God.—Proof of the universality of the idea of God is essentially proof that the idea of God is also necessary as the cause of its universality. It is true that a few persons do, in contradiction to the laws of their nature, deny the being of God; but such denial is always forced and ean be only temporary. It is only when under the influence of a false philosophical theory that the mind can thus go contra- dictory to its nature, but as soon as that theory is out of the mind it will naturally revert to its intuitive conviction of God as surely as the pendulum when unconstrained hangs perpendicu- larly to the horizon. And ag the pendulum may be caused to vary from a perpendicular position by holding a powerful mag- net near it, so intuitions are perverted by unsound theories. That the idea of a personal God is necessary to man has been well demonstrated in the history of certain of the great world religions. Buddhism was atheistic in its creed as originally held, and Hinduism is likewise pantheistic. But their millions of devotees are human, and this primitive conviction in them that God is and that he is a person is so strong that in spite of their creeds they have ever acted out that conviction. The divinely implanted tendency to pray has been so irresistible that 48 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY they can not refrain from it. In fact, Buddhists have been compelled to modify those very atheistic tenets of their faith because they were lacking in correspondence with a great de- mand of human nature. This alone is sufficient proof that the idea of God is necessary, which is the second criterion of intui- tions and therefore proof that the idea of God is an intuition. Psychologists refer all necessary truths to intuition. (3) The Bible Assumes It—The Scriptures nowhere attempt the proof of the existence of God. It is assumed as being a truth already known and accepted. ~ The opening verse of the Bible names God as the Creator, but does not wait to introduce him. Doubtless this is due to both the inspiring Spirit and the wise human writer recognizing the superfluity of such an introduc- tion. This reasoning from the Scriptures to prove the innate knowledge of God will have no value, of course, in proving his existence to an unbeliever except as corroboration of proofs from other sources, but it is important to believers in the divine revelation not only as corroboration but as proof of the uni- versality of such knowledge by the assumption of so important a fact by the Scriptures. (4) Its Importance Requres It.—Also it is altogether rea- sonable to infer that the idea of God is a first truth because of its vast importance in determining moral obligation and for man’s present and eternal welfare. As Robespierre said, ‘‘If God did not exist, it would behoove man to invent him.’’ If the idea of God were not an intuition, it ought to be. That the knowledge of a matter of such vast consequence should be left to the uncertainties of educational processes, or should be a mere accident of the mind’s circumstances, is inconceivable. The only proper original source of the knowledge of God is in the constitution of the mind itself. The idea of God must be avail- able to all alike, and not possible merely to those who are so fortunate as to be taught about him, or whose rational powers are sufficiently developed to arrive at such knowledge by logical processes. Ii. Other Supposed Sources of the Idea 1. From Animistic Superstition—Animism is that form of su- perstition, common to the more degraded portions of the race, which believes that certain rocks, trees, streams, springs, caves, ORIGIN OF OUR IDEA OF GOD 49 ete., are animated or inhabited by spirits which must be wor- shiped and which will do injury to those who neglect such wor- ship. The spirits which these barbarous people fear and wor- ship are their gods, and animism is therefore closely related to their religion. Naturalistic evolution and other antitheistic philosophies refer the origin of religion and of, the idea of God to such animistic superstition, and on the theory that even relig- ion is the result of a process of evolution. They assume that animism was common to primitive man, that from that super- stitious fear of spirits which he supposed dwelt in these various material objects he came to worship many idols in the forms of various images, ete., that with increased culture he evolved a higher polytheism, and that from this came the monotheistic idea of a Supreme Being. That this is the theory as held by those classes of philosophers mentioned is evident from the statement of E. B. Taylor in ‘‘Primitive Culture,’’ ‘‘ Animism is... the groundwork of the philosophy of religion.’’ At this point it may be well to state that we have no sym- pathy with this theory. Our objection to such an origin of the idea of God is not only because it is contradictory to the teaching of the Scripture, but, and especially, because it is not true to the plain facts of the earliest history of the race. From the history of religion it is clear that the tendency of religion is to degenerate rather than to rise to a purer form. Such has been true of the various great ethnic religions. Such has also been true of the true religion. Ancient Israel were continually de- parting from the exalted form of worship given them by Moses. And even Christianity has ever struggled against the degener- ating tendencies with which it has come in contact, which are doubtless to be accounted for on the ground of depraved human nature. The theory that our idea of God came by a process of evolution from a primitive fear of imaginary spirits in material inanimate objects is a Mere a@ priori assumption. What does the actual history of religions have to say on this subject? Were the primitive ideas of God polytheistic, or mono- theistic? According to the most dependable authorities and best scholars, the earliest religions of mankind were purely mono- theistic, and disallowed many gods. Renouf supported this view of the religion of ancient Egypt and maintained there were very many eminent scholars who held the same view. That the primi- 50 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY tive religion of the Chinese was monotheistic is maintained by James Legge, who was professor of the Chinese language and literature in Oxford University. The very ancient Aryans, from whom sprang the Hindus, Persians, and most of the great Euro- pean nations, held monotheism. Many eminent authorities in support of a primitive monotheism are cited by Dr. F. F. Ellin- wood in his ‘‘ Oriental Religions and Christianity’’ (pp. 222-265). 2. Exclusively from Revelation.—It is the opinion of some the- ologians that the mind is capable of a knowledge of God only by supernatural revelation. It has been reasoned in support of this view that such persons as Adam, Abraham, or Moses, to whom God gave such revelation, have had the clearest knowl- edge of God and that to the extent that men have been remote from these original revelations, either geographically or chrono- logically, they have held less correct ideas of God unless they have had the Scripture records of those revelations. This view has been made especially prominent by Watson and others who doubtless were caused to take this position out of reverence for the Word of God and especially in opposition to the false claims for the ‘‘natural religion’’ of English deism with which they came into conflict. Probably this very controversy which raged in their day influenced them unduly against the intuition of God’s existence. Doubtless revelation is needed to enlarge and develop the innate idea of God, yet unless man already possessed the idea of God the revelation from God could have no authority for him, whether that revelation were transmitted by oral tradi- tion or by the Scriptures. 3. From a Process of Reasoning—Many of those who reject the idea of God as an intuition would refer the origin of the idea to a process of reasoning. Doubtless the mind is capable of learning about God by rational processes, but such a method of first obtaining the idea is rather a theoretical possibility than an actual fact. The mind does not wait for reasoning, or a logical process. When the proper conditions are brought about, the idea ‘‘flashes on the soul with the quickness and force of an immediate revelation.’’ That reasoning is not the means of gaining the idea of God is evident from the fact that the strength of men’s conviction of the being of God, is not in proportion to their powers of reason. Multitudes of men who can not grasp the logical arguments of the divine existence yet have an un- ORIGIN OF OUR IDEA OF GOD 51 wavering conviction of its truth, while others of extraordinary reasoning power are skeptics. What then is the place of reasoning as a means of knowing about God? First it must be allowed that rational arguments do much to enlarge and extend our intuitive idea of God. We can thus come to a clearer apprehension of his character and attributes. Again, these arguments for the divine existence have value in corroborating and confirming the intuitive conviction as being true, as by reasoning we may prove the veracity of the intuition that the whole is equal to the sum of all the parts. Yet the mind finds itself in possession of this knowledge imme- diately on the occurrence of the proper conditions, before it has time to reason, Ill. What Does This Intuition Contain? To know that any particular thing or person exists, one must necessarily know somewhat as to the nature, properties, quali- ties, characteristics, or attributes of that thing or person. Such knowledge is inseparable from the knowledge of the existence of the thing in the nature of the case. Therefore to know that God is, is necessarily to have some idea as to what God is, or con- cerning his attributes. The intuition that God exists contains also some idea of his nature. This does not mean that one can know God by intuition adequately for the performance of all human duties. The gross misconceptions that have mutilated men’s thought of God are sufficient proof that at least in their present depraved condition men do not intuitively know the na- ture of God in important respects. How clear would be the contents of the intuition of God to one who has never known the moral perversion of depraved human nature can not be known. Yet when all this has been said, the fact remains that God’s nature is known in a considerable measure. The intuition of God implies: (1) a personal being who may be properly wor- shiped; (2) a perfection of moral character in God that places men under moral obligation to him; (3) a power above on whom men are dependent. At least this much is contained in the intuition of God. CHAPTER II EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE Although belief in God’s existence is an intuition of the mind of man and arises spontaneously under proper conditions, yet theistic arguments have great value for corroboration and con- firmation of that innate idea. Rational evidences should not be despised as being useless. The mind craves rational satisfaction, such as only logical argument can give, concerning this great truth. Also, the intuition alone-is not in a position to meet the subtle attacks of skepticism. False reasoning must be met with rational argument. Again, formal argumentation is helpful in developing the intuitive idea of God, in explaining it and in illustrating it. Though the mind instinctively believes before philosophy has begun to set its proofs in order, yet the mind naturally seeks to supply to itself a logical account of its belief. However conclusive the proofs of theism may be, it is always to be remembered that the knowledge of God is not dependent upon them. The arguments are not held to demonstrate the fact of God, but they do show a degree of probability of the divine existence that amounts to certainty. Also, each argument need not be regarded as proving the whole doctrine of theism. One argument may prove one fact about God, and others other facts; so the various arguments constitute a series of proofs that is cumulative in nature. The most common arguments for theism are four in number: (1) the First-cause, or Cosmological; (2) the Design, or Teleo- logical; (8) the Human-nature, or Anthropological; (4) the A Priori, or Ontological. To these is sometimes added a fifth —the Biblical, or Revelation, Argument. I. The First-Cause, or Cosmological, Argument This argument for the Divine existence is based upon the fact of causation. Regarding the universe in its present form as an effect, it reasons that it must have had a sufficient cause. Because something can not come from nothing, and something now exists, therefore something has always existed. It further reasons that the original cause which is responsible for the be- ginning of the universe as we now know it must have been an eternal cause, and also a free cause that could volitionate at a 52 EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 53 particular time the beginning of matter or the beginning of those changes in what most antitheists unscripturally regard as already existing matter that have resulted in the present uni- verse. This free cause can be no less than an eternal person indefinitely great, whom we know as God, The argument may be put more exactly in syllogistic form, as follows: Major Premise.—Everything begun, whether substance or change in things before existing, must have had a sufficient pre- existing cause. Minor Premise—The world in every part is continually changing. Conclusion.—Therefore the world must have a cause outside of itself and the original cause must be eternal, uncaused, and possessing free will. Two truths are requisite to the cosmological argument: (1) the principle of causation; (2) the universe is an effect of a cause outside itself. If these are shown to be true, the argu- ment is sound proof of God’s existence. 1. The Law of Causation.—Causation is self-evident and is uni- versally recognized. It is a truth so thoroughly ineradicable, so universal, and so necessary that it must be regarded as is the idea of God itself, as being an intuition of the reason. That every event must have a cause is the belief of all men. And cause, to be a cause, must be cause sufficient or adequate to the result accomplished. If it is not such, it is not a cause. Only in philosophical speculation do men ever think of denying the principle of causation. Such men as Hume and Mill have had the boldness to deny it theoretically, but they themselves in reasoning about the origin of the world and of the things it contains do not fail to employ the truth of causation. They have maintained that the idea of cause is the result of associating in our minds one thing with another and by the ob- servation of invariable sequence wrongly assuming the first thing to be the cause of the second. But common sense tells us there is more in the relation of what we call cause and effect than mere regular succession. There is no more regular suc- cession than day and night, yet who would suppose night is caused by day and day is caused by night? Or who would say 54 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY that summer and winter cause each other merely because of their invariably following each other? But cause is more than the mere antecedent of an event. It is an antecedent to whose efficiency an event as an effect is due. The only cause of which we are immediately conscious is our own wills. We take a book from a shelf and lay it on the table. We know the location of the book on the table is the result of a cause and that personal will is that cause. We know the book would never have passed from the shelf to the table except for a cause. Likewise we may properly regard every event as being the result of a cause even though we are not that cause. It is true there may be dependent causes that are themselves the re- sults of other causes, but reason requires an original and eternal cause of all these dependent causes that is independent and free. But the objector to the First-cause Argument professes to find an alternative in the idea of an infinite regressive series of dependent causes. But such an infinite series of causes and effects is unreasonable, because a mere series of changes must itself have had a cause. The infinite-series idea is like ‘‘the ehain that hangs on nothing.’’ To follow back through any number of dependent causes as links in a chain is not to find the first and real cause. The mind can not be content to rest in such an endless-series idea, but instinctively leaps to the thought of an independent first cause. But further disproof of the in- finite-series idea igs needless. No one believes it. It is used in antitheistie reasoning only as an objection to sound theistic argu- ment, and then is cast away by those who use it. Again, it is objected to the idea of a necessary independent first cause that the world may be regarded as being many inter- acting parts as dependent causes. It is as if the points of four pencils were placed upon the table and the tops leaned against each other in the form of a pyramid so that they are mutually self-supporting. We readily admit that the universe is consti- tuted with these interacting dependent causes. It is a fact of science and is open to the observation of all men. Sandstone is formed from beds of sand, and beds of sand are the result of the crumbling of the stone again. The blood is kept pure by the respiration of the lungs, and yet the lungs ean not continue to function except by a supply of pure blood. But allowing all this, these interacting dependent causes need a cause for their EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 55 being and interaction. Ag Bowne has well said, ‘‘ An interacting many can not exist without a coordinating one.’’ No number of dependent causes can constitute an independent cause when added together, as independence can not originate in depend- ence. Back of all these interacting dependent causes, then, must be an independent cause that coordinates them and causes their interaction, as in the aforementioned pyramid of pencils that support each other, an independent external cause must arrange the pencils so they will support each other. Reason requires, not only for the series of causes, but also for the interacting sys- tem of causes, a real and independent cause of that series or system. Any real cause, then, must be an original cause, not merely an intermediate link in a chain of dependent causes and effects. The mind will be content with nothing less than that cause which supports the most distant dependent cause. And reason requires that the original cause be eternal in duration. Nothing can not be a cause. Something exists now and it could not have come out of antecedent nothingness; so somewhat must have always existed that caused all things as they now are. Again, any real cause must be a free cause. ‘‘An uncaused cause is a free cause.’’—G. P. Fisher, Natural Theology, p. 14. If it acts of necessity it is dependent, and must itself be only an effect and a result of another cause. Only an independent cause can be a free cause; and independent, free cause certainly im- plies free will in a conscious independent being. Man has the power of first cause of certain effects because of his free will. Both from intuition and from rational processes it is certain that real original cause is to be attributed only to a personal will; therefore to whatever extent it can be shown that the world is the result of a cause exterior to itself we have proof of a personal God as creator. 2. The Universe Is an Effect.—As it now exists; the universe is an effect. Nothing is more strongly stressed by modern science than that both organic and inorganic nature are the result of &@ process and came to be what they are through a process. Man is evidently of comparatively recent origin, according to science. Before man, the lower forms of life had a beginning, and be- yond them was a period when no life existed—an azoic state. Even the nebular and evolutionary hypotheses hold that all 56 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY things which now exist had a beginning and have been evolved from a primordial fire-mist. But this beginning must have had a cause; for a beginning is an event, and every event must have a cause. A spontaneous generation of the primitive life is not admissible with science, and is practically a denial of the prin- ciple of causation, as will be shown later. Also, that alleged primordial fire-mist can not have been the eternal and original cause of all; for if it were eternal it would have been mature, or fully developed. And if so, it could not have further developed into a universe. Also if it were eternal it would necessarily be immutable and could not change. But if it changed, that is proof it is not eternal, but is like all other changing forms of matter— a result of a cause. The minute physical divisions of matter, the molecules, being of exact equality, bear the marks of being manu- factured articles and not eternal or self-existent, according to Sir John Herschell. 3. What the Argument Proves.—With the proof, then, of the principle of causation and that the universe is an effect of which no sufficient cause is to be found in itself, reason requires an adequate extra-mundane cause, eternal and uncaused, possessing free will and omnipotent power. These necessary qualities point strongly to the personality of the first cause. The Cosmological Argument, then, furnishes proof of theism with a degree of certainty little short of a demonstration, by proving the fact of a first cause, that that cause is eternal, uncaused, unchangeable, omnipotent, free, and, we may safely say in harmony with many able thinkers, a personal Cause who is God. II. The Design, or Teleological, Argument 1. Nature of the Argument.—The Design, or Teleological, Argument reasons from marks of design, or from orderly and useful arrangements, in nature to an intelligent cause. It is not, however, a reasoning from design to a designer, as it is some- times wrongly stated; for design implies a designer; but rather a reasoning from marks of design to a designer. By design is meant the selection and pursuit of ends. It is the choosing of an end to be attained, the selection of proper means to accomplish it, and the use of the means to attain the end chosen. When we see at the foot of a rocky cliff broken fragments of rock of unequal sizes, irregular and uneven shapes, EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 57 strewn about regardless of their relation to each other, we decide at once the size, shape, and location of them is a result of chance. But when we see hundreds of bricks of equal size, even color, and faces all bearing one imprint, laid in straight, level rows in hard mortar and forming a perpendicular wall with suitable openings for windows and doors, we decide the qualities and arrangement of them are the result of intelligent purpose or design. It is not necessary that one shall have seen the bricks manufactured and laid in the wall to know the wall is the result of design. The very fact of orderly and useful arrangement therein is abundant proof of contrivance by an intelligent being. The Design Argument may be given in syllogistic form, as follows: Major Premise.-Orderly and harmonious cooperation of many separate parts can be accounted for only by the assump- tion of an intelligent cause. Minor Premise.—The world everywhere exhibits orderly and harmonious cooperation of all its parts. Conclusion.—Therefore the original and absolute cause of the world is an intelligent cause. As in the works of man we reason from marks of design to an intelligent designer, so we may as properly reason from evidences of contrivance, or evidences of adaptation of means to ends, in nature, that the author of nature is intelligent. Nor is it necessary that we shall have known by observation and experience that an intelligent agent is behind nature. It is enough that we know from experience what are the character- istic signs of intelligence. Then when we see those signs whether in the contrivances of man or in nature we properly decide they are the result of an intelligent mind. The very nature of design is such that it implies intelligence, and wherever marks of con- trivance are found it is certain they must be referred to intelli- gence. Not only in the origin of nature as shown in the First- cause Argument must we recognize the principle of causation, but also in the orderly arrangement of nature as set forth in the Design Argument. Orderly and useful arrangement in nature is certain. Marks of design are apparent everywhere and are conclusive proof that the author of nature is an intelligent person. All science as- sumes that nature is rationally constructed. Huxley said, ‘‘Sci- 58 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY ence is the discovery of a rational order that pervades the uni- verse.’’ Except for that uniformity which shows nature to be a system and a result of design science would be impossible. The results of chance can not be understood by the mind. But the universe can be understood by the mind, showing clearly that it is the result of a mind. It may be objected that the orderly arrangements in nature are not designed to be useful but are merely used because they can be used. But he who says the eye sees merely because it can see, the ear hears merely be- cause it can hear, the hand handles only because capable of doing so and that none of them were designated to perform such func- tions says what the common sense of men everywhere refuses to accept. As well might it be said that the locomotive draws its train merely because it can draw it, not because built to do so; or that the printing-press prints books because it can do so, not because it was designed to do so. How much more reasonable it is to believe that useful arrangements in nature as well as in human devices are the result of the selection and pursuit of ends, or that the beneficial functioning of nature is ag it is because a kind and gracious Father designed it so for the sake of his children. What being, says Cicero, that is ‘‘destitute of intellect and reason could have produced these things which not only had need of reason to cause them to be, but which are such as can be understood only by the highest exertions of reason?’’ (De Nat. Deorum, II, 44). Probably the Design Argument can not be better illustrated than it has been by William Paley (Natural Theology, p. 5). His argument in substance is as follows: If in erossing a field I strike my foot against a stone and ask how it came there, I might reply that it has been there forever. But if later in my walk I find a watch and the question of the origin of the watch be raised, the answer must be very different. A casual obsery- ance of its mechanism—of its wheels with cogs exactly fitting into each other, of its springs, of the relation of part to part, and of its exact adjustment so that it exactly measures time— furnishes convineing proof that it is a reliable example of hu- man contrivance, and not the result of chance. And even the discovery in the watch of useless, broken, or deranged parts would not invalidate the reasoning that it was designed by an EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 59 intelligent mind. For more than a century Dr. Paley’s argu- ment has stood unanswered, and it may properly be regarded as unanswerable. Advancement in science has made minor ad- jJustments necessary, and to the extent the evolutionary hypoth- esis has been given place an extra link must be allowed in the argument, yet it still stands in all its strength. To carry Paley’s watch illustration a step farther, suppose that watch I find in the field has not only a fine mechanism for the measurement of time, but also contains within itself an elaborate machine-shop with lathes and other necessary machin- ery and has the ability to manufacture other watches like itself, and not only as good, but better watches than itself, and that it had itself been evolved from a less perfect watch. Would such re- markable ability in that hypothetical watch disprove a design- ing intelligence behind that race of watches? If watches came from other watches, they would not be so immediately the result of intelligent design, but certainly the cause that originated them and involved in that first watch those wonderful qualities later evolved must have been indeed an intelligence far superior to that manifested in actual watches as they have been designed by men. Then if evolution were admitted as a process in nature, instead of invalidating the idea of design and the design argu- ment for God’s existence, it would strengthen it. Whether the theory of evolution be regarded as true or false, we may con- sistently cite marks of design in proof of an intelligent creator, though in the one case design would be less directly manifested than in the other, yet just as really shown. The Design Argument is probably the simplest and most con- vineing of all theistic proofs. It has been appealed to by theists of all times, nations, and religions. It is frequently referred to in the Scriptures. ‘‘The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork’’ (Psa. 19:1). In Rom. 1:20 the apostle Paul, affirms that God’s eternal power may be clearly seen in the things that are made. Heathen philosophers, including Anaxagoras, Socrates, and Cicero, made much use of it. So did also the Jewish writer Philo. All the church fathers and theologians until the present day have appealed to it in proof of theism. Truly God ‘‘hath not left himself without wit- ness’? among all men. 2. Evidences of Design in Nature—The marks of intelligent 60 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY contrivance in nature are countless. They may be found on every hand. They may be seen in the movements of the vast planets far away in the starry sky and also in every minute insect on the earth. In all the realm of inorganic nature they are to be found, as well as in every plant that grows. And again, they, may be found in large numbers in each of the millions of bodies of both animals and men. They appear, not only in single organs, but in the relation of organs to each other. Evidences of design are also apparent in the adaptations of the world to the life of plants and animals, and of the organs of animals to their instincts. Limited space excludes an extended exhibition of examples of design in nature, but those here given will serve at least as an indication of the nature of the evidence. The remarkable operation of an intricate machine often fills a thoughtful person with wonder, and he is impressed with the far-seeing design and intelligence of its inventor. But how much more wonderful is the human body, and how much more does it show design! What machine is so perfect in its mechan- ism and operation as is this one? All its parts, organs, and func- tions are nicely adjusted to each other. It repairs its defective parts while in operation, and generates its own energy. But it is through definite concrete examples that the most vivid impres- sion of design in nature is received. If the intricate lens of a camera manifests design, how much more does the eye? ‘Their general principles are similar; but how much more perfect is the eye than the lens of a camera! It is not an opening in the head, nor a mere nerve center such as one might suppose from what some evolutionists say in at- tempting an evolutionary theory of its origin. It has a lid asa means of protecting the tender ball, and that lid moves with wonderful quickness. The ball is not set immovable in its socket, but has muscles so attached to it that it can be turned in all directions of the field of vision. Again, the structure of the eyeball is wonderfully adapted to the light, and' to the function of seeing. The opening to the lens is contracted or enlarged, in adjustment to the amount of light falling upon the retina, by a most delicate arrangement of muscles that are not dependent upon the will, but on the stimulus of the light itself. The lens itself is capable of such exact adjustment that the rays of light are refracted in such a manner as to bring them to a proper EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 61 focus on the retina. Spread out on this retina is the only nerve in the body susceptible of light and color. These are but a few of the evidences of design in the structure of the eye. As cer- tainly as design may be seen in any human contrivance, it may be seen in this wonderful organ. But what unthinking credulity must that be which would rather attribute the intricate wonders of the eye to chance, or another non-intelligent cause! And if it be objected that the eye, with all its wonders, may be the re- sult of evolution, it is not necessary to argue the point, but only to say in reply: Then how far-seeing and intelligent must have been the designer to implant the power to effect by a process of evolution that wonderful organ as we now know it. Likewise the ear is not a mere opening into the head, but a very delicate and complicated device for catching sound-waves and producing the sensation of hearing by means of the auditory nerve. It is a far more wonderful mechanism than that ex- hibited in a telephone or radiophone receiving instrument; and as they bear undeniable evidence of design by man, so does this much more of a designing creator. If space would allow, proofs of design might be shown in various other organs, as of digestion, reproduction, the heart, the lungs, the nerves, and in the bones, muscles, and skin, which are all wonderfully adapted to their use. But these have been exhaustively discussed by many able writers, to whom those are referred who would pursue this phase of the subject farther (see Natural Theology [Paley]. Bridge- water Treatises. Natural Theology [Fisher] ). Not only in single organs is design shown, but also in the relation of organs to each other and to the conditions under which the animal is to live. The fish, suited to live in the water, as shown by his gills, has also fins and tail adapted to swimming, as is also the shape of its body. The bird with wings suitable for flying in the air has also hollow bones and feathers, which make flight possible. The bird with long legs for wading in the water has also a long neck. And the bird that floats on the water has feathers impenetrable by water, and web-feet. Even man, with a mind superior to all other animals and capable of wonderful contriving, has also an upright body and a hand cap- able of executing all the mind contrives. Man’s hand is far better adapted to work than is the hand of any species of ape. In fact, the human hand is so remarkable in its mechanism that 62 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY Dr. Charles Bell has written an entire volume about it as an example of design. What wise design is shown by this relation of organs! And fully as remarkable is that design shown in adapting organs to instincts of particular species. Carnivorous animals have claws and teeth suited to catching and eating their prey, while those with an instinct for eating vegetables have teeth and stomachs adapted to their instinct. A still more remarkable example of design is the provision for the support of the young even before they are born. With mammals, the breasts or udder of the mother begin to swell and store a supply of milk; so as soon as the young are born, the most nourishing food possible is ready for them. Similarly, a food-supply is also stored in the egg. Certainly here is: proof of a wise, foreseeing mind that designed these things so. Even in inorganic nature are to be seen marks of a similar wise design. Except for the fact of evaporation of moisture in the atmosphere by heat, and its condensation by cold, life would be impossible on the earth. On warm summer days life would be destroyed by the intense heat except for the fact that heat is taken up by the moisture of the earth, vegetation, or bodies of water as the water becomes vapor. Likewise, on the cool sum- mer nights vegetation would die of frost and cold, and life would consequently soon become extinct on the earth, except for the condensation of the vapor in the atmosphere into the dew; as it thus condenses, a vast amount of heat stored during the day is given out and the temperature is kept moderate. What a won- derful provision is this! It is either a proof of design by a kind creator, or else a result of chance. The atheist may be credulous enough to believe the latter, but the common sense of mankind has always felt constrained to attribute it to the design of a heavenly Father. It is a general law of nature that bodies contract as they cool. Water becomes heavier as it cools and the cold water settles to the bottom, while the warmer remains at the top. But by a special law of nature that is very singular, ice does not first form at the bottom of a body of water, but when the tempera- ture of that water at the bottom falls to about four degrees above the freezing-point it begins to expand and becomes lighter; so ice always forms on top first. Except for this special law the larger bodies of water in the temperate zone would soon EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 63 become solid masses of ice, frozen from the bottom to the top, that would not melt during the entire summer, and all life in them would perish. If this special provision in nature does not show design in nature, then what could show it? Even the theory of evolution can not account for such a provision; but it must be regarded as a direct result of design. The power of gravitation is so common, we are apt to over- look it. But suppose the attraction of gravitation were but one fourth as strong as it is; how difficult it would be to keep our houses on their foundations, and what a task it would be to keep on one’s feet on windy days! Or imagine the drawing of gravitation four times as strong as it is now; how tired one would become of his own weight, and especially of carrying necessary burdens! If heavy persons should sit or lie down, they would be unable ever to rise up again. Or suppose the axis of our earth were perpendicular to our sun instead of in- clined; then no changing seasons would ever be known, but only one long, monotonous, changeless temperature. Surely a kind creator has wisely designed all these things. 3. Objections to the Design Argument.—It is sometimes object- ed to the foregoing reasoning that nature does not always ap- pear to bear evidences of design, and useless and rudimentary organs in animals are pointed out as examples. Nor can the existence of such be properly denied. The spleen is sometimes cited as an example of a useless organ. But it may only properly be said that its use is not known to be important. Physiologists are seeking to learn more about its function and purpose. The mere fact that animals may live when it is removed proves only that it is not necessary to life, not that it has no purpose. Knowledge of the important functions of the large majority of the organs of the body gives such evidence of design in creation that present ignorance of the use of a few organs can not in- validate it. Also those rudimentary organs such as the teeth of whales, which they never need, and mamme in males of the higher species are cited as not supporting the Design Argument. In answer it may be said, first, that such are only in organic nature, and there are very few in number. Also it is a low view of utility that considers only the immediate wants of organisms. In a vehicle or a building, some parts serve a xood purpose in giving beauty, symmetry, and unity. Doubtless some of these 64 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY rudimentary organs are best understood as serving this purpose. They are merely the characteristic features of the type, even though the individual does not need them. Again, it is objected to the Design Argument that all may have come as a result of chance. Inasmuch as they are few who thus deify chance, our answer may be brief. This objection will not be held by one who stops to think. It is affirmed that the world mighti have come to be by chance just as the Iliad might have been produced by throwing down quantities of letters. But every one knows that so large a number of separate elements would not accidentally fall into orderly relationship though trials should be made throughout eternity. Long ago Cicero denied the validity of that objection, and referred to that same illustration of thus making a book. Nor is the objection of ‘‘ efficient cause’’ much better. It affirms the eye is the cause of sight, and that it sees because it can see, not because it was designed to see. It may properly be allowed that the eye sees because it can see, but also that it sees because it was made to see. This objection asks us to close our eyes to the marks of design and not think. It is but little better, if any, than the objection of chance, to which it is closely akin. Another objection to the Design Argument consists in an appeal to the theory of evolution as giving a sufficient account of the present orderly constitution of nature. It is assumed that law, if given sufficient time, can accomplish all that has been accomplished. It overlooks the very important fact that law is not an agent, but only a method by which an agent works; so can do nothing except as it is employed by an agent. Only beings are agents and unless a being were behind any supposed law of evolution, that law could have no efficiency. Whatever might be evolved by such a law must first have been involved by the agent employing the method. Even Darwin, though he at first expressed the belief that natural selection excludes de- sign, was inclined in later life to predicate designed laws which determine things generally. Then all the intelligent purpose shown in nature now must have controlled the evolution of it from the beginning, if evolution is assumed. Therefore evolu- tion could at the most be no more than a method of an intelli- gent designer. Objectors to the Design Argument also sometimes assume EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 65 an overstrained modesty in theological questions and assert that because of finite intelligence we are not capable of knowing that the world is a result of design, and that all we can know is that things appear to be designed by an intelligent mind for certain ends. But do we not commonly assume that things are as they appear to be? Physical science bases its inductions on the appearance of things. Why may not theology do likewise? And if we can not fully comprehend the infinite, does it therefore follow that we can know nothing of God’s operation and design in nature? Because we can not comprehend the vastness of limitless space, shall we cease to recognize what we can compre- hend of it? The last objection to which attention is called is that based upon the operation of instinct. It is said that as blind instinct operating through animals may accomplish results similar to those of intelligent purpose, so all that appears to be design may be the result of such a cause. In reply, let it be first stated that instinct may not be a blind impulse, but, as Paley has de- fined it, ‘‘a propensity prior to experience and independent of instruction.’’ Certainly it is found only in organisms, and should be regarded as belonging to the animal constitution. It evidently indicates great intelligence in the power that im- planted instinct in animals. But there is no reason for attrib- uting instinct to blind force. Instinct itself is a remarkable example of design, and can be adequately accounted for only by regarding it as an instrument of an intelligent mind. In spite of all objections, the Design Argument for God’s existence still stands in all its strength. Far-seeing design in the author of the universe is evident from both inorganic and organic creation. Marks of wise contrivance are seen every- where, far surpassing any human ingenuity. The denial of design in creation consistently requires denial of all intelligent contrivance in men. The argument is clearly corroborative of the correctness of our intuition of the existence of a personal God. Ill. The Human Nature, or Anthropological, Argument 1. The Argument Described.—The Human Nature, or Anthro- pological Argument is frequently called the Moral Argument, and sometimes the Psychological Argument; but we prefer desig- nating it by the more comprehensive term Anthropological because it reasons from the higher part of human nature generally. It 66 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY reasons from man’s mental, moral, and religious nature that the creator must have possessed a similar nature. In reasoning from effect to an adequate first cause it is like the Cosmological Argument, of which it is a particular example. As the material universe must have had a sufficient cause, so must also the soul of man. The purpose in setting forth this as a separate argu- ment is that it shows the author of man’s soul to be the possessor of a like nature. The lofty powers of the human spirit could never have come from non-intelligent matter and force, but must be assigned to a cause possessing qualities of a far higher grade. This argument also partakes of the nature of that from design —in showing the adaptations of human nature to nature as a whole. It may be stated in part in the form of a syllogism, as follows: Major Premise.—As an intelligent and free moral being, man has had a beginning upon earth. Minor Prenuse.—Non-intelligent matter and force are not an adequate cause of intelligence, free will, and conscience in man. Conclusion.—Therefore, as an effect, man’s spiritual nature ean be referred only to a cause possessing intelligence; freedom, and a moral nature, which imply personality. 2. Argument from Man’s Intelligence—Man’s intellect must have had an adequate cause. But it can not properly be attrib- uted to the non-intelligent. Ag well might we expect fulness to emanate from emptiness. Mind can not have come from matter. That they are essentially different in nature is the general con- viction of mankind. Only in speculative theories is the distine- tion ever denied. In the common consciousness of men as shown by their forms of speech about mind and matter or in referring to conscious existence after death, the distinction is clear. No two ideas are more widely different than those of mind and matter. Matter is known by its properties, but mind only by its phenomena. Also the terms describing each are essentially dif- ferent. Thought is not conceived of as having length, weight, area, color, thickness, or temperature. Only in figurative usage can any such terms be applied to mind and its phenomena. Inasmuch as an effect can not contain nor be greater than its cause, intelligence can not have come from the non-intelligent. Nothing can come out of matter not originally in it. In attempt- ing to show mind came from matter, Tyndall recognized this EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 67 difficulty by calling for a new definition of matter. But no defini- tion of mind and matter nor calling mind the ‘‘inner face’’ of matter can change the facts or bridge the gulf that has ever differentiated mind and matter in fact and in the thought of mankind. The cause of the mind of man is an eternal mind; and because man’s mind is, we know God has mind. 3. Argument from Man’s Freedom.—Another fact concerning the nature of God that may be known from the nature of man is that God is a free being. Man’s free will proves he originated from a source possessing free will. It is no more possible that man with his free will could have originated in that which is not free than that fulness should have come out of emptiness. The God of the pantheist could never have produced man. That man has free will is the universal belief of mankind, and is denied only in speculative reasoning. Man possesses a firm con- viction of his freedom, from which he can not alienate himself. Even if he does deny it, he constantly shows by his words and actions that he can not cease to believe it. But his freedom is not like the water of a river flowing between its banks, which of necessity must flow toward the lower point and is free to do only that. For man has the power of alternative choice. He can change the course of a river and, as he chooses, cause it to flow in any one of several directions. He can build houses, bend iron, or freely act on a body contrary to the power of gravita- tion. But more will be said about man’s freedom in the appro- priate place. The fact of his freedom is evidence that his maker is free. 4. Argument from Man’s Moral Nature—O ur conscience, or feeling of moral obligation, implies One over us to whose law We are responsible. By the very constitution of our nature we have a sense of right and wrong. It is often expressed by the words ought and ought not. It is due to our recognition of one superior to us on whom we are dependent, and who rightfully has authority over us. It has reference to law that we are under and which we recognize as right. Conscience is real, and its requirements are imperative. It can not be denied nor ignored without its reproof. It is not controlled by the will. We can not free ourselves from its requirements. It demands and re- wards obedience, and punishes disobedience. But all this points to a law over us, and that law implies a giver and administrator 68 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY of it who is over us and not appointed by us. It is also clear that the one above us is a free personal being. It is probably this sense of moral obligation to God especially which has been the ground of the universal conviction of men that God is. If there were no personal God, then this would be a lie stamped indelibly upon human nature. This can not be. There must be a personal creator possessed of a moral nature including attri- butes of justice and righteousness that are reflected in similar qualities in the nature of man as a moral being, for certainly the moral can not come from the non-moral. 5. Argument from Man’s Religious Nature-—Again, man’s re- ligious nature or tendency to worship implies God. Man is ineurably religious, and has always and everywhere worshiped. This tendency to worship finds its complement only in a being who, as a person, is capable of communion, and as being perfect is worthy of adoration. Among all plants and animals, and in regard to the physical nature of man there is found no desire, capacity, or necessity but what nature has made adequate pro- visions to satisfy. Plants require water, and water exists for their satisfaction. Animals and men have an appetite for food, and appropriate food is provided to satisfy. Such a law and means of satisfaction of desire is a general law of nature. Shall we not, then, also suppose there is a complement to the craving of men’s souls? The animal nature is fully satisfied by the material things of this world. But the soul has aspirations for things beyond this world. It seeks for fellowship with a higher realm, spiritual and eternal. It has a capacity and desire for lov- ing, trusting, and worshiping a higher being on whom it feels de- pendent and whom it would fellowship. As thirst of the body of man points to the fact of the existence of water, so certainly does the thirst of the soul prove the existence of God; for one of these desires is as natural and as universal as the other. And when millions of Christians testify that they have found a satis- faction for the soul’s desires in a blessed fellowship and com- munion with God, who ean consistently deny it? 6. Objections to the Human-nature Argument.—V arious objec- tions are made to this argument; but principally it has been eharged with being anthropomorphie, or of ascribing human qualities to God. The objection is well represented by Herbert Spencer as follows: ‘‘If we make the grotesque supposition that EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 69 the ticking and other movements of a watch constitute a kind of consciousness, and that a watch possessed of such a conscious- ness insisted on regarding the watchmaker’s action as deter- mined, like its own, by springs and escapements, we should simply complete a parallel of which religious teachers think much. And were we to suppose that a watch not only formu- lated the cause of its existence in these mechanical terms, but held that watches were bound out of reverence so to formulate this cause, and even vituperated as atheistic watches any that did not venture so to formulate, we should merely illustrate the presumption of theologians by carrying their own argument a step further’’ (First Principles of a New Philosophy, pp. 94, 95). The objection is so well answered by Samuel Harris that his reply is here given, and is deemed a sufficient answer: ‘‘ The objection rests on the absurdity that, if a watch should become endowed with reason, it would still remain a mere machine, just as it was before, and therefore would see nothing in itself but mechanism, and could ascribe nothing but mechanism to its maker. But if a watch were endowed with reason it would no longer be a mere machine, but a rational person. ‘Then con- templating its own mechanism it would infer, precisely as a rational man does in contemplating it, that it had a maker like itself in intelligence, but not necessarily like itself in mechan- ism. And should this intelligent watch ridicule all intelligent watches that believe they were made by an intelligent maker, it would be like Mr. Spencer ridiculing intelligent men for be- lieving their Creator to be an intelligent being’’ (The Self- revelation of God, pp. 434, 4385). IV. The Ontological Argument 1. Statement of the Argument.—The Ontological Argument is known as an a priori argument, and is usually made to include all argument for the divine existence that does not reason from effect to cause, as do those we have heretofore considered. It en- deavors to show that the real objective existence of God is in- volved in the idea of such a being. Much stress has been placed upon it by theistic writers of past centuries, and it is principally for this reason it is stated here, rather than because it is com- monly regarded now as having value. It has been employed in varying forms by many eminent men, including Anselm (to 70 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY whom the original form of it is attributed), Descartes, Samuel Clarke, Kant, and Cousin. As it is representative of the others, Anselm’s argument is given following, as stated by Dr. Miley: ‘“We have the idea of the most perfect being, a being than whom a greater or more perfect can not be conceived. This idea in- eludes, and must include, actual existence, because actual exist- ence is of the necessary content of the idea of the most perfect. An ideal being, however perfect in conception, can not answer to the idea of the most perfect. Hence we must admit the actual existence; for only with this content can we have the idea of the most perfect being. This most perfect being is God. Therefore God must exist.’’ Or the argument may be stated briefly as follows: Because there exists the idea of the most perfect being possible, consequently such a being actually and necessarily exists. 2. Theistic Value of the Argument.—The argument is open to criticism on the ground that the existence of the idea of a thing does not prove the existence of that thing. Certainly the argu- ment is not true of all the fantastic forms of which superstitious people have had an idea. But it is answered that the idea of God is an exception because necessary being must be admitted. Whatever theistic value the argument has, it has not been ap- parent to many capable thinkers, especially of the present. Whether or not its defect can be clearly stated, it certainly is not valuable as a proof, and we agree with the large proportion of modern theistic writers that it is inconclusive as a proof of theism. CHAPTER III ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES Antitheism includes all theories that deny the doctrine of a personal God; who is creator, preserver, and ruler of all things. It includes atheism, polytheism, pantheism, materialism, and materialistic evolution. Materialism might be made to include positivism and also naturalistic evolution; but the classification here made, by which positivism is included under materialism and evolution is treated separately, is thought to be the most practical for the majority of readers. In the theistic proofs already given, we have sufficient disproof of all these theories; therefore the purpose here will be principally to show the ele- ments in them opposed to theism. I. Atheism 1. Sense of Atheism.—Atheism is the open and positive denial that God exists. It is a pure negation and affirms nothing. It is a denial of what theism affirms. Few persons openly profess to be atheists because the term itself is one of reproach. Those who deny the existence of a personal God usually profess belief in an impersonal something as being God. Such persons assign to the place of God, thought, force, motion, the ‘‘unknowable,’’ the ‘‘infinite absolute,’’ or moral order. Herbert Spencer in his ‘‘New Philosophy’’ deifies force, and regards it as unknow- able. But such persons in their endeavor to save themselves from the disgrace and odium of atheism do violence to the cor- rect meaning of the terms ‘‘God’’ and ‘‘atheism.’’ God does not mean mere force, and he who allows no other God is an atheist, whether he admits it or not. But we will here use Atheism in the more restricted sense, and discuss these other antitheistic theories separately. 2. Unreasonableness of Atheism.—Atheism is a most unreason- able profession. As much as any man can consistently say is, ‘‘T do not know there is a God,’’ and this is only antitheistic agnosticism. What arrogant presumption on the part of him who says ‘‘there is no God’’! How can any one not infinite in his capacities know there is no God? Unless one is omnipresent —in every place in the universe at the present moment—how can he know but that God is somewhere? If he does not fully 71 72 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY know every personal being in the universe, how can he know but that one with whom he is unacquainted is God? He aryro- gates to himself the infinite qualities of God in his denial of God. But if he is not infinite in his knowledge of all places, times, and causes, how can he say God is not somewhere, that he has not been known to act in past ages, or that he has not caused certain things? Surely, ‘‘The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God!’’ 3. Possibility of Atheism.—To have doubts about the being of God is possible, and certainly many persons have doubted. But 1t is quite another thing to believe there is no God. To believe stedfastly the latter, without doubting, is impossible. So to be- lieve would be to free oneseli from the moral law, which can not be done, to reject the cause of all things, and practically deny all existence, as all existence may ag reasonably be denied as that of God. By speculation or otherwise, one may arrive at the place where he will temporarily cease to be conscious of his belief in God. But with the removal of that speculative in- fluence he will naturally revert to conscious belief in God. II. Polytheism 1. Meaning and Origin of Polytheism—Polytheism is from two Greek words meaning many gods. According to this theory the attributes and activities of the infinite God are distributed among many limited gods. The testimony of both the Bible and history is that the original religion of mankind was mono- theistic, but that at an early date men apostatized from the wor- ship of the one true God and began to worship many deities. From that time throughout human history polytheism has been widely prevalent, and is even at the present. The worship of a plurality of gods began in nature worship. Men began to ‘‘serve the creature more than the creator.’’ They began to worship the various powers of nature with which they came in contact and by which they were benefited, especially the sun, moon, stars, as well as fire, water, and the air. Then these powers - were personified, and later it was assumed that a personal god ruled over each. Especially did the common people come to be- lieve in the actual existence of these imaginary deities. But the more enlightened have usually held either monotheism or pantheism. ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES 73 2. Different Aspects of Polytheism.—The character of polythe- ism has varied according to the traditions, culture, and other influences prevalent among the people practising it. Among degraded savages it has degenerated to fetish-worship; with the cultured Greeks of the past it was made to express their refined humanitarianism by deifying their heroic men; while in India, where it originated in pantheistic philosophy, it has been carried to great extremes both for number of deities and also for the degraded character of many of them. The apostle Paul states that in their heathen worship the Gentiles sacrificed to demons and not to God (1 Cor. 10:20). It is not inconsistent with the known facts of idol-worship, nor with the common usage of the term for demons, to say that evil spirits have taken advantage of this apostate worship of polytheism and by supernatural mani- festations in relation to it have led its devotees to worship them. This accounts for the alleged supernatural element in polythe- istic religions and in a measure for men’s faith in them. Prob- ably the error of polytheism is sufficiently shown by the unity displayed in nature, the evil fruits of polytheism, and the posi- tive proofs of theism. II. Pantheism 1. Definition of Pantheism.—Pantheism etymologically means all is God, or that God is all. But probably it would be unfair to the many notable philosophers holding it, to define the theory of pantheism in the very literal sense that the pen with which these words are written is a part of God or that the book the reader holds in his hand is a part of God, yet the idea as repre- sented by them seems to be this. Difficulty attends every attempt briefly to define pantheism, because it has been held so differ- ently in different times and places. To describe its various aspects would be to give a history of it. The oldest pantheism is that of India, where it has been prevalent for thousands of years. It also had a great influence in forming the philosophies of Greece. Modern pantheism had its origin shortly after the Reformation, with Spinoza, one of its ablest advocates. 2. Monistic Aspects of Pantheism.—Pantheism is strongly mon- istic, affirming there is but one substance. That one substance is God. Materialistic pantheism asserts this one substance is matter. This is practically atheistic materialism. Idealistic pantheism makes that one substance to be mind. But the com- 74 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY mon sense of mankind rejects such an idea, and even the sup- porters of it do not find it possible to act in conformity with their theory. The common form of pantheism affirms of that one absolute substance that it has two modes of manifestation: (1) As thought it is mind. (2) As extension it is matter. Pan- theism denies the personality of God, and allows that he comes to consciousness only in the thoughts of men or higher created orders such as angels. It also denies to God free will and affirms all acts are of God and necessary. Some professed pantheists in- eonsistently affirm free will; but in its nature pantheism is strongly fatalistic. Spinoza consistently held there is no real self-determination in the universe. Pantheism requires neces- sitated evolution of all things. 3. Defects of Pantheism.—Pantheism is to be rejected for vari- ous reasons. Its fundamental principle of monism, or of but a sole substance, is a purely unprovable assumption that is contradicted by the facts of nature. Again, it is objectionable because it denies that God has intelligence, freedom, and per- sonality, and thus it fails to account for the first cause of the universe and its marks of design. Also, such an impersonal God offers no more than atheism from the religious viewpoint. It affords no divine fellowship, no divine person to receive love and worship. The God of pantheism can not draw out our reverence because we as persons are greater, and also he must be identified, not only with all the good in the world, but also with all the evil. It offers no kind heavenly Father to awaken in us devotion. It also fails to provide any ground for moral obliga- tion. Not only in its essential nature, but also as illustrated by its history it is but one step removed from atheism. IV. Materialism 1. Antitheistic Character of Materialism.—Materialism denies the distinction between matter and mind, affirming that all that exists is matter only, and that all phenomena are the actions of matter. It affirms that matter is eternal, possessing in itself the inherent power to develop all forms of life, including the power of thought. Not only does it deny the existence of the human spirit as a distinct immaterial entity, but it also neces- sarily denies the existence of a spiritual personal God. It is at present probably the most prevalent of all the antitheistie theo- ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES 75 ries. It allies itself with science and assumes to be one of the ‘fassured results of scientific investigation.’’ The materialism of modern science is not new, but essentially the same as that of Epicurus of ancient times. It has maintained the same general antitheistic character throughout modern times whether as devel- oped, from Locke’s philosophy, as represented by Hartley or Priestley, as held in England or France in the eighteenth cen- tury or as later represented in the ‘‘ Positivism’’ of Comte. 2. Fruitless Attempt to Account for Thought—No two objects for thought are so different as mind and matter. Matter we know by its properties, but mind only by its phenomena, The terms that describe the nature of one are inadequate to describe the other. Men have instinctively referred the qualities of mat- ter to the substance called matter and the phenomena of mind to another and different substance called spirit. Thought and feeling are known only through consciousness, but material things through sensation. But materialism denies this funda- mental distinction between mind and matter that has always been the universal belief of mankind. Materialism denies that intelligence is the cause of order in the world and affirms, on the other hand, that such order is the cause of intelligence. With its denial of mind it attempts to account for thought as being the result of jarring atoms in the brain. It makes all thought to be the result of sensations, ‘igi an f I « ' ' hee 4 Wes LA) pt i ’ Nil yp th i a Nd hy ah i Wy oD aT i 5 el vi ir v Yi i! Le " 1 = Ve a cs oY ; tat it 1, Pe WT eater Poe : Ut, Fm ’ Ae ! \ Oy A 4 ; te Paes t ATU | js The ’ ‘ . qi ‘ite aye oe th ’ Toe A $ t in’ 8 Risa ce Dt ' iv fap a nAe ‘ an” Has : ; ' ’ ; \ Sale A ; i ‘ : : ‘ " y 's y al y € | ; hae We +‘ 1 an Gk eh a wii pay Ta oy PCa A ait : , 4 i ‘ th , id PP 4 ih. ‘ \ 7 ° y a7 ‘ in i ea) Oi i A 74 44 BUN ly ft ' | A { 7 MA ah v , ay A a f { ir | ree | ‘ Ai ‘ 4 rs. ; { A ‘A ‘i aie %y ? 1 AN ae ee ee et hay. Pas ty Leta A Val 0 } ; . ve ;™ ; : + ing j ‘ r cf yEns Whee ‘ a Ne me | ; ve ih i h woe } a A ‘i isi i ‘ f ae ' rire, n+ i i : a; , .4 ‘ ; i 7 ' f A : 2 & ee ee a ye 41 , .>s 4 { ’ f ; ¥ ‘ 4! Fe : _ ; NN ni ' UN Rate : rates Pe ee, ets ‘70% Pht = Wee P F : ae rae Ae Bs yee Dak ~~ : aR) Ai 7 Pa } Ww. ve FTE +h <4 ' a Mi ta J vat : i " ’ : ny an Mae ai by . \ ; ve We ; 4 hay . TR APRA LO fd eR ert Oa yO i ee i, Mi) a? 40! A 4 i ret eos ray } i Bs 4 e nA i 4 me s + oun PA re ted he nf vat *, ; Ae ’ i , ® i>, ; Lf f, : ‘, - a De , ont Te wu eT +2}, eal hy 1 4 if py H af By wp? n,) < \ Ve i ‘ f : 1 ; Yet ae) 4 By thd . : \ i + ; 4 t J J r 4 ‘ ; ¥ : LM o ‘ 4 " vf ee Pee | ‘ . ‘ , ) Se y : | y ® a) “J 4 ‘ ' att " ‘ eee Mery a CF ad SOS Aa ee ant nd dp oie pa aie j re | . i ae fo 4 vy ( ih id ATO i te ; 4 & ( z t i ‘ t | 4 PEN oak | 5%, j ee it i § Sf iy i i f we ety Tra ; ; I , f Ay f ryatuse Peis ' y 4 ( MBean aa An ie his é Chg 7 | } j A Xd) Vina’ A A * ONE. : uy) 1 ren ita ‘Ww 7 Mw ] L? NV a i ¥ way -* ¥ j iy) ‘ ¥, ] | ¥ Ui Wie a Wel oT by hh aq rhe \ Ch y Ht rhe Jf eee eth ay Met \ at : F Th ty) aa y * { 4 f t A as ee bp Lyf i j i, i } ) : } \ ' ' 8 Pe] * 7 ‘eee ty y I , (Vs ri hk , ry Papell ro) “hf 5 : oe st ae ng i oe) ah i bt Lan bh ie : Ai a7 1 | Maes. ; j \ (elon iy i i 4 Ri Pil hls | v i) as : ies la PART II EVIDENCES OF DIVINE REVELATION OR APOLOGETICS 94 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY of the most vital concern to every man. No one can consistently be indifferent about them. Even the most devout Christian, though ever so well satisfied in his own heart that the Bible is God’s Word, ought, nevertheless, to be familiar with the evi- dences of that truth he so unquestioningly accepts. One may believe the truth because he has been taught it by others; but it is better that he shall be ‘‘able to give a reason’”’ for his belief. Without a reason he may easily become prey to skepticism, if he should come in contact with such influences. Others are con- vinced of the truth because of the power of Christianity mir- aculously manifested in their own hearts in Christian experi- ence. This is doubtless tha very best of proof and most direct. But such evidences alone will not enable one successfully to de- fend his belief against the subtle arguments of the infidel, and sometimes will not even save him from a considerable amount of intellectual confusion. The Christian ought to be thoroughly familiar with the facts that support his most holy faith. Such knowledge will strengthen his convictions, and keep him from be- ing easily led astray. It will increase his confidence and strength- en him for service. It will enable him better to propagate the truth and to convince others. It will give him much pleasure to know the many infallible proofs of the divine authority of the Seriptures. In view of these advantages, it may properly be said it is the duty of every Christian to study the evidences of Chris- tianity. And if the investigation of the proofs of Christianity are important for him who already believes, how much more im- portant must it be for those who have doubts on the subject or who definitely reject Christianity. Surely doubters should make every possible effort to know all the facts before committing themselves to open infidelity. For ought it not appear possible to them that their doubts are groundless in view of the fact that many of the best men of the past and present—men of broad minds and keen insight, much learning, careful discrimination, and unquestioned honesty—have been earnest believers? How serious their error if they should some day awaken to the fact that they had rejected the Word of their Creator and spent their lives and used their influence against him! Also another reason why this study is important is that it is not a matter of discriminating between Christianity and a PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS—PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCES 95 religion nearly as good, but of choosing between Christianity and no religion at all. For if we reject Christ and the Bible, ‘‘to whom shall we go?’’ Certainly one could not prefer to plunge into the dark abyss of heathenism. And who, after view- ing the incomparable excellence of the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Bible, could prefer in exchange the unrighteous teachings of the false prophet of Arabia as found in the Koran? It is not characteristic of those who have rejected the exalted religion of Christ to do a thing so preposterous. They have attempted to substitute deism, or ‘‘natural religion,’’ by reject- ing the Seriptures and Christ and yet holding theism. But deism has proved to be the greatest failure of any system that ever professed to be a religion. In France it had as good an opportunity to prove its worth as could be possible. It was sup- ported by the government, it was approved by the leaders of influence, and was accepted by the people. It appropriated the Christian houses of worship. It was thoroughly organized and set going. But it had no power and no soul, and was soon acknowledged by one of the leaders of the country as being far inferior to that for which it had been exchanged. The subject is too important to be studied with any prejudice. Its investigation should be impartial and scientific. But because of men’s depravity of heart, too often they do not study this subject as they would a question of history or science. They are often unwilling that the Bible should be proved to be the Word of God because they do not wish to feel obligated to obey it. It demands submission, and man’s proud heart rebels. But Chris- tianity promises knowledge of the truth only to those who desire to obey it. It is inconsistent with present probation that the evidences of the truth should be such as would compel belief on the part of those who prefer to doubt. A further reason why men reject the Bible is because it demands acceptance as a reve- lation freely given of God; the pride of men’s hearts leads them to prefer to reason out their own philosophies instead. Rather than to receive truth as a gift, they prefer to discover, because it reflects more honor on themselves. The truly honest seeker for truth will come to the investigation in the humble attitude of a learner. He will accept facts and facts only. He will fol- low the method of Newton in seeking for and holding to facts. 96 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY He will not be hasty in coming to a decision, but will learn the facts and then deliberately draw proper conclusions. 3. Present-day Task of Apologetics—From its beginning, Christianity has had its claims opposed by skeptics and defended by apologists. The objections of these opposers have always been of the same general character, but have varied much in details. Likewise, the evidences set forth by Christian apologists have ever been of the same general nature, but the methods of using them and the placing of emphasis have varied to meet the nature of particular attacks. The defenses of Christianity of the present day must be such as will meet the present assault by skeptics. Four periods may be distinguished in the history of apologetics. (1) The earliest preachers addressed their message to the Jews, and in answer to the Jewish objections that Jesus was not their promised Messiah appealed to the correspondence between the Old Testament prophecies and the events in the life of Jesus. (2) When the apostles and others began the propagation of Christianity among the heathen, another form of skepticism con- fronted them. The doctrine of one God was denied, the Scrip- tures were rejected as being a divine revelation, and Christianity was rejected as the one true religion. Prominent opposers of Christianity of that period were Celsus and Porphyry. This heathen skepticism was answered by such Christian writers as Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Athenagoras by appeals to the trans- forming power of Christianity. The experimental proofs seem to have been largely used as Christian evidence at that time, although other arguments were used in a measure. (3) Another period of apologetics came as a result of the rise of deism in the eighteenth century. Lord Herbert advo- eated a natural religion in which he denied all that is distinc- tively Christian, although he professed belief in theism. David Hume later advocated universal skepticism. The result was English deism, German rationalism, and French infidelity. But the strong tide of skepticism was stemmed successfully by Chris- tianity. Able apologists set forth the evidences of Christianity with a thoroughness never before known. Eminent among these were Joseph Butler and William Paley. Butler’s ‘‘ Analogy of Religion’’ and Paley’s ‘‘Evidences of Christianity’’ did much to turn back the tide of infidelity and restore men’s faith in the Bible. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS—PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCES 97 (4) But at the present day, while the infidelity of two hun- dred years ago is not at all extinct, unbelief has arisen in another form—that of the destructive higher eriticism. In this form infidelity professes to be Christian, but is strongly rationalistic. It denies any such inspiration of the Scriptures as constitutes them in any real sense the Word of God, or an authoritative revelation of truth. It also denies the divinity of Christ, as well as all other supernatural manifestations described in the Scrip- tures. It commonly allies itself with materialistic evolution, and often has a strong antitheistic tendency. To meet the skepticism of the present, then, Christian apologetics must adapt the arguments used in the past or produce others to support the truth on those points where it is being assaulted. II. Nature and Classification of Evidences 1. Probable, Not Demonstrative, Proofs——Some truths are of such a nature that their truthfulness can be demonstrated and the proof of these truths is such that the opposite is not con- ceivable. As an example, the fact is self-evident and capable of demonstration that the sum of the three angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles, or that two parallel lines however long will never meet. Other facts equally true and capable of proof can not be demonstrated, but are proved by probable evi- denees. All historical facts are dependent upon such proof. And inasmuch as the giving of Christian revelation and the ori- gin of Christianity took place in the past, the evidences of Christianity are probable, not demonstrative. But probable proofs may furnish as great certainty as demonstrative proofs, if the evidence is sufficient. As certainly as we know the facts already mentioned as being capable of demonstration, so cer- tainly we know by means of probable evidences that George Washington was the first President of the United States, that Napoleon Bonaparte lived, and that Abraham Lincoln signed the Proclamation of Emancipation and died at the hand of an assassin. So, likewise, as these things can be known certainly by probable evidence, the divine origin of the Bible and Chris- tianity may be certainly known by evidences of a similar nature, if those evidences are sufficient in themselves. Skeptics and young persons not accustomed to weighing evidence who require demonstrative evidences of the divine origin of Christianity are unreasonable in their demands. 98 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY It should also be considered that the proofs of Christianity are not to be taken singly, but together. This is an important rule in weighing probable evidences. The strength of Christian evidence lies especially in its cumulative nature. The vast amount of evidence all pointing in the same direction has the value of a demonstration. 2. Rational and Authenticating Evidences.—Another important distinction necessary for properly weighing the evidences, but one commonly disregarded by rationalistic skeptics of the present time, is that between rational and authenticating evidences. Rational evidence shows why a thing must be true. Authenti- cating evidence shows why we should believe it is true. Rational evidences are employed in supporting those truths that belong to ‘‘natural religion’’ such as the existence of God, moral dis- tinctions, free will, and immortality. Authenticating evidences attest a messenger or message as of God and show why we should accept the message on the ground of that testimony. Examples of authenticating evidences are miracles and prophecy. This kind of evidences is the sole support of those truths of ‘‘revealed religion’’ such as the Trinity, atonement, and pardon. Modern rationalists do the unreasonable thing of rejecting all that their limited understandings can not reason out as truth, and ignore the fact that there may be good reasons for believing a proposi- tion true though one can not see any reason why it is true except that it is affirmed by a well-attested witness. Christian apolo- getics properly employs both classes of evidences. 3. Main Classes of Positive Evidences——Various classifications may be made of the evidences of Christianity. For our purpose they may be grouped in four main divisions much as was done by Paley in his ‘‘Evidences,’’ and as has been done by many others since. They are as follows: (1) External evidences, in- cluding the authenticity and credibility of the Scriptures, mir- acles, and prophecy. (2) Internal evidences, which reason from the degree of perfection of the doctrinal and moral standards of the Bible, its adaptation to man’s needs, its harmony with nature, the harmony of its parts, and the character of Christ. (3) Experimental evidences, which appeal to the effects of Christianity on believers’ hearts and lives. (4) Collateral evi- dences, which reason from the rapid spread of Christianity when first propagated, its effects on society where propagated, and its PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS—PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCES 99 acceptance by eminent persons. These four classes are some- times called ‘‘positive’’ evidences. Another elass of proofs not to be despised is that sometimes designated ‘‘presumptive’’ evidences. It reasons that because a revelation is possible to God, and man needs it, therefore it is not unreasonable to suppose it has been made; and it further reasons that because the Bible agrees with what one may prop- erly presuppose such revelation should contain, therefore it is that revelation from God. lif. Probability of a Divine Revelation 1. Possibility of Revelation—No one who believes in the exist- ence of a personal God can consistently deny the possibility of his giving a revelation of truth to man. Those who object to revelation on the ground of its impossibility do so, in nearly every instance, because they hold a pantheistic or similar anti- theistic conception of God. The free, personal cause of nature is certainly not so limited by nature that he cam not do what he would in revealing himself. Certainly the author of speech can speak; and even though he is a purely spiritual being, he is not limited so that he can not communicate with human spirits in union with material bodies. It is sometimes objected: that be- cause man is finite in knowledge he can not receive a revelation from the Omniscient One. This would be true if finite man must stretch himself up to the infinite; but if it is a matter of the omniscient God adapting his message to the finite mind of man, the difficulty vanishes. 2. Necessary as a Standard of Right.—It is a reasonable pre- supposition that God would wish to speak to the creatures he created in his own image, especially in view of the fact that man is so greatly in need of a revelation. Only by divine revelation ean men know many truths necessary for their highest good and God’s glory. In all ages they have recognized their need of divine revelation, and Socrates, wise as he was, expressed a hope that such a revelation would be given. A standard of belief and duty is needed ; but because of man’s present perverted moral nature, his conscience is not a satisfac- tory guide. Human reason and philosophy are insufficient, as is evident from the fact that men’s opinions constantly conflict. Even though it were possible to know the truth sufficiently by 100 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY philosophy, yet the large proportion of men would be incapable of thus finding it. The heathen world of both the past and pres- ent, with all their philosophies, is a witness to the need of a reve- lation. Their moral and religious intuitions need to be supple- mented by a message from God. Their wisest philosophers have often gone far astray religiously. Their greatest moralists have often been immoral and have taught contrary to true moral standards. Socrates urged divination, and was given to forni- cation. Plato taught that to lie is honorable. Cato was a drunk- ard, and recommended and practised suicide. Seneca approved fornication, and advocated and practised self-murder. These who are cited as heathenism’s greatest teachers and examples of morality missed the mark widely. Surely a revelation is needed to know the way of right. 3. Necessary for Pardon of Sin.—All men have a feeling of moral obligation to God. They recognize intuitively that some things are morally right and others are morally wrong. The feel- ing is also common among men everywhere that they have sinned, are guilty, and deserve penalty. But is no pardon possible for this world of lost sinners? Nature gives no reason for expecting pardon. Her laws are inexorable. No pardon is granted their violators. He who sticks his hand into the fire will be burned. He who thrusts a knife into his heart will die. Or he who steps off a precipice is dashed into pieces. Reasoning from nature’s laws, one can not consistently expect pardon. Also in reasoning from the requirements of God’s perfect government it can not be supposed that moral law may be violated with impunity. It is right that the sinner should suffer the penalty. If sinners go unpunished, how can God’s law be respected? Even though God is sole sovereign, yet he may not properly pardon by divine prerogative if he is to govern righteously. But yet man must be pardoned if he is to be happy. He feels instinctively that pardon is possible through the goodness of God. But how ean it be? Reason forbids it. Nature and reason give no hint of atonement. That wonderful truth is brought to men only through divine revelation. Only there is the way of salvation pointed out. Then the fact that man needs pardon, and that the way to find it may not be known by any other means, is strong reason for expecting a divine revelation. 4, Necessary to the Understanding of Providence and Prayer.— PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS—PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCES 101 A knowledge of the nature of divine providence is important in order to draw out men’s highest love for their Creator and to develop in them that loving trust in God which is essential to their happiness. They need to know that God loves them, that his watchful eye is over them, that through his fatherly care they enjoy the benefits that come to them. But nature does not make clear enough what is the relation of God to his creation that men may have ground for trust for and appreciation of his benefits. Therefore, because it is needed both for man’s happiness and God’s glory, a revelation showing these things is antecedently probable. Men everywhere have a disposition to pray; and prayer, like religion, is almost universal. It has been affirmed that every man prays at some time in life. The practise of prayer seems to spring from an implanted tendency. But without a divine revela- tion, how may one know that God will hear and answer? All we ean learn of God in nature would lead us to assume that God’s dealings with us can not be changed by prayer. Reason would conclude that the all-wise ruler of the universe could not change his course at the asking of any one of his millions of creatures without great confusion everywhere. In harmony with such a conclusion, deists are characteristically prayerless persons. Still men intuitively feel they should pray. But will prayer be an- swered? What is its purpose? How much should one pray? What constitutes acceptable prayer? That these questions may be answered by revelation only is attested by the ‘‘vain repeti- tions’’ of both the ancient and modern heathen with their vari- ous mechanical devices for praying, and repeated prostrations of themselves before their idols. Therefore, because prayer is important to man’s happiness and God’s glory, and we can not know how to pray except by revelation, it is a reasonable pre- sumption that such a divine revelation would be given. IV. Marks of Divine Revelation to Be Expected Characterize the Scriptures The antecedent probability of a divine revelation thus far discussed is not a reason for assuming the Christian Scriptures are that revelation, but merely reason for assuming the prob- ability of such revelation. Our reasoning so far indicates a probability only of such a revelation as might have been given 102 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY orally to the patriarchs prior to Moses or to other individuals. That the Seriptures are the presupposed revelation is to be shown later by positive proofs. But before passing on to those evidences it is desirable to consider the presumptive proofs that the Scriptures are that antecedently probable revelation. The method is to consider what may be reasonably expected to be the nature and characteristics of a divine revelation, and then to show that the Scriptures bear such marks. 1. Probable Contents of Divine Revelation—A revelation ade- quate to the need must (1) furnish a holy and benevolent object of worship and show man’s relation to it; (2) show the possi- bility of pardon of sin without the sacrifice of God’s righteous character, and also the conditions by which man may obtain such forgiveness; (3) show the nature of, and conditions for, a restoration of man’s depraved nature so that he ean live right- eously; (4) present a perfect standard of doctrine and morals; (5) reveal the nature and extent of divine providence, and teach us how to pray. The Bible does all this with remarkable clear- ness. Also it must be adapted to human conditions and under- standing generally. 2. Probable Manner of Divine Revelation—Any supernatural giving of truth to man must be in such a manner as is in har- mony with the laws of human thought and capacity to compre- hend. It is not to be supposed that in giving a revelation, God would contradict or cancel the laws of mind, which he ordained, but adapt his revelation of truth to them. Therefore it is to be expected that man would not be entirely passive in his reception of divine revelation; for mental assimilation requires a certain amount of intellectual activity—otherwise, only a blind impres- sion would be produced. We may properly presuppose, then, that revelation will be given, not merely in words, but also in life and action. Also it must be given gradually, to be under- stood. It must first set forth the simple and pass on to the more complex and spiritual. Such is the manner and order of the giving of the Scriptures. Also, it must be expressed in writ- ing if it is to be retained and become a general revelation of divine truth to men. And further, such a revelation must be expressed first to particular persons of a particular nation, and by them passed on to the whole world. 3. Probable Attestation of Divine Revelation—No such revela- PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS— PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCES 103 tion as that supposed could be worthy of acceptance except it be sufficiently attested as coming from God. It must be super- naturally revealed, and it must bear the marks of supernatural origin as a testimony to those to whom it is directed. There must be proof that it is from the infinite God, creator of nature, and who is known through nature to exist. There can be no better evidence than the manifestation of miracles transcending the powers of nature, that the giver of the revelation in con- nection with which they occur is the author of nature and is of infinite power. Also, nothing can more surely attest the infinite wisdom and foreknowledge of the author of a revelation than the utterance in it of predictions of future events which later come to pass in detail. The Scriptures bear abundant marks of such supernatural attestation. In conclusion, then, it may be said that instead of an ante- cedent improbability precluding the idea of revelation, as skep- tics sometimes affirm, there is a very strong antecedent prob- ability of a divine revelation to men. And not only is a revela- tion antecedently probable, but in view of the reasonable pre- suppositions of what should be the contents, method, and attesta- tion of such a revelation, it is also antecedently probable that the Christian Scriptures are that revelation. To admit these erounds of probability practically requires the admission of the Seriptures as of divine authority. It is not here affirmed that these presumptive evidences are conclusive in themselves, but they do nullify the presumption against revelation, thus showing that the question to be discussed is properly within the province of logical discussion, and they furnish a good basis for the posi- tive arguments to follow. CHAPTER II EXTERNAL EVIDENCES The difficulties of the Christian apologist do not lie in the direction of scarcity of evidences, nor in any lack of strength in the proofs, but rather in the difficulty of discrimination in selecting from the vast mass of the many kinds and great num- bers of positive evidences such ag his limited space will permit and of so arranging and presenting those facts that the reader receives the definite impression*that the weight of the evidence and the importance of the subject justify. The two principal classes of external, or historical, evidences are miracles and fulfilled prophecy. The particular examples of miracles and prophecies are very many and from these divine in- terventions the attestation of the Scriptures may be shown. These signs and wonders and fulfilled prophecies are constantly appealed to by the Scriptures as proofs that God was with those who professed to speak in his name. And they are perfectly valid proof of the divine authority of the Scriptures. To those who were eye-witnesses of the miracles of Jesus and his apostles, the evidence that they were messengers from God was immediate and convincing. But to those living in subsequent ages, such proofs have value only when positive proof of the credibility of the witnesses reporting such miracles is given and when it is proved that their testimony has been accurately transmitted to those of later ages. But with certain proof of these two things, those miracles properly have the same evidential value to us today as they had to those ancient eye-witnesses. The need for proof of the genuineness and credibility of the Scriptures as a ground for prophecy as Christian evidence is much the same as for mira- eles. Therefore, not only as distinct branches of external evi- dences, but also as being prerequisite to Scripture miracles and prophecy as evidence of the divine authority of the Scriptures today, it is required that we show first the genuineness of the Seriptures, or that they were written by their reputed authors; - that we show next their integrity, or that they have been trans- mitted to us from their authors substantially uncorrupted; and finally, that we show the credibility of the writers, or that they were dependable and truthful in recording the facts. There must be no missing links in the evidence. We have no need of begging 104 EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 105 the question. Skeptics sometimes do try begging the question, or resorting to misrepresentation of the facts; but Christian apologetics requires only the plain facts fairly considered to es- tablish its claims. I. Genuineness of the New Testament What are the proofs that the books of the New Testament were written by their reputed authors, or that they were not forged at a later date as the works of those whose names they bear? This is the question of the genuineness of the New Testa- ment. A genuine document is one written by him whose name it bears, and is the opposite of a spurious writing. For the purpose of condensing the argument, proof is attempted only of the New Testament writings, as this is all that is immediately essential to our purpose; and, also, when the divine authority of the New Testament is proved, that of the Old Testament must necessarily be assumed, because the New constantly affirms the divine au- thority of the Old Testament. 1. Method of Showing Genuineness.—The method employed for determining the genuineness of any other book of a past age is that to be employed in proving the genuineness of the New Testament. This method is the tracing of its history back to the time of its reputed author. A famous religious allegory is extant today entitled ‘‘The Pilgrim’s Progress,’’ and is reputed to be the writing of John Bunyan. But what is the proof that it is the product of that great preacher of three hundred years ago? First, copies of various early editions of it may be found in the British Museum inscribed with his name. Also, it is not only now universally re- ceived as Bunyan’s work, but every age since his time has always attributed it to him. Even the age in which he lived accepted it as his work. Writers of every subsequent age mention it and quote it as being unquestionably from him. In its literary style and its descriptions it bears the marks characteristic of Bunyan’s time and country. Also, its spirit and teachings are in exact harmony with religious standards of the Puritanism of that period of which Bunyan was a prominent preacher. Such evidence is equally determinative of the genuine- ness of a book whether it was written three hundred years ago or two thousand years ago. And it is by evidence of this nature that 106 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY the authorship of all the great writings of past ages is ascer- tained, if it is known at all, whether those be classical writings of Greeks and Romans, or sacred writings of Hebrews and Chris- tians. Neither does the New Testament require a different kind of evidence of its genuineness because of its religious character. The New Testament writings may be traced in all Chris- tian literature back to the days of the apostles. The proof of genuineness is various in kind and large in quantity. Sir Isaac Newton, whose very name is a synonym for loyalty to facts, not theory, said, ‘‘I find more sure marks of authenticity in the New Testament, than in any profane history whatever.’’ 2. Genuineness Affirmed by Early Church Fathers.——No proof is needed that the New Testament has existed under the names of its several authors from the fourth century to the present. Since the canon became finally settled during that century, the genuineness of those writings has been generally accepted. Every one who is at all familiar with the history of the civilized world knows that references to the New Testament are interwoven with the history and literature of the last sixteen hundred years. Also, at least three ancient manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence, bearing the names of their authors, and held as sacred treasures in three of the world’s great libraries date their existence from the fourth century. Thus at a single leap we may go back to 325 A. D., within less than two hundred and thirty years of the death of the last of the apostles. It is needless to give in detail the catalogs or lists of the books of the New Testament published by various councils and individuals during the fourth century. The fourth council of Carthage, in 397 A. D., published such a list as agrees perfectly with the canon of the New Testament as we know it today. So also do the lists agree published about the same time by the great theological writer Augustine, and the learned Latin father Jerome. Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, who flourished 315 A. D., published, in his ‘‘Keclesiastical History’’ a list of the books of the New Testament that agrees exactly with our New Testament ~ both as to books and authors. Although he states the Epistles of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation were questioned by some, he states they were generally received, and he accepts them himself. Passing on to the third century, we find proofs of genuineness EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 107 similar to those already mentioned of the fourth century. Origen, who flourished about 230 A. D. and who was born 184 A. D., less than one hundred years after the death of the apostle John, was probably the most learned in the Seriptures of any of the Greek fathers. According to Jerome, he had the Scriptures by heart. One living so near the time of the apostles and of such wide knowledge must necessarily be regarded as possessing de- pendable information concerning the authorship of the New Testament. He gives a list of the New Testament books which includes none not accepted today and all of those we recognize except the Epistles of James and Jude; but his omission of these was evidently unintentional, as he in other places expressly acknowledges them as belonging to the canon. Going still farther back into the last half of the second cen- tury, we find among the names of eminent church fathers that of Tertullian, who was born about 150 A. D., which was less than fifty-five years after the last apostle. Being a voluminous writer in defense of Christianity, he quoted much from the New Testa- ment, including all its books except four of the shorter epistles, and as he gave no list of accepted New Testament books, there is no reason for supposing he doubted these. Irenzus, born 120 A. D., disciple of Polyearp, who was personally acquainted with the apostle John, testifies that each of the four Gospels were written by their reputed authors. Thig is very direct evidence. Also Justin Martyr, who died 148 A. D., quotes from the Gos- pels, and Papias, born 80 A. D., who was a ‘‘hearer of John”’ and a disciple of Polycarp, gives valuable testimony to the Gos- pels of Matthew and Mark as being by their reputed authors. These are but a few of the proofs that might be, given, but they are surely sufficient to establish the authorship of the New Testa- ment for any reasonable mind. But let us finish this line of evidence. They were accepted as genuine by the apostolic fathers. The apostolic fathers are those church fathers who came into touch personally with the apostles themselves. The genuine writings of at least three of these have come down to us—Clement of Rome, died 101 A. D., Polycarp, died 166 A. D.; and Ignatius, martyred 107 A. D. These three alone have left us in their writ- ings over one hundred quotations from the New Testament repre- senting every book but four (2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John). 108 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY These early writers confirm the authorship of the New Testa- ment books and regard them with the greatest of respect. This is conclusive proof of the genuineness of the New Testament books. Thus we have traced the records of the New Testament docu- ments back to the very time when the apostles lived. The evi- dence for genuineness is complete. There is not a missing link. Though but a few catalogs and other quotations from among many of the church fathers are mentioned, yet the evidence given is probably fifty times stronger than that for any Greek or Ro- man classic. These classics are accepted as genuine. Why, then, may we not accept the New Testament as genuine? In the light of the foregoing evidence, how utterly ungrounded is that insinu- ation of a certain class of ignorant skeptics that possibly the New Testament documents were ‘‘forged by learned monkg dur- ing the dark ages’’! Also consider how dense was the ignorance of the skeptic Paine, or else how deliberate was his falsehood, when he made the statement, ‘‘There was no such book as the New Testament till more than three hundred years after the time that Christ is said to have lived.”’ 3. Genuineness Insured by Carefulness in Determining the Canon.— The writing of the New Testament was a gradual process, the several books being written for the immediate purpose of supply- ing particular needs in the early church. These writings were distributed geographically in many countries or cities through- out the Roman Empire. But inasmuch as they were regarded as authoritative and divinely inspired scriptures along with the Old Testament Scriptures (see 2 Peter 3:16), copies were soon multiplied and distributed among the churches. These writings were gradually collected into one volume known as the New Testament. This collection is definitely mentioned by Tertullian, who was born only a little more than fifty-five years after the death of the apostle John, as the ‘‘New Testament,’’ composed of two parts, the ‘‘gospels and apostles.’’ But, due to the wide scattering of the New Testament docu- ments at first and the slowness of travel and communication at that time, the determining of what was canonical and the col- leeting of such books into one volume was a process that covered a considerable period of time. Most of the New Testament was generally accepted as canonical in the second century, but it was EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 109 not until the fourth century that a few of the books were not questioned by some. The very fact that these were under ques- tion so long is proof that careful discrimination was made and that a book wag received into the canon only when its genuine- ness was fully established by careful investigation of the facts. It was during this period that many eminent Christian writers wrote their catalogs of the New Testament books. As to their eanonicity, the books were of two classes—those known as ‘‘homologumena’’ (i. e., acknowledged), and those called ‘‘anti- legomena’’ (or disputed). ‘Twenty of the twenty-seven books were in the first class. The remaining seven were the disputed books and included Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. However, the question was not so much whether or not they are canonical, but whether they were written by their reputed authors. James and Jude styled themselves ‘‘servants,’’ instead of calling themselves ‘‘apostles.’’ John called himself an; elder. Some of the earliest catalogs admitted books as canonical that later writers questioned. The very variation in these lists and the final acceptance of all the books as canonical is proof of the great care and intelligent discrimina- tion used in the determining of the canon. Careful discrimination as to canonical writings was desir- able to the early Christians for various reasons. First, these documents were greatly revered and read in the churches as inspired scripture. This was common in the second century, according to Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Because of their great reverence for the writings of the apostles, they were care- ful to exclude spurious and apocryphal documents. And, too, heretics were ready to forge writings in the name of apostles to support their erroneous teachings, which was another reason for ecarefulness. Again, as in Diocletian’s persecution, Chris- tiang were often called upon to give their lives in defense of their sacred seriptures. When life and death were at issue, they discriminated carefully against apocryphal documents. Con- sidering the high regard then held for the apostles’ writings, the strong motives for the most careful discrimination by early Christians, and that the investigation was conducted over a long period by many of the most learned men of the time, including philosophers, rhetoricians, and divines, we may be assured that the books were finally accepted only on the most certain grounds 110 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY of their genuineness. Again the proof is more than is needed. Apologetics requires only the proof of the genuineness of those books recording the miracles of Jesus and the apostles, namely the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles; and we have the proof, not only of these, but of all the other books of the New Testa- ment also. 4. Early Adversaries Never Denied Genuineness.—If it be ob- jected that the authorities cited for the genuineness of the New Testament are all friends of Christianity, it may be answered that the testimony of a Christiah ought to be regarded as being at least equally credible with that of a heathen. However, among all the formidable enemies of ancient times none are known to have ever once questioned the genuineness of the New Testa- ment. They make attacks on the books seeking internal fiaws and endeavoring to show contradictions, but never do they dis- pute their genuineness. Porphyry, who wrote about the year 270 A. D., was the most deadly foe early Christianity had. He had every advantage of learning, ability, and position to discover any ungenuineness in the Christians’ Seriptures. He shows by his writings against them that he knew the value of such an argument; but he makes no attempt to prove them ungenuine, although it is certain he was acquainted with them. Doubtless his refraining from such an attempt was because he knew evidence existed that they were genuine. Celsus was another noted adversary of Christianity, who flourished 176 A. D., or less than eighty years after the death of the apostle John. He was a learned man, well ac- quainted with the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John and sev- eral of the Epistles, from which he quotes not less than eighty times. Living so near the time of their writing, he had full opportunity to prove them ungenuine if such were possible; but that it was not possible is evident from his entire silence on the subject. This acceptance of the genuineness of the New Testa- ment at so early a date by men of learning who were its invet- erate foes and desired to disprove it, is a most convincing proof of New Testament authorship that can not be disputed. A further confirmation of the genuineness of the New Testa- ment is the nature of the language in which it is written, which corresponds to the time and circumstances of the writing and also with the characters and degree of culture of the writers. EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 111 II. Integrity of the New Testament After showing the genuineness of the New Testament, the next point for inquiry is its integrity. How do we know that its text has not become corrupted by the much copying of it during the centuries so that the sense of the original writings is lost? Can the original manuscripts of the inspired penmen be pro- duced? That they are not known to exist is certain, and that they will yet be found is not probable. But here also God has not left his Word without many witnesses: From many sources, proofs of various kinds may be produced that our present New Testament text is practically that of the apostolic period. 1. Evidence from Ancient Manuscripts——-The manuscripts of the New Testament now extant are very numerous. Scholars consider that as many as twenty manuscripts of an ancient classic are sufficient to determine its original text. But the manu- scripts of the Bible collected by scholars for the determining of its original reading are actually counted by the thousands, twenty-six hundred having been collected for editing critical editions of the text, in the original languages. Certainly these are enough to establish the correct reading of the sacred text. Some of these date back but a few hundred years before the oldest printed Bible, which was produced in the middle of the fifteenth century. But some date back to as early as the eighth century, and a few to the fourth. Ordinarily the older a manu- script the greater its value; but a comparatively late manuscript may have great value if it is shown to have been copied from a very ancient manuscript. That none date farther back than the fourth céntury may be due to the destruction of many copies during the Diocletian persecution in 802. Three of the most valued manuscripts are the Sinaitic, in the Petrograd Library, in Russia; the Vatican Manuscript, in the Vatican, at Rome; and the Alexandrian Manuscript, in the British Museum. All of these are said to date back to the fourth century. These, espe- cially as corroborated by hundreds of other manuscripts, have much value for verifying our text today. But it may be objected that in these many ancient manu- scripts of the New Testament there are literally thousands of different readings. This is true, but alarm is needless; for it is also true that these are very minor variations in nearly all eases, unintentional errors of copyists such as omissions or trans- 112 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY positions in letters or the substitution of words of similar mean- ing, and that not one in a thousand makes any real difference in the meaning of the text. And in all these no doctrine, duty, or fact is affected. By a careful comparison of these manu- scripts by scholars, the sacred text has been purified to such an extent that it may be safely said we are certain of nine hundred and ninty-nine words of every thousand. 2. Corroboration of Ancient Versions and Quotations.—The prop- agation of Christianity in lands where the Greek language, in which the New Testament was originally written, was not com- monly known required the translation of the New Testament into these languages. Some of these translations were made at a very early date. Probably the oldest is the Syriac, or Peshito, which was made into the Aramaic for the use of the Syrian churches as early as the second century—according to some of the best Syriac scholars, some parts were made before the close of the first century. Though it was not brought into contact with our Greek New Testament until the sixteenth century, hav- ing been in the hands of the Hastern churches, yet when com- pared with the Greek text it was found to be practically iden- tical with it in its reading. This is a remarkable confirmation of the integrity of our New Testament text, and shows certainly that it is now such as it was in the second century,when the Syri- -ae Version was made. The Old Latin Version was translated in North Africa about 170 A. D., for the Latin-speaking churches. It was revised by Jerome in making the Vulgate (383-404), which has ever since been the standard of the Roman Catholie Church. The agreement between this and the Greek text shows the latter to be practically the same as that of the second cen- tury. The Peshito contains all the books of the Bible except 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. The Old Latin omits only Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter. The two together prove the existence of all the books of the New Testament except 2 Peter as early as the second century, and that they were sub- stantially the same as we now have them. Several other versions also have much value in proving the uncorruptness of the sacred text. Among them are the Septuagint of the Old Testament, translated 250 B. C.; the Coptic, or Egyptian, 200 A. D.; the Gothic, fourth century; Ethiopic, 400 A. D.; the Armenian, EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 113 fifth century; the Slavonian, ninth century; and the Arabic, tenth century. And the uncorrupt preservation of the sacred text can be proved not only by comparison with ancient versions, but also by the many quotations to be found in the Christian writers of the first three centuries. Sir David Dalrymple found the entire New Testament was quoted by them with the exception of eleven verses. How marvelously has God preserved to us many infall- ible proofs of the integrity of the text of the New Testament! 3. No Material Change Was Possible—That a corruption of the sacred writings did not occur has been sufficiently shown. But why it could not have occurred is also evident. As soon as the sacred books were published, copies began to be made so that in a short time they were scattered over the entire civilized world. These were revered as divinely inspired scripture and read pri- vately and in the churches. They were carefully and jealously suarded against any important change in their text or meaning. To suppose that any overcredulous person could have interpo- lated in the sacred text legendary stories of miracles is prepos- terous. First, it would have been necessary to change the copies throughout the world, which could not have been done, and if it had been done it could not have been kept secret from skeptics. Also, Christianity had too many enemies for such a thing to occur without its being detected. Enemies would not allow friends to change the text, and friends were very careful that heretics or enemies did not change it; besides, neither could have changed the text even though not thus watched by the other. Because it carries its proof with it, the method God has chosen for the preservation of the integrity of the sacred text is better than if the original manuscripts had been preserved, unless they were unquestionably proved to be the autographs of the inspired writers. III. Credibility of the New Testament History How do we know that the history related in the New Testa- ment, especially in the Gospels, is worthy of being believed? The proof of the genuineness and uncorrupt, transmission of the text of the New Testament would ordinarily be assumed to imply its credibility, but it is conceivable that a history may be genu- ine and yet not true to facts. In the evidences of Christianity, nothing need be left to assumption. Every link required for the 114 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY argument may be and should be supplied. Here, as on other points, the evidence is of overwhelming strength, though space permits but a brief statement of it. Our purpose at this point is not to attempt at once to show the New Testament to be a divine revelation, but to show only that its history as such is true. 1. Credibility of the Gospel History Accepted by Those Familiar with the Events—The surest proof that the miracles and other events of the gospel history are worthy of belief is the fact that they were believed and propagated by multitudes, at the peril of their lives, who lived at the time and places where the events are alleged to have occurred. We have certain proof that the Gospels were published as we now have them in the very land where their events occurred and during the lifetime of the peo- ple who witnessed the things described. Had they been pub- lished in a part of the world so far from the scene of the events that no one could have investigated or testified as to their truthfulness, or if they had not been published until more than a century after the events so that no one living could have con- firmed the statements as an actual witness, then the proof had been less positive. But the writer of the first Gospel testifies as an eye-witness of the events described. He wrote his Gospel to the Jews among whom the events of Jesus’ ministry took place. He wrote and published it in the land of Palestine, where Jesus spent his life. He wrote and published it while the majority of those were still living who lived when the events occurred and who witnessed their occurrence. Surely if he had seriously misstated the truth about any im- portant fact mentioned it could not have passed unchallenged in that age of culture and religious controversy. If critical scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees sought so diligently to catch Jesus in his words, it is certain they would be ready to deny any false statement as to known facts at that later period when so many of their disciples had fallen away to the new faith of Christ. The entire gospel history reflects severely on the Jews as a whole, and especially on their rulers and priests. Why did they not deny the statement of Matthew that Jesus opened the eyes of two blind men at Jericho on the oceasion of his last journey to Jerusalem? Or why did they not deny the statement that dark- ness was over all the land for three hours at Christ’s death on the cross? Why did they not contradict that statement of Luke EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 115 that a lame man was healed at the temple gate by Peter? That neither Jew nor Greek in all their opposition to Chris- tianity in the first century ever attempted to deny the truthful- ness of the gospel writers is a silent testimony by all the thou- sands of those enemies of Christianity, who knew that the events described actually occurred. If these things could have been denied successfully, those were not wanting who would most cer- tainly have denied them. Their silence is proof that they knew the events related concerning Jesus were so notorious that to deny them would have made themselves ridiculous. They attrib- uted Jesus’ miracles to the power of Beelzebub, but never denied their occurrence. Also, those thousands of Christians of that period who in the face of persecution, imprisonment, and death itself affirmed their belief cf these things had abundant opportunity for in- vestigation, and many of them had been eye-witnesses of the events described. Do men choose to suffer dishonor, privation, persecution, and violent deaths in defense of what they know to be false? If not, then these men knew the things they taught to be true and could not doubt them. Their affirmation of these things under such circumstances is reason enough for our believ- ing them. 2. The Writers Possessed the Requisites for Credibility—Twe qualifications are necessary to constitute one a credible witness: one must have adequate knowledge and dependable honesty. In the nature of the case, the testimony of one possessing these quali- fications must be true. Did the gospel writers possess them ? That they had full opportunity to know the facts concerning the events they relate is certain. Matthew and John were with Jesus throughout his ministry. They lived with him, learned at his feet, and witnessed his miracles in broad daylight; not onee, but hundreds of times over a period of years. They were among his most intimate friends. They could not have been deceived. No mere sleight-of-hand tricks could have passed undetected when put to such tests as were these miracles. It is not possible that these men, whose writings show them to be men of well- balaneed minds, could have been so carried away by enthusiasm that they would have imagined, in many details as to persons, time, place, and other circumstances, such a long series of events to have occurred that. never actually occurred. The cheory that 116 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY they were so influenced by enthusiasm that they unconsciously misrepresented the truth to the extent of all the supernatural in the New Testament history is untenable when apphed to the par- ticular events and miracles recorded. That the New Testament writers possessed trustworthy hon- esty as historians is evident from their writings. They do not write as men conscious of intention to deceive. Writers of fic- titious stories do not mention the time, place, and other circum- stances relating to an alleged event so that it can be investigated. But these writers of the gospel and apostolice histories commonly tell the time and place of a miracle, and even the name of the persons concerned. ‘‘Generality is the cloak of fiction.’’ But John tells of a man named Lazarus of Bethany whose sisters were named Mary and Martha, and that Lazarus died there, was buried for four days, and that in the presence of several witnesses besides the disciples, Jesus called him out of the tomb alive. Deceivers do not write such details. Also in political events, which they often mention in detail, they can be proved to be correct, and their honesty in recording these facts is rea- son for believing they have as honestly recorded other things. But the most convincing proof that they were honest in their writings is the fact that they were willing to suffer disgrace, persecution, and even death in defense of what they wrote. They could have had no motive for deception. If they intended to deceive, they were evil men. Then their motive must have been for selfish advantage. But instead of gain, these men had a prospect only of loss, even of life. When they were offered the choice between recantation and death, they all without hesita- tion chose death. Surely rather than to suppose such things it is easier to believe they were honest and were firmly convinced of what they wrote. IV. Miracles Jesus and his apostles came proclaiming that they were di- vinely sent messengers commissioned to impart to mankind a revelation of the way of salvation. As credentials that they were ambassadors of God, they pointed to certain works which are described as being miracles. The necessity for credentials of some kind to substantiate a claim to being an ambassador of God is at once apparent. Jesus recognized the propriety of men’s requiring of him such proofs of his claims. He appealed EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 117 to his works as credentials when the Jews said, ‘‘ What sign show- est thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?’’ And when, another asked if he was the promised Mes- siah, he said, ‘‘The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised api: Nothing can be better proof that one is a messenger sent of God than power to perform miracles. The power the messenger exercises which is superior to that of nature is at once properly assumed to be the power of Him who constituted nature. And one very naturally concludes as did Nicodemus when he said, ‘“We know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man ean do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.’’ Even prominent infidels have admitted such credentials are ac- ceptable. They question only whether it can be shown that mir- acles have actually occurred. The New Testament writers not only affirm that miracles were worked, but they describe them in minute detail. The proof already given of the genuineness of the New Testament and of the credibility of the writers of it ought to be sufficient reason for accepting the plain accounts of miracles therein given as sure evidence that Christianity and the Scriptures are of God. The evidence is complete at this point, and the investigator might properly be referred at once to the Sacred Writings. However, that the real strength of the evidences may be shown it is well that we give further proof of the reality of the miracles described in the New Testament. This we might proceed to do at once except for certain antecedent objections to miracles that skeptics have raised. These must first be answered. 1. Possibility and Probability of Miracles—A miracle has been defined by G. P. Fisher as ‘‘an event which the forces of nature -——including the natural powers of man—can not of themselves produce, and which must, therefore, be referred to a super- natural agency.’’ A fuller definition might be given, but this expresses the main characteristics. A miracle is not necessarily a violation nor a contradiction of natural law. Neither does it involve a suspension of natural law, but only the entrance of another power that operates independently of nature. The power of gravitation was no more suspended when Jesus walked on the water than it is when a boy throws a ball into the air. 118 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY The ordinary necessitated powers of nature are merely tran- scended. It is not an event without a cause, but one caused by God’s supernatural operation. Attempts have been made to show on scientific grounds that miracles are impossible. It is said that the laws of nature are uniform, that a miracle is a violation of nature’s laws and therefore it can not occur, In reply it may be said that this objection has the serious fault of begging’ the question. As just stated, a miracle is not necessarily either a violation or a contradiction of natural law. The prin- cipal weakness of the objection is that it ignores the fact that an event in nature may be caused by an agent acting in nature yet above nature. The human will, through its physical organism, is capable of acting on and independently of the necessitated powers of nature. Man is able to hold an iron ax at the surface of a body of water, although gravitation would naturally cause it to sink to the bottom. If man can do such a thing, surely the Almighty ean do so (2 Kings 6:5-7). If we admit the existence of a personal extra-mundane (God, the denial of the possibility of miracles is ridiculous. Only those question the possibility of miracles who hold a pantheistic, or any other than a theistic, conception of God. Many volumes have been written concerning the probability of miracles. Skeptics have endeavored to show an antecedent improbability of the occurrence of miracles. But all that has been said on the probability of revelation has a bearing here. From man’s great need of a divine revelation and God’s good- ness, it is reasoned that a revelation is probable. And from the necessity of authentication of that revelation and the special value and appropriateness of miracles as authentication it is reasoned that miracles are probable. It is evident from the existence of moral law and moral beings that nature does not exist for its own sake, but for the use of moral beings. Also, it is reasonable to expect God to work miracles independently of natural law when he sees it is advantageous for man’s moral excellence. The sinfulness and depravity of men have resulted in the creation of a need of such supernatural manifestations as a means to their recovery. Therefore the presumption ig in favor of the occurrence of miracles. 2. Possibility of Proving Miracles by Testimony.—It is not un- commonly affirmed by skeptics that even if the possibility and EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 119 probability of miracles, or even their actual occurrence, be ad- mitted, yet their occurrence can not be proved by testimony, nor known to any except those who actually witnessed them. Their argument as stated by Hume, whose name is usually con- nected with this ol-jection, is briefly as follows: Because a miracle is so contradictory to all human experience, it is more reasonable to believe any amount of testimony is false than it is to believe a miracle has actually occurred. This is the great labor-saving device of infidels in their opposition to miracles. Any attempt by skeptics honestly to meet and disprove the vast amount of evidences of the occurrence of miracles would require much learned labor, and then they could not hope to give a convincing refutation. But by this simple formula of Hume’s, which the most ignorant skeptic can memorize and recite, it is supposed that at a single sweep all the Christian evidences from the many accounts of miracles are disposed of at once and forever. But the argument is unsound for more than one reason. The principal fallacy of it is, however, that it makes one’s own per- sonal experience the measure of all human experience. If this were true, no new or unusual event or fact could be learned ex- cept by the senses. The truth is that most of the things we know we learn through testimony. Unless we did credit the testimony of others, none could believe such an event as a volcanic erup- tion or a severe earthquake ever occurred except the compara- tively small number who have been witnesses of them. Or ex- cept for belief in testimony to an unusual but possible event, the person whose life has been spent in the torrid zone must deny the fact that water congeals and becomes ice at a temperature of 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Or if it is more reasonable to believe any amount of testimony false rather than to believe an event true that is beyond the realm of our own personal experience, then the majority of men must forever remain ignorant of most of the facts they now know. They can not know that great geysers exist. The size of the earth, the depth of the ocean, the height of the highest mountain-peaks, the fact of the radiophone, and of wireless telegraphy can never be known except by those who demonstrate or see them. To exclude testimony and make experience the only ground for confidence is to require the rejection of all that does not agree with what we have personally witnessed. It means to re- 120 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY ject most of what we know and to close the door of our minds to all beyond the narrow limits of our personal observation. It is neither proper nor the custom of sound-thinking men to hold such an attitude toward testimony. He who should attempt to hold such an attitude in all the affairs of life would be regarded as immoderately skeptical indeed. Men accept or reject testi- mony concerning unusual but possible events, not because it accords with nor contradicts their experience, but according to the credibility or incredibility of the witness. If a party of twenty-five eminent scientists exploring a newly discovered land should return with the astonishing report that they found mountains there consisting of solid gold, the question would not be, Does this agree with or contradict our experience? but, Is their testimony credible? If they are all trained miner- ologists capable of determining what is gold and what is not, and if they all ever in the past have proved themselves to be truth- ful men, then their testimony should not and would not be re- jected as insufficient ground for believing those mountains of gold exist. Or if ten men known to be intelligent and truthful tell of seeing a certain man dead and buried in the tomb, we believe their testimony without difficulty. Then if. they further tell us that they saw him raised from the dead by an adequate cause, the power of God, for the purpose of authenticating a revelation of God to men of the way of salvation, which is certainly ade- quate purpose, there is no reason why their testimony should not be accepted as is their testimony of the man’s death and burial. Hume’s argument against miracles is also chargeable with the fallacy of self-contradiction. It endeavors to overthrow our faith in human testimony by opposing to such testimony the gen- eral experience of men. But how can we know what is the expe- rience of men generally except by their testimony? Or how can we know we have disproved the credibility of human testimony if we must credit it in order to discredit it! 3. Proofs that Miracles Occurred.—Now we come to the vital question. Did miracles actually occur in the ministry of Jesus and his apostles? It is not a matter of theory, but a plain ques- tion of fact. If they occurred, in the nature of them their real- ity was discernible by the senses. The raising of Lazarus from the dead, the feeding of the multitudes with five loaves and two EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 121 fishes, the opening of the blind eyes of Bartimeus, or the curing of the lame man at the gate Beautiful could be brought to the test of the senses. And like other historic events, a credible record of them could be transmitted to those of later ages. In addition, then, to the general credibility of the gospel history already shown, and which ought to be sufficient, what other rea- sons do we have for believing that miracles were actually per- formed? (1) They were done publicly. The Bible miracles were not done in a corner, but for the greater part in the most public man- ner possible and before many witnesses, including not only those sympathetic towards Christ, but also those opposed. They were not done in the absence of witnesses, as were the supernatural things related of Mohammed such ag the night visits of the angel Gabriel to him, and the transmission to him from heaven of the various parcels of the Koran from time to time. They were per- formed before the multitude in the crowded temple courts, be- fore the people gathered in the synagogs, along the public high- way thronged with pilgrims to the Passover, and before the assembled thousands who came with their sick and diseased for healing and to sit at his feet to hear his word. Persons of all classes witnessed them—the rich and the poor; the learned scribe and Pharisee, and the common fisherman and farmer; rulers of broad experience like Nicodemus; and Roman military men such as the centurion of Capernaum. They were done, not alone in the quietude of Galilean villages, but at the great annual festi- vals at Jerusalem. (2) They were of great number and variety. Another proof of the reality of the Bible miracles is the great number of them. Imposters pretending to miracles usually find it less difficult to pretend to but few. But the ministry of Jesus as described in the Gospels was filled with them. Not fewer than forty are de- scribed in detail, and these are represented as only examples of very many others which he did. These miracles were also of great variety; so they could not have been sleight-of-hand tricks. He cured all kinds of diseases, not of a few selected persons, but of all who came to him. And not only did he cure the sick, but he raised the dead on at least three occasions. Twice he fed the multitudes with a very small quantity of food. He turned water 122 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY into wine. And he stilled the storm. Only Omnipotence is cap- able of these things. (3) They were performed over a long period of time. Throughout the three years of Jesus’ personal ministry and for many years after during the ministry of the apostles, these mar- velous works continued. They could have been examined again and again. Persons healed or raised from the dead continued to live in the localities where the miracles were performed; so it could be known that the works were genuine and permanent. Any skeptic in that day had ample time to go to see and test the miracles for himself. (4) They were performed by unlearned men. The perform- ers of the New Testament miracles were for the most part not men of the schools, not educated, nor of high social standing or wealth. They were not capable, merely as men, to carry out a scheme of imposture that would not have been detected by their numerous enemies in that enlightened age. (5) No attempt to perform them failed. In no instance did Jesus and his apostles fail in any attempt to heal all the vast multitudes who applied to them. It is true that the disciples once failed to heal a demoniac boy; but Jesus instantly healed him, and told them the cause of their failure. According to the records, their cures were always definite and complete. No scheme of fraud could thus always succeed so perfectly. Only the power of God sufficiently accounts for these results. (6) They were examined, but never denied. These miracles were carefully examined at the time they were performed and for many years following. Many open-minded persons, like Nicodemus, examined them and believed Jesus’ claims as a con- sequence. But they were most critically examined by the enemies of Christ, who were many. The claims of Christianity were such that it was at once opposed by both the state and all other religions. Judaism and Paganism, led by their powerful priest- hoods, alike sought to destroy it. It was opposed by learned scribes and powerful rulers. Had it been possible to swear these miracles were frauds, these enemies would certainly have so sworn. The chief priests would have had no need to stain their hands with the blood of Jesus if they could have shown his mir- acles were not genuine. They were compelled to acknowledge their reality even if they did falsely ascribe them to the power EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 123 of Satan. Right in the presence of their enemies in times of severe persecution and opposition Jesus and his apostles appealed to their miracles as proof that they were of God. Peter did so in his Pentecostal sermon, also when brought before the Sanhedrin after the healing of the lame man. If these enemies of Chris- tianity could have denied the reality of those miracles, they would have done so. But never once did they attempt it. To have tried to do so would have shown their own hypocrisy and made them ridiculous in the eyes of all men. (7) They were acknowledged by friends. Most of the friends of Christianity were such because they believed these miracles real, They knew in many instances that to accept Christianity meant disgrace, poverty, persecution, and death, and if they had found fraud in these alleged miracles they would never have chosen to accept Christ. But it was because they knew that his miracles were real that they recognized him as a teacher come from God and worthy of their homage. Neither do we have record of any of them confessing they were deceived in suppos- ing these miracles were real. They sometimes as a result of per- secution forsook Christianity, but none is known ever to have confessed he was mistaken about the reality of Jesus’ miracles. As converts these would have had opportunity to know whatever secrets may have belonged to the working of the New Testament miracles. If there was any machinery for fraud, they would have been aware of it. But never once do we have record of any who had departed from the faith ever pretending to reveal any secrets or disclose any fraud in Jesus’ miracles. Judas Iscariot was one of Jesus’ disciples, a preacher, and had been sent him- self by Jesus to perform miracles. When he sold his master, why did he not expose any fraud in Jesus’ miracles? He would have been paid well for doing so. Why did he not give his testi- mony against Jesus at his trial? The answer is certain. ‘‘I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.’’ Here is a wonderful testimony to the genuineness of the miracles of Jesus. (8) They were acknowledged by enemies. The enemies of the gospel had abundant opportunity to test the miracles of Jesus as to their genuineness, and strong reason for doing s0; and it is certain they did examine them. But they never once denied the reality of the miracles, and their failure to deny the 124 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY reality of them is a strong testimony to their genuineness. We could hardly ask that these enemies expose their own hypocrisy by giving positive testimony to the miracles of the gospel. Yet they have not only united in witnessing to these miracles by their silence as to any attempt at denying them, but they have given positive testimony to their genuineness. Since the credibility of the gospel history has been shown, we might quote from that the words of enemies to show that they acknowledged the reality of these miracles; but to make the testimony stronger, proof is adduced from other sources. The Jewish writers in the Talmud acknowledge these miracles as having really occurred, but refer them to magic or other sources than the will and power of God. Even heathen writers admit the reality of the gospel miracles. Celsus acknowledged that Christ wrought miracles by which people were caused to believe he is the Messiah. He also ascribes them to magic. Also Porphyry, Lucian, Hierocles, and Julian, the emperor, admit that miracles were performed, but Julian attempts to make light of them, wondering why so much stir should be made about a person who merely ‘‘opened the eyes of the blind, restored limbs to the lame, and delivered persons possessed. ’”’ (9) Christ’s claims were based on his miracles from the beginning. The religion of the Bible is the only world religion which at its beginning appealed to miracles as evidence of the divine authority of its teachers. It is true that most false relig- ions claim miracles for their founders; but these miracles were appendages of religions already set up, and were not the evidence by which the authority of the religions were first established. Moreover, such miracles, like those of Mohammed, were wit- nessed by no one except the performer of them. They were done in a corner, and consequently have no evidential value, as do the miracles of the Bible. No other religion ever made such bold claims as did that of the Bible in pointing to its mir- acles as its credentials at a time when it had no sympathetic followers. Had its miracles not been what they were professed to be, it would never have been accepted by the millions who became its adherents in the early centuries. What incredulity must be necessary on the part of modern infidels to deny the reality of the gospel miracles, supported as they are by all the foregoing considerations! Belief in these EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 125 miracles is reasonable. Denial of their reality is unreasonable. To suppose they did not occur, reason requires belief in the still more remarkable and unaccountable miracle—that those who witnessed them should have universally been led to sup- pose them genuine. The foregoing facts leave no room for any of those modern rationalistic theories which would explain the entire gospel history on natural grounds. The theory of Paulus that the records of miracles are ‘‘honest but uncritical interpretations of natural events’’ has already been sufficiently disproved. This theory attempts to support the honesty of the writers of the Gospels, but it certainly reflects severely on the integrity of Jesus in the light of those texts in which he testifies of his own miracles, as in the message he sent back by John the Baptist’s messengers (Luke 7:22). The mythical theory of Strauss assumes that as a result of the prevailing Messianic ideas of the Jews that miracles would be worked by the Messiah when he came, the people unconsciously objectified those ideas which took on the form of miraculous history. But in objection it may well be asked, If Christ did not work such miracles, how did he succeed in convincing the people of his Messiahship ? The rationalistic theory of Renan makes Jesus an unwilling yet an intentional deceiver. This theory supposes that Jesus played the part of deception in merely pretending to work miracles in response to the unwelcome but popular demand for them. It would tell us that Jesus, who unsparingly denounced hypocrites, was himself constantly engaged in practicing hypocrisy; that he who imparted the loftiest ethical teaching men have ever known, constantly pretended what he knew was false; that that most spot- less of all lives was one long strain of deception. Such are the extremes to which those must go who would deny the miraculous elements of the Gospel history. These rationalistic theories are unscientific both in their methods and in their conclusions. Only those who are unwilling to believe in the supernatural could be appealed to by theories so unsound. 4. Proof of the Resurrection of Christ-—-Another method of proving the genuineness of Gospel miracles is to examine the evidence of particular miracles. By this means we may determine whether the original witnesses had competent knowledge to judge the alleged miraculous occurrences. The greatest of all the 126 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY miracles is the bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead. All others can easily be believed if this can be shown to have oc- curred. Also, as the apostles affirmed, it is fundamental to Christianity. With the credibility of the Gospel history estab- lished, we may properly appeal to the facts concerning the resur- rection there presented. Then what are the facts? Friends and enemies alike admit the following: The resurrection of Christ was predicted in the Old Testament by David, and was often foretold by Jesus himself. He was eruci- fied on a cross, and after six hours he died there. Later the execu- tioners, recognizing he was dead, did not break his legs to hasten death as they did the legs of those who were crucified with him. But to make sure of his death, one of them ran a spear into his side, which would have caused death had it not already occurred. A still further proof that Jesus actually died is that he was offi- cially pronounced dead by the centurion in answer to Pilate’s inquiry. He was placed in the tomb, where he lay for about thirty- six hours. At the end of that time his body was missing from the tomb in spite of the fact that the guard was there to keep the disciples honest and the seal wag on the door to keep the guard honest. Now, the body could have been removed only by enemies, his friends, or himself. Who did it? If his enemies did it, they could have had no other motive than to exhibit the body in disproof of any claims of its resurrection. But though the apostles boldly affirmed Christ’s resurrection before the assembled multitudes in Jerusalem and before the Sanhedrin itself, the enemies of Christ never produced his body, which they would surely have done if it were in their possession. Though his friends were accused of stealing the body, the charge was so unreasonable that Matthew, who relates it, rightly considers it needs no refutation. They lacked the courage necessary for so daring an act. It was the time of full moon, and Jerusalem and its environs were crowded with Passover pilgrims, and such a theft would certainly have been detected by the soldiers or others. That several soldiers on guard- duty should all have fallen asleep at the same time in the open air is altogether improbable, especially when they knew the penalty was death for such an, offense. Too, if they had done so they would not voluntarily have confessed it. Moreover, how could they truthfully testify to that which they said occurred EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 127 while they were asleep? And again, if the disciples of Jesus had actually stolen the body, the guard would have always reproached them with it! but we have no record of any such thing. Still further, it is certain the disciples were entirely too honest thus to deceive. Men who uphold the high ethical standards which they taught and willingly die in defense of their teaching can not be deceivers. Then the body of Jesus must have been removed by Jesus himself, as he had foretold. But the most certain evidence of his resurrection is the dif- ferent appearances of Jesus to his disciples in his resurrected body, after his death. Twelve times, by many witnesses, he was seen alive after his burial. These witnesses talked with him, ate with him, and handled him. They even saw in his hands and feet the prints of the nails by which he was fastened to the cross. These appearances continued over a period of forty days. Luke rightly calls these ‘‘infallible proofs.’’ These appearances were witnessed by a number of persons in most instances, and at one time by more than five hundred persons. These experiences of the disciples could not have been the result of hallucination or the product of imagination and enthusiasm. If they could have, they would have continued and increased constantly as a result of the emotional excitement from which they originated. But at the end of forty days they suddenly stopped. They can not be accounted for on the ground of imposition, because the dis- ciples were not only too honest, but also too unlearned success- fully to practise it. Neither can the disciples properly be charged with being unduly credulous. Instead, they were ‘‘slow to believe.’’ Yet the resurrection of their Master was so cer- tain to them that the belief of it gave them a remarkable degree of boldness, which enabled them to proclaim this great truth everywhere. The unwavering faith the apostles had in the resur- rection of Christ is such that F. C. Baur, the ablest representa- tive of the skeptical critics, confesses that no explanation can be given for it. ‘‘There is only one explanation—namely, that the fact occurred.’’ 5. Evidential Value of Miracles——The purpose of the Scrip- ture miracles is to attest the doctrines taught there as being true. They are not, however, direct evidence of the truth of those doctrines, else a new miracle must have been given in proof of each new doctrine taught. They indirectly attested the mes- 128 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY sage taught by certifying to the divine authority of the religious teacher who worked them and delivered the message. But mir- acles alone do not prove a man to be a divinely commissioned teacher. He must not only work miracles, but they must be accompanied with purity of life and doctrine. If he certainly teaches contrary to previously well-attested revelations, or if his manner of life is contradictory to them, he can not be of God whatever may be his works. (1) Counterfeit miracles. These consist in supernatural or wonderful events attributable to evil spirits or by men through natural means beyond our knowledge. They are not miracles in the truest sense. They include all supernatural events accom- plished through spiritualism or sorcery. Examples of them’ are whatever supernatural works may have been done by the Egyp- tian magicians who withstood Moses, those of Simon the sorcerer at Samaria, or those cures and other supernatural events which accompany modern spiritualism. It is not unreasonable nor un- biblical that demon spirits should do extraordinary works for the purpose of better deceiving men. Under the heading of coun- terfeit miracles may also be classed the spurious miracles im- puted to Jesus in the apocryphal writings, and evidently at least some of the medieval miracles so called. These counterfeit miracles may be distinguished from the genuine in various ways. If, ag in the case of modern, spiritual- ism, they are performed by persons of immoral conduct, or are contradictory in teaching to truth already revealed, they are not proof that such persons are divinely commissioned. Also, true miracles have a sufficient purpose which they are designed to accomplish. Again, they must be of a degree of dignity becoming to the divine working, and have sufficient substan- tiating evidence. (2) Modern miracles. Though it is true that the greatest manifestations of miracles have taken place at those periods when special revelations of truth needed to be attested, as at the times of Moses, the prophets, and Christ, yet this does not ex- clude divine miraculous working at all times as a matter of benevolence, or for the purpose of further certifying to men of that place and age God’s existence or revelation already given. It is according to Scripture and the experience of the best Chris- tians in all ages that God answerg prayer; and not only that he EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 129 answers, but that some of those answers are supernatural and miraculous in their nature. Modern miracles are becoming more common continually, especially in the supernatural healing of the sick through prayer and faith. Doubtless miracles have occurred to a greater or less extent all through the centuries, among devout people. One purpose of modern miracles may be to assist those in need of such help as is not possible by processes of nature. A second purpose is doubtless the direct manifestation of God’s love and benevolence to draw out men’s love for him. But doubtless another and important purpose is to give special direct proof of God’s existence and to attest further the Scriptures as divine revelation. A modern miracle of the nature of an an- swer to prayer and faith in the specific promises of Scripture is a direct evidence of the divine authority of the Scriptures to those who have the proof of such miracles. Doubtless God has not left himself without such witness in all ages. V. Prophecy By prophecy as used in the present connection is not meant the making known of the will of God generally, but rather, more restrictedly, the predicting of future events. In this sense proph- ecy may be described as a foretelling of future events that can not be foreknown by human wisdom, but only by means of direct communication, from God. The possibility of prophecy presents no difficulty if we allow that God is a person and is possesssed of infinite knowledge. As God may attest his messengers by manifesting his omnipotence through them in miracles, so like- wise it is also antecedently probable that he should manifest his omniscience through them in predicting future events for the same purpose. 1. Nature of the Argument from Fulfilled Prophecy.—The future is hidden from our view as by a thick veil hanging immediately before each of us. We can not know certainly by any human wisdom what tomorrow will bring forth. We may reason from existing’ causes or past experience that certain events are prob- able, but in such reasonings the element of uncertainty must be given a place. We may predict that a man in good health will die and be fairly sure that our prediction will not fail; but if we attempt the prediction that a particular person will die 130 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY at; noon ten years from the first day of the present month at a particular. point of latitude and longitude in the ocean, where he will drown as a result of falling from an airplane, and add to these particulars the place of his residence at that time, and the nature of his vocation—who will say there is the least pos- sibility of the prediction being fulfilled? There is not one chance in a million that it will come to pass. It is such minute particulars, as well as their exalted purpose, their great number and variety, and the length of time they cover, that place the Bible prophecies infinitely above all human guesses. Only to God and to those to whom he reveals them can future events be certainly known. The Scripture-writers, claim- ing to be divinely sent messengers, predicted, in many details, events which came to pass centuries later. Therefore the mes- sages of such men are proved to be of God; for it is certain divine aid would not be given for the advancement of decep- tion or fraud. Prophecy is a species of miracle, being a mani- festation of divine knowledge as other miracles are manifesta- tions of divine power. It has no evidential value until ful- filled; but when it is fulfilled it has weight fully as great as that of miracles in attestation of revelation. Though in its nature it is no more conclusive as Christian evidence than are miracles, yet to most men, especially those not trained to judge the value of evidence, the proof from prophecy is far more im- pressive. The proof from prophecy is not dependent upon an- cient testimony and the genuineness and eredibility of the histor- ical writings transmitting such testimony to us, but is before our eyes in the present-day fulfilment of various predictions of Seripture. Another important consideration concerning the argument from prophecy is that it grows continually stronger during the years with every new fulfilment. No attestation can be more certain proof of the divine author- ity of the Scriptures than the fulfilment of their prophecy. A fair evaluation of them as evidence excludes the idea of fraud. They are too far-reaching as to time to be anything but true. They began to be uttered in Eden immediately after man’s fall into sin, and are continued throughout Bible history. Their ful- filment began to be accomplished hundreds of years before the time of Christ, and they are still being fulfilled at the present day. They reach from Eden to the end of the world. They are EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 131 also very many in number, and of great variety. They predict concerning individuals and nations, Israel and heathen peoples, the Jews and the Gentiles, the kingdom of God and false relig- ions; but they all have a connection with the great theme of the Bible—Christ and salvation through him. Many of them have already been fulfilled. Some are yet to be fulfilled because the time has not yet come. But others will never be fulfilled, be- cause their fulfilment was made dependent upon conditions which were never met by the persons concerned. None.can be shown ever to have failed. Evidential value of prophecy requires that it shall have been given a long time before the happening of the event predicted. Many of the Scripture predictions possess this requisite, but others do not. An example of the latter is Jesus’ prediction that when two of his disciples should go into the near-by village they would ‘“‘find; an ass tied, and a colt with her’’ (Matt. 21: 2,3). Here the fulfilment immediately followed the prediction, and the event was history when written. However, to those who heard the prediction and later experienced the event it had value as evidence of Jesus’ superhuman knowledge, and on the strength of their testimony it has value for us the same as do miracles of that period. Another requisite in prophecy for evidential value is that nothing must exist to make probable the event to merely human prescience. If Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans had been given at an advanced stage of the siege, it could have had but little value as evidence; but having been spoken forty years before, in an age of universal peace, and given in many details, it has great value. Another requirement is that it must not be ambiguous, nor yet be so clear as to secure its own fulfilment. Many of the Scrip- ture prophecies, especially those about Christ, very remarkably meet this requirement. An example of this is the elaborate prediction concerning his suffering and death given in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. What it meant and how it was to be fulfilled was doubtless as difficult for those living before the time of Christ as it was for the Ethiopian eunuch, who asked Philip to explain the passage to him. But to those. acquainted with the New Testament history it is clear. A still further and last 132 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY requirement is that the prediction shall be fulfilled at the proper time. 2. Objections to the Argument from Prophecy.—Probably the most common objection to prophecy as Christian evidence is that the alleged prophecies are not prediction but history, and were written after the events occurred. But such an objection is either the result of inexcusable ignorance or else a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Many an uninformed skeptic will glibly state this objection, when if called upon to do so he could not make the semblance of a defense of his objection. It is intended as a labor-saving device for opposers of divine revelation who do not dare with manly argument to face the prophecies one by one and attempt to show they are not proph- ecy. A certain class of modern rationalists have attempted, under the guise of higher criticism of the Bible, to show a later date for certain prophetic books of the Bible. But allowing all their unproved statements to be true, still many of the most important evidences from prophecy remain in all their strength. In the later discussion of particular prophecies the historical proof of their prophetic nature will be shown. A very common antecedent objection to prophecy is that all events are either necessary or contingent. If they are necessary events, it is said they are made necessary by present existing causes which will effect them, and consequently they may be foreseen and predicted by careful calculation from those causes by men without divine aid. If they are contingent, or dependent upon free choice, it is objected that they can not be foreknown either by God or men. If this objection were sound, no prophecy could have any value as evidence of divine attestation of a reve- lation. But the weakness of both points in the objection are not difficult to detect. The occurrence of most events is deter- mined by previously existing causes, but those causes are often so hidden from men that knowledge of them is impossible, and consequently the effects can not possibly be known. A predic- tion of such events constitutes valid evidence of revelation. In reply to the second point in the objection, it is only necessary to say that foreknowledge is to be clearly distinguished from foreordination. Knowledge is not determinative of an event, but is determined by the event. The knowledge is according to the event that is to occur, but the event is not caused by the fore- EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 133 knowledge of it by either God or man. God being omniscient may foreknow contingent events, and by making them known through his messenger give evidence to all men that such mes- senger’s message is from God. A third objection is that many of the Seripture prophecies are so obscure that a eritical thinker can not be certain he under- stands to what the prediction refers, and consequently can not know whether it has been fulfilled. In reply it may be said that there are many predictions which are clear and their meaning certain. It is to these that Christian apologists appeal. We need not concern ourselves here about the obscure prophecies; future history may make evident the meaning of some of them. It is unnecessary to our present purpose to show that a large pro- portion of the Seripture prophecies have been fulfilled. If it is clearly shown that a few of them are genuine predictions of events men could not possibly know, then those prove the Scrip- tures to be from God. A proper conception of the purpose of prophecy is helpful in accounting for the obscurity of some of it. It is not for the purpose of furnishing in detail a plan of the future. Neither is it intended to be profitable only as Chris- tian evidence to those who live after its fulfilment. It is intend- ed to benefit thosa who live before the occurrence of the events predicted by making known to them in broad general outline things to come, and in this way to encourage the hopeless and to warn the careless to be prepared for the future. Notable exam- ples of this kind are the prophecies of Christ’s first and second advent. Certainly many prophecies have value in this respect that are of no apologetical worth. Another objection to prophecy as Christian evidence is that spiritualists through communication with demons are also able to predict future events. Allowing the truth of the objection, still, as with miracles from the same source, there is no need of confusing these with divinely given prophecies to the weaken- ing of the latter as Christian evidence. The predictions of spiritu- alistie mediums are usually concerning things of very insignifi- cant consequence in comparison with the Bible predictions. Also, they are very far below those of Scripture in the time spanned by them, their dignity, and purpose. And, too, they often fail of fulfilment, which would indicate they proceed from a finite being even though other than human. Moreover prophecy 134 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY does not stand alone as evidence, but must be corroborated by holy conduct and doctrine in harmony with that already divinely revealed. Spiritualistic mediums fail in these points. The Bible prophecies may be classified as follows: Predictions (1) about the Jews, (2) about Gentile nations, (3) about Christ’s first coming, (4) about the origin and history of God’s kingdom, (5) about Christ’s second advent. For obvious rea- sons the latter class has no evidential value. Space allows a consideration of but a few examples from the other classes. 3. Predictions Concerning the Jews——Many prophecies are giv- en in the Bible respecting the Jews, most of which have been wonderfully fulfilled. Attention might be directed to such as those relating to the Babylonish captivity and the return, or to Jesus’ remarkable prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, which was very definitely fulfilled in many details forty years later. But that the skeptic may have no ground for any of the objections mentioned, especially that the account is history, and was written subsequently to the events described, attention is directed to predictions given at the beginning of Israelitish history which did not begin to be ful- filled until after the beginning of the Christian dispensation, and in some important particulars are being fulfilled at the present time. In the twenty-eighth of Deuteronomy is given a detailed prediction of the punishments that should come upon the Jews if they should violate the covenant with God which they had solemnly agreed to keep. The minuteness of the description of these judgments shows them tq be prophecy, not a mere appre- hension of calamities resulting from wrong-doing. These pre- dictions were uttered by Moses before 1400 B. C. That the Old Testament existed long before the time of Christ is easily shown by reference to Jewish writers, the Septuagint Version, and by the quotations from the New Testament writings, which have already been proved genuine. The infidel historian Gibbon states these Old Testament writings existed as early as 250 B. C., when they were translated from the Hebrew into Greek. Cer- tainly his testimony should be acceptable as to the early exist- ence of the prediction. Though a few of the events described in this chapter of eurses for disobedience came upon the Jews at the time of the EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 135 Babylonish captivity, yet careful consideration shows many of them did not reach a fulfilment then and so must be referred to a later time. The fulfilment of this prophecy began with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. ‘‘The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand; a nation of fierce countenance, which shall not re- gard the person of the old, nor show favor to the young.’’ The Romans were literally from ‘‘far,’’ and were almost as remote as any people of whom the ancient Israelites knew. Their language was not only different from that of Israel, but it was of a different family of languages. The rapidity of their con- quests is well described as ‘‘swift as the eagle flieth.’’ And their ruthlessness in war has seldom been surpassed. Now how could Moses naturally suppose the instrument of Israel’s punishment for their rejection of Jehovah and cruci- fixion of his Son would come from a remote point, the most dis- tant known, would come with rapidity, would speak a strange tongue, and be especially merciless? Had he been guessing, he would have referred their overthrow to one of the several powerful near-by nations which surrounded Israel. It is further predicted that their destruction was not to re- sult from a battle in the open, although they fought many such battles. Neither was it to be by a surprize attack on their city. ‘*He shall besiege thee in all thy gates.’’ And though this siege was to culminate in the breaking down of their ‘‘ fenced walls,’’ yet that was not to oceur until after a long siege during which there should be awful famine. And during this famine, fathers and mothers would kill and eat their own children. When all these details are compared with the facts as related by the Jewish historian Josephus, who was an eye-witness of those awful events and who describes them in great detail, these ancient predictions of Moses read like history, they so exactly agree with the events. The unwillingness of skepties to allow prophecy might cause them to affirm that these remarkable fulfilments are but coin- cidences, but what insane credulity could attribute to coinci- dence other details in the predictions that follow? The great slaughter during the siege was to leave them ‘‘few in number.”’ Such were the facts. Of those who survived the siege it is pre- 136 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY dicted ‘‘the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other.’’ ‘‘ Ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.’’ The dis- persion of the Jews among the nations is well known. No other people has been so widely scattered for so many hundreds of years and yet retained its identity. They are yet today scat- tered among all nations in both hemispheres. According to recent statistics they are distributed as follows: Central and Western Europe, 9,250,000; United States, 3,800,000; other parts of North America, 125,000; South America, 108,000; Siberia, Central Asia, and Asia Minor, 325,000; Syria and Mesopotamia, 140,000; Northern Africa, 280,000; and in Palestine, less than 100,000. Yet they were to preserve their identity as a race. So much is implied in the sufferings to beset them in the lands where they were to be scattered. This is one of the marvels of history. Other nations who have been carried away as captives from their native land have been absorbed by the peoples among whom they sojourned. But not so with the Jews. They are as distinct a people today as they were two thousand years ago. Though for nineteen hundred years they have been a race of persecuted wanderers, without a country of their own, without a civil government, the chief ceremonies and institutions of their religion (which had been their main unifying force) gone, yet they maintain a distinct racial existence! May we not ask again, How did Moses know fifteen hundred years before it began to come to pass that such an improbable history should be that of his people? But is was still further predicted that this people should ever be despised and persecuted. ‘‘And among these nations shalt thou find no ease. ... And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy hife’’ (vs. 65, 66). Such is Jewish history wherever they have gone. Where have they not been despised, persecuted, massacred? In the early centuries of our era, during the Middle Ages, at the time of the Crusades, following the Refor- mation, in recent centuries cruel massacres have been their por- tion. These have occurred in Germany, England, France, Spain, Russia, and in almost every land where Jews have lived in con- siderable numbers. Even today in America, the land of reli- EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 137 gious freedom, they are still a persecuted people, opposed by secret societies, by various periodicals and books, and to a con- siderable extent ostracized by society generally. How did Moses know more than three thousand years ago that such would be the fortunes of his people at this time? Let the skeptic answer. The evangelist Luke, in describing that same destruction of Jerusalem as foretold by Jesus but forty years before it occurred, said, ‘‘And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled’? (Luke 21:24). For nearly nineteen hun- dred years Jerusalem has been in the hands of the Gentiles, and though the Jews have desired and tried earnestly to regain possession of it they have never been able to do so. The Roman emperor Julian the Apostate, for the distinct purpose of disproving this prophecy, endeavored at great expense and trouble to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem and restore it to the Jews; but his efforts were utterly fruitless. The decision of those who have very recently studied the situation critically and at close range is that there is no indication that the Jews will again possess their city. This prediction of Jesus and those of Moses could not have been thus accurately given in detail by any human foresight, but only by revelation of God. There- fore we know they were messengers approved of God. 4, Predictions Concerning Christ-—The first prophecy was a prediction of the coming of Christ, and was given immedi- ately after the fall and before the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden. It was predicted that the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the serpent, and this was doubtless fulfilled in Christ’s overcoming Satan and sin, which were represented by the serpent. The Old Testament Scriptures are filled with predictions of and allusions to the coming Christ and his salvation. That these were written centuries before the events, has been shown. Not only in word-prophecies is this portrayed, but also in acted prophecies, or types and in- stitutions of the Old Testament. The passover lamb was a remarkable prophecy of Christ given fifteen hundred years before the Christian era. A definite and most remarkable word- prophecy is found in Isa. 9:6, 7—‘‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his 138 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY shoulders: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever.’’ Because Jesus Christ came and exactly fulfilled these predictions, as no mere man could have done, we have proof, not only of the divine authority of the Seriptures, but also of the divinity of Christ. The exact time of Christ’s coming was foretold by the prophet Daniel in his seventy -weeks’ prophecy in Dan. 9 :24-27. ‘ ‘ae j id ’ + | ari | a4 eet Paice avi, Leal OA ui } Ti wie e Ti teu aie 7 ( ‘ a b i f, is {, ui heh é MWe), aT ee Je ti ‘a | et Fj > PART V SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST, OR SOTERIOLOGY That division of theology which sets forth the remedy for sin and the application of that remedy in individual experience is commonly called soteriology. This term is derived from two Greek words 6wtmo (soter), ‘‘savior,’’ and Adyos (logos), ‘‘dis- course,’’ and means the science of salvation. To this part of the- ology belong most of those truths which are peculiar to Christian- ity. Under soteriology we deal with the great problems of atone- ment for sin and salvation from sin. CHAPTER [I THE PERSON OF CHRIST I. The Doctrine and Its Statement 1. A Vital Doctrine.—As logical order requires that atone- ment be considered before salvation, so a study of the atone- ment must be preceded by inquiry concerning the nature or person of the Atoner. This question of the person of Christ, or Christology, is not one of mere speculative interest, as a certain class of modernists would have us believe, but is vitally import- ant to Christianity. The character of Christians is a consequence of a miraculous divine operation called salvation. But sal- vation has its basis in atonement, and the value of that atone- ment is dependent upon the dignity and nature of the Atoner. Therefore what Christ is determines what Christianity is. Herein Christianity is unlike all the great ethnic religions. The charac- ter of Mohammedanism or Buddhism is determined wholly by the teachings of their founders regardless of the elements con- stituting their persons. But Christianity is not so. In both the past and present the religious experience of professed Christians has been generally in harmony with their views relative to the divine-human nature of Christ. In the same measure that Uni- tarians and modern religious liberalists have denied the deity of Christ, they have denied an objective aspect to the atonement and supernatural conversion. The great Christological contro- 355 356 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY versies of past centuries were a result of men’s recognition of the importance of the issues involved. 2. Elements of the Doctrine.—The doctrine of the person of Christ, like most other essential truths of Christianity, is not set forth in the Scriptures in scientific and exact form. Such a formulation of the doctrine so far as we have any record did not take place until centuries after the New Testament was written, when the heretical teachings made a definite statement of it necessary. Yet the Christians of the early centuries most surely held the true doctrine of the person of Christ. They held it as they found its various factors in the Scriptures. The constituent elements in the person of Christ as he is described in the Scriptures are three. (1) He was truly human. So he was known to his apostles and disciples prior to his cruci- fixion. He had a physical human body, essentially the same as have other men. He was born into the world as a human being, his body grew to maturity, suffered pain and weariness, and later died as other bodies die. He possessed not only a human body, but also a human spirit—a complete human nature. He is said to have ‘‘increased in wisdom,’’ which can properly be affirmed only on the ground that he possessed a finite human spirit. (2) Also in addition to a complete human nature, he pos- sessed a complete divine nature. He was truly God. The divine nature in its preexistent form before the incarnation was a person. (3) Yet Christ was one person, not two, though he possessed a complete human and a complete divine nature. This is the doctrine of the person of Christ as revealed in the Scerip- tures, and as has been commonly held by Christians. Like the doctrine of the Trinity, it is profound, it may not be fully com- prehensible, and may contain much of mystery, but it does not therefore follow that it is not true. Christians believe this doctrine because its various elements are clearly taught in the Bible. Belief of the doctrine is the unavoidable consequence of believing the Scriptures. The Bible proofs of it are yet to be shown. 3. Creedal Statements.—The truths relative to Christ’s per- son were at first held in a very practical manner with no attempt at a harmony of the various elements by a formulation of the doctrine. But thoughtful minds could not long be satisfied with- out reconciling the separate facts they held concerning Christ. THE PERSON OF CHRIST 307 The questions must inevitably arise, ‘‘Is Christ God or man? If both God and man is he two persons or one? If he has two natures in one person how are they related to each other?’’ Attempts to answer these questions resulted in various theories, some of which were very objectionable because of giving place to either the human or divine element at the expense of the other. At least six heretical theories of the person of Christ gained prominence before the church came to general agree- ment on the statement of the doctrine. For a century and a half, or beginning prior to the Council of Nicea and continuing until the Council of Chalcedon, 451 A. D., the church was torn by controversies concerning the person of Christ. The Nicene statement of faith was concerned principally with the defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. The symbol formu- lated by the Council of Chalcedon has to do directly with the Christological doctrine. It is the result of the best thought of many good and wise men who in defense of the faith had thought profoundly, and honestly endeavored to represent all the rele- vant facts of Scripture in proper relation. Even though hu- manly formulated creeds do not necessarily have divine sanction, yet probably no clearer statement of the doctrine of the person of Christ has been constructed. It is given in Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom as follows: “We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in man- hood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable (rational) soul and body; consubstantial (coessential) with the Father accord- ing to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us aceording to manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten be- fore all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeable, indivisibly, msepar- ably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being pre- served, and concurring in one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as 358 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY the prophets from the beginning (have declared) concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.’’ This statement clearly sets forth the different elements of the doc- trine and shows their harmony, but no attempt is made to elim- inate all mystery from the doctrine. Il. Two Natures in Christ 1. Complete Human Nature in Christ—That Jesus is truly man is shown by his calling himself man and being called man. He is the ‘‘man of sorrows.’’ He is ‘‘the man Christ Jesus.’’ He most frequently designated himself the ‘‘Son of man.’’ This title is given him eighty times in the New Testament. He had a material body of flesh and blood. ‘‘Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same’’ (Heb. 2:14). Jesus himself said, ‘‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have’’ (Luke 24:39). He was born of the Virgin Mary, and his body grew to maturity as do other human bodies. He was the descendant of Eve, of the seed of Abraham, and the Son of David. He was subject to hunger, thirst, weariness, pleasure, pain, and death. He noi only merely ‘‘appeared’’ or ‘‘seemed”’ to have a physical body, as was held by the Docete, certain of the ancient Gnostics who denied the reality of his human body, but he actually had a body. But Jesus was not human merely in the sense that he had a human body. He also possessed a rational human soul. This is not expressly stated in the Scriptures, but it is often clearly im- plied and therefore is no less certain. He is said to have ‘‘in- creased in wisdom,’’ which is possible only on the ground that he had a human spirit, for the divine spirit is omniscient. He was also tempted by Satan to ambition and otherwise. God could not be thus tempted, and such temptation had nothing to do with physical desires. He declared himself ignorant of the time of the jJudgment-day, which can be satisfactorily inter- preted only on the ground of his possessing a finite mind. His soul was ‘‘exceeding sorrowful’’ (Matt. 26:38), he ‘‘rejoiced in spirit’? (Luke 10:21), ‘‘feared,’’ ‘‘groaned,’’ and ‘‘wept,’’ all of which activities pertain to the human soul rather than to THE PERSON OF CHRIST ‘359 God. Possessing both a human body and soul, Jesus was truly man complete, yet without sin. 2. Complete Divine Nature in Christ—Jesus is also truly God. This point was proved at length in support of the Trinity. He is called God. Various divine titles are given him. Divine at- tributes are ascribed to him. Divine works are attributed to him. All things are said to have been created by him. He claimed authority to forgive sins. He was accorded worship, which he accepted. He has ever been God supreme to Christians. He claimed to be one with the Father and equally worthy of honor. Therefore he is deity in the highest and truest sense. He was truly God as well as truly man. 3. Incarnation of God in Christ.—The truth of the divine in- earnation is further proof of a divine and human nature in Christ. The very idea of divine incarnation is that God has come into the flesh. But flesh in this connection is not to be limited to the material body merely, but includes human nature in its entirety. Such a sense of the term is not uncommon in the Seriptures. In addition to the many proofs of two natures already cited, a number of texts very definitely set forth the truth of the incarnation. No text is more worthy of citation in proof of the incarna- tion than is John 1:1-3, 14. ‘“‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made... . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, ) full of grace and truth.’’ That the Word is a person is clear from his being God, Creator, and from the use of the personal pronoun of him. That he is truly God in the highest sense is evident from the ascription to him of the attribute of eternity, and all the work of creation. It is said of this divine being that he became flesh, incarnate, by the assumption of human nature; not by the changing of his divine nature into human nature, but by the addition of the one to the other. Also John opens his first epistle with a statement of the great truth of the divine incarnation. ‘‘That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, 360 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY of the Word of Life; (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)’’ (1 John 1:1, 2). This text is almost equal as proof of the incar- nation to that quoted from the fourth Gospel. The Word is deseribed as eternal, therefore as being God, and yet as being with the Father, and as being life in his essential nature. He is said to have been manifest in such a sense that he could be known to men by their senses; therefore he was manifested in a material body, yet retaining his divinity so those to whom he was manifested recognized him as that ‘‘eternal life.’’ A fuller statement on the subject is Phil. 2: 6-9, where of Jesus it is said, ‘‘ Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputa- tion, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.’’ Before Jesus was made in the “‘likeness’’ of men he was in the form of God. The form of a thing is determined by its nature. He was in the form of God because he was God. Also he was equal with God, implying that in some sense he was related to God. Here Paul sets forth the same truth as does John, that Jesus was God and yet with God, which implies that there are two who are God. Further it is said this Divine Being was made in the ‘‘likeness’’ of men, and had the ‘‘fashion’’ of a man. As was said of ‘‘form’’ in verse 6, so ‘“‘likeness’’ and ‘‘fashion’’ imply that he was man. They are determined by the nature. Then this text teaches that the Divine Being took upon him human nature. ‘‘God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory’’ (1 Tim. 3:16). Regardless of any question as to the correct reading of the first word in the text, whether it be ‘‘God”’ or ‘‘he,’’ it is certain from the following words that Christ is the one meant. That he was the divine Son of God is clear from many other texts. This text then is a clear declaration that God ‘‘was manifest in the flesh,’’ or became incarnate. Other texts in support of divine incarnation are THE PERSON OF CHRIST 361 Rom. 1:2-5; 9:5 and Heb. 2:14. ‘‘Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself like- wise took part of the same.”’ The foregoing texts teach a divine incarnation; not merely an incarnation of the divine nature, divine attributes, or divine principle, but an incarnation of the personal Son. Not only the Son, but the Father and the Holy Spirit possess the divine na- ture; yet only the Son is said to have come in the flesh. Only a person could create all things and do and be all that is affirmed of him who is said to have taken human nature. Therefore the personality of Christ, though unique, was not an entirely new one, but that which had ever existed modified by the assumption of human nature. 4. Mode of the Incarnation.—According to clear statements of the Scriptures and the common faith of the church the inecarna- tion was effected through conception by the Holy Spirit and the virgin birth. The reality of the virgin birth has been questioned by not a few in recent years. Such questions are raised, not only by avowed infidels, but also by professed Christians who are committed to the modern higher criticism. The objection to the virgin birth seldom stands alone. In almost every in- stance those who reject it are also unsound concerning the deity of Christ, often denying the divinity of Christ altogether. The attack is usually made at the point of the virgin birth because it is supposed the evidence for this miracle is more easily disposed of than that for more public miracles such as Jesus’ healings or the resurrection. The virgin birth is repre- sented as a legend belonging to an ignorant, uncritical people and as being unworthy of belief in this enlightened age. It is attacked by the same methods the older foes of Christianity have employed against it—insinuation, and by likening it to the coarse Greek and Roman myths of heroes who, it is claimed, were descended from the Gods. The objection is sometimes made that the virgin birth was not necessary to the incarnation of God. In reply we answer that it can not be shown that it was not necessary. Possibly divine omniscience knew of another method whereby the incar- nation could have been effected. But the objection is irrelevant. Even if the virgin birth was not necessary to the divine incar- nation, what method of the entrance of the Divine into the flesh 362 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY could be more conducive to men’s comprehension and belief of it? From this viewpoint the virgin birth is a reasonable method. But the ground for belief in it is the statements of the Scriptures. The leading statements concerning the virgin birth are found in Matt. 1: 18-25 and in Luke 1, 2. Here it is represented, not hy brief and obscure allusions, but by detailed descriptions of it, so no question remains as to the sense of the statements of the writers. Matthew affirms of Mary, who was espoused to Joseph, that ‘‘before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost’’ (v. 18). He quotes the angel as say- ing, ‘‘That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost’’ (v. 20). Then he gives a quotation from Isa. 7:14, ‘‘A virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall eall his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us’’ (v. 23). ‘‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God’’ (Luke 1: 35). Here the doctrine under consideration has sure ground. Those who accept the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God need no more certain evidence. Only persons who question the eredibility of the Biblical narrative disbelieve these statements. This is not the proper place to discuss the divine authority and inspiration of the Scriptures. The biological argument is with- out force to all except those who deny all miracles. III. Union of Two Natures in One Person 1. Personal Oneness of Christ—By citation of several plain texts of Scripture it has been already shown that both divine and human attributes belong to Christ. But attributes must in- here in a substance or a nature. There can be no extension apart from material substance, nor thought apart from an im- material being which thinks. The attributes of matter are al- ways connected with material substance, and those of mind with a spiritual nature. Therefore divine and human attributes in Christ must have their basis in a real existence of both a divine and a human nature in Christ. And by these two natures is meant divine and human substances, not mere manifestations of divine and human operations. Christ had two natures in the THE PERSON OF CHRIST 363 sense that he possessed two sets of attributes or qualities—the human and the divine. But two natures do not necessarily require two persons. Christ was one person combining two distinct natures in per- sonal oneness by a unique and mysterious bond. Such is clearly stated in the ancient church symbols and has ever been the com- mon belief of Christians. Oneness of personality of Christ is implied in the Scriptures. In all his sayings there is not a single hint that he was two persons, but he ever spoke of himself as a single person. Between persons of the Trinity the different divine personalities are indicated by the use of such pronouns as I, thou, and he, but between the divine and human natures of Christ no such thing is recorded. In all his conduct and as he was known to those most intimately associated with him he appears as one person. Further Scriptural evidence of personal oneness will appear later in showing that the powers and attri- butes belonging to both natures are ascribed to the one Christ. Like the doctrine of the Trinity, the idea of personal one- ness of the two natures is a great mystery. It is probably even more difficult for thought than is the idea of three persons in one substance. But as that profound truth is believed because of a sure ground in divine revelation, so it is reasonable to be- lieve the truth of Christ’s personal oneness. It is natural and not improper to seek an explanation of the problem of Christ- ology—to show how he ean be truly God and truly man and yet but one person. It may be a question to what extent such an ex- planation is possible to theological science because of the limita- tions of human knowledge. But it is comforting to know full comprehension of the subject is not essential to one’s enjoying the benefits of Christ’s atoning work. Devout contemplation need not wait to appreciate the fact of the divine incarnation until speculative thought has solved all mystery in relation to the subject. To do so would be as unreasonable as to refuse to eat food until full understanding is attained of the mode by which the body assimilates its food. Even if the mystery of Christ’s nature is inscrutable, it is at least important to show that it involves no impossibility or self- contradiction. Because the person of Christ is unique, nothing in human experience is analogous to the union of the two na- tures in him. Dr. Charles Hodge has illustrated it by the union 364 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY of the physical and spiritual natures of man in a single person- ality. But the illustration is not parallel in that the physical nature alone possesses no personality as does both the human and divine natures which became one person in Christ. Yet the illustration has much value in showing that the union of man’s soul and body in one person, which is a certain fact of consciousness, is also an insoluble mystery. We are conscious of possessing a material body having the various common proper- ties of matter, and also a spirit which is entirely different in substance from matter, with none of its properties, but with qualities of an entirely different kind. We are aware through consciousness that we are one person—that the body and spirit are united, but the nature of that union is incomprehensible to us. In view of a fact of consciousness so familiar yet so myster- ious, it is not unreasonable to believe on the authority of divine revelation that very God and very man might be constituted one person in Christ. 2. Christ Is God-Man.—In some sense according to the Scrip- tures Christ is two, in another sense he is one. As to nature he is two, as to personality one. He possesses a complete divine nature and a complete human nature; as to nature he is God and man, but as to person he is but one—God-man. He is theanthropic in personality, but not in nature. This is clearly set forth in the Scriptures and is so held by Christians in gen- eral. Both divine and human attributes appear in the life of Christ, and as already stated these two sets of attributes have their basis in two distinct natures. The personal oneness of Christ involves no mingling of these two natures. They ever remain distinct. Copper and zine combined constitute a third metal, brass. But the divine and human natures in Christ do not constitute a divine-human, or theanthropie nature. Neither is there a transference of divine attributes to the human, nor of human attributes to the divine. Attributes are characteristics of the nature, and to transfer divine attributes to human nature would be to make it divine. Attributes are not transferable. The characteristics of body and spirit are not transferable. Spiritual matter would be self-contradictory. There is a com- munion of divine and human attributes in the person of Christ, but no communication of attributes of one nature to the other. Christ is one, or theanthropic, only in personality, but in THE PERSON OF CHRIST 365 this sense he is really one. The divine nature does not dwell in Christ as the Spirit of God dwells in his people. Such a union would constitute no personal oneness. The personal oneness of the divine and human natures is ag real as that of the physical and spiritual natures in men. Personality belonged to the di- vine nature of Christ prior to the inearnation, but his human nature had no existence and certainly no distinct personality of its own at any time. Yet when the logos became incarnate the personality of the second person of the Trinity must have been modified by its union with human nature. Christ possessed both divine and human facts of consciousness, yet he was one person. This union of the divine and human natures in one person in Christ was necessary to the atonement. Without it his suffering and death must have been that of a mere man. But with a theanthropic personality suffering for man’s sin, a dignity is given to the offering for sin that is equal to every demand. 3. Effect of Personal Union of Two Natures.—As a consequence of a human and a divine nature united in one person the Scrip- tures affirm attributes and refer acts of the divine nature to Christ as human, of the human nature to Christ as divine, and of either the divine or human natures to the theanthropic per- son of Christ. So of man it may be truly said that he is both mortal and immortal, material and spiritual, of the dust of the earth and a child of God. When Jesus said, ‘‘Before Abraham was I am,’’ he affirmed of his person, including human nature, what was true only of his divine nature. A similar declaration is, ‘‘No man hath as- cended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.’’ His coming down from heaven is true only of his divinity, yet it is affirmed of him as ‘‘man.’’ On the other hand, many facts are predicated of his person as divine which are true only of his human nature. ‘‘The Church of God which he purchased with his own blood.’’ Here the blood by which the church is purchased is designated the blood of God. Yet Jesus’ body belonged to his human nature. They ‘‘erucified the Lord of glory.’’ It was the body of Jesus that was nailed to the cross, yet it is here affirmed the Lord of slory, the divine being, was crucified. Likewise because the person born of Mary was the ‘‘Son of God,’’ therefore she may 366 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY properly be called the ‘‘mother of God,’’ as Jesus’ blood is ealled the blood of God. And as God is said to have been born, so it is true that ‘‘God died.’’ Such facts are possible only on the ground of Christ’s theanthropic personality. A failure to recognize in him a single theanthropic personality results in the Bible appearing to be filled with inexplainable paradoxes. IV. Criticism of Christological Errors A review and eriticism of the different ancient and modern heretical doctrines concerning the person of Christ is helpful to a clear understanding of the true doctrine. The true doctrine has been stated. What is now to be said will show in a measure what is not the true doctrine. Only the outstanding ancient errors are described together with what are considered the most important modern errors. 1. The Ebionites.—Ebionism has been described as ‘‘ Judaism within the pale of the Christian church.’’ The Ebionites re- garded Christ as the promised Messiah, but because the idea of Christ’s divinity appeared to them incompatible with the truth of the oneness of God so strongly affirmed in the Old Testament, they denied his divinity and held that he was a mere man. Some of them allowed his virgin birth, while others denied it. They held plain humanitarianism of Christ. Because it denied that Christ was truly God incarnate it was wrong. 2. The Gnostics.—Gnosticism was pagan philosophy intro- duced into the church. Its error was the opposite of Ebionism in that it denied that Christ had a physical body. It held that matter was not created by God, but had another origin and is essentially evil. Therefore, Gnostics reasoned, the holy Christ could not possess a body of this intrinsically evil matter. Many of them regarded his appearing to have a body as an illusion, and were consequently called Docetze, which means to appear, to seem to be. Others explained away his. humanity in other ways. The apostle John in both his Gospel and first epistle opposes this heresy, which was already finding a place among Christians, by his many declarations of Christ’s incarnation. ‘“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist’’ (1 John 4:38). Gnosticism was also objectionable in its denial to Christ of real divinity. He was regarded as an emanation from God and therefore inferior to God. THE PERSON OF CHRIST . 367 3. The Arians.—The doctrinal error of Arius was especially in respect to the person of Christ. By mistaking the temporary subordination of the Son to the Father for a permanent in- equality he took the unscriptural position that Christ is not very God consubstantial with the Father, but that there was a time when he did not exist and therefore lacked the divine attribute of eternity. He was regarded as having been created, yet the highest and first of all created beings. Arianism held that he was like God, as opposed to the Biblical teaching that he is God. Because of this it was rejected by the church. 4, The Apollinarians—As Arianism denied the integrity of the divine nature in Christ, and as Gnosticism rejected the real- ity of his human nature, Apollinarianism denied the integrity of his human nature by declaring he had no rational human mind, but only the divine spirit. It was an attempt to avoid the difficulties of two complete natures being united in one per- son. It was based on the trichotomic theory that man’s consti- tution has three elements—the physical body, the rational mind or spirit, and an intermediate element, the animal soul, which was supposed to be the seat of the sensuous nature. Apollina- rianism held that Christ had a human body and animal soul, but no human spirit, and that the divine logos supplied the place of the human mind. It allowed to Christ only the lower part of human nature, so he was not truly man. We object to Apol- linarianism, first because trichotomy, its necessary basis, is an unprovable theory, as was shown in preceding pages. But the disproof of Apollinarianism is in its failure to account for the many facts in Jesus’ life that are explainable only on the ground that he had a human spirit; for example, he was tempted in all points like as we are. 5. The Nestorians.—While Apollinarianism sacrificed the in- tegrity of the human nature of Christ to make sure of his one- ness, Nestorianism on the other hand sacrificed his oneness in the interests of the integrity of the two natures. It held that the logos inhabited or dwelt in the human nature somewhat as is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It claimed to hold per- sonal oneness of Christ, but its various explanations of the rela- tionship of the divine and human amounted to a rejection of that oneness. Nestorians would not attribute to the one person of Christ, which they professed to allow, the attributes of each 368 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY nature. They rejected the Scripture statement concerning the blood of God (Acts 20:28). Such a position really amounted to a denial of one person in Christ. 6. The Eutychians.—This error is the opposite of the Nestor- ian, and was supported by the opposers of the latter. The Hu- tychians virtually denied that Christ possessed two natures. They admitted that before the incarnation there were two natures, but held that these two natures were mingled so a third nature was formed, whether the divine became humanized or the human dei- fied. But they commonly illustrated the method of unification as the human nature being like a drop-of vinegar cast into the ocean ; as it is lost in the ocean, so was the human nature of Christ lost in his divine nature. Therefore the theory admitted but one nature in Christ, or was monophysitic. It was in this respect practically identical with Docetism, and as surely fails to ac- count for the many human facts in the person and life of Christ as described in the Bible. 7. The Lutheran Theory—The Lutheran Christology holds all that is set forth on the subject in the ancient church symbols, but in addition it holds that the human nature of Christ became possessed of divine attributes as a result of its being united with the divine nature in one person. Certainly the Bible teaches that whatever may be affirmed of either nature may be affirmed of the person of Christ, but the Lutheran theory claims that whatever attributes may be affirmed of one nature may also be affirmed of the other nature. It especially holds that the human nature has the divine attributes, particularly omnipresence. Though this theory has been held in a variety of forms among them, and as to its exact statement has been a matter of great internal controversy, yet it hag been tenaciously held from the time of Luther to the present. This theory of the omnipresence of the body of Christ is im- portant to the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation—the doc- trine that the real body and blood of Christ are present in the elements of the Lord’s Supper. The ascription of omnipresence to the body of Christ was demanded for consistency by their strong emphasis of the consubstantiation theory. In spite of the fact that Lutherans deny that their Christology was deter- mined by their theory of the eucharist, others have generally believed it was so determined. THE PERSON OF CHRIST 369 In objection to the Lutheran theory of the person of Christ it may be said, first, that the fact that Lutheranism was from its beginning committed to consubstantiation is reason for doubt that its Christology was not made to conform to that theory of the eucharist. A second objection is that it is inconsistent. Though it affirms a communication of attributes between the di- vine and human natures and holds that the human received the divine attribute of omnipresence, yet it denies that the divine nature was affected by or received anything from the human nature. In this it is one-sided. A third objection is the absence of any Scriptural support for the theory. What is true of either nature is regarded by the Scriptures as true of his person, but no text can fairly be interpreted to teach that what is true of one nature is true of the other nature. A fourth objection is that the Bible teaches that Christ was truly human, and the Lutheran idea that the divine attributes in Christ’s nature were hidden is a mere assumption in favor of the theory. A last objection to the Lutheran Christology is that it is impossible to separate attributes from the substance in which they inhere. Attributes are not transferable. Besides if the human becomes omnipresent, then the finite becomes infinite, which is a contra- diction in terms. 8. The Socinian Theory.—The Socinian Christology as at first heid was purely humanitarian and therefore practically iden- tical with the ancient Ebionism. It held Christ was a mere man as to his essential nature. Yet he was regarded as having a miraculous conception, as being sinless, as having been espe- cially endowed by the Holy Spirit, and as having been tempor- arily taken up to heaven prior to the beginning of his ministry. Much, if not all, of the supernatural originally affirmed of Christ by Socinians is denied by those who are at present known as Socinians. A mere statement of this theory is sufficient disproof of it in view of what has been said in previous pages, and even for the casual reader of the Scriptures. 9. The Kenotic Theory.—In its general aspects this theory is the opposite of the Lutheran. It is so called from the Greek kenosis, a form of which is found in Phil. 2:7. There Christ is said to have emptied himself (see A. S. V.) in becoming incarnate. This Christology assumes the Logos emptied himself of his divine attributes or limited them to the measure of the 370 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY human. In doing so he ceased to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. The theory has been held in varying forms by leading advocates. It endangers the doctrine of a human and divine nature united in one person. Further objections are that though it professes to have its basis in Seripture, it fails to substantiate that claim by any proper interpretations. The text most relied upon, Phil. 2:7, does not state that Christ emptied himself of divine attributes. The context implies that he emp- tied himself of the divine glory and exalted station he held before the inearnation. But another difficulty for the theory is to show how he could empty himself of divine attributes without ceasing to be divine. It has been previously shown that attributes al- ways inhere in a substance or a nature and can not exist apart from it. Therefore to give up divine attributes in favor of human characteristics is impossible without a transmutation of the divine Logos into humanity. But this leads to another dif- ficulty, for God is immutable. Also if Christ ceased to be di- vine the divine Trinity ceased to exist. Again if Christ pos- sessed no truly divine nature his atonement could not be regarded as of infinite efficacy. For these and other reasons the kenotie theory is unworthy of acceptance. CHAPTER II RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST J. Preliminary Questions 1. Offices of Christ—As the Savior of men, Christ is described in the Scriptures as king, prophet, and priest. So he is represented in Old Testament predictions of his Messianic character and work. Among the people of Israel the kingly, prophetical, and priestly were distinct offices usually held by different individuals. In Christ they are all three combined. Yet they represent distinct aspects of his redemptive work and are real offices. Our Lord was truly king even during his earthly life, but especially is he now king. He sits on David’s throne in the sense that he rules over God’s people. In this aspect he saves men by his beneficent rule, by his greatness, power, majesty, and supremeness. He is the deliverer and protector of his people. He is prophet, not in the sense of predictor of future events merely, but in the broader sense of the term as revealer of the will of God to man. He is prophet in the same sense that he is the divine Logos. He spoke as one having authority. The word of the Lord came to the Old Testament prophets, but Jesus was himself the ‘‘Word.’’ He performs the important function of revealing to men the character of God and the way of salvation. But this aspect of Christ’s redemptive work must not be em- phasized to the exclusion of the priestly, as has been done by Socinians. Whatever may be our need of instruction, we need more than instruction. In his priestly office Christ appears ag atoner. In this char- acter he makes satisfaction for sin by propitiating God through sacrificial suffering. He becomes a mediator between God and man, an intercessor or an advocate. Christ is the true priest. Melchisedek and Aaron were but types of him. He alone has provided an effectual covering for sin. 2. Sense of Reconciliation.—IJn theological usage reconciliation may be defined as a bringing of God and man into union, and is synonymous with atonement. The word rendered ‘‘atonement”’ in Rom. 5:11 by the common version is in the American Re- vised Version rendered ‘‘reconciliation.’’ Of the two words, ‘‘atonement’’ is the more commonly used in theology. The 371 372 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY English word ‘‘atonement’’ is derived from the phrase “‘at one’’ and therefore signifies harmony of relationship. But while its etymological sense is not out of harmony with its theological meaning, yet we must look elsewhere for an adequate definition of it. Broadly, atonement means ‘‘any satisfaction, amends, reparation, or expiation made for wrong or injury; something suffered, done, or given by way of propitiation or equivalent.’’ Definitions of the atonement of Christ vary according to the particular ‘‘theory’’ of the atonement that is held. A complete definition of the atonement would amount to a full statement of the doctrine. But for our present purpose it may be defined as the expiation of sin and the propitiation of God by the vicar- ious sufferings of Christ, on the ground of which God can pardon sin in full consistency with his personal holiness and the dignity of his just law. 3. The Fact of Atonement and the Doctrine.—It is not the doc- trine of the death of Christ that saves men, but the death itself. The atonement was made long before men attempted to formulate the doctrines concerning it. Very many devout Christians who have never attempted a formulation of the doctrine have trusted in the great truth of Christ’s atonement to the saving of their souls. Therefore a clear distinction exists between the fact of atonement and all theories of its nature. Christians gener- ally believe Christ made reconciliation for sin, because the Bible definitely affirms it. The Bible also provides the elements from which a construction of the doctrine has been attempted. But no theory thus constructed has ever gained general acceptance. The important thing then is the fact that reconciliation has been made, and the thing of next importance is that men exercise a saving faith in that fact. So far there is no cause for any doubt or difference of views. But as to why atonement is necessary to salvation and how the death of Christ saves, many theories have been set forth. One author enumerates fifteen theories that have come into more or less prominence. The much controversy of the past has tended to repel some at the present time from the study of the subject. In recent years there has come a disposition with some to despair of the possibility of arriving at a certain knowl- edge of the doctrine of the atonement of Christ. ‘‘The excuse for such despair hes in the bewildering variety of explanations RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 373 that have been given, and the apparently successful criticism of most of them by the advocates of the rest. That appearance is partially deceptive. Those who look carefully into the leading accounts will find that they are complementary one to another, that each represents a real aspect of the whole, and that they are mutually exclusive chiefly because of their exaggeration of the aspects which they represent’’ (J. S. Lidgett, The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, P. 5). Probably a truth so profound as that of the atonement may not be perfectly understood by finite minds, yet in view of all the Scriptures state on the subject it is reasonable to believe a doctrine of the atonement is possible. Evidently a rationale of the atonement is not possible by mere speculation apart from the revelation of the truth concerning it in the Bible. We are dependent upon the Scriptures for the elements from which the true doctrine must be constructed. These elements include, not only the direct statements of inspiration, but also all truths learned by sound reasoning from those truths and by sound reasoning from other doctrines which have their basis in the statements of the Scriptures. Man’s mind is so constituted that it has an inevitable tendency to seek for the philosophy of things. There is no legitimate objection to attempting to show how the cross saves. It is unreasonable to assume that because full knowledge of the subject is impossible we must therefore be content with no understanding of it. The doctrine of the atonement is important. Like other fundamental doctrines of Christianity, it is important for the determining of other doctrines as they also are determinative of it. The constitution of the mind is such that it requires con- sistency and can not rest in holding as truth ideas that are contradictory or mutually exclusive. However incomplete may be one’s theory of the atonement, it is important that one do not hold a theory that is fundamentally wrong. To do so will usually lead to unsoundness in one’s doctrine of salvation, as is shown by history. The Socinian theory of the atonement is determined by its theory of sin and of the person of Christ. Likewise its theory of salvation is such as is required by its doctrine of atonement. No other theory of salvation is logically permissible to the other doctrines of the system. Also the Cal- vinistic system with its particular theory of sin and depravity 374 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY holds a limited atonement and affirms that Christ suffered the exact amount that all the elect should suffer for their sins, which insures their salvation. Consequently their theory of salvation by election must logically follow. As one doctrine logically determines another in any system, so in the true system each doctrine must be interpreted or constructed in harmony with all of the others, and all must be in harmony with the Scriptures. Il. Theories of Salvation Without a Reconciliation Before setting forth the Christian doctrine of reconciliation it is well that we first take some notice of those theories which either deny the necessity of atonement for effecting salvation or deny the possibility of pardon on any ground. To show the falsity of these theories is to show that atonement is necessary to salvation. 1. Impossibility of Pardon.—This theory denies salvation in any real sense. It affirms that forgiveness of sin is impossible in a perfect government. The executive of a human govern- ment may properly remit the penalty because of the fact that human legislators may make unjust laws, judges may misapply the laws, Juries may misunderstand the evidence, witnesses may intentionally or ignorantly misrepresent the facts, or the viola- tion of the law may have been due to excusable ignorance. But it is reasoned that in the divine government the laws are abso- lutely just, rightly applied, and penalty is according to absolute justice; therefore it can not under any circumstances be re- mitted. The theory further declares that when penalty has been suffered, then will follow endless blessedness. It is the theory of universalism. But the Bible teaches that God will pardon the sinner and save him from penalty. The future blessedness it offers is through salvation from penalty by the atonement. Those who teach blessedness after penalty regard sin lightly and its penalty as trifling. They assume that much of the suffering for sin is in this life and that even for greater sins it continues but for a comparatively short time in the next life. Such a view is opposed to the convictions of those whose moral judgments are most worthy of consideration, and also to the plain teachings of Seripture that the penalty for sin is everlasting. In Matt. 25: 46 it is said, ‘‘ And these shall go away into everlasting punish- ment: but the righteous into life eternal.’’ In the original of RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 375 this text the same word that measures the duration of the pun- ishment of the wicked describes also the duration of the happi- ness of the righteous. With this view blessedness after penalty is excluded. But the Scriptures teach and men intuitively feel that there is mercy and pardon in God. 2. Forgiveness by Divine Prerogative—This theory reasons that God is an absolute sovereign, therefore can pardon sin if he wills, and that because he is kindly disposed he will if he can. Therefore it is assumed that there is no bar to pardon and con- sequently that God freely pardons all sin on these grounds. This theory is the opposite of the one previously reviewed. But the assumption of such universal pardon is opposed to the facts of history, to experience, and to the plain statements of the Bible. The casual observer knows that sin is punished now in this life in his own experience and in that of others. The history of mankind is replete with examples of penalty inflicted, which is sure evidence that sin is not pardoned freely. If God could pardon by prerogative and were disposed to do so, as is affirmed, then why these innumerable examples of infliction of penalty? The Bible record abounds with examples of punishment for sin and warnings against it. The theory under review makes these meaningless. The ability to pardon sin is not a question of sovereignty. It is not irreverent to say God can not do some things. God can not lie. He is limited by his perfections. He can not change his essential nature. He can not do evil, because he is perfectly good. He can not pardon the impenitent sinner except by atone- ment without gross violation of his holiness. That attribute of holiness in him which excludes all evil from him can no more approve evil in other moral creatures. Likewise such sovereign forgiveness without atonement would be subversive of the divine government. God has given just laws and has threatened pen- alty for their violation. A law without a penalty for its viola- tion is useless. But if a penalty be not inflicted on the offender or if other measures be not taken to preserve the dig- nity of the law the government ceases to exist and the ruler is despised by his subjects. If it be said that some offenders might be thus pardoned while others are punished to preserve respect for government, we object that no such practise is possible in the impartial government of a good God. If pardon is so 376 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY granted it must be universal. But such a course would mean that government would virtually cease to exist, and that for all practical ends obedience and sin would have no distinction. 3. Pardon or Repentance.—Repentance is especially urged as a sufficient ground for pardon; therefore atonement is not needed. It is reasoned that when one commits an offense against his fellow men and then comes to the offended in repentance, confessing his sin and humbly asking pardon, they forgive him because of the evidence of sincere repentance. Surely, it is said, God, whose love is much greater, will forgive those who sincerely repent of their sins against him. Doubtless repentance is an im- portant ground for forgiveness, and is clearly taught as such in the Seriptures. But the question is, is it the only necessary condition for pardon? Between man and man it, with proper adjustments as to injury done, is ordinarily the only condition necessary. But the relation between the sinner and God is not parallel to that between man and man. God is moral ruler. It is not merely an adjustment of personal feelings with God in relation to the sinner, but his personal holiness and good law must be vindicated. The purpose of the infliction of penalty is to accomplish this. In addition to repentance, the ends of pen- alty must be achieved. Also divine pardon of sin is not possible on the ground of repentance alone, because naturally man can not truly repent of sin. This is due to the depravity of his nature which con- stitutes him naturally selfish and rebellious toward God. Only as godly sorrow is wrought in the heart of the sinner by the gracious working of the Spirit, which working is itself granted only through the atonement, can he truly repent. This gracious operation in effecting godly sorrow is not independent of the will of the sinner, but is by God’s merey through Christ.. Any repentance that involves no sincere sorrow because a good and kind Creator has been unjustly treated and grieved, but has its basis only in selfish advantage and fear of punishment, is itself sinful and no proper ground for pardon. Every sinner will sooner or later repent of his sinning in this sense when he comes to suffer penalty. If pardon were proper on such grounds, then all would repent, all penalty would be remitted, and the holiness of God and of his good law would be despised. i RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 377 Ill. Biblical Statements Concerning the Atonement In the formulation of any Christian doctrine exegesis should always precede doctrinal construction. For the devout believer in the Bible as divine revelation there is no appeal from its statements. Doctrine must accord with its statements; therefore they must first be known. It is especially important to examine the Biblical teaching concerning the atonement before attempt- ing a rationale of it, because of the many conflicting theories, all claiming the support of Scripture, and the disposition on the part of not a few persons to doubt the possibility of our under- standing its nature. But in the Bible we can be assured of cer- tain knowledge on the subject. If all points of inquiry are not made clear there, we are sure that what is stated is true. Here our task consists in careful exegesis. It is important, however, that we do not single out particular texts, but exhibit the teachings of the Bible as a whole, that no important texts be left out of view which would modify or invalidate a conclu- sion drawn from other texts. For brevity we choose to classify the texts cited according to subject rather than to examine them in their order in the canon or as they appear in the differ- ent authors or books of the Bible. 1. Christ Died for the Salvation of Men.—That the sufferings, humiliation, and death of Christ are vitally connected with the pardon of men’s sins is a truth so frequently stated in the Serip- tures that its mention seems almost superfluous. This was the burden of the message of Jesus and the apostolic ministry. It is the central thought of the sacred writings. This must be evident even to the superficial reader. No exhaustive citation of texts on this subject is possible in the limits of this work, but a few will serve as examples for our purpose. ‘‘The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many’’ (Matt. 20:28). ‘‘And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life’’ (John 3:14,15). ‘‘But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us’’ (Rom. 5:8). ‘‘But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man’’ (Heb. 2:9). ‘‘For if 378 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your con- science from dead works to serve the living God?’’ (Heb. 9: 13, 14). ‘‘So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many”’ (v. 28). ‘‘Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood’’ (Rev. 1:5). In view of the vast multitude of clear declarations of the Seriptures such as the foregoing, all who pretend to believe them necessarily admit there is a connection between Christ’s death and our salvation. But some limit that connection to such a degree as to misrepresent the true teaching of divine Revelation. The Arians, the Socinians, and the modern religious liberals are among those who hold unsatisfactory theories of how the death of Christ saves. Socinianism gives much promi- nence to the point that Christ is a teacher, and that as such he saves his people by instructing them concerning the will of God so they may escape a life of sin and its consequence, and be caused to live a life of holiness. But it is affirmed that he must be divinely shown to be a teacher from God and that his resurrection from the dead was chosen as the means of authen- tication. Therefore, it is reasoned, his death was an indispens- able antecedent to his resurrection and in this sense he saves men through his death. Also it is said his death is a means of our salvation in that by dying as a martyr in defense of his teaching he gave the strongest testimony possible to the veracity and his belief of that teaching. Again, Socinians say Jesus by his death gave a wonderful example of loyalty to truth. But they affirm the principal value of Jesus’ death was in its manifestation of his love for men which constrains them to love God in return, to forsake sin, and to live righteously. Doubtless Christ is a divinely sent teacher of whom the voice of God from heaven said, ‘‘Hear ye him,’’ and his death and resurrection do prove him to be such. Moreover, all else that Socinians affirm as to the value of his death as a witness, as an example of loyalty, and as constraining men to love God is true and Scriptural; but this is not the whole truth, nor are any of these the chief sense in which the death of Christ saves RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 379 us. Some of the Scriptures cited state that we are saved by his blood. ‘‘He hath loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood.’’ These texts state that in some more special sense than those described we are saved by the blood of Christ. A criminal under sentence of death needs more than teaching as to what is required by the law. Such might have been sufficient before he became a criminal. He needs more than evidence that the instruction given him is credible. He needs more than an example of faithfulness or a manifestation of loving interest. He is guilty and needs pardon. His only salvation is a remission of his penalty, and that can properly be remitted only when the righteousness of the law can be otherwise supported. Unless he is first pardoned all instruction is useless. The death of Christ is that ground on which God may properly order non-execution of penalty on the sinner. 2. Christ Died in Our Stead.—The Scriptures represent Christ as having died as a substitute for us. His death was vicarious. Had he not died we must have died. ‘‘The Son of man came ... to give his life a ransom for many’’ (Matt. 20:28). ‘‘ While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us’’ (Rom. 5:8). ‘*Who gave himself a ransom for all’’ (1 Tim. 2:6). Jesus was made a little lower than the angels ‘‘that he... should taste death for every man’’ (Heb. 2:9). ‘‘For Christ also hath once suf- fered for sins, the just for the unjust’’ (1 Pet. 3:18). It is sometimes said that these texts do not necessarily teach that the death of Christ was vicarious, but may mean merely that he died in our behalf and not in our stead, much as a sol- dier dies for the benefit of his countrymen but not in the place of them. Such is the theory of Socinians, as has been already shown. They deny that Christ died as our substitute, as do also Arians. Arianism claims Christ’s death has value for our sal- vation principally in making him influential with God as inter- cessor for us. It holds that because of Christ’s sacrifice in be- coming incarnate, foregoing divine glory, and suffering and dying because of his love for men, God was well pleased with him and consequently grants his petitions for pardon of man’s sins as he would not otherwise do. Whatever element of truth this theory may contain, it evidently is defective in omitting a very important element. In opposition to the idea of Christ’s death being vicarious 380 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY it is said the word ‘‘for’’ in the texts before quoted, including the Greek prepositions from which it is translated, avtt (ant) in the first text and tméo (huper) in the others, mean only on behalf of, on account of, or for the benefit of us. That these terms are in some instances so used is readily admitted, as in the statement ‘‘ Christ died for our sins.’’ Evidently he did not die instead of our sins. But while this is true it is also true that ‘‘for’’ and the equivalent Greek terms mentioned may also mean instead of. And with proof that in some of the fore- going texts these terms must be so understood we have good eround for always so understanding them when used of the death of Christ in relation to us. For proof that the Greek preposi- tions Gvtt (anti) and taxéo (huper) sometimes express the idea of instead, the highest lexicographical authorities might be given, but more direct proof is possible. That the words ‘‘ Christ died for us’’ mean in our stead is evident from the context, which says, ‘‘For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.’’ But who could believe one would sacrifice his life for any mere benefit to a good man? Doubtless one would die for a good man only for the purpose of redeeming the good man’s life, which otherwise must be lost. When Caiaphas said, ‘‘It is expedient for us, that one man should die [tmée, huper] for the people, and that the whole nation perish not’’ (John 11:50), he certainly meant that either Christ or the nation must perish and that Christ should die in its stead. Inspiration tells us that this was a prophecy that Christ should die for, instead of, the Jewish people. The word avtt (antt) translated ‘‘for’’ in Matt. 20:28 is used in the sense of substitution. ‘‘If he ask a fish, will he [dvti, anti] for a fish,’’ instead of a fish, ‘‘give him a serpent?’’ (Luke 11:11). Christ died for our sins, ‘‘the just for the unjust,’’ in the sense that if he had not died for our sins we must have died. ‘‘The wages of sin is death.’’ Man had sinned and was under sentence of death. But Christ died in his place so that in some sense it may properly be said his death was a substitute for that of man. But it is objected by some that whether the death of Christ be regarded as a substituted penalty or a substitute for a penalty it is unjust and not admissible that the innocent should suffer vicariously for the guilty. Doubtless this is true if that suffer- RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 381 ing by the substitute were compulsory. Such would certainly be unjust. But if he voluntarily suffers for the guilty and the guilty is pardoned only on repentance and after giving evidence that the crime will not again be committed, then no valid evidence can be made against such vicarious suffering. If Christ be pleased to suffer for men as a means of supporting the divine holiness and law while God pardons the sinner after the interests of these have been properly protected, no reason is evident why he may not so suffer. 3. Christ Died to Propitiate God.—To propitiate is to appease, or to turn away the wrath of an offended person. It implies two parties at variance—one the offender and the other the offended. A propitiation is that which makes the aggrieved party favorable to the offender. It is a reconciliation, an atone- ment, or an expiation. These words are synonymous in mean- ing. In the present consideration man is the offender, God is the offended one, and the blood of Christ is the propitiation. All texts that teach the death of Christ is for expiation, atone- ment, or reconciliation, teach that it is propitiatory. This truth is declared by many texts. ‘‘Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood’’ (Rom. 3:25). “‘He is the propitiation for our sins’’ (1 John 2:2). ‘God ... sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins’’ (1 John 4:10). ‘‘We also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation’’ (Rom. 5:11, A. S. V.). ‘‘ All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ’’ (2 Cor. 5:18). The Greek words which are translated ‘‘propitiation’’ and synony- mous terms are used, not only by the Septuagint and the New Testament, but by classical Greek writers to express the action of a person who turns aside the wrath of a deity. God is the one propitiated, not men. But all those who deny an objective in the atonement, in- eluding all Socinians, make the reconciliation to refer wholly to man. They affirm that inasmuch as God is always in the right, it is not conceivable that anything that might be done can change him. Therefore, it is said, man must be the one who is reconciled to God by his being influenced to love and obey God. Such a view is assumed to have support in the words of Paul already quoted, ‘‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto 382 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY himself’’ (2 Cor. 5:19). It is held that Jesus’ only work in the world was that of persuading men to piety, and in no sense to propitiate God. But the context is a refutation of this Socin- ian theory, for there it is clearly implied that Christ’s work of reconciliation was accomplished, and so also is the committing of the word of reconciliation to the apostles accomplished. After all this the Apostle exhorts men to be reconciled to God. In other words, they are exhorted to avail themselves of that reconciliation that Christ has effected with God. According to the Bible, this they are to do by faith in Christ, whom God ‘hath made to be sin [a sin-offering] for us, who knew no sin; that we might be the righteousness of God in him’ (v. 21). Without such a sin-offering God must impute the sins of men unto them. By it he might properly forgive their sins, because by it the bar to pardon was removed. That the expression ‘‘be ye reconciled to God’’ implies in Bible usage the idea of making satisfaction to the offended party or accepting a satisfaction so made, is evident from other texts. Of David it is said, ‘‘Wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his master? should it not be with the heads of these men?’’ (1 Sam. 29:4). Here Saul was displeased with David and therefore was the one to be propitiated or reconciled to David. But David is said to reconcile himself to Saul. ‘‘If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift’? (Matt. 5:23, 24). Here the offerer is the offender and his brother is the offended one and needs to be propitiated or reconciled. But the offender is exhorted to be reconciled to the offended. In both of these texts and especially in the latter we have an exhortation exactly parallel with that in 2 Cor. 5:19. Therefore Paul’s statement must be under- stood as meaning what that of Jesus certainly means. It must mean that God is the one propitiated or reconciled and we are to avail ourselves of his favor. Another Socinian objection to the doctrine that the death of Christ is to propitiate God is that God is not an implacable and vengeful being who will be disposed to show mercy only when displeasure is satisfied by the death and sufferings of his own Son. The objector in describing the orthodox view as RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 383 representing God as passionately revengeful greatly misrepre- sents that view. Those who teach that Christ reconciles God to men do not so think of God, but regard him as a God of love. Because of his love he gave his Son to die for men’s salvation. We agree with Socinians that God is love, but we also believe and the Scriptures teach that he has other attributes—holiness and justice, and divine holiness must be regarded. God is moral ruler and it is important that his law be protected if the sinner is to be pardoned. The ‘‘wrath of God’’ abides on the sinner in the sense that God is displeased with his sinning and as moral ruler has the responsibility of inflicting the penalty of his law upon violators of it. In order to bring about the non-execution of the just penalty of the law on the sinner, proper satisfaction must be made in vindication of the divine law and _ holiness. This is the sense in which the death of Christ propitiates God. 4, Christ Died to Redeem Man.—The death of Christ is often represented in the Scriptures as a redemption, and men are said to be redeemed through his death. Other words of similar im- port are used to express the same idea, such as ransomed, pur- chased, and bought. ‘‘Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood’’ (Acts 20:28). ‘‘Being justi- fied freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus’’ (Rom. 3: 24). ‘‘Ye are not your own. For ye are bought with a price’’ (1 Cor. 6:19, 20). ‘‘In whom we have redemption through his blood’? (Eph. 1:7). ‘‘Ye are not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, ... but with the precious blood of Christ’’ (1 Pet. 1:18, 19). ‘‘Christ Jesus ... gave himself a ransom for all’’ (1 Tim. 2:5, 6). Those who deny a Godward aspect of the atonement affirm that redemption implies only deliverance. They regard only the effect, and reject the cause of it. The very words in the foregoing passages, redeem, ransom, purchase, and bought, which well express the idea of the Greek text, imply more than mere deliverance. They imply a deliverance as from slavery, exile, or penalty by means of a buying back to a former condi- tion by the payment of a price. That price which is paid is represented in the Greek as a Avtoov (lutron), a ransom or redemption. The Scriptures represent salvation through Christ as more than a restoration to a former condition. It is restora- 384 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY tion by a buying back, a redemption, and the price paid is the precious blood of Christ. Various objections have been made to the idea of Christ’s death being a redemption in the sense here described. Certain of the early Church Fathers assumed the sufferings of Christ were a ransom paid to Satan. But they got their idea from their own reasoning and in no sense from the Scriptures. Be- cause the theory has no ground in Revelation it was subsequently rejected by the church generally. Yet the opponents have not failed to make that rejected theory an occasion for jJests and disparagement of the true doctrine. But error by some in ex- plaining the doctrine is not a disproof of the doctrine itself. Opposers especially object that because the Scripture teaches that salvation is by grace and is given freely of God, therefore it can not also be a result of purchase by the payment of a price. This argument would have weight if a commercial trans- action were the subject under consideration. In such a ease the payment of a debt satisfies all claims and there remains no room for the exercise of grace. But the sinner is guilty and is under sentence of death. To omit the infliction of that penalty on the sinner without atonement would violate the divine holiness and result in the downfall of God’s government. Christ graciously dies in the sinner’s stead, so that in some sense the law and character of God are vindicated while he freely pardons the sinner. Yet the death of Christ was not a substitute for man’s suffering of penalty in such a sense that it becomes a matter of justice with God to remit the penalty for sin of all those for whom he died, as Calvinism has held. The paying of the ran- som of the sinner is not of such a nature that the exercise of free grace in the individual’s pardon is excluded. The Bible explicitly teaches that the death of Christ is redemptive and yet that sin is actually pardoned when the individual believes on Christ. The expressions redemption, purchase, and ransom, like propitiation, reconciliation, and atonement, when used of the death of Christ are to be understood as having a figurative sense. They are commercial and judicial terms, and have only a limited application to the great spiritual truths of the atonement. Like all figures, parables, and symbols, it is possible to press them too far in various details to the misrepresentation of the truth they RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 385 are intended to teach. The different commercial terms such as redeem and purchase have been pressed too far by Calvinists in connection with the idea of a limited atonement. They have in- terpreted these terms to mean that Christ suffered the exact amount that all the elect deserved to suffer for their sins, and that because he has thus purchased their salvation it would be a matter of injustice on the part of God if he did not certainly save all those for whom Christ died. 5. Christ Died to Declare God’s Righteousness.—This is most pos- itively stated in the Scriptures. ‘‘Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifi- er of him which believeth in Jesus’’ (Rom. 3: 24-26). This plain statement by inspiration as to the purpose of Christ’s death cer- tainly leaves no room for rejection of a Godward element in the atonement. The suffering of Christ proclaims that God 1s right- eous or holy and in doing so meets the demands of justice in such a sense that God is shown just while he justifies the ungodly. But how does the death of Jesus declare the divine right- eousness? Answers to this question differ among those who accept the objective element of the atonement as set forth in the foregoing quotation from Paul. One class affirms that while we are certain the death of Christ does declare the righteousness of God because it is so stated by Revelation, we can not know how it declares it because this is not revealed. Doubtless the variety of opinions set forth on this point is reason for modesty in making assertions. Yet it is legitimate to inquire what is meant by the passage under consideration. Even if complete knowledge is not attainable here it is reasonable to believe a degree of understanding is possible. Differences in the inter- pretation of this statement of the Scriptures are usually the result of some claiming to find more in it than others believe it teaches. The theory that the death of Christ has no necessary con- nection with the forgiveness of sins, but is a purely arbitrary arrangement by which God is pleased to represent himself as being righteous, is objectionable. ‘‘It behooved Christ to suffer.’’ 386 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY In other words, it was necessary that he should suffer. It was not necessary as opposed to contingency, or he was not compelled to suffer, but it was necessary to something else—the pardon of sinners. ‘‘There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved’’ (Acts 4:12). ‘‘No man cometh unto the Father, but by me’’ (John 14:6). In its essen- tial nature the death of Christ declares God’s righteousness. How, then, is the death of Christ in our stead a propitiation, a redemption, and a declaration of the divine holiness? These questions are in a great measure identical. A partial answer has been given more than once in the foregoing pages. The death of Christ removes the bar to pardon and makes possible the non-execution of penalty on the sinner. It does not eliminate the need of pardon. It does not bring it to pass that the sinner has not committed his past sins. It does not change the fact that he was responsible for his sinful acts. It does not change the fact of his guilt and desert of punishment. It does not change the fact that he may be justly punished or that the penalty may be justly inflicted upon him. The death of Christ does make possible to God an order of non-execution of penalty on the sinner without any sacrifice of his personal holiness and without any lowering of the dignity of his holy law. It accomplishes the same result in these respects as would the infliction of the penalty on the sinner who is par- doned. It is declarative in that it is exponential of the impor- tant truth that God is a holy being and a righteous ruler. It satisfies the divine Justice, both essential and administrative, in that it declares them by attaining their ends, which are the glory of God and the well-being of men. But what would be the consequences if God should order non-execution of penalty on the sinner without the death of Christ or a proper atonement? Evidently the natural and inevitable result on the part of the subjects of God’s govern- ment to the extent they became aware of the failure to execute penalty would be to cease to respect that government. The moral Ruler himself would be despised, his law would cease to be obeyed, the threats of penalty would become meaningless, and government would give place to anarchy. But this is not the only bar to pardon. If the penalty on the sinner were remitted without atonement, God would cease to appear as a holy being. RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 387 The moral law is holy because its giver is holy. God’s law is determined by his own inner character, Then atonement is a vindication, not only of God’s righteous law, but also of his personal holiness. Since Christ has at infinite cost made an atonement by suffering in man’s stead as a declaration of the righteousness of God, if man repents, thus giving assurance of future good conduct, and trusts in the mercy of God through the atonement Christ has made, there is no obstacle to the order by God of non-execution of penalty upon him. No evil will result, but great good will follow in the well-being of the person pardoned and in the glory of God. While God freely justifies the ungodly, the death of Christ testifies that sin can not be pardoned unless the ends of penalty are met. IV. Reconciliation in the Old Testament Sacrifices Devout readers of the Scriptures have commonly believed the Bible teaches that certain institutions and acts of the Old Testament are typical of spiritual truths of the gospel. If proof can be given that these are types—not mere ‘‘expressions of natural religion,’’ as is affirmed by skeptics, but divinely given types—then we may discover in a degree the nature of the anti- typical truth by a study of the type. With evidence that the atonement for sin by the animal sacrifices of true religion in pre- Christian times was typical of the atonement of Christ, we may legitimately interpret his atonement in the light of those typical offerings. The general ideas of the typical must apply to the true atonement. 1. Animal Sacrifices Typify Christ—A type is an action or in- stitution divinely prepared and appointed to represent a reli- gious truth and to foreshow, by resemblance, those facts in the work of Christ on which the truth symbolized rests. A type is based on the fact of resemblance, but differs from a mere simile in that this analogy is not a result of chance, but is so because divinely preordained to typify. Because of the predictive ele- ment in them, types may be called prophetic similitudes or acted prophecies as distinguished from those which are spoken. As surely as spoken prophecies furnish ground for doctrinal formulation so do these acted prophecies. The New Testament writers clearly and repeatedly represent the Mosaic institutions as being typical. ‘‘Let no man therefore 388 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath-days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ’’ (Col. 2:16, 17). The Levitical priests are said to ‘‘serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things’’ ( Heb. 8:5). The Mosaic taber- nacle was ‘‘a figure’’ (Heb. 9:9), “‘patterns of things in the heavens,’’ and ‘‘figures of the true’’ (Heb. 9:23, 24). These and other texts not only show that the different institutions and rites of the law were types, shadows—faint sketches, or adumbrations—but also that Christ and his redemptive work are the antitype or substance by which the shadows were cast. The offerings themselves are specifically described as being types of Christ, the true offering for sin. ‘‘For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect’’ (Heb. 10: 1). Here the implication is clear that the reason those animal sacrifices were not efficacious in the permanent removal of guilt was because they were but shadows of a true offering for sin. In the fifth, tenth, fourteenth, and nineteenth verses of this chapter the offering of the body of Christ and his blood are shown to be the true offering foreshadowed by those ancient animal sacrifices. Christ was ‘‘the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world’’ (John 1:29). Peter said we are redeemed ‘‘with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot’’ (1 Pet. 1:19). With this positive proof that the Old Testament sacrifices were divinely given types of the death of Christ, we may properly interpret the latter in the light of the former, while the New Testament teaching about the atonement serves as a guide to the interpret- ing of the Old Testament animal sacrifices. 2. Old Testament Sacrifices were Expiatory.—powayye you st 3] that the animals which were sacrificed on God’s altars suffered as much as the guilty offerer should have suffered, but in some sense they were for the expiation of sin. In Lev. 17:11 the eat- ing of blood is forbidden and the reason given why it must not - be eaten. ‘‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul [by reason of the life—A. S. V.].’’ The last clause of this RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 389 verse implies that the blood makes atonement because of the life which is in it, this being a restatement of the first clause of the verse, which says ‘‘the life of the flesh is in the blood.’’ Modern science has discovered what was stated by Moses, that the blood is the physical seat of life. The life of the animal resides in the blood. Therefore when it was sprinkled upon God’s altars for expiation, it was the offering of a life to God instead of the life of the sinner which had been forfeited by sin, which is in full agreement with the New Testament representation that the death of Christ is propitiatory and substitutional. For this rea- son blood is represented as being necessary to expiation of sin. This great truth was enforced in the offerings of Cain and Abel. Abel’s was accepted because a bloody offering. Cain’s was re- jected because it was a vegetable offering without blood. The writer to the Hebrews states that it was rejected because it was not offered in faith. But Cain evidently had faith in the Divine existence and providence, else he would have brought no offer- ing. But he did not have faith in the divine requirement of vicarious atonement by a life offered as a substitute for his own. His was a bloodless religion and was rejected of God, as must be that of men today who reject the expiatory or God- ward element in the death of Christ. That those animal sacrifices were vicarious is clear. One essential to every animal sacrifice under the Levitical system was that before he killed the sacrifice the offerer must lay or lean his hand upon it. By that solemn act he identified himself with it in such a sense that it might become his substitute and die in his stead. The vicarious nature of animal offerings is no- where more clearly portrayed than in the offering of the first Passover. The destroying angel is represented as passing through the land at midnight to destroy the first-born in every home. But on the condition that in each Israelitish home a lamb would be sacrificed and its blood sprinkled upon the posts and lintels of the doors the angel would pass over those homes and the first-born would be spared. This is plainly an instance of vicarious suffering. The lamb dies that the first-born might not die. An inspired New Testament writer has so explained the sacrifice of Christ. ‘‘Christ our passover is sacrificed for us’’ (1 Cor. 5:7). Further comment is unnecessary to prove that the sacrifice of the Passover is typical of the death of Christ 390 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY and that the vicarious element in the former is confirmatory of the New Testament teaching that the death of Christ is in our stead. The solemn rites connected with the sin-offering on the great Day of Atonement very definitely prove the death of Christ is for the removal of sin. The very name of this important sacred season when Israel were to afflict their souls shows that atone- ment was the leading idea in its observance. Two goats were brought as a sin-offering for the whole congregation. One of them was killed and its blood sprinkled before the Lord in ex- piation of the sins of the people. On the other goat, the scape- goat, the high priest laid both his hands and confessed over it all the sins of the people of Israel, after which it was sent away to an uninhabited region. By this double symbol sin is repre- sented as being both expiated by the death of a substitute and also borne away. In the tenth chapter of Hebrews this annual national atonement is said to typify the atonement of Christ. Therefore as the first goat died for the expiation of the sins of Israel, so Christ died to make satisfaction for our sins; and as the second goat is represented as having the sins of the peo- ple laid upon it, so in some sense our sins are laid upon Christ, who bears them away. Again, the unclean are represented as being made clean by virtue of sin-offerings. Those who had incurred ceremonial defilement were barred from the house of God on pain of death. Not until a sin-sacrifice was offered for them were they regarded as clean (Lev. 15:31). Likewise those morally defiled can come into the Divine presence and escape death, the penalty for sin, only through the death of Christ, by which alone they can be made clean. V. Elements in the Biblical Doctrine of Reconciliation The foregoing consideration of the teaching of the Serip- tures concerning the atonement of Christ leads to the conelu- sion that the atonement is connected with the salvation of men and that it is necessary to their being saved. Even at the risk of some repetition, as a summary of what has been said and to give more definite form to the doctrine, it is now important to direct attention to the several elements of the doctrine as found in the Scriptures. These elements may be divided into (1) the RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 391 subjective or manward aspects, and (2) the objective or God- ward aspects. 1. Subjective Elements.—Some theories of the atonement af- firm that no bar to pardon exists as far as God is concerned and that the only reason why the death of Christ is necessary to man’s salvation is in order to persuade him to forsake evil and accept God’s pardon. Consequently these theories deny any Godward element in the atonement of Christ. Such theories are doubtless inadequate in the light of the Scriptures. Yet they do contain certain elements of truth that must be included in any true view of the reconciliation accomplished by Christ. We very willingly allow all of these subjective elements. Foremost of these is the truth that the death of Christ is a marvelous manifestation of divine love which is calculated to produce repentance and love for God in return. This exhibition of the love of God in Christ is often pointed to by the Biblical writers aS an important purpose of his death. Doubtless also it is of great value as an example to all the followers of Christ of moral heroism in the cause of right. Many have counted themselves happy to fill up the measure of the sufferings of Christ and unfiinchingly to face persecution and death because of the inspiration of that example. Again, the death of Christ is of great value in man’s salvation as an antecedent to his resurrection from the dead, which is often represented as an evidence that he was all he claimed to be. This is the ‘‘sign of the prophet Jonah’’ which Jesus said would be given, and it is the evidence of his Messiahship to which Paul appealed in his remarkable sermon on Mars’ Hill. A fourth reason for the death of Christ for man’s salvation is its proclamation of his sincerity as a teacher or his full belief of his own teaching. It is not conceivable that he would voluntarily die for what he knew to be false; therefore he believed what he taught. In addition to these manward elements of the atonement which have characterized the Socinian doctrine may be added the Bushnellian idea that an important value of Christ’s work lies in its authentic manifestation of God, through the most effective means of manifestation—vicarious suffering. Doubtless this is adapted to draw out the sinner’s love for God and bring to him most vividly the great truth that God is good and ought to have his allegiance and that he should be good also as is God. These 392 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY are indeed Scriptural truths and properly elements of the true doctrine of the atonement, but they do not include all the ele- ments, nor even the most important elements of the doctrine. 2. Objective Elements.—Different objective elements in the atonement have been shown by the foregoing review of the Seripture statements on the subject. While we should allow all these, we do well to guard the doctrine from erroneous ideas that have often been held as objective elements. Christ’s death is in our stead or substitutional, so we need not die as a penalty for sin. His death is propitiatory, or a reconciliation, to propitiate God. This does not imply that the love of the Son is set over against the justice of the Father. The Father himself ‘‘so loved the world’’ that he gave his Son for their salvation. Both Father and Son possess equally all the divine attributes, including both justice and love. Christ’s death is propitiatory in that it removes the bar to pardon. His death is redemptive, or is a ransom or price paid to buy back to a former condition. This does not mean that it is a price paid to Satan, but is a satisfaction to the justice of God. Here the commercial idea is not to be pressed so far as to imply that Christ suffered the exact amount which all the elect should have suffered throughout eternity. His humiliation and death are an infinite price because of the infinite dignity of the offering. His death is also declarative in the sense that it proclaims the right- eousness of God and the holiness of his law. In so doing the death of Christ witnesses to God’s displeasure of sin and makes pardon possible. In the light of the Scriptures these must be regarded as Godward elements of the atonement. The atonement, then, is for man’s salvation, is necessary to his salvation, and is universal in its extent in that it makes possible the salvation of all men. CuHapTer III APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION With the proof of the truth of atonement through Christ for man’s redemption, the questions next to claim our attention are: What benefits are ours through the death of Christ? Are these benefits available to all men or for a selected number? Are they bestowed unconditionally upon those for whom they are in- tended or is their application to the individual dependent upon his voluntarily appropriating them by meeting requisite condi- tions? If salvation is conditional what are those conditions? All of these are important questions. I. Unconditional Benefits of the Atonement Salvation from the penalty of sin is commonly thought of as the chief purpose of the atonement, which is doubtless true, but several other benefits also are derived from it. Some of these are conditional on man’s part and some are in their very nature unconditional. 1. Individual Existence.—The threatened penalty for sin of the first pair was death. This included spiritual death. The apostle Paul states that ‘‘sin revived, and I died’’ (Rom. 7:9). Death as a consequence of sin is frequently represented in the Sacred Writings as a present state. But the penalty for that first sin also included physical death. This is certain from the necessity of barring Adam and Eve from the tree of life when they had sinned, lest they eat of it and live forever. But if the full penalty for sin in respect to physical death had been im- mediately executed when the first sin was committed, the race would have been cut off at its beginning, and none of the de- scendants of the first pair would have ever existed. It is incon- ceivable, considering what human nature is, that the race could have been propagated from Adam and Eve after their spirits became disembodied. The only ground for delay in the execution of physical death is the atonement of Christ. Only because the seed of the woman was to bruise the head of the serpent and make salvation pos- sible, God could consistently spare Adam to repentance, and permit the propagation of a race that could likewise be saved. Divine goodness is reconcilable with the permission of the exist- 393 394 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY ence of the race only on the ground that a way would be made for their redemption from that morally helpless condition con- sequent on Adam’s sin. The question may be asked at this point, Would it not have been more consistent with divine good- ness had the existence of the race been cut off with the first sin than that millions of moral beings should have been exposed to the possibility of endless punishment? No special problem rela- tive to the goodness of God exists at this point. If the redemp- tion provided by Christ does not vindicate God in the continu- ance of a race of moral beings after Adam’s sin, then there is no vindication of God’s original creation of such beings. The question raised here is identical with the general problem of theodicy already considered. Great goodness is manifested by God in giving existence to free beings. Existence and freedom may be wrongly used and so become great evils, as do many other blessings, but in themselves they are benefits of inestimable value. Every blessing that comes to man—every physical pleasure, the joy that comes through knowledge, the happiness of love and hope, and of the domestic relations, the capacity for thought, by which skeptics endeavor to deny the work of Christ—is due to existence itself, and existence is an unconditional benefit of the atonement. 2. Possibility of Universal Salvation—The death of Christ did not make the salvation of all men actual, but it so declared the righteousness of God that God might consistently offer salvation on the ground of that atonement without any reflec- tion on his holiness as a divine person or as moral ruler. Sal- vation is made possible through the atonement. Because the possibility of the salvation of men is secured regardless of the choice of themselves, therefore it is an unconditional bene- fit of the atonement. Also the possibility of salvation is pro- eured by the death of Christ for all men. In this sense espe- cially he is the ‘‘Savior of all men.’’ Christ by the grace of God tasted death ‘‘for every man’’ (Heb. 2:9). But the uni- versality of the reconciliation of Christ is deferred for fuller diseussion in its appropriate place. 3. Salvation for Those Dying in Infancy.—There was a_ time when the unscriptural assumption was prevalent that infants who died without baptism were lost. Evangelical Christians of APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 395 the present are almost unanimous in repudiating that theory. Though the Bible does not explicitly state that infants who die go to heaven, the implication is clear. In the light of the re- vealed love and justice of God, it is inconceivable that God should allow them to be lost. Also Jesus said, ‘‘Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven’’ (Matt. 19:14). Infants have no guilt and are not punishable. They are not morally responsible and therefore do not deserve penalty for their own acts. Neither does any guilt attach to them because of Adam’s sin, in which they had no part, nor does their in- herited depravity merit penalty. The salvation of infants through Christ’s atonement, then, can not refer to their being saved from punishment. Yet they are depraved naturally, and in its very nature that perversion of moral nature constitutes an obstacle to full blessedness in this world or in heaven. More- over, because only the pure in heart can see God, and morally depraved beings are unfit to associate with holy angels and re- deemed saints in heaven, it follows that those dying in infancy must be sanctified from that depravity of their natures uncon- ditionally through the atonement of Christ. Aside from native depravity, the infant in no way differs from newly ereated beings. He has no moral desert. He de- serves no punishment nor merits reward. In this he differs from those who have passed a period of probation. Therefore the title of infants to heaven and their blessedness there must be unconditional through the merits of Christ and his atonement. But here the difficulty is met that led to the complaints of certain of the servants in the parable of the Vineyard—is it just that those who have borne the burden and stress of probationary testing should be rewarded no more than those saved without effort? Probably at least a partial solution of the difficulty is found in the distinction between salvation and reward. All are saved by grace, but in addition it may be assumed is reward which is in proportion to one’s faithfulness. ‘‘ Our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceed- ing, and eternal weight of glory’’ (2 Cor. 4:17). The uncondi- tional salvation of infants through the atonement of Christ con- sists, then, in the sanctification of their natures from native 396 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY depravity, and the procuring for them a title to heaven and blessedness therein. 4. Power Requisite for Probation—As a result of natural de- pravity unregenerate men are unable of themselves continually to do good or to choose good for its own sake. Jesus said, ‘*No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him’’ (John 6:44). Only by the revelation of the Spirit of God can spiritual truth be truly known (Matt. 16:17). Christ ‘‘was the true Light, which lighteth every man that com- eth into the world’’ (John 1:9). ‘‘The grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men’’ (Titus 2:11). These texts leave no place for the theory of Semi-Pelagianism that man has natural power to forsake sin and turn to God with- out divine aid. In the light of the fact that the divine drawing is necessary to the repentance of a sinner, it follows that the con- ditions for a fair probation require that there be afforded to all men unconditionally gracious help in order to repentance. Such eracious influence is procured and freely given to all uncon- ditionally through the atonement of Christ. This gracious help is the chief requisite to a fair probation for depraved man. In objection to the idea that man in this life is under condi- tions suitable to probation, it is sometimes pointed out that pro- bationary privileges are unequally distributed. Some persons are more depraved naturally, have less opportunity for knowl- edge of the will of God, and enjoy less of religious influence than do others. Evidently this is all true. But it is also true that ‘‘unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required’’; and he to whom less is given, of him God will require less. The inequality in opportunity will be equalized in corre- sponding retribution. Obligation is equal to, but never in excess of one’s ability. Therefore if one may be lost it is certain that he may be saved. If he has power to sin he necessarily has power, either naturally or by grace, to refrain from sinning. This follows from the nature of sin. _ That all men have capacity and opportunity for a fair proba- tion in the present life is questioned especially in the case of the heathen. Though the Scriptures do not state specifically that the heathen have conditions suitable to a fair probation, yet it is properly inferred from what the Bible says that they have such conditions. In the light of a principle already stated, if APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 397 the heathen have no knowledge of right nor sense of moral duty they have no responsibility and will be saved on the same ground as are infants or idiots. But it is evident that all men may have some knowledge of God through his works in nature. Such evidence is continually before them. ‘‘Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse’’ (Rom. 1:19, 20). By intuition and rational processes all may know God is, and to the extent he is known by men they are obligated to worship and do what they believe would please him. The apostle Paul wrote of the heathen of his day that though they did not have the written revelation of God’s will, yet they ‘‘do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts in the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another’’ (Rom. 2:14, 15). All men are obligated to conform to the requirements of their conscience, and only by so doing can they be saved. If it be objected that the heathen can not live according to their conscience without regeneration and without the divine drawing can not obtain regeneration, we reply that there is reason for believing the gracious help of the Holy Spirit is offered to all men, even to those without the written revelation of God. God reveals himself directly even to heathen. Prob- able examples of these are Abraham, Melchisedek, and Job. Who ean say that God does not today and has not in all ages revealed himself to all men in proportion to their willingness to serve him, that they might trust in his mercy for salvation ? It is certainly not necessary to one’s salvation that he have a historical knowledge of Christ and understand the atonement, for many in nominally Christian lands are converted without such knowledge. Though salvation is always through Christ, yet one need not know that it is so nor how it is so in order to his salvation. That divine help is given to all men that they might obtain salvation is properly inferred from the Scriptures and reason. 398 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY That retribution is to be according to light and ability is clearly taught in the Bible. Therefore the conditions for a fair proba- tion are afforded to all men in this life. If this is not so, then another probation period must be yet future, which idea is con- trary to the Scriptures. II. Conditional Benefits of the Atonement The benefits of the atonement hitherto considered are im- mediate in that they are conferred on the individual without the requirement of any action on his part in order to their re- ception. Attention is now directed to what may be properly designated as conditional benefits. These may be enjoyed only by one’s voluntarily appropriating them by the meeting of di- vinely specified requirements. The nature of this class of bene- fits is deferred for later discussion. Our present purpose is to show the truth of their conditionality. 1. Salvation from Sin Conditional_—Salvation from sin in its broad aspect as here used includes, not only pardon, but also regeneration, entire sanctification, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and power to live a holy life. All of these are obtainable only by one’s voluntarily meeting proper conditions. But proof of the conditionality of the initial work of salvation is especially important, for when this is established the conditionality of the other aspects of salvation mentioned are generally admitted, and particularly is this proof important because it is on this point that Calvinism has denied conditionality. Grounds for the possibility of the conditionality of salvation are: (1) the power of alternative choice, which has previously been shown to be an essential faculty of human nature; (2) the divine drawing of the sinner to Christ, which adequately supplies the natural lack of inclination to righteousness because of depravity; (3) divine- ly specified requirements clearly set forth in revelation as neces- sary to salvation. The Seriptures very definitely represent forgiveness of sin as conditional. The principal Scripture texts in support of this are those which connect the meeting of certain conditions with salvation from the penalty of sin. Repentance and faith are most commonly set forth as the necessary conditions for pardon. ‘‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned’’ (Mark 16:16). Nothing is APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 399 clearer in this Great Commission than that the personal appro- priation of the salvation proclaimed by the apostles was alto- gether optional with the hearers. In their subsequent preaching the apostles preached salvation as available only to those who met proper conditions. ‘‘Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost’’ (Acts 2:38). Here repentance is made condi- tional to salvation. In answer to the Philippian Jailer’s inquiry, ‘‘ What must I do to be saved?’’ Paul said, ‘‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved’’ (Acts 16:31). In harmony with the words of Jesus in the Great Commission, the Apostle tc the Gentiles here teaches faith as the condition for pardon. No truth is given greater prominence in the Pauline writings than the important truth that salvation is conditional on men’s voluntary faith in Christ. This is the sense of the extended argument of the first nine chapters of the Roman espistle. Ex- amples of many specific statements in that argument are: ‘‘I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth’’ (Rom. 1:16). ‘But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that just- ifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness’’ (Rom. 4:5). Of equal value with the foregoing texts in proof of the conditionality of salvation is the great word of our Lord, ‘‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have ever- lasting life’? (John 3:16). Another class of texts which confirm and add strength to those already given as proof that personal application of salva- tion is dependent upon the meeting of requisite conditions by the sinner, are those which declare that those persons who do not meet such conditions will not be saved. ‘‘He that believeth not shall be damned’’ (Mark 16:16). ‘‘He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned al- ready’’ (John 3:18). ‘‘He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him”’ (v. 36). Reason also gives support to the truth of the conditionality of salvation. We have already shown that man is free in secu- lar affairs. In morals he has power to choose to do righteously 400 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY by the grace of God, or to choose to commit sin. If he were pardoned of past sins without repentance he would at once again become guilty and his pardon would avail nothing. There- fore on the ground of his moral freedom, repentance is a neces- sary condition of pardon. Also in view of the fact that the atonement makes pardon possible by the vindication of God’s holiness, it is a necessary condition for salvation that the sinner believe in that atonement if it is to Serve its intended purpose of declaring the righteousness of God while he justifies the guilty. Though justification and regeneration are distinct in nature, yet they are effected simultaneously, and the same act of faith is the condition for both. Entire sanctification and the Holy Spirit baptism, which also occur simultaneously, are through prayer (Luke 11:13) and faith (Acts 26:18). The exercise of the keeping power of God is ‘‘through faith’’ (1 Pet. 1:5). 2. Special Providence Through Prayer—In addition to salva- tion from sin are various other gracious benefits that may be obtained through prayer and faith. There is a true voluntari- ness in prayer, even though faith is inspired directly by the Holy Spirit. These gracious benefits through prayer can not properly be classed with other special providences which God bestows on his children unconditionally, such as special protec- tion from unforeseen danger. Not the least of these special providences through prayer is divine physical healing. This, like salvation, is a conditional benefit of the atonement. That it is through the atonement is stated in the Scriptures. ‘‘Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses’’ (Matt. 8:17). This is quoted from the great atonement chapter of the Old Testament, Isaiah 53, and evidently means that through his atoning death he made possible our physical healing, All other benefits received in answer to prayer are through the atonement, by which alone God may consistently bless those deserving of penalty. These other bene- fits include material blessings—such as food, clothing, or shelter —divine guidance, and comfort when obtained through special prayer. 3. Future Blessedness—lFuture blessedness of men is repre- sented throughout the Bible as conditioned upon their voluntary choice and action. The first step essential to future blessedness APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 401 in heaven is pardon of sin and divine help to refrain from sinning thereafter, both of which are conditional. The second thing essential to blessedness in the future life is voluntary obedience to God’s Word throughout life after conversion. The great burden of Jesus’ teaching concerning his second coming in Matthew 24 was that men ‘‘be ready’’ for it by right- eous conduct. In the parables of the Ten Virgins and of the Talents the same general truth is emphasized. Also the deserip- tion of the last judgment, in Matthew 25, represents the blessed- ness of the righteous as the consequence of their past benevolent conduct. It is not to be supposed that Jesus taught salvation from guilt is obtainable by works, but when one has been justi- fied by grace he must live righteously to retain that justification and to gain blessedness in heaven. III. Universality of the Opportunity for Salvation No point concerning the application of salvation has been the subject of more controversy than that of the extent of the opportunity for salvation. This question necessarily includes another—the extent of the atonement. Did Christ die for all men or for only an elect company? If he died for all, is the cpportunity of salvation therefore alike to all? These questions are not identical. A certain modified form of Calvinism holds that Christ died for all men in that his sacrifice was infinite and sufficient for all, but that the opportunity to be actually saved is granted only to the elect. The question concerning who may be saved through Christ naturally leads to the Calvinistic controversy on the one hand and to the contention of Universalism on the other. Pure Cal- vinism affirms that the sufferings of Christ were sufficient only for the elect, and therefore that only the elect can possibly be saved. Opportunity of salvation is not afforded to the non-elect. A fuller review of the Calvinistie system is reserved for the fol- lowing division of this chapter. The common theory of uni- versalism begins with the commercial theory of the atonement usually held by Calvinists. Universalists assume, as do Calvin- ists, that all those for whom Christ died will be certainly and unconditionally saved. But instead of holding that Christ died only for the elect, they declare he died for all men; therefore all men will be saved. The proofs given in the preceding divi- 402 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY sion of this chapter of the conditionality of salvation, if con- nected with the proofs of the universality of the atonement, con- stitute complete disproof of this Universalist theory. Our present purpose is not to show that all men will be saved, but that all men have the opportunity to be saved if they choose. Only from the Scriptures can we know what is the extent of the atonement, and for whom salvation is actually offered. 1. Christ Died for All Men.—Not one text in all the Bible states directly that Christ did not die for all men or that he died only for an elect company. No advocate of a limited atonement pre- tends that there exists any such direct proof of his theory. But many texts specifically affirm, or clearly imply, that he did die for all men. Of Jesus it is said ‘‘that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man’’ (Heb. 2:9). No language could more definitely declare that Christ died for all men than does this text. ‘‘Every man’’ means every man. It can not be properly interpreted to mean anything else. The idea of a limited atonement, or that Christ did not die for all, is entirely excluded. It is further said of Christ, ‘‘Who gave himself a ransom for all’’ (1 Tim. 2:6). And again, ‘‘He died for all’’ (2 Cor. 5:15). These are equally conclusive with the words of the writer to the Hebrews in support of a universal atonement. We readily allow that ‘‘all’’ and other universal terms may some- times be used in a limited sense in the Bible, as they are in com- mon speech, but certainly the word ‘‘all’’ is not so used in this latter text. The proof of the fullest universal sense of the term in the passage under consideration is in the immediate context. ‘We thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead.’’ Here the universality of spiritual death is argued from the means employed for raising men to spiritual life. Therefore the evi- dent fact that spiritual death is universal, which even Calvinists admit, is proof that the death of Christ is for all men or equally universal as an atonement. Also it is said of Christ, ‘‘He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world’’ (1 John 2:2). This and other texts which represent Christ as dying for the entire world constitute another class of passages in support of the universality of the atonement. APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 403 2. Salvation Is for All Men.—A certain modified form of Cal- vinism avoids the difficulties of a limited-atonement theory by affirming that Christ died for all men, but it denies that salva- tion is offered to any except the elect. In opposition to such a theory the Scriptures teach salvation is for all men. ‘‘ For there- fore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe.’’ Unless God be the Savior of all men in a sense similar to that in which he especially saves those who believe, then the analogy the Apostle here draws is without foundation in fact. If it were true that some were certainly reprobated uncondition- ally to everlasting punishment, no temporal benefit could prop- erly be called salvation in any sense. The sense of the text evi- dently is that the salvation of all men is possible and salvation becomes actual to those who believe. In this respect God is spe- cially the Savior of believers. An example of another class of texts which show that the salvation of all is made possible is John 3:16, 17. ‘‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who- soever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life... .. That the world through him might be saved.’’ The term ‘‘whosoever’’ in this passage, like other universal terms already considered, must properly be understood of all men. It is coextensive with ‘‘the world,’’ and the ‘‘whole world’’ (1 John 2:2). The term ‘‘world’’ can not be properly para- phrased the ‘‘world of the elect.’’ The elect are never called the world by the Seriptures, but are represented as having been called out of it. Jesus said, ‘‘Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you’’ (John 15:19). If the ‘‘world’’ in this text meant the elect it would declare whosoever of that elect world for whom Christ died would believe in him should not perish, implying that those of the elect who do not believe will perish, which would be self-contradictory. It may also be argued in favor of the universality of the opportunity of salvation that the redemption provided by Christ is coextensive with the effects of Adam’s sin. ‘‘But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto 404 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY many. ... Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life’’ (Rom, 5:15, 18). That Christ has provided salvation for all those lost through Adam’s sin is shown by the same language being applied to both—‘‘judgment came upon all men.’’? Even Calvinists admit the ‘‘all men’’ of the first statement includes all the descendants of Adam. Then the salvation provided by Christ is affirmed in the second clause to be for the entire human race. 3. The Gospel Is to Be Preached to All.—‘‘ And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned’’ (Mark 16:15, 16). These solemn words clearly teach that the gospel is for all. Be- lief of it produces salvation, but disbelief leads to punishment. It is therefore implied that it is the duty of all men to believe. But why should the gospel be preached to all men if many of them are predestinated to eternal punishment? They could not possibly do other than reject it and so increase their damna- tion. If it makes possible to them no mercy it is not glad tid- ings, but a message of doom. If it is the divinely enjoined duty of all men to believe on Christ, then such belief is possible. If it is not possible, God is unjust in requiring it and insincere in offering it. If it is the duty of one to exercise saving faith in Christ for salvation, that faith must be preceded by the belief that Christ has actually provided salvation for him. But if the atonement is limited to the elect, then all others are required to believe a falsehood. Moreover, not one of the elect ean logically exercise saving faith or trust in the merey of God through Christ unless he. first have assurance before he is converted that he is of the elect and there- fore that there is salvation in Christ for him. Only on the ground that Christ died for all men, that pardon is possible to all, and that all may actually believe and be saved can the justice of God and the sincerity of the Lord Jesus be vindicated in the giving of the Great Commission. 4. God Wills the Salvation of All—‘‘For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye’’ (Ezek. 18:32). ‘‘As I live, saith APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 405 the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live’’ (Ezek, 33: 11). ‘‘For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth’’ (1 Tim. 2:3, 4). ‘‘The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance’’ (2 Pet. 3:9). These and many other texts of similar meaning which might be cited, so clearly represent God as unwilling that men should be lost and desirous that they be saved that little comment is needed. The last text quoted plainly states that God is ‘‘not willing that any should perish.’’ Therefore those who perish do so con- trary to God’s will, and not as a result of it as the Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation of the non-elect to punishment implies. God’s attitude towards those who perish is not merely one of passive willingness. He ‘‘will have all men to be saved.’’ This implies that those who perish do so in spite of all God can do. It implies that he would not fail to provide atonement for them and give whatever assisting grace is necessary to their acceptance of salvation. God has done and is doing his part to save all men. If they are not saved it is not his fault. This is evident from a casual reading of the Scriptures. The failure of men to be saved is represented in the Bible as being due to their own fault in not accepting God’s offered merey. ‘‘How often would I have gathered thy children to- gether, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!’’ (Matt. 23:37). ‘‘And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life’’ (John 5:40). These and all other texts which teach that men are lost because of their own re- fusal to accept salvation are proof that the atonement and the gracious help to be saved are provided for all. The destruction of sinners is described as being self-secured, which implies that their salvation was possible. If no atonement was made for reprobates and if no gracious help to accept salvation was pro- vided, then men could not properly be represented as respon- sible for their own destruction. The only reasonable sense of those texts which declare men are lost through their own fault is that all now have the opportunity to be saved, and that God has provided salvation for them and endowed them either by 406 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY nature or by grace with power freely to accept it or to reject it. The universality of the opportunity for the salvation of all men is evident from the statements of the Scriptures already cited. Christ died for all men, not only for the elect. Salva- tion is provided for all, and all may actually be saved who choose to meet the conditions on which it is offered. All have power to meet those conditions. Jesus commanded that the gos- pel be preached to every creature and promised that salvation would be the portion of all who would believe it. God desires that all men be saved and has therefore done all he can do to save them. If any are not saved it is their own fault. IV. Predestination No scriptural soteriology is complete that omits a considera- tion of the question of predestination. Some of the questions already discussed in this chapter logically lead to the question of predestination. Heretofore it has been noticed incidentally. Now more particular consideration of it is in order. 1. The Calvinistic Theory.—Calvinistic predestinarianism has held a large place in Protestant theology in the past, and has been a matter of extended controversy. The polemic discussion of it has greatly decreased in recent years, partly because of modifications in the views of Calvinists, and partly because of the fruitlessness of past controversy. Yet the Calvinistic sys- tem remains substantially unchanged and represents the belief of multitudes of professors of Christianity. A clear distinction should be made between the Scripture doctrine of predestination and that theory of predestination held by Calvinists. The latter is the first of the notable five points that differentiate Calvinism from Arminianism. The Remon- strants, a number of leading Arminians, formulated and set forth in the year 1610 the five points in which they differed with Calvinism. These are: (1) Conditionality of salvation; (2) Universality of the atonement; (3) Moral freedom; (4) Resisti- bility of grace; and (5) Possibility of final apostasy. The counter tenets of the Calvinistic system are: (1) Predestination ; (2) Limited atonement; (3) Moral necessity; (4) Irresistibility of saving grace; and (5) The absolute final perseverance of believers. ) Each of these two groups of doctrines is self-consistent. To APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 407 hold any one of the five points logically requires the holding of all the others in that group. If the doctrine of particular pre- destination were true in the sense that only a part of the race were ordained to salvation, then it would be unreasonable, as true Calvinism holds that atonement should be made for that portion which God had decided not to save. Moral freedom would be excluded in favor of moral inability, as there could be no power to choose what does not exist. The irresistibility of saving grace would follow, for none can resist the purposes of the sovereign will of God. And if God had unconditionally predestinated one to be saved in heaven, he will necessarily cause him, not only to be converted, but to continue faithful to the end. Of these five points we have already had occasion to discuss the questions of the conditionality of salvation, the extent of the atonement, and free will. Now we are to give special con- sideration to the theories of predestination and final persever- ance. No higher authority on the Calvinistic theory of predestina- tion can be cited than the Westminster Confession of Faith. It has been revised at different times, especially by the Presby- terian Church in this country in the year 1903, but it is still substantially unchanged on the point of predestination. It reads, ‘‘By the decree of God for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. These men and angels, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them or any other thing in the creature, as conditions and causes moving him thereto, and all to the praise of his glorious grace. As God hath ap- pointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means there- unto. Wherefore, they who are elected being fallen in Adam, 408 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY are redeemed by Christ; are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by faith in his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elected only. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own good will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.’’ Predestination as here described has its basis in the Calvin- istic doctrine of divine decrees. According to this latter doc- trine all events are the result of decrees of God from eternity. Decrees concerning the destiny of men and angels are called predestination. The doctrine of decrees is stated in the West- minster creed as follows: ‘‘God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely and unchange- ably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.’’ Disproof of the doc- trine of particular predestination will furnish sufficient refuta- tion of the objectional aspects of the doctrine of the divine decrees. Predestination is used of the divine predetermination of the destinies of men, both good and evil. Those ordained to salva- tion are said to be the elect. Those ordained to be lost are said to be reprobates. 2. Election—In the Calvinistic sense of the term, election means that choice by God of particular persons to enjoy ever- lasting blessedness, which choice is made by him ‘‘without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereto.’’ Election in the Calvinistic view is wholly by God’s sovereign will, and in no sense is it determined by the will or character of those elected. The question which here confronts us for answer is, Is Calvinian election identical with the election described in the Scriptures? Or what is the nature of the latter? The Scriptures mention three kinds of election. The first is the election of individuals to perform some particular service. Tsaac and Jacob were chosen of God instead of Ishmael and Esau to be the progenitors of Christ. Cyrus was chosen to build APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 409 the temple, and the twelve apostles were elected by Jesus to fill that high office in his chureh. But no such election insured them against missing everlasting blessedness. ‘‘Judas by trans- eression fell,’’ and Paul recognized the possibility of his becom- ing a ‘‘castaway.’’ Election in this sense has no more to do with one’s being unconditionally chosen to final salvation than does one’s being divinely called to the gospel ministry today. Neither can it be shown that such election was irrespective of one’s character and qualifications for the performance of such work. The second kind of election referred to in the Bible is that of nations or groups of persons to exalted religious privileges. A notable example is the nation of Israel, which was elected to be the bearer of true religion and recipient of revelation prior to the advent of Christ. But the election of this nation, as a nation, did not result in an unconditional election to final sal- vation of the individuals composing it. If this sort of election included the final blessedness of each individual, then rebellious persons like Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, idolaters such as Ahab and Athaliah, and the betrayer and the crucifiers of our Lord will certainly all be saved. Christians especially are called the ‘‘elect.’’ As a class they are elected of God to salvation and future blessedness. As the Jews were once God’s chosen people, so now he has elected that all those who believe shall be his people. This is the great truth taught in the ninth chapter of Romans (vs. 24, 30). Whoever chooses to become a believer may join that class and thus become one of the elect. Election of believers, as a class, to salvation through Christ does not imply that particular individuals are unconditionally and infallibly predestinated to it nor that those who have become members have their salvation secured against the possibility of apostasy. Neither does the conditional election here described exclude, or imply the necessary reprobation of, those who fail of election through unbelief. A third kind of election is that of individuals to divine son- ship and future blessedness on the ground of divine foresight of their disposition freely to choose salvation. In the true and Biblical view of personal election men are not unconditionally chosen in order to faith, obedience, and holiness, but because of divine foresight of faith and obedience. This conditional pre- 410 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY destination is the only kind that is compatible with the definite Seripture teaching of the conditionality of salvation, which has already been discussed. Also it can not be shown that any text of Seripture teaches other than a conditional election of in- dividuals. Jesus said, ‘‘I have chosen [elected] you out of the world’’ (John 15:19). But such choosing out was by his changing their hearts, which, according to other texts, is con- ditional upon their forsaking the world. Paul said, ‘‘God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctifiea- tion of the Spirit and belief of the truth’’ (2 Thess. 2:13). The belief of the truth is not the result of the choosing, but the choosing is through foresight of that belief. Peter also writes to his brethren in Christ that they are ‘‘elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ’’ (1 Pet. 1:2). In this text election is said to be accord- ing to the divine foreknowledge, but that election consists in having the work of salvation effected in their hearts. None are ever said to be of the elect who are not saved. A text which is especially depended upon by Calvinists for the support of their doctrine of election reads as follows: ‘‘For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren, Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he ealled, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified’? (Rom. 8:29, 30). In interpreting this 29th verse it is to be read forward, and not backward as the Calvinistic interpretation would require. No unconditional predestination is the ground of God’s foreknowl- edge of particular persons to be saved. The predestination men- tioned in this text is because of the divine foreknowledge. ‘*Roreknow’’ from xmooéyvw (proegno) means simple knowing beforehand. It is to be clearly distinguished from ‘‘predes- tinate,’’ as is done in the text. To ‘‘foreknow’’ as here used is to know beforehand that the particular persons referred to will freely accept the salvation of Christ when it is offered to them. With this sense of ‘‘foreknow’’ what follows is clear. God foresaw that some would freely choose to love and serve him. Therefore he predetermined and made provisions accordingly that they should be ‘‘conformed to the image of his Son’’ APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 411 through regeneration by the Spirit. But it was not enough that he should foreknow that some persons would choose to love and obey him, nor yet that he should predetermine to save them. ‘‘Them he also called’’ through the preaching of the gospel. These heeded the eall of the gospel and consequently were ‘‘justi- fied’’ or pardoned. Lastly, those thus justified are ‘‘glorified’’ with God’s presence now and the blessedness of heaven here- after. No support whatever is given to Calvinistic election by this text. It is only when one’s mind is previously filled with the Calvinistie view that he can suppose that theory is supported by this text. Another text much relied on by predestinarians reads: ‘‘ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of chil- dren by Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will’’ (Eph. 1:4, 5). For different reasons this text fails to support Calvinistie election. First there is no proof that the divine election and predestination to adoption is unconditional on the part of those elected. It can not be shown that the divine election of these before the foundation of the world was not on the ground of divine foresight of faith and love on their part. Such must be the nature of any personal election to salvation in the light of the common Scripture teaching of the conditionality of salvation. Again it can not be shown that this passage teaches personal election. The context shows clearly that it affirms, not a personal, but a collective election to the privileges of the gos- pel. In other words, who are meant by ‘‘us’’? The antecedent in verse 1 is saints or Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles. This group, believers, are the ones whom God had intended from the earliest period to make his people, and not the Jews, who later had been temporarily regarded as God’s elect. In the ninth chapter of Romans Paul sets forth the same great truth, which evidently was very dear to him, who was the Apostle to the Gentiles. The fact that those to whom Paul wrote consisted of both Jews and Gentiles, and that some Jews were disposed to question the right of the Gentiles to the divine favor, fave special occasion for the statement of this truth. The Apostle teaches that the admission of the Gentiles to the salva- tion of Christ was not a disregard by God of his promises to 412 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY Abraham, nor a contradiction of his former action in especially favoring the Jews, but that from before the time of Abraham, even ‘‘before the formation of the world,’’ he had chosen to make those his children who would believe. See Rom. 9: 24. The election of the believing Gentiles as well as Jews is fre- quently mentioned in the Ephesian epistle, especially in chapter 1. After speaking of this election of Christians in general he mentions in verse 12 those who ‘‘first trusted in Christ,’’ the be- heving Jews, after which he says, ‘‘In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth.’’ The gathering ‘‘to- gether in one of all things in Christ’’ (v. 10) certainly refers to the admission of the Gentiles. Not only does predestinarianism lack support in these texts on which it most depends, but much positive teaching of the Seripture absolutely excludes it. Proof has already been given of the conditionality of salvation, the universality of the atone- ment, and the power of alternative choice. These leave no room for unconditional predestination, But they do remarkably affil- iate with the sense of predestination here supported. With the disproof of the unconditional election of a part of mankind to final blessedness, no place remains for the uneondi- tional reprobation of the remaining portion to future punish- ment. Election and reprobation fall together. Therefore no separate consideration of the latter is necessary. 3. Absolute Final Perseverance.—One of the ablest advocates of this doctrine, A. H. Strong, states it as follows: ‘‘In view of the original purpose and continuous operation of God, all who are united to Christ by faith will infallibly continue in a state of grace and will finally attain to everlasting life.’’ This doc- trine that all who are once converted will certainly be finally saved in heaven is a logically necessary part of the predestin- arianism system. If God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass, including the election of a definite number to salvation and final blessedness ; if Christ died only for these elect and in such a way that their salvation must inevitably follow; if the saving grace of God is irresistible by the elect—then it logically follows that when they have been saved they will certainly persevere in holi- ness. But with the proof that Christ died for all, that salvation is possible to all, that all have the power freely to accept it or APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 413 reject it, it logically follows that perseverance in holiness, like entrance to it, is optional with the individual. The following are some of the texts of Scripture which Dr. Strong assumes support the doctrine, but which in truth are al- together inconclusive. ‘‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and [ give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand’’ (John 10: 27-29). Doubtless this is true from the divine side in that God is able and willing to keep all his people from sinning. But it does not state that he will certainly keep them regardless of their choice to be faithful. Another text cited reads, ‘‘For the gifts and calling of God are without repent- ance’’ (Rom. 11:29). This verse affirms only Ged’s faithful- ness to fulfil his promises and is best understood in connection with Rom. 9:6. Except on the assumption of an absolute sovereignty of grace, it furnishes no proof of absolute final perseverance. Its use here is a begging of the question. An- other text often used reads ‘‘I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have com- mitted unto him against that day’’ (2 Tim. 1:12). This text merely declares the divine ability to keep, but does not. state that this keeping by God is certain nor independent of Paul’s choice to be kept. Other texts cited are Phil. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:3; 1 Pet. 1:5; and Rev. 3:10. The foregoing texts are re- garded by the ablest advocates of the doctrine as its best Serip- tural support, but they are all alike inconclusive. In opposition to the doctrine it may first be said that it is inconsistent with human freedom. It logically tends to produce carelessness in maintaining holiness of life. The Scriptures teach that ‘‘every branch in me [Christ] that beareth not fruit he taketh away’’ (John 15:2). Jesus said of those whom his Father had given him that ‘‘none of them is lost, but the son of perdition’’ (John 17:12). Though the apostle Paul was certainly saved and frequently so testified, yet he recognized the need of constant watchfulness ‘‘lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway’”’ (1 Cor. 9:27). If apostasy is not possible to Christians, then all those many texts that warn against it are misleading. ‘‘ Look- 414 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY ing diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God’’ (Heb. 12:15). ‘‘ Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall’’ (2 Pet. 1:10). If these texts mean any- thing it must be that Christians may apostatize. V. Human Conditions for Salvation The chief condition on the part of God in the salvation of men is the providing of the atonement through Christ. sec- ondary objective condition is the divine drawing of the sinner to repentance, which has before been described as an uncondi- tional benefit of the atonement. But, as has been already shown, there are human conditions to be met. The human condition on which pardon is granted must be such that adequate security will be given that the pardoned sinner will cease his sinning; otherwise he will at once become guilty again. Also if pardon were granted without such a pledge of future good conduct, the declaration of the righteousness of God in the atonement would have little value. The divine holiness and law would still be despised by sinners, The leading human condition, then, must consist in a recog- nition of the atonement of Christ as a declaration of the right- eousness of God. Faith in that atonement as a ground for par- don is in its nature calculated to secure the future good conduct of him who is pardoned. That faith implies conviction of sin, else it would not be exercised. It implies repentance, which is the only attitude in which he can consistently commit himself to the mercy of God for pardon. It must also imply the purpose to obey God, which is an accompaniment of repentance. 1. Faith in Christ—Faith is the primary condition for par- don, and is inclusive of all secondary conditions. Of the very many texts which represent faith in Christ as necessary to par- don, the citation of a few will be sufficient. ‘‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life’’ (John 3:36). ‘‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved’’ (Acts 16:31). ‘‘There- fore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ’’ (Rom. 5:1). ‘‘For by grace are ye saved through faith’’ (Eph. 2:8). Christian experience also corroborates the universal testimony of the Scriptures that faith APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 415 is the condition, and the only condition, on which salvation from sin ig possible. Men labor in vain to purchase peace with God by their own works. No amount of benevolent deeds or doing penance, no degree of penitence or earnestness in praying, will of itself give relief from the burden of sin. Only when the sinner, recognizing his guilt and helplessness, casts himself on the merey of God through Christ, is pardon granted and peace realized. In its very nature saving faith is not mere intellectual as- sent, as is belief of a historical fact. Neither is it an emotional exercise. It is of such a nature that it may be exercised volun- tarily. It is a matter of the will. All men everywhere are com- manded to believe. But intellectual assent to a truth is not directly a matter of choice. One can believe a thing is true only as he has adequate evidence that it is true. When he comes into possession of that evidence he believes involuntarily, and has no power directly to refrain from believing. Therefore saving faith is not to be identified with a belief that the Bible is the word of God, nor yet that the particular statements therein given are true. One may believe all these things and yet not be saved. Many unconverted persons do have such belief. Saving faith is of the nature of self-committal or trust. It is a voluntary reliance or trust in the merits of Christ for for- giveness. It is a confiding in the mercy of God through Christ. The penitent sinner casts himself on the merey of God which is offered through Christ. He not only believes Christ has suffered in his stead for his sins, but he rests in Christ for the salvation he so much needs. This is justification by faith. It is God’s way, and God bids men thus simply to trust. It is a safe way and surely effects peace with God, as many have proved by experience, But intellectual faith is a basis for saving faith in Christ. Only as one believes that God exists, that the Bible is God’s Word, that Christ is his Son and has atoned for sin, and that God offers pardon through him, ean saving faith in Christ be exercised. But that specifically Christian faith in God’s mercy is doubtless not always absolutely necessary to salvation. If so, then no salvation would be possible to the Old Testament saints, nor to any of the heathen. No one can be saved who refuses 416 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY to trust in Christ if he has evidence that Christ is God’s remedy for sin. 2. Repentance.—The Scriptures give a place to repentance as a condition of salvation which is scarcely inferior to that of faith. Jesus came preaching, ‘‘Repent ye, and believe the gos- pel’? (Mark 1:15). In his Pentecostal sermon Peter said to the guilty Jews, ‘‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins’’ (Acts 2:38). Again he said, ‘‘Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out’’ (Acts 3:19). ‘‘God ... com- mandeth all men everywhere to repent’’ (Acts 17:30). Repentance expresses a twofold idea—a feeling of sincere sorrow and hatred for sin because of its sinfulness, and a definite turning away from sin because of that inward feeling. The original word in the Scriptures signifies a change of mind. The first aspect of repentance, the inward feeling of grief, is identi- cal with godly sorrow which ‘‘worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of’’ (2 Cor. 7:10). Godly sorrow is the emo- tional aspect of repentance, and produces the change in purpose and conduct. A conviction of sin is implied in repentance. This is the work of the Spirit of God and is included in spiritual awaken- ing. It is not repentance, though it may lead to repentance. Many persons feel special conviction of their sins, but never repent. One may have a desire for salvation as a consequence of this spiritual awakening, but if as with the rich young ruler that desire is exceeded by other desires and no forsaking of sin and worldliness takes place that awakening is fruitless. True repentance includes the confession of sin and a disposi- tion to make whatever restitution may be required to make satis- faction for wrongs done. Confession implies, first, admission to oneself that he is guilty. It is to be made to God, against whom sin has been committed. ‘‘If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins’’ (John 1:9). Godly sorrow will cause one to pray as did the publican, ‘‘God be merciful to me a sinner’’ (Luke 18:13). Like the prodigal son he will pray, ‘‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight’? (Luke 15:21). Regret for sin included in true re- pentance will lead one to ask the forgiveness of those who have been wronged. Such asking forgiveness of one’s fellow men is APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 417 taught in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:28, 24). The Seriptures also enjoin restitution. ‘‘If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die’’ (Ezek. 33:15). When Zaccheus met Jesus he prom- ised to restore fourfold to all from whom he may have taken anything wrongfully. Such is the natural result of godly sor- row for sin. In confession and restitution only that which is possible is required in order to salvation. It is not necessary in order to pardon that one first have actually made right his wrongs against his fellow man, but certainly a genuine willing- ness to do so must precede pardon. Even confession to God in words is not necessary to salvation, though doubtless the atti- tude of heart implied in confession is essential. Many have been saved without any articulate prayer. Ordinarily such prayer is helpful to one seeking pardon, but certainly it is not requisite to forgiveness. . Similar to the foregoing conditions is that of forgiveness of one’s fellow men for their wrongs against him. Because hatred and the desire for revenge are in themselves sinful they are incompatible with an attitude of repentance. Jesus said, ‘‘ For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses’’ (Matt. 6:14, 15.) Forgiveness does not imply that one approves the sinful deeds of another, nor that one respects him in the same degree as if he had not done the evil; but it does mean that one shall hold no malice, but instead love his enemies. 3. Obedience.—In some sense obedience to God is represented in the Scriptures as a necessary condition for salvation. ‘‘Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only’’ (Jas. 2:24). The inspired writer here does not reject faith as being necessary to salvation, but he does include works as being equally necessary with faith. From a superficial com- parison of this with the epistles of Paul it has sometimes been supposed that the writings of James and Paul were contradic- tory to each other. Paul said, ‘‘Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law’’ (Rom. 3:28). A more careful comparison of these two passages shows there is no real contradiction. The context in both epistles 418 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY throws much light on the meaning of the particular verses quoted. Paul is here opposing those Judaizing teachers who denied the possibility of free pardon of sin through faith and added the requirement of keeping the rites of the law of Moses. James seeks to correct the error of antinomian believers, who assumed that if they merely accepted and believed theoretically in Christ as the Messiah they would be saved regardless of how much sin they might afterward commit. Therefore they were discussing faith in different senses. Paul wrote of saving faith —self-committal or trust in the mercy of God. James had in mind mere intellectual assent.. This is clear from verse 19, ‘‘ The devils also believe, and tremble.’’ It is also evident that they use the term ‘‘justification’’ in different senses. Paul is teach- ing concerning the present judicial act of God by which men are now pardoned of the penalty of sin. James has special refer- ence to that escape from penalty in the day of judgment. Doubtless this is the true sense in which obedience is a con- dition of salvation. After one is pardoned through divine grace he must obey God to the extent of the light he has, else he can not remain justified. Saving faith is inclusive of repentance and repentance includes a purpose to obey God. Therefore re- pentance and obedience are but secondary conditions of salva- tion and are implied in faith, which is the condition for salva- tion. CHAPTER IV NATURE OF SALVATION Having shown the ground on which salvation is possible and the conditions on which it may be appropriated by the indi- vidual, next in order we take up an analysis of the work of salvation. What is comprehended in the work of salvation of the individual sinner? Evidently the initial work of salvation must overcome sin as to its penalty and ruling power. In its objective aspect it must effect remission of penalty and peace with God. In its subjective phase it must give power over the ruling power of sin. It must restore one to the condition of sonship in relation to God. And it must give the knowledge of salvation to him who is thus saved. I. Justification 1. Sense of the Term.—The primary meaning of the term ren- dered justification in our New Testament is the acquittal of an accused person by a judicial decision. In its New Testament usage the term has a twofold signification. In its original usage it meant acquittal as when one who has been charged with a crime is declared by his judge to be innocent of the crime in the sense that he has not committed it. Seriptural examples of such a sense of the term are not uncommon. “‘If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the right- eous, and condemn the wicked’’ (Deut. 25:1). ‘*‘Wisdom is justified of |[‘‘by,’’ A. S. V.] her children’’ (Matt. 11:19). ‘“Ye are they which justify yourselves before men’’ (Luke 16: 15). ‘‘The doers of the law shall be justified’? (Rom. 2:13). The ‘‘justification’’ of these texts is a justification on the ground of works, or a pronouncement of uprightness on the basis of character. But it must be evident to every believer in the Bible that such a legal justification of a human being before God can be only hypothetical, never actual. Because all are declared to be sinners, none can be truly pronounced just. In this sense only those can be properly pronounced just who are actually just. Inasmuch as all are sinners, ‘‘by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified.”’ A second and more common use of the term in the New 419 420 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY Testament is in the sense of pardon. In this sense the term ‘“‘Justification’’ retains only a part of its original meaning. It does not signify in this sense that one is innocent of a crime of which he is accused. The person concerned is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. He is confessedly a sinner. His sin has been deliberate and altogether inexcusable. He is justly under sentence of penalty for his evil doings. No justification of such a person is possible in the first described sense of the term. But in some sense God justifies the sinner. The guilty one is either made righteous, or treated as if he were righteous, or both. : Doubtless as to his receiving a new heart in the work of regeneration the sinner igs made righteous. But a clear distine- tion must be made between justification and regeneration. It is true they are effected simultaneously, and the first would be useless without the second. But discriminating thought can not regard them as identical in meaning and nature. The first is objective, the second subjective. The first has to do with our past committed sins, the second with our disposition to sin in the future. We allow that the term ‘‘justification’’ is some- times used in the Seriptures to include the idea of the new birth. This is true especially in the Epistle to the Romans. But this is only when the writer has in mind the whole work of initial salvation and puts a part for the whole, as is not uncommon in uncritical usage in the same connection by Christians today. The Scriptures frequently mention justification and regenera- tion separately and sometimes clearly distinguish them as shall be shown in treating of regeneration. If justification were regarded as a declaration that one is actually righteous in the sense of subjective holiness through regeneration, then it would have nothing to do with the sinner’s guilt and actually committed sins of the past. The desert of penalty must still remain to be dealt with. In the evangelical sense justification is a pardon of past sins. It includes the idea of forgiveness and remission of penalty. 2. Forgiveness and Remission Included.—The terms ‘‘justifica- tion’’ and ‘‘pardon”’ often include both the ideas of forgiveness and remission. They are to be so understood in their evangeli- eal meaning. When a man sins against God two things occur on the part of God. First God is aggrieved or made to feel dis- NATURE OF SALVATION 421 pleasure because of the sinner’s unfaithfulness, and second as moral ruler God is under the obligation of inflicting Just penalty upon him. Therefore justification must include that change in the feelings on God’s part which we call forgiveness. This dis- pleasure of God with the sinner and the turning away of it is often represented in the Bible. ‘‘Though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away.’’ But the leading aspect of justification as taught in the Bible is the remission of penalty for sin. To remit sin is to release from the penalty for it. It is an authoritative order of non- execution of the penalty on the sinner. It is as if the ruler treats the criminal as if he had done no wrong, by releasing him from the obligation to punishment. When a sin is com- mitted it can never come to pass that it was not committed. The sinner deserves punishment for his sin, and it can never come to pass that he does not deserve punishment. The fact of his desert can not be changed. Therefore to remit sin can mean only that through the suffering of Christ the punishment due the sinner is withheld. Then remission of sins is the authorita- tive order of non-execution of penalty. Justification in the sense of remission of penalty is a change of legal standing and not of one’s interior moral state. That change of heart is called regeneration, and is entirely different in its nature from justi- fication. When a civil ruler pardons a criminal no change is made in his inner character, but only in his amenability to pen- alty. So is the pardon of a sinner through faith in Christ. 3. The Basis for Justification—The atonement of Christ is the only ground on which God can properly remit the penalty due sinners. This has been fully discussed in a preceding chapter on that subject. But different theories have been widely held as to the immediate ground for justification of the sinner. Those who deny an objective element in the atonement, in- eluding Socinians, Unitarians, and Universalists, necessarily hold an unbiblical ground of pardon of sin. Some of them deny the actuality of pardon, affirming that under a perfect govern- ment the penalty for violation of law must be inflicted on the violator. These assume the penalty to be trifling and that after it is endured blessedness follows for all men. Others teach that repentance is a sufficient ground for remission of penalty, that when a sinner becomes convinced of the advantage of virtue and 422 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY turns to it God no longer regards him as deserving of penalty. Socinus taught justification on the ground of faith, but re- garded faith, not as a condition of forgiveness, but as a merito- rious work which in itself constituted righteousness. Such justi- fication would evidently be by works. All these theories are so manifestly unscriptural that a mere statement of them is suf- ficient refutation. The Calvinistic theory of the basis for justification repre- sents an opposite error from those already described. It affirms that the active obedience of Christ is so imputed to believers that they are as legally righteous as if they had been perfectly obedient to the law of God. In its extreme form it is anti- nomian. It rests on and is a part of the Calvinistic doctrine of imputation. It admits of no real forgiveness of the individ- ual. When Christ’s obedience has been counted or imputed to the sinner as if he had done that obedience, then he is properly regarded as just because he is just. This is the theory in its advanced form. Those whom God declares to be righteous must first be made righteous in fact. In this theory justification is forensic in the strictest sense. Imputation of righteousness to us in the sense that Christ obeyed the law of God in our stead and we therefore merit the reward of that obedience is not supported by the Scriptures, but is only an assumption of a certain class of theologians. Let us examine some of the texts chiefly relied upon for substantia- tion of this theory. ‘‘He shall be called, the Lord our righteous- ness’’ (Jer. 23:6). It is said he shail be called our righteous- ness because he is our righteousness. Doubtless this is true. But in what sense is he our righteousness? He can be such only in the sense that he is the proecurer of our righteousness or jus- tification. ‘‘For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made right- eous’’ (Rom. 5:19). Here again the words of the text furnish no conclusive proof of Calvinistic imputation. The question is, how does the obedience of Christ make many righteous? In our consideration of modal theories of native depravity, it has already been shown that the first part of this text can not mean many were made sinners by the imputation to them of the guilt of Adam’s sin. Through the passive obedience of Christ in suf- fering the death of the cross we are made righteous. This is NATURE OF SALVATION 423 taught in many other texts (John 10:17, 18; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 10:10). Our justification is through the blood of Christ. No reason exists for supposing the text under consideration teaches anything more than that we are justified as a result of Christ’s obedience in dying to atone for our sins. Other texts assumed to support the theory under review are equally void of support of it ag are those here cited. One of several valid arguments against the theory that the active obedience of Christ is imputed to us is given here as an example. If by imputation we are righteous because of the active and passive obedience of Christ, two results must follow: (1) That in our justification there is no place for pardon, be- cause it is not possible that both perfect obedience and pardon can be the portion of the same person at one time. (2) That we possess both an active and a passive obedience as a means of our justification, which is twice as much as Justice requires. It is absurd to suppose it is required of us both to obey the law of God and also to suffer the penalty for its violation. The true Seriptural basis for justification is the atonement of Christ. The death of Christ is a declaration of the righteous- ness of God and of his law in such a sense that when he freely remits the penalty for sin on the condition of faith there is no reflection on his perfect holiness. Justification is pardon and in its primary sense is an order of non-execution of penalty, and also it includes forgiveness. According to the Bible, justifica- tion is a real forgiveness of sin. Il. Regeneration 1. The Doctrine of Regeneration.—Our treatment of the sub- ject of the initial work of salvation has hitherto been concerned only with justification, which was shown to mean pardon and to include the ideas of peace with God and remission of penalty. But the sinner needs more than this. Pardon of past sins can avail nothing for him unless he is given power to refrain from sinning in the future, or to keep justified. This can take place only by a work of grace in the pardoned sinner which will give him power over the power of sin that has ruled him. Though regeneration is coincident in time with justification, vet it is in its nature distinct from it. Justification has to do with one’s relation to God and his law, regeneration is con- 424 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY cerned with the inner character of the one justified. Guilt is the ground for the need of justification, but depravity of the nature is the ground for the need of regeneration. While it is true, as formerly stated, that by using a part for the whole, jus- tification is sometimes made in the Scriptures to include regen- eration, yet the latter is frequently mentioned specifically and apart from justification. The Scriptures definitely distinguish between the two. The New Testament represents the Mosaic institutions as types of Christian truth. From Heb. 10: 19-22 and other texts it is clear that the sprinkling of the blood and the washing of the sanctuary service are types of the way of salvation, or of the process by which the sinner comes to God. The blood on the brazen altar typifies justification or remission of sin. The washing of the laver typifies regeneration. ‘‘He saved us, by the washing [‘‘laver,’’ marg. A. S. V.] of regen- eration’’ (Titus 3:5). In this ancient type the distinction be- tween justification and regeneration is made very evident by the use of separate types which very appropriately represent these spiritual truths. The Scriptures furnish ample ground for believing in the actuality of such an element in the work of salvation as just described. Because we are dependent upon the Scriptures for our knowledge of the nature of the doctrine, a citation of some of the leading statements of Revelation bearing upon the sub- ject is in order. It is not important that these texts contain the term ‘‘regeneration’’ or its equivalent, but only that they set forth the idea commonly expressed by that term. ‘‘Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and re- newing of the Holy Ghost’’ (Titus 3:5). Regeneration is fre- quently represented as being a new birth. ‘‘Except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God. ... Ye must be born again’’ (John 3:3, 5, 7). ‘‘Being born again, not of cor- ruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever’’ (1 Pet. 1:23). Regeneration is also represented as receiving a new heart. ‘‘Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean. ... A new heart also I will give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh’’ (Ezek. 36: NATURE OF SALVATION 425 25, 26). In the next verse God says, ‘‘I will .. . cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.’’ The idea is also represented as one’s becoming new. *‘If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new’’ (2 Cor. 5: 17). Also it is represented as a resurrection. ‘‘You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins’’ (Eph. 2:1). It may also be called conversion. ‘‘Repent ye therefore, and be converted’’ (Acts 3:19). This term itself means merely to turn from one course to another. It may be used in the sense of one’s voluntarily turning from sin in repentance, but it may also properly be used to describe that change from a worldly or sinful state to a disposition to holiness which is effected by the Spirit of God. In this sense conversion is identical with regen- eration. Though justification and regeneration are not identical in nature, yet they occur simultaneously. Their distinction in na- ture does not require any chronological separation. There are these two distinct aspects to the work of initial salvation just as in the second work of grace, which shall be described later, the work of entire sanctification and the baptism by the Holy Spirit are distinct in their nature though coincident in time. For logical thought regeneration follows justification, but in expe- rience it is important that they synchronize because the new birth is necessary to one’s keeping justified after he is pardoned. The Scriptures represent them as occurring at the same time and they do so occur in normal Christian experience. They are both obtained by the same act of faith. Probably no proof is pos- sible of their ever occurring at different times if they ever do so take place. 2. The Ground of the Need of Regeneration The necessity for the new birth has its basis in the fact of moral depravity. De- pravity has been shown in our anthropology to be a perversion or derangement of the moral nature. This derangement con- sists in a weakening of conscience, a perversion of the affec- tions, and in some sense a weakening of the will in moral voli- tions. Though the extent of depravity varies according ag one lives a moral or a vicious life, yet in itself it is native to all in a greater or less degree. In full harmony with a well-known law of life all men inherit a deranged moral nature from their 426 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY first parents because of their original transgression. The fact of universal native depravity is not only a proof of Scripture, but is attested by universality of sin because depravity gives a bent to sin. This tendency to sin is the principal cause of all the sinning of men at the present time. It is so strong that men in their natural condition do not have power to refrain from sinning. In this sense they may be said to be totally depraved. Their ex- perience ig vividly described in the seventh chapter of Romans. ‘To will is present with me; but how to perform that which is cood I find not’’ (v. 18). The Apostle makes a strong argument for justification by faith rather than by works by showing that this indwelling sinful nature excludes the possibility of a natural righteousness. This truth adequately explains that set forth in the third chapter that ‘‘all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God’’ (v. 23). In their unregenerate condition it may properly be said of all men, both Jews and Gentiles, ‘‘There is none righteous, no, not one’’ (v. 10). Because of this natural tendeney to commit sin which dominates men morally, the just- ified person must also be regenerated if he is to continue in a justified condition. This necessity of regeneration is in exact harmony with the memorable words of Jesus to Nicodemus, ‘‘ Ye must be born again.’’ The new birth is necessary in order to obedience to God, and also it is that by which one enters into the kingdom of God. It is an important aspect of salvation from sin and is necessary to the attainment of future blessedness. There is no ground in either Scripture or reason for the theo- ry that children may be so trained from infancy that they shall grow up in such a state that they need no regeneration. Because they inherit depravity, which is called an evil heart, they need a new heart as truly as do those who have voluntarily committed sin and are guilty. No more reason can be given for the assump- tion that children can outgrow native depravity than that older persons can so overcome depravity that they will need only par- don for salvation. While it is true that children, as well as others, all need to be born again, it does not therefore follow that they all need jus- tification. Justification is needed only by those who are guilty of personal sin. It is conceivable that when a child comes to the recognition of moral responsibility, he might, if he has been prop- NATURE OF SALVATION 427 erly instructed, seek and obtain a new heart without ever having committed any voluntary sin. Such a person would need no justification, because he could have no guilt, yet he would be regenerated as truly as if he had committed actual transgression. It is further conceivable that he might continue in holiness by virtue of that regeneration and never experience guilt. Only on the Calvinistic theory of inherited guilt and total depravity is such an experience as here described inadmissible. Some one may object that this is only a possible conception in theory, but is never an actual fact in human experience. With- out doubt almost all men fall into sin when they come to moral responsibility and need both pardon and regeneration for sal- vation. But only the all-knowing God ean consistently say there are no exceptions to the general truth that all men actually sin at some time. God has not made such a statement, as shall be shown. Some very devout Christians whose relationship with God is beyond question affirm that they have no knowledge of having wilfully sinned. Must we tell such they have sinned? Or in the religious teaching of children, yet in the state of innocence, must we tell them they should ask God to pardon their sins to be saved when they have no sense of guilt? Why not rather teach them they should seek God for a new heart so they will be able to refrain from falling into sin? Must they be told they must first sin, then repent and obtain pardon in order to salvation? Or must religious teaching concerning themselves in relation to God be withheld until they have first stumbled over the precipice of guilt? Must ‘‘we do evil that good may come’’? Is it neces- sary that we first sin against and grieve God before we can come into conscious favor with him? ‘‘God forbid.’’ But does every human being at some time commit sin? Doubt- less all men both before and after regeneration violate the ab- stract law of righteousness because of the limitations of ignor- ance. But such short-comings, mistakes, and unavoidable failures — effect no guilt and need no pardon in the evangelical sense. A few texts are sometimes cited as proof that all men without ex- ception have sinned or do sin. ‘‘ All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God’’ (Rom. 3:23). This and certain other texts teach that without regeneration holiness is impossible. The Apostle here teaches that none, either Jew or Gentile, have lived righteously in their natural condition. It has no reference to 428 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY infants, of whom Jesus said, ‘‘Of such is the kingdom of heaven.’’ This text has no bearing on the point under discussion. Another text reads, ‘‘If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us’’ (1 John 1:10). The vital ques- tion here is, does the word ‘‘we’’ refer to each person individual- ly or to mankind as a whole? The latter must be its sense, as shown by its use in verse 8: ‘‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.’’ But ‘‘we’’ here can not be true of Christians, for in the preceding verse the inspired writer states that ‘‘the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.’’ In this whole passage, then, ‘‘we’’ must mean mankind. The writer is opposing the Gnostic heresy which referred all sin to the body and held that the soul had no sin and did not sin. The text affirms that mankind is actually sinful and has sinned, but that Christ provides a remedy for both. It does not contradict the idea that one may possibly be regenerated before he goes into sin. 3. Nature and Effects of Regeneration —What then is the ex- act nature of regeneration? We have already stated it effects salvation from the reigning power of sin. It gives one power to triumph over the strong natural tendency to evil resulting from depravity of the moral nature. But this is only the effect of regeneration and is not an answer to the question as to what is the real nature of the work of the new birth. The statements of Scripture relative to regeneration are concerned almost en- tirely with the effects of it rather than with any psychological or inner moral change that may be effected. And the effects are after all the really important aspect of regeneration. These effects are by the Bible represented as being caused by an inner change: that change, however, is described in various figures that have much value for practical thought in represent- ing the greatness of the change effected, but they need inter- pretation if they are to furnish any help in understanding the exact nature of regeneration. If it be asked in what sense our spirits must be born again, it must be admitted that it is cer- tainly not in the sense that they have a beginning of existence or consciousness then. Neither is there a removal or adding of faculties. Evidently a change takes place that is in some respects analogous to physical birth, but it is certainly not analogous to every aspect of natural birth. Likewise under the figure of one’s becoming a new creature or being resurrected, the analogy NATURE OF SALVATION 429 applies only in certain aspects and might easily be carried too far in an attempt at interpreting them to show the real nature of the change thus described. Regeneration is in some sense an overcoming of moral de- pravity, but it is not a complete removal of depravity from one’s nature. The Scriptures teach that depravity remains in the re- generated and is entirely cleansed away only in entire sanctifi- cation, which is subsequent to regeneration, as shall be shown later. The Scriptures describing regeneration do not describe it as being an entire sanctification from inbred sin. In regenera- tion one is saved from the reigning power of the depraved nature. Justification is salvation from the guilt of sin, regeneration is salvation from the reigning power of sin, and entire sanctification is salvation from the indwelling of sin. Each of these aspects of salvation is distinct in nature. Regeneration is a giving of power to conquer depravity, to deliver from its ruling power. It is the incoming into one’s life of the Holy Spirit’s working by which one is enabled effectually to volitionate obedience to God. The unregenerated seeker after righteousness of the sev- enth of Romans is made by the Apostle to say, ‘‘To will is pres- ent with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.’’ Regeneration overcomes this effect of depravity by empowering one to perform the good. To regenerate, then, is first and chiefly to strengthen the will in moral volitions. Assisted by the power of God, the regenerate man is able to triumph over the sinful tendency of the depraved nature and to do what is right. But regeneration is also a change of heart or of the affections. The new birth causes one to love what he once did not love and to cease to love sinful things he once loved. These holy emotions, like the strengthening of the will, are effected by the incoming of the power of the Spirit of God. Doubtless this operation of the divine Spirit extends to the conscience and the whole moral nature in strengthening it in order to obedience. This regenerating work of the Spirit is well described by the apostle Paul as follows: ‘‘For the law [power, as is the sense of ‘‘law’’ in Rom. 7:23] of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law | power| of sin and death’’ (Rom. 8:2). Though regeneration is always great in its effects and super- natural in character, yet in consciousness all are not equally 430 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY aware of the same degree of change. The change effected is more radical in some persons than in others. He who has lived a vicious life and in addition to great natural depravity has ac- quired strong tendencies to evil because of much indulgence in sinful conduct will, when born again, likely experience a con- sciousness of radical change in affections, inclinations, and de- sires. Another person of pious parents who has himself lived a morally upright life may be conscious of much less of inner change when born again. This is at least one reason why very wicked persons often have more definite conversions than do those less depraved. But persons of the latter class may be as truly saved as are those who experience a more radical change. 4. Possibility of Present Regeneration—Not a few professed Christians hold the error of baptismal regeneration. This theo- ry is especially prevalent in the older communions—the Roman, Lutheran, and Anglican. Those who hold this conception of re- generation usually deny the possibility in this life of regeneration in the Biblical sense. Who can suppose that mere water could effect a change in one’s moral nature? Baptism is a sign of an interior cleansing, but not its cause. The Seriptures closely con- nect regeneration with baptism, as they do also remission of sin, but neither is represented as being the result of baptism. Those who deny the supernatural work of the Spirit of God in present regeneration do so in clear contradiction to the Seriptures. It is constantly represented in the Bible as a present experience. ‘“As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, .°) of /God’’ /(John 1:12) 19), 4° Beng born caine by the Word of God’’ (1 Pet. 1:23). ‘‘Every one that doeth righteousness 7s born of him’’ (1 John 2:29). ‘‘ Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin... because he is born of God’’ (1 John 3:9). ‘‘Every one that loveth is born of God’’ (1 John 4:7). ‘*‘Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God’’ (1 John 5:1). ‘‘ Whosoever is born of God sin- neth not’’ (1 John 5:18). These texts clearly show that re- generation is a present experience, that it is obtained by faith, and that it is productive of holiness of life. These texts alone are sufficient refutation of the theory of baptismal regeneration in that they describe the results of regeneration in the Biblical NATURE OF SALVATION 431 sense as being far greater than the consequences of baptismal regeneration are known to be. But another class of modern religious teachers deny the actuality of present regeneration on an entirely different ground, They affirm the Greek word yevvaw (gennao) trans- lated ‘‘born’’ in our common English version is more properly rendered ‘‘begotten.’’ Then they assume the texts quoted in the preceding paragraph teach that Christians are only begotten of God, that they are in an embryonic state and will be born at the resurrection of the body. But the theory is without Seriptural support and betrays on the part of its supporters a very superficial acquaintance with the use of the Greek term under consideration. We freely admit that the word in its vari- ous forms is used of the procreative act of the father, but it is also inclusive of the giving birth to the child by the mother. Dr. William Strong says in his Exhaustive concordance that it means to ‘‘bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be de- livered of.’’ Citations of a few texts will show it is properly understood to mean birth. ‘‘And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ’’ (Matt. 1:16). If the form of the Greek word yevvaw, (gennao) here trans- lated ‘‘born’’ is referred to Joseph, then the virgin birth must be denied, but this is clearly affirmed in the verses immediately following. If it is referred to Mary, which ig evidently the meaning of the text, then it here means birth as our common translation renders it. ‘‘Now when Jesus was born in Bethle- hem of Judea’’ (Matt. 2:1). Here the word must refer to the bringing forth of Jesus by Mary, for it is clear he was con- ceived of the Holy Ghost in Nazareth and not in Bethlehem (Luke 1:26). ‘‘Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist’’ (Matt. 11:11). ‘‘Asg soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world’’ (John 16:21). In neither of these texts can the Greek term mean other than the actual bringing forth of the child by the mother. When by this term Christians are said to be born of God and consequently to be children of God it may properly be understood to mean that the new birth is now actual. That the 432 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY original word means they are now only in an embryonic state is, to say the least, an unscholarly assumption. lil. Sonship 1. Children of God.—As a result of, and at the time of, justi- fication and regeneration men become children of God. This relationship is often referred to in the Scriptures as being a blessed condition of the saved. ‘‘As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God’’ (Rom. 8:14). ‘‘For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus’’ (Gal. 3:26). ‘‘Because ye are sons [of God], God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father’’ (Gal. 4:6). ‘‘Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God”’ (Eph. 2:19). ‘‘Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God... . Now are we the sons of God’’ (1 John 3:1, 2). All men are children of God by creation, but the sonship here described is that relationship resulting from faith in Christ. 2. Sonship by Adoption.—Under the Roman law adoption was by formal purchase with money in the presence of witnesses of the child by the one who adopted him. The child thus adopted entered into the family of his new father as heir equal with any other natural sons the father might have. The Apostle prob- ably had in mind this custom when he wrote: ‘‘Ye have not re- ceived the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby ye cry, Abba, Father’’ (Rom. 8:15). ‘‘That we might receive the adoption of sons’’ (Gal. 4:5). Under this relationship men are represented as having been alien from God. Because of sin and rebellion they are separated from God and out of filial relation with him, deserv- ing of wrath rather than favor. When by the grace of God through Christ they are forgiven and their penalty is remitted, when they again become heirs to the inheritance of God’s bless- ings, when God can consistently show his love for them in gra- cious benefits, then they may well be represented as having been adopted as the children of God. In this aspect sonship has its principal ground in justification. 3. Sonship by Birth—A larger basis of sonship is found in the fact of regeneration. Those who are born of God are mem- NATURE OF SALVATION 433 bers of his family and his children. ‘‘As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born... of God’’ (John 1:12, 18). Here sonship is evidently the result of being born of God. Believers are children of God in the sense that they are of like nature with him by having his Spirit. The reason why those born of God do not commit sin, says the apostle John, is because ‘‘his seed remaineth in him: and he can not sin, because he is born of God’’ (1 John 3:9). Ag children of earthly parents are of like nature as their parents, so the re- generate person has a holy nature like God his father. IV. Consciousness or Assurance of Salvation 1. Fact of Assurance.—No knowledge is of such vast impor- tance to the individual as that he is personally accepted of God, that his sins have been pardoned, that God looks upon him with pleasure, that he is born of the Spirit, that he is a child of God, and that he is on the way to eternal blessedness. It is reasonable to suppose those who are thus saved are conscious of their salva- tion. The infinite cost of salvation is ground for the expecta- tion that God will give definite assurance of acceptance to those whom he saves. He so loved men that he spared not his own Son; that he sent his Holy Spirit to convict, convert, sanctify, and guide them; that he inspired holy men to write the sacred Seriptures for the revelation of the way of salvation; that he calls, qualifies and sends ministers to preach salvation to sin- ners; and that he instituted his church as a means for the propa- gation of the gospel. Surely after doing all this he has not failed to make possible to the individual Christian the knowl- edge of that most important fact—that he is a child of God. If assurance of one’s individual acceptance by God is not possible, then the most devout are of all men most miserable. If one is fully awakened to the awfulness of his sin against God, if he is truly sorry for his sin and deeply penitent, if he sin- cerely hungers after the peace and love of God, if he earnestly seeks to make sure of blessedness beyond this life—it would be a sad condition indeed if he must ever struggle throughout life in uncertainty as to whether he is a child of God or a child of the devil, whether he is saved or lost. But thank God, assurance of acceptance with God is possible. It is, not only an inference from reason, but also a clear truth of 434 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY the Seriptures that we may know we are saved. ‘‘We know that we have passed from death unto life’? (1 John 3:14). ‘“We know that we are of God’’ (1 John 5:19). ‘‘We are of God’’ (1 John 4:6). ‘‘We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens’’ (2 Cor. 5:1). Such certainty of personal salvation is frequently repre- sented in the Bible. 2. Nature of Assurance.—More general agreement exists among Christians as to the possibility of assurance than con- cerning its exact nature. Actual experience of it by the in- dividual is more important to him than is his belief concerning its source, mode, or nature. Yet a proper comprehension of the nature of it is important to protect one against doubt and confusion. } Those who hold the doctrine of unconditional election of in- dividuals to eternal blessedness hold also a theory of assurance in harmony with that doctrine. With them assurance consists in some individuals being so highly favored of God as to be assured that they are eternally elected to certain future blessed- ness. Such a view of assurance is without Scriptural support as truly as is the system with which it is connected. The assur- ance for which we contend is a consciousness of present ac- eceptance with God, which will result in future blessedness if one is loyal to the truth. This assurance may be with some a strong, unwavering conviction of their adoption. With others it is less definite, but yet a comfortable persuasion, though it may be accompanied at times with temporary doubts. Assur- ance may grow stronger with the lapse of time as one has longer experience in the Christian life with the accompanying evidences that God is with him. The sources of assurance are two—the witness of the Spirit of God and the witness of one’s own spirit. ‘‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God’’ (Rom. 8:16). No text in the Bible is clearer than is this one concerning the sources of assurance of sonship. According to it there are two distinct witnesses to our salvation. This does not mean there are two subjective assurances. Many witnesses may all testify to a single truth. The witness of the Holy Spirit is sometimes denied as being distinct from the witness of one’s NATURE OF SALVATION 435 own spirit. The original word, ovppaptveéw (summartureo), in this text rendered ‘‘beareth witness with,’’ is properly trans- lated. It means a joint testifying. ‘‘With’’ implies relation of two or more. Here the Spirit of God witnesses ‘‘with’’ our spirits to the fact of our salvation. It can not properly be understood that he witnesses to our spirits. The reading of the common English version of this text has the overwhelming sup- port of critical authorities. Those who deny there are two witnesses to our salvation us- ually deny a distinct witness of the personal Spirit of God, re- garding the statements of Scripture so interpreted as meaning merely the divinely given disposition to godliness. But in the nature of things there is no reason for denying a distinct wit- ness of the Spirit. Throughout the Scriptures the Holy Spirit is represented as witnessing to other truths. Why might he not also testify directly to the believer that he is accepted of God? But if the text under consideration does not teach there are two witnesses, then it does not teach the witness of one’s own spirit. It must then read, ‘‘The Spirit itself beareth witness to our spirit.’’ With such a rendering it makes the Holy Spirit the only source of assurance and our spirit the recipient of its testimony. Yet even such an improper rendering of this text would not exclude the truth of a witness by our own spirit as taught in other texts. 3. Witness of God’s Spirit—The fact of the witness of the Spirit is clear both in the Scriptures and in the experience of many Christians. It is a direct testimony to our adoption of God. As it is distinct from the witness of our own spirits, as has been shown, it is therefore a direct witness. If as some have assumed his only witness were through the work of regeneration which he accomplishes, then it would be identical with the wit- ness of one’s own spirit, and we would have but the one witness to our sonship. But we have already shown that the Bible teaches two distinct witnesses. The mode of the Spirit’s witnessing is by a direct operation within the mind of the Christian by which he possesses a con- viction that he is accepted of God. Normally there is no mani- festation apart from that conviction which he effects. There is no audible voice, nor even an inner voice. His witness is not so much a communication to the mind, as an effect in the mind. 436 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY He is not limited to natural modes of communication of thought. He has no need of employing human language, audible sounds, and our physical auditory organs, the ears. He causes the knowledge which he desires us to possess to arise in our conscious- ness immediately. Knowledge thus obtained is more certain than if it reached us through the natural channels of communi- cation, unless communications of the latter class be accompanied by certain evidence that they are from God. The exact mode of the Spirit’s witness is inscrutable to us. But the mystery of the manner of his testimony has no weight against the reality of it. We believe many things that are mys- terious. Thought itself is an insoluble mystery for us, yet we know we think. Not only is the witness of the Spirit mysterious in its mode, but also the Spirit’s work of regeneration is mys- terious. Yet as we are cognizant of the fact of regeneration in us, so are we also of the witness of the Spirit. This witness may be illustrated in a measure by the testi- mony or communication of the divine Spirit concerning other facts. As he testifies to believers that they are children of God, so in a similar manner he testifies to the unconverted that they are sinners. This is commonly called conviction. Jesus said the Spirit would ‘‘convince the world of sin.’’ Conviction of sin may result from other than the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, as from the preaching of the Word of God or one’s own reasoning. Imminent danger may be the occasion for such con- viction. But apart from all this it is evident that when no such circumstances are present to awaken the sinner the Holy Spirit sometimes directly effects deep conviction of sin and awakening to its awfulness. Many persons have distinctly cog- nized this testimony of the Spirit to their sinfulness who have not known it so distinctly in witness to their salvation. He also witnesses in a similar manner to other truths in experience. Not infrequently persons who have prayed for physical healing of disease have suddenly found themselves in possession of a settled conviction that they would be cured, even before any physical change was felt and when they were not engaged in prayer nor exercising active faith. Special direction by the Spirit of God may be by this same general method of his working in our minds to effect that knowledge he wills we have. In the experience of some, the witness of the Spirit may be NATURE OF SALVATION 437 recognized as being directly from him. Others have a settled con- viction that they are children of God, the fruits of the Spirit appear in their lives, and those who know them best have full confidence in their being truly converted, but these persons have no knowledge that they have ever had the witness of the Spirit. In other words, many devout believers receive the witness of the Spirit and the assurance it gives, without being aware that it is from him. Probably this is true of the experience of most believers. But inasmuch as the assurance is the important thing rather than the mode by which it is received, the absence of clear cognition of the cause of it is not improper. 4. Witness of Our Spirit—The second ground of assurance mentioned by the apostle Paul is the testimony of our own Spirit. ‘‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God’’ (Rom. 8:16). This witness is not repre- sented as being inferior to the witness of the Spirit of God as a ground of assurance. It is indirect, while the latter is direct. Though it is indirect it is not therefore any less divine than is the direct divine witness, nor a less valid ground of assurance. In this witness of our own spirit we compare the facts of our relig- ious experience with the facts of the Bible. The agreement of our experience with the Scripture representations of what consti- tutes Christian experience furnishes evidence that one is a Chris- tian. The witness of our own spirits really includes a logical process. It is so even though ordinarily we may not be con- scious of such a process. Usually the one seeking salvation ex- pects certain fruits of conversion, and when they are experienced his mind leaps to the conclusion that he is a child of God, with- out any consciousness of a process of reasoning. Specific aspects of Christian experience illustrate this ground of assurance. When the penitent sinner has in living faith committed himself to the merey of God, he may suddenly become aware of a new and warm love for God such as he has never felt before. When he remembers that ‘‘every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God’’ (1 John 4:7), he has ground for assurance that God has given him a new heart. Or he may come to realize a freedom from guilt and from the burden of his sins and instead a new sense of peace and joy. When he compares this experience with the statement, ‘‘Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God’’ (Rom. 5:1), he 438 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY again has ground for believing he is a Christian. The apostle John writes, ‘‘We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren’”’ (1 John 3:14). The love of Christians for one another is a prominent characteristic of them. If one finds when he believes on Christ that his heart is especially attracted to other Christians so that he loves them as he has not loved them before, he knows, as did the inspired writer, that he has passed from death unto life. If he finds himself possessed of an inclination to please God because of unselfish love for him, if he discovers he has new desires and appetites, if he finds the various fruits of the Spirit in his life, he may properly reason that he is a new creature. 5. Assurance in Relation to Doubts—The witnessing to sonship either by the divine Spirit or by one’s own spirit is not limited to that initial testimony given at the time of conversion. These assurances continue to be received from time to time by the saved person. In the classical text on assurance, ‘‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God,’’ it is represented as a present experience of those al- ready saved, and there is no hint that such testimony ceases with the witness received at conversion. But this special witness is not continuous or constant. It is experienced at irregular intervals. At times other than these periods of special assur- ance the Christian is liable to be attacked with doubts. These doubts are usually the result of one’s holding the false assump- tion that one must always be conscious of ecstatic emotions or other experiences which he has had at a previous time and which then were ground for assurance. In the absence of special assurance from the Holy Spirit and when doubts assail, the witness of one’s own spirit may yet form a sure ground of assurance. Even if one is not at the particular time conscious of any special emotions of love, joy, or peace he may yet properly rest his confidence on the ex- periences of the past. But in addition to these as ground for assurance are the promises of God given in the Bible. There salvation is offered on the condition of repentance and faith. When one knows he has sincerely repented of sin and in faith thrown himself on the mercy of God, the promises of God are themselves valid ground for assurance. And the conditions for salvation are such that one may know, if properly instructed, NATURE OF SALVATION 439 that he has met them. What can form better ground for assur- ance of salvation than the immutable Word of God? - Nowhere in the Bible are men told to seek for the particular witness of the Spirit. No instance is given of seekers for salva- tion tarrying for a witness. Jesus and the apostles exhorted men and women to believe. It is not for the seeker to concern himself particularly about the witness of the Spirit. That is God’s business, and he will attend to it in his own time and manner. It is the sinner’s duty to repent and believe and in doing this he will at least have the evidence of the Word of God that he is forgiven. This is sufficient to stand upon. God will give any other witness he may please. The witness does not save; therefore is not requisite to one’s salvation. The wit- ness of the Spirit is an added blessing. Repentance and faith are not of themselves the ground for assurance of salvation, but are conditions for it. But when those conditions have been met the divine promise becomes a ground of assurance. This is another example of the witness of our own spirits. Assurance varies greatly in degree in different individuals and in the same person at different times. This variability is due to several causes. Personal temperament is a determining factor. Some are naturally mild and others are intense. Some are given to confidence and hope, while others are timid, doubt- ing, and pessimistic. Also the degree of one’s assurance is de- termined greatly by the depth of his own spiritual life. If he is thoroughly devoted to the will of God he is more likely to have strong assurance than if he is wavering and lacking in con- secration. Again, the witness of the Spirit may correspond in intensity with that of our own spirit, and if one has not been greatly depraved by sin before conversion he will necessarily be conscious of a less radical change in certain respects in regen- eration than will one more depraved. Such persons are not therefore less assured of salvation than he who has been more sinful, because of other determining factors which enter in. Finally, God may be pleased to give a less degree of assurance of sonship as a means of testing our faithfulness in serving him. He is pleased to test his people in some manner and the absence of strong assurance may properly be employed as a means if he wills. 440 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY V. Holiness of Life By holiness of life is meant a life free from sinning. It is also called a holy life and a sinless life. All of these designa- tions are correct. Thus far in this chapter we have been con- cerned with the initial work of salvation. It is this supernatural work of salvation and especially regeneration that makes holi- ness of life possible. This subject might have been discussed under the heading of regeneration except for the need of em- phasis and elaboration due to the prevalence of erroneous views. Few aspects of Christian truth have been more misunderstood and misrepresented than has this. 1. The Sense of the Scriptures—That Christians should and do live lives free from sin is a clear truth of the Scriptures. This truth is declared by the different New Testament writers, and is represented by them in a variety of forms. They dis- allow sinning in any degree. If one is a Christian he commits no sin; if he sins he is not a Christian. The Bible not only exhorts men to holiness of life, but positively condemns those who do commit sin. No attempt is made here to give an ex- haustive array of texts in support of a sinless life by Christians, but the prevalence of the denial of the possibility and necessity of a life of holiness by them is sufficient warrant for the citation of several representative texts on the subject. It was shown in our anthropology that all men commit sin because of natural depravity. But it was said of Christ, ‘‘Thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins’? (Matt. 1:21). This necessarily implies that he would save them from their sinning if his salvation is a complete re- demption. Regeneration has already been shown to give reign- ing power over sin. It is generally admitted that a Christian should not commit any particular sin. The Bible command is to sin not. When Jesus had healed the impotent man at the Pool of Bethesda he said, ‘‘Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee’’ (John 5:14). To the woman taken in adultery he said, ‘‘Go, and sin no more’”’ (John 8:11). If it had been impossible for them to refrain from sinning such commands would have been unreasonable. Especially cruel and unjust would have been the threat of a worse affliction than the thirty-eight years of impotency if it were impossible for the impotent man to refrain from sinning. NATURE OF SALVATION 441 The apostle Paul wag as positive as Jesus in unqualifiedly dis- allowing sin. ‘‘ Awake to righteousness, and sin not’’ (1 Cor. 15:34). Peter also taught likewise. ‘‘Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin’’ (1 Pet. 2:21, 22). That Christ did no sin is com- monly admitted by Christians. If we follow in his steps we shall likewise do no sin. We should follow in his steps. He gave us an example of holy living for our imitation. The words of this text constitute a positive requirement of holy living by us. Also the apostle John taught likewise. ‘‘These things write TI unto you, that ye sin not’’ (1 John 2:1). Surely this emi- nent apostle was not trying to accomplish the impossible in his writing. ‘‘He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked’’ (v. 6). Ought implies obligation. But we are not obligated to do the impossible. Therefore, it is possible to live a holy life as did Christ. The Scriptures teach that those who are regenerated do not commit sin. ‘‘ Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.’’ ‘Tf the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free in- deed’’ (John 8:34, 36). Here Jesus taught that through his power men might be freed from the necessity of committing sin, and that those who do commit sin are servants of sin rather than servants of God. Similar in meaning to these words of Jesus is the teaching of Paul in the sixth chapter of Romans. In the fifth chapter the benefits of justification by faith are described. In the sixth verse of the sixth chapter Paul states that ‘‘our old man,’’ the ‘‘body of sin,’’ or sinful nature is destroyed ‘‘that henceforth we should not serve sin.’’ Because of the power over depravity he says, ‘‘Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof’’ (v. 12). ‘‘For sin shall not have dominion over you”’ (v. 14). ‘‘Ye were the servants of sin. ... Being then made free (vs. 17, 18). ‘‘But now being made free from sin, and become servants of God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life’’ (v. 22). The apostle John even more definitely affirms Christians do not sin. ‘‘Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not’’ (1 John 3: 6). ‘* Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he can not sin, because he is born of God’”’ (v. 9). ‘‘We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth 442 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY not’’ (1 John 5:18). These statements are clear. Through the change of heart, called the new birth, men are enabled to refrain from sinning, and those who are born again do refrain from it. It is their disposition to live holy because they have that union with God here represented. Not only do the Scriptures teach that the regenerated do not sin, but they definitely declare that all who sin are not children of God. ‘‘He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him’”’ (1 John 2:4). ‘‘Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him’’ (1 John 3:6). ‘‘He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil’’ (v. 8). The sense of these texts is un- mistakable. Those who commit sin are not Christians. ‘‘In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God’’ (v. 10). Here the inspired writer represents holiness of life as the dis- tinguishing mark between Christians and the children of the devil. ‘‘The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this pres- ent world’’ (Titus 2:11). 2. Definitive Sense of Sin.—A lack of clear definition of terms has often led to controversy and misunderstanding in doctrinal statements. Evidently this is the reason for much of the differ- ence of views regarding the possibility of a sinless life. Some truly devout persons because of past teaching contend that all men sin, and yet there is reason to believe that they themselves keep their own consciences pure. Doubtless their attitude in this is due to a failure on their part clearly to distinguish be- tween sin in the absolute sense and sin in the imputed sense. By sin in the absolute sense we mean the violation of God’s law. For ‘‘sin is the transgression of the law.’’ It is in this sense a violation of God’s written commandments or of some moral principle, and the right or wrong of an action depends upon its relations to the will of God rather than upon the in- tention of him who performs it. God’s law disallows the making of false statements, yet through lack of knowledge of the facts any one but Omniscience may make a statement that may after- NATURE OF SALVATION 443 ward be found to be false. It is always wrong to take that which belongs to another, yet all are liable unknowingly to keep money belonging to another through error in changing money or by failure to remember to pay a debt. Again, because of our hu- man limitations we may fail to feed the starving, to encourage the distressed, to give money for the spreading of the gospel, or to point a lost soul to Christ. If we only knew, we would do better in many of these things. Every man fails in some of these or similar things every day. If sin is to be defined to mean only the violation of the absolute standard of moral right, then without doubt all sin every day. Because of thus regard- ing these mistakes and failings resulting from human lmita- tions aS sin, many true Christians have assumed that they sin more or less every day, while their hearts and motives are pure. But aceording to the New Testament this is not the full definition of sin. The Old Testament describes a sin of ignor- ance, but the New Testament teaches that when there is no law, there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15). In other words, only as one knows he is doing sin against God, does God impute it to him as sin. Reason also agrees with this. It would be unjust to punish one for that which he did unknowingly or for which he is not responsible. Moral principles allow that one is punish- able only to the extent he is responsible. His guilt or innocence depends upon his intentions. If he does an act right in itself, whatever may be his motive the natural good results of that act will accrue to him, but his motive will determine the judicial results. Also if one does an act wrong in itself natural evil results follow, whatever was his motive, but the judicial results are determined in the light of his motive. If he was constrained in any way to do the wrong act so it was not by his own choice, or if he did not and could not know it was wrong, then he has not sinned and deserves no punishment. One commits sin only as he acts intelligently and intentionally. Then a violation of the law through ignorance is not sin in the true or New Testament sense. Moreover, it is improper and confusing to teach that we sin more or less every day because of those unintentional violations of God’s law. Neither need one pray for forgiveness of these acts for which he is not re- sponsible. As the term is used in the New Testament, sin is an intentional violation of what one understands to be the will of 444 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY God. It is absurd to suppose a Just God imputes guilt to one for that over which he has no power and therefore for which he is not responsible. This view is in perfect accord with the many injunctions of the Scriptures against sinning. 3. Causes Leading to a Denial of Holy Living.—Not a few pro- fessed Christians deny the possibility of one’s being saved from sinning in this life. Neither do these consist wholly of the care- less and hypocritical who would thus excuse their own sinful indulgence, but some apparently devout, earnest Christians seem sincerely to believe, in spite of all the Bible states to the con- trary, that all must sin. The prevalence of this theory that all must sin is a result of various causes. Not the least of these is the wrong definition of sin previously discussed. The theory that Christians commit sin is not a modern one. It has passed down through the centuries from generation to generation and from creed to creed for hundreds of years. It ean be traced in church history at least as far back as the early part of the third century. In his church history Williston Walker has referred to worldliness in the church as ‘‘a tendency much inereased by its rapid growth from heathen converts between 202 and 250. As common Christian practise became less strenu- ous, however, asceticism grew as the ideal of the more serious. Too much must not be expected of common Christians.’’ As Christianity grew, it became popular, and this popularity re- sulted in many heathen becoming nominally Christian without the vital power of real Christianity to lift them above sin. Therefore they brought down their doctrinal standard on this point to accord with their experience. They decided that the ordinary Christian should not be expected to refrain from sin- ning. This view has persisted in the minds of professed Chris- tians and in their creeds until the present time. Doubtless the doctrine of baptismal regeneration hag con- tributed much to the idea that Christians must commit sin. Men’s trust in baptism as a means of regeneration has resulted in their failure to obtain true regeneration of heart by the Holy Spirit. Without the new heart they find themselves powerless to live free from sin. As the prophet has said, ‘‘A new heart also will I give you... and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them’’ (Ezek. 36: 26, 27). A lack of ability to live a sinless life by many who assume NATURE OF SALVATION 445 they are Christians, but who are not truly such, has been fruit- ful of the error that Christians are necessarily subject to com- mitting sin. But a cause, more important than those already mentioned, for the prevalence of the theory that Christians commit sin, was the erroneous teaching given prominence by Augustine and Calvin that man through Adam’s sin is totally depraved and incapable of choosing in moral actions. Another cause is the antinomian theory of a certain class of Calvinists, that Christ obeyed the law of God in our stead and therefore the merit of his obedience is imputed to us so obedience on our part is un- necessary. Such unscriptural teaching was given a large place in Romish theology subsequent to the fourth century, but Augus- tine has influenced Protestant theology in some respects even more than that of Rome. On the points mentioned Calvinistic theology has been fashioned after that of Augustine. And Cal- vinistic theology has determined the creeds of most of the older Protestant denominations. Just to the extent that one holds it, he usually holds that Christians can not refrain from sinning. The Calvinistic doctrine has been sufficiently considered in pre- ceding pages. Still another cause for the denial of the possibility of a holy life by Christians is the misinterpretation of certain texts of Seripture, which are next to be considered. 4. Objections Considered.—Objections to the teaching that Christians do not commit sin for the most part have their basis either in the assumption of the truthfulness of certain Calvin- istic tenets or in a misinterpretation of certain texts that are supposed to teach that all men sin. The Calvinistic theories in- volved have been shown to be unscriptural. The Bible is evi- dently not self-contradictory; therefore the many plain texts already cited which clearly teach that Christians do not sin must not be disregarded by interpreting other texts to the con- trary. If these other texts are properly interpreted they will agree with the general tenor of Scripture. A class of texts often appealed to by objectors to the teach- ing of a sinless life are those statements which affirm that all men in their unregenerate state commit sin. ‘‘There is none righteous, no, not one’’ (Rom. 3:10). Here the Apostle de- scribes mankind as they are without Christ in their unconverted 446 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY state. That it is not a description of the experience of Chris- tians is certain from the fact that in verses 11-18 the same per- sons are charged with the darkest sins. Also it is said of them, ‘‘There is none that seeketh after God. ... The way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.’’ We know Christians do seek God, have peace with him, and fear him. In chapter one of this epistle the Apostle shows the Gen- tiles are naturally sinful. In the second chapter he shows the Jews are likewise sinful by nature. In the third chapter he says, ‘‘ We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin’’ (v. 9). Then he quotes the words ‘‘ There is none righteous, no, not one.’’ He reiterates the same truth in verse 23, ‘‘For all have sinned, ‘and come short of the glory of God.’’ The great truth here affirmed is that all men in their un- saved condition are naturally given to sinning, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. This is clear from the context. Another text, ‘‘There is none good but one, that is, God’’ (Matt. 19:17), is likewise an affirmation that man is good only as God makes him good. It is said of Barnabas that he was a ‘‘good man’’ (Acts 11: 24). Another class of texts cited by objectors are those which declare none lived without sinning in the period preceding the coming of Christ. Examples are as follows: ‘‘There is no man that sinneth not’’ (1 Kings 8:46). ‘‘There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not’’ (Keel. 7:20). These texts were true of men in Solomon’s day when they were given. But they were written a thousand years before it was said of Jesus by the angel, “‘ He shall save his people from their sins’’ (Matt. 1:21). Long after the death of Solomon the prophet Ezekiel, looking forward to the coming of Christ, spoke the word of the Lord as follows: ‘‘Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you.... A new heart also will I give you... and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them’’ (Ezek. 36: 25-27). When Christ came he began to teach the new birth and men began to experience it. Consequently they were able to live sinless lives, as is so often declared in the first epistle of John. But especially could none live sinless under _ the Mosaic law because of the sin of ignorance, of which the New Testament knows nothing. A few other texts are sometimes quoted in support of the NATURE OF SALVATION 447 theory that Christians can not live without sinning. Rom. 7: 14-25, ‘‘The evil which I would not, that I do’’ (v. 19), is pointed to as the experience of the apostle Paul and therefore it is reasoned that we can not hope to live a better life than the one there described. That this was Paul’s experience when seek- ing righteousness by the works of the law before his conversion is evident from the context. In preceding chapters he seeks to show justification is only by faith. Here he shows it can not be by one’s own works, because of indwelling sin. But in the sixth chapter he tells us that those justified by faith are no longer the servants of sin, but are made free from it. In the eighth chapter also, especially in verse 2, he tells of deliverance from the bondage to sinning. ‘‘The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”’ It was the law of sin that caused Paul to do what he would not do before regenerated. When the Spirit of life came into his heart he was freed from the power of sin so he no longer was compelled to sin. That he did not sin after conversion is cer- tain from his own words. ‘‘Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe’’ (1 Thess, 2:10). Another text of the objector is a part of the prayer which Jesus gave to his disciples as a model for their praying. It reads, ‘‘Forgive us our sins’’ (Luke 11:4). If one has sinned it is proper that he should ask forgiveness. Before the king- dom of God was set up it was important that believers should pray, ‘‘Thy kingdom come.’’ But as when Christ’s kingdom had been established further prayer for its coming in this sense was superfluous, so when one’s sins have been pardoned he no longer needs to pray, ‘‘ Forgive us our sins.’’ Jesus said, ‘‘ After this manner therefore pray ye’’ (Matt. 6:9). This prayer was given as an example of the acceptable and edifying kind of prayer. It is excellent as a model of prayer, but is not intended for exact repetition by all Christians. Therefore it does not give any support to the theory that all Christians commit sin every day. Our contention is not that believers can not sin if they choose to do so. Certainly if they do not stedfastly resist temp- tation they may commit sin, but it is equally true that ‘‘he that is born of God sinneth not.”’ CHAPTER V ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION Justification and regeneration have been represented in the preceding chapter as constituting the initial work of salvation. We now come to consider another aspect of salvation which is distinctly set forth and promised by the Scriptures as a com- plete sanctification. I. Sense of Sanctification 1. Other Designating Terms.—The term most commonly em- ployed to designate this second cleansing is sanctification. This usage has support in the Scriptures. Other designating terms often used for the same idea are holiness, Christian perfection, Christian purity, perfect love, and the higher Christian life. None of these terms adequately express the idea they are used to represent. Probably the phrase ‘‘entire sanctification’’ is the most exact designation of the doctrine and has Biblical srounds for its usage in the words of the apostle Paul, ‘‘The very God of peace sanctify you wholly’’ (1 Thess. 5:23). But Inasmuch as no term has the specific meaning of this doctrine in the Scriptures the particular designation to be used is option- al with the individual. 2. No One Specific Scriptural Sense.—Though the particular truth under consideration is of more importance than any desig- nating term by which it is expressed, yet confusion as to the sense of the term ‘‘sanctification’’ has often led to erroneous views concerning the doctrine. Our English word ‘‘sanctify’’ is from the Greek verb aytatw (hagiazo). The adjective form of the word, &ytos (hagios), is properly translated ‘‘sanctified, holy, pure, chaste, hallowed, or consecrated.’’ Sanctification, then, means primarily to cleanse, and also includes the idea of consecration. Therefore all cleansing in order to _ holiness, whether that cleansing be of the heart or of the life, spiritual or physical, of committed sins or of depravity of the nature, actual or ceremonial, is properly described as sanctification. It is doubtful whether the term has any specific or technical usage in the Bible as it has come to have in the minds of not a few people. Being a general term meaning to make clean or holy, it is used of various aspects of cleansing in the Bible. 448 ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 449 The term ‘‘sanctification’’ is capable of being used in at least eight different senses in respect to experience or practise, and is used in most of these senses in the Bible. It may be used in at least four senses of the purification of the heart: (1) Of sanctification of the heart generally distinguishing as to the particular aspect of cleansing—Acts 20:32; 26:18; Rom. ia Oe G@ore lees) Os Ls) Heb. asd bs toed Indah wt) OF justification as a sanctification or cleansing from committed sins —Rev. 1:5; 1 John 1:7, 9; Heb. 9:14; 1:38. (8) Of regenera- tion, or the removal of or cleansing from the stony heart and the giving of the new heart—Hzek. 36: 25-27. (4) Of entire sanctification—John 17:17; Eph. 5:26; 1 Thess. 5:23. In all the foregoing senses sanctification is effected by God. Sanctifi- cation may be also used in four other senses, in all of which it is applied to works performed by man: (1) Of sanctification of the outward life—1 Thess. 4:7; 2 Tim. 2: 19-21; 1 Pet. 1: 14-16. (2) Of reverence, or sanctification by ascribing holiness to a person or thing—Num, 20:12; 1 Pet. 3:15. (8) Of consecra- tion, or sanctification by setting apart—Deut. 5:12; John 17: 19; 10:36. (4) Of ceremonial and physical sanctification— Exod. 19:23; 1 Cor. 7:14; 1 Tim. 4:5. 3. Its Sense as Here Used.—As it is used in this chapter, sanc- tification is a purification of men’s hearts from depravity sub- sequently to regeneration. It is not assumed that this is the only Biblical meaning of the term, but it is enough that Jesus and Paul should have so used it (John 17:17; 1 Thess, 5: 23). This is the most common designation of the doctrine of a definite cleansing after regeneration by its most learned and eminent advocates, such as John Wesley, John Fletcher, Adam Clarke, George Fox, Richard Watson, D. 8S. Warner, John Miley, Minor Raymond, Bishop Foster, and A. B. Simpson. II. Need of a Second Cleansing 1. Depravity a Ground for Twofold Cleansing.—The fact of two forms of sin makes room for the possibility of two distinct cleansings from sin. In describing the nature of man resulting from the sin of Adam, it has been previously shown that he has a perverted moral nature. As a result of that derangement men also sin individually and are guilty. They have a double need. They need pardon of their own sins and restoration of their 450 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY natures from the depraved condition. They need justification from guilt and sanctification of their natures. They need to be brought into right relations with God and have right character effected in themselves. It does not necessarily follow that these two forms of sin in men must be overcome at two different times, but it is certain that their distinct nature and existence does positively show the possibility of two separate cleansings. If, as the Socinian affirms, men were not depraved, then we should rightly reason there is no possibility of a definite cleansing sub- sequent to pardon. The first cleansing is not an imperfect work that must be finished in a subsequent effort, but both cleansings, justification and sanctification, are complete cleansings of that aspect of sin which they affect. 2. Depravity in the Regenerated—The doctrine of sanctifica- tion as a second cleansing rests upon the idea that depravity remains either in whole or in part in those who have been truly regenerated. If it could be shown that regeneration accom- plishes a complete restoration of the moral nature from its de- oraved condition in such a sense that no sinful tendency re- mains, then there could be no place for a second cleansing. But it is not here assumed that the proof of remaining depravity in believers is necessarily proof that that depravity may be re- moved in this life by a second operation of divine grace. Many who affirm the incompleteness of the cleansing from depravity in regeneration emphatically deny the possibility of one’s being fully delivered from its power before the hour of death. But, on the other hand, we need not suppose that the im- possibility of entire sanctification is proved by the incomplete- ness or lack of it in regeneration. He who made man holy at the first is well able to effect cleansing from any moral depravity he has acquired. God wills to save men from all sin. Christ ‘“‘gave himself for us, that he might’ redeem us from all ini- quity,’’ that we might be ‘‘pure even as he is pure.’’ There- fore with the proof that the regenerate person has depravity remaining in him, there is reason to believe he may have it cleansed away. If it is not so, Christ has failed to accomplish the complete redemption from sin which he intended to accom- plish. That depravity is not entirely cleansed away in regenera- tion has been the belief of most Christians. It has been said by ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 451 Dr. Miley that ‘‘the opposing doctrine of entire sanctification in regeneration was new with Zinzendorf and wholly unknown before him.’’ The doctrine of remaining depravity in the re- generate may properly be regarded as generally accepted. The prevalence of this belief is well shown by its statement in many of the church creeds. The Anglican creed reads, ‘‘And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regen- erated.’’ Also the Westminster creed states, ‘‘This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in them that are regen- erated.’’ Doubtless the statements of these creeds and the com- mon view of Christians on this subject are to be attributed in some measure to the prevalence of the idea of baptismal regen- eration, and of a degenerate form of regeneration. But when we remember that multitudes of the most devout Christians . truly regenerated and in nowise committed to those creeds which affirm depravity in believers, and altogether independent of traditional theology, have still stedfastly believed on the ground of Seripture and of their own inner experience that cleansing from depravity is not complete in regeneration, it is unwise hastily to decide the doctrine is untrue. Thousands of these same devout believers have testified that subsequently to their regeneration they were definitely cleansed from that remaining depravity by a second work of grace. The testimony of such persons has much value as corroboration of the Scripture teaching on this subject. But whatever value Christian experience may have it can not properly be regarded as a ground for doctrine when standing alone. This is chiefly due to its misinterpretation and variability in different individ- uals. It is known that some persons when regenerated are con- scious of but little of the movings of depravity in themselves. But this may be explained as due to the variability of the degree of depravity in the regenerate. If through the virtuous living of one’s ancestors or even through his own self-restraint one is not greatly deranged in his moral nature he will probably not notice so radical a change in his conversion, nor will he experience the same degree of manifestations of the remaining depravity after regeneration as will one more depraved. Yet the testimony of the many genuinely regenerated persons who have been con- scious of remaining depravity after conversion is still valuable as corroboration of the Bible teaching on the subject. 452 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY What proof then do the Scriptures afford of remaining de- pravity in Christians? The doctrine is not directly stated in the Bible, but is rather a general assumption which is to be found in many places. The lack of a direct Scriptural statement of the doctrine, however, is no argument against its validity. Some doctrines, such as the new birth or justification by faith, are definitely and formally stated in the Bible. Others equally important and fundamental to religion are constantly assumed, but nowhere formally stated. The truths of theism, of the di- vine Trinity, and of moral depravity are examples of those not formally stated. The Bible does not ordinarily set forth truth formally, but rather incidentally. Formal statements of truth were made by the inspired writers only as the immediate oc- casion required. The fact of depravity in believers is implied in all those declarations of Scripture which teach a cleansing of the heart subsequently to regeneration. In John 15: 1-6 under the figure of the purging of branches of a vine, Jesus describes a cleansing or purging of those who have been converted. A purging of believers implies something in them from which to be purged, and inasmuch as believers are already cleansed from committed Sins and regenerated as a consequence of their believing, the purging here described must be a second cleansing. The Father is represented as the husbandman, Christ the vine, and men (v. 6), or his disciples (v. 5), branches of the vine. They are said to be ‘‘in’’ Christ (v. 2); and ‘‘if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature’’ (2 Cor. 5:17), or has been regenerated. This is certain. They are not, as some have wrongly supposed, ° merely justified and not regenerated. This is evident, not only from the last-mentioned text, but also because to be in Christ is to be in his church or kingdom, which is possible only through the new birth, for ‘‘except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God’’ (John 3:38). The person described in the text under consideration is also one who bears fruits, which according to Gal. 5:19-24 is possible only to the regenerated. Sinners bear the fruits of the flesh, but these branches joined to Christ do not bear sinful fruit. Purge as used in this text means to cleanse. The original word, ynatatew (kathairo), means, according to the very best Greek authorities, ‘‘to cleanse,’’ and when used metaphorically, ENTIRE SANCTIPICATION 453 ‘‘to cleanse from sin.’’ The idea that it is a cleansing of the outward life instead of the heart is erroneous for the reason that the Scriptures constantly enjoin upon men this cleansing of the life; it is not done by God. It has been shown already that the cleansing done by God is a purification of the heart, but that men are exhorted to cleanse their conduct themselves (1 Pet. 1:14-16). It is a mistake to suppose this is a mere out- ward cleansing because it is represented by the purging of a vine. It is only an example of the inadequacy of natural figures perfectly to illustrate spiritual truths. Had there been an in- ner cleansing of a vine, Jesus would doubtless have used that instead of ‘“‘purge’’ to represent this cleansing to be accom- plished in believers that their fruitfulness might be increased. That this inner cleansing is referred to is also evident from Other parts of Jesus’ discourse and prayer recorded in John 14-17, of which this vine figure is a part. It agrees with the prayer for their sanctification (John 17:17) that they might be kept from the evil of the world. It also agrees with the promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the sanctifier. Dis- cussion of other texts which imply sin in the regenerated by teaching a cleansing of believers is deferred until later. A need of a second cleansing is to be found, then, in the fact of depravity in the regenerated, which is frequently implied in the Scriptures, and is corroborated by the testimony of many intelligent and devout Christians of the consciousness of remain- ing depravity after regeneration. 3. Distinction Between Regeneration and Sanctification.—The fore- going argument for depravity in the regenerated naturally gives rise to the question, if regeneration is not a removal of the depravity of the nature what is accomplished in it? How is it to be distinguished from entire sanctification? Regeneration has been defined in a measure already in making a distinction between it and justification. Justification was then shown to be an effecting of right relations between the sinner and God. Regeneration was shown to be the incoming of the power of the Spirit of God giving power over the reigning power of deprav- ity. It is entirely different from justification in its nature, though they are simultaneous. Though both regeneration and entire sanctification have to do with the practical overcoming of depravity, yet they also are different in their nature. ‘‘Jus- 454 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY tification is salvation from the guilt of sin, regeneration is sal- vation from the reigning power of sin, and sanctification is sal- vation from the indwelling of sin.’’ The difficulty of showing the difference between regenera- tion and sanctification is the difficulty of accurately and fully defining either. This latter difficulty is due to the impossibility of describing exactly the nature of depravity. Like other spir- itual truths it can not be described in terms of the physical. All expressions concerning depravity, such as remnants or roots, and washing or eradication, are but figurative expressions and should not be allowed to obscure thought as to the literal facts involved in regeneration and sanctification. For practical pur- poses the distinction between regeneration and: sanctification may be described as follows: Regeneration is a suppression of depravity by the power of the Spirit of God coming into one’s life, but entire sanctification is the eradication or removal of that depravity from the nature. The work of regeneration is well expressed by Paul in these words, ‘‘For the law [power, as is the sense of ‘‘law’’ in Rom. 7:23] of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law [power] of sin and death’’ (Rom. 8:2). Because of its effects in the life, be- ing regenerated may be properly described as it is in the Bible, as becoming ‘‘a new ereature,’’ or receiving ‘‘a new heart.’’ That regeneration should be what is here described is reason- able. It would be useless for God to forgive a sinner if he did not thus bring depravity into subjection to the Spirit of God. Because depravity exists in the regenerate, even though it no longer dominates the life, there is a need for a subsequent cleans- ing from it. Also it is not unreasonable that depravity should not be entirely removed at the time of the pardon of sin. Be- cause human nature generally is depraved and the one who sins was depraved in infancy before he ever sinned, it is not unrea- sonable that when he repents he should be pardoned and en- abled by the indwelling Spirit of God afterwards to keep from sin, rather than that he should be at once restored to Adamic purity. Because there are two steps down in the fall it is not unreasonable that there should be two steps in salvation. Ill. Proofs of a Second Cleansing What then are the proofs of a cleansing of the hearts of ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 455 those who have already been regenerated? Such proofs of a second cleansing are ground both for remaining depravity in believers and for the actuality of a definite and entire cleansing from depravity before the hour of death. Unfortunately for the doctrine of sanctification, some of its supporters, in trying to support it with a multitude of texts, have used many that have no application to the subject. This has resulted in caus- ing some persons who found that these texts do not apply to fall into the error of rejecting the doctrine along with the erroneous proofs of it in spite of sound proofs. 1. Sanctification for the Converted—In the prayer of Christ for his disciples at the close of the last supper, he prayed to the Father, ‘‘Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth’’ (John 17:17). The sanctification here desired for the disciples was a cleansing of the heart and not of the life. This is evident from the fact that it was to be done by God and not by them- selves. As previously shown, men are exhorted to cleanse their own lives; but the cleansing which God does is always repre- sented as being the purification of the heart. Also this sancti- fication was in order that they might be kept from evil (v. 15). It was a cause and the holy living was the effect. The mere fact that this sanctification is to be accomplished by the Word is no argument against its being a heart cleansing. We are also regenerated by the word of God (1 Pet. 1:23). As it is said, ‘‘Being born again .. . by the word of God,”’ so it is said, ‘‘Sanctify them through thy truth.”’ The cleansing for which Jesus prayed could not have been that of initial salvation. He did not pray for sinners, ‘‘the world,’’ but for his disciples. They were already justified. This is evident from various statements found in this same chapter as well as in other texts. They were God’s and were obedient to his word (John 17:6); were not of the world (vs. 9, 14, 16); were kept from sin (vs. 11, 12, 15); their names were written in heaven, doubtless, as were those of the Seventy (Luke 10: 20); and they had been sent out to preach the gospel. It is certain that they were also regenerated and that this was not the sanctification for which Jesus prayed. The facts already mentioned concerning them are fruits especially of regeneration. It is the new birth that makes men ‘‘not of the world,’’ and keeps from sin (Ezek. 36:26, 27). And these were not of the 456 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY world and were ‘‘kept,’’ were obedient or kept the word of God (John 17:6). Surely these men were born again who were sent to preach the kingdom of God, which one ‘‘can not see’’ except he be born again. Regeneration is essential to entrance into the kingdom of God (John 3:3). Jesus said before this time, that since the days of John ‘‘the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it’’ (Luke 16:16). Therefore men were being born of God prior to the time of Jesus’ prayer. There can be no doubt that the apostles were among those who had been regenerated. That they were is certain from the Scriptures. It is said, ‘“Them that believe on hig name... were born... of God’’ (John 1:11-13). The disciples had believed, as is shown by the Great Confession (Matt. 16:16). Therefore they were born of God. Still another proof that they were regenerated is the fact that they were in Christ the true vine (John 15:2-4). Therefore they were regenerated, for ‘‘if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature’’ (2 Cor. 5:17). This prayer of Jesus for the sanctification of his disciples is proof that there is a cleansing of the heart for the regenerated, for he said, ‘‘Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word’’ (John 17: 20). 2. Sanctification for the Church—In full accord with Jesus’ prayer that those who are already converted should be sancti- fied are the words of Paul that sanctification is for the church, which is composed of only those who are regenerated. ‘‘ Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it [the church] with the washing of water by the word’’ (Eph. 5:25, 26). Here is described a sanctifica- tion, not of sinners, but of the church. That this sanctification is not a consecration, but a cleansing of the heart, and not a purification of life is clear from the fact already shown that the sanctification of men which God effects is always a cleansing of the heart. Men are exhorted to cleanse their own lives, or to be holy. If the reading of the Revised Version be preferred, the argument for the teaching of a second cleansing by this text is strengthened rather than weakened. ‘‘Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it.’’ This reading, ‘‘having cleansed,’’ igs well ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 457 supported by the original word xataotoas (katharisas) the first aorist participle, which denotes the indefinite past tense. According to this reading, the church, which has already been cleansed, is to be sanctified. This second cleansing or sanctifica- tion of the church is identical with the sanctification which Jesus prayed his disciples might have, and also with the purging of the branches in the vine, Christ. 3. An Entire Sanctification——The church at Thessalonica was established by the apostle Paul during his second missionary journey. But very soon he was compelled by persecution to go elsewhere. Not long after his departure he wrote his first epistle to them from Corinth, in the closing part of which he said, ‘‘The very God of peace sanctify you wholly [entirely] ; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be pre- served blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ’’ (1 Thess. 5:23). The sanctification here taught is to be done by God; therefore it is a cleansing of the heart rather than of the conduct. Those for whom Paul desired it were not sinners, but a church ‘‘in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 1:1). They were ‘‘brethren’’ (v. 4); and, judged from the frequent commendations in the epistle, evidently a very spiritual church. Yet they were not wholly sanctified. The implication is that they were pure in some degree or in some sense. Their need for entire sanctification is that they may be kept ‘‘blameless,’’? which is identical with the disciples being kept from the evil of the world, in order to which sanc- tification was important, according to the prayer of Christ. 4. Coincident with the Holy Spirit Baptism.— Denial of a definite work of salvation subsequent to conversion implies a rejection, not only of a second cleansing, but also of the baptism of the Holy Spirit after regeneration. In no place in the Bible is the baptism by the Holy Spirit represented ag occurring at the time of conversion. When Jesus promised him to the disciples he said of him, ‘‘Whom the world can not receive’’ (John 14: 17). It has been previously shown that the apostles were con- verted before Pentecost, at which time they were all baptized by the Holy Spirit. When Philip preached at Samaria many believed and were baptized. Later when Peter and John at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they went there and laid their hands upon them and the Samar- 458 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY itans received the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:5-17). Paul found cer- tain ‘‘disciples’’ at Ephesus who had ‘‘believed’’ (Acts 19:1, 2). Even though he recognized them as believers and disciples, yet he laid his hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost (v. 6). The apostle Paul himself was converted on the road to Damascus and was there called to preach (Acts 26: 18) ; he prayed (Acts 9:11); he was a ‘‘chosen vessel’’ (v. 15) ; and soon after was called ‘‘Brother Saul’’ by Ananias (v. 17). It was after all this that he was baptized with the Holy Spirit. Before Peter came to him, Cornelius was said to be a devout man who feared God and prayed always (Acts 10:2). His prayers were heard (v. 4), and he was a “‘just man’’ (v. 22). Evidently he was a converted man. Yet when Peter came and preached to him he received the Holy Spirit. In all these in- stances the baptism of the Holy Spirit was subsequent to con- version. Peter was called in question for preaching to Cornelius, who was a Gentile. In his defense he said, ‘‘God, which knoweth the hearts bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith’’ (Acts 15:8, 9). The purifica- tion of heart to which Peter here refers evidently took place when he visited Cornelius. He states that God gave them the Spirit and purified their hearts. Doubtless that cleansing was that which we here designate sanctification and was subsequent to conversion. But the experience of Cornelius was normal in this respect, for Peter says God did to them ‘‘even as he did unto us,’’ the apostles, at Pentecost. Therefore the apostles received a cleansing of heart at Pentecost in harmony with Jesus’ prayer for their sanctification in John 17:17. 5. Two Cleansings in Old Testament Type——The Mosaic institu- tions were types or prophetic similitudes of the great basic truths of Christianity. They did not merely happen to be parallel to, or to illustrate, Christian truth, but were originally given of God for that purpose. It is said of them, ‘‘Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ’’ (Col. 2:17); ‘*Which was a figure for the time then present’’ (Heb. 9:9); ‘‘The example and shadow of heavenly things’’ (Heb. 8:5); ‘The figures of the true’’ (Heb. 9:24): ‘‘A shadow of good things to come’’ (Heb. 10:1). The true work of man’s ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 459 salvation through Christ was altogether worthy to be foreshown by the symbolic salvation of the Mosaic system. The tabernacle was typical. As the dwelling-place of God it was typical of the church of Christ, the house of God (Heb. 8:2; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 9:9). But as a means of divine serv- ice and a system of sacrifice it was also typical of the work of salvation, or the way by which the sinner comes to God. This is clearly brought out by Heb. 10: 19-22. That those sacrifices were typical of the blood of Christ and those ceremonial cleans- ings of our cleansing is certain and generally admitted by be- lievers in the Bible. The Tabernacle contained two rooms—the holy place and the holiest place. There were two veils, one at the entrance of each of these rooms. Two altars were placed, one before each of these veils. There were two sprinklings of blood, one on each of these altars. What could better symbolize two distinct cleansings and two degrees in holiness than this twofold pre- sentation of blood before God to give admittance into greater holiness? The first altar typified justification. The washing at the laver typified regeneration, (Titus 3:5), and the blood placed on the golden altar as a sin-offering for those who had already been admitted to the first room because of their sym- bolic holiness was typical of entire sanctification or a cleansing subsequent to conversion. Then there is here represented two degrees of holiness in the church, which makes possible the sanc- tification of ‘‘the church’’ as described in Eph. 5: 26. That the second room is typical of sanctification is clear from Heb. 10: 19-22: ‘‘Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.’’ Here the exhortation is to ‘‘brethren,’’ those already justified and regenerated, to go ‘‘into the holiest’? from the holy place where they then were. They were to enter it ‘‘by the blood of Jesus.’’ ‘‘Having had’’ (A. S. V.) their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (justified at the brazen altar), and their bodies washed with pure water (regenerated at the laver), which admitted to the first room, 460 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY they were urged to go on into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. If it be objected on the ground of Heb. 9:24 that the holiest place was a type of heaven, we reply, then we have here an exhortation to the converted to enter heaven. Such an exhorta- tion would be improper, for at best we can only be ready for heaven, which these already were; actually entering is never voluntary on our part. We can enter only when God wills. We could not enter voluntarily if we chose; therefore if heaven were meant in this particular text the text would be super- fluous and absurd. But this text evidently exhorts brethren to enter that which may be entered at once voluntarily, which is true of entire sanctification, but is not true of heaven. Heb. 9:24 ig concerned with the act of Christ’s mediation, which was typified by the mediatory service of Aaron that took place in the holiest of the tabernacle. It is a service that is here represented, rather than a place. As the typical mediation was in God’s presence, so is the true mediation in God’s presence, regardless of where God is. IV. Nature of Entire Sanctification 1. A Real Experience.—Any attempt accurately and fully to define sanctification must result in failure. No spiritual or mental operation can be so defined. It does not therefore fol- low necessarily that it is unreal because not capable of full and logical definition in the present state of human knowledge. It would be as unreasonable to reject its reality because of its mystery as to reject the reality of regeneration on the same ground which is equally indefinable in full. But the Scriptures and experience testify to the reality of both of them. Many other facts which are mysteries and inexplainable to human wisdom as to their nature are commonly believed. Mysteries surround us on every hand in physical nature. Also the mind itself as to its nature as well as to its phenomena is involved in mystery. We know we think, but we do not know how we think. It is as unreasonable to reject sanctification because of its mystery as it would be to deny the reality of depravity itself because of mystery in connection with it. Full knowledge of the nature of sanctification is not necessary to the benefits of the experience, as it is not necessary that one understand his digestive processes to be benefited by the food he eats, or to be ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 461 informed concerning the mechanism of a telephone and the na- ture of electricity in order to have the advantages of communi- cation by that means. But some truths can be known by experience which can be known in no other way. A man born blind can have no true comprehension of color, even though one may try earnestly to explain it to him. He has nothing in his experience with which to compare it. So also a practical idea of the nature of entire sanctification ig possible only to him who has the experience. Also one can know the nature of conversion only by being con- verted. Yet as many who have been truly converted can not explain regeneration, so many who have been sanctified are unable to define sanctification. As the most satisfactory defini- tion of regeneration is a description of its effects, so the descrip- tion of the effects of sanctification are of special importance. 2. Effects of Sanctification—A distinction was previously made between depravity and the effect of it, which is a tendency to sin. Now we should distinguish between sanctification and the effects of it. Sanctification may be described as being a cleansing from the depravity of the nature; or to state it more literally, it is a restoration of the nature from its deranged condition. If depravity is largely a perversion of the affections, then sanctification must be principally a restoration of them. The effects of sanctification are the absence of the effects of depravity. That the second cleansing taught in the Scriptures is a restora- tion from depravity is evident from the fact that this is accord- ing to man’s need. In the very nature of the case it is i1m- possible that a cleansing of the heart subsequent to justification could be a cleansing from those sins which are already forgiven. Sanctification does not effect an eradication of any essential qualities of human nature as originally constituted, but only of the evil dispositions resulting from its perversion. When God ereated man he endowed him with a certain natural pride, com- monly known as self-respect, which is very desirable in that it causes one to seek to be agreeable and pleasing to his fellow men. This natural pride is perverted through moral depravity to such an extent that men in their sinful condition desire, not only to be well thought of by their fellows, but to be esteemed more highly than any one else. They come to have an unduly exalted estimation of themselves. This perversion of a natural 462 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY ‘and proper disposition is the result of selfishness and is sinful. Sanctification results simply in the restoration to the natural condition where one is free from sinful pride, yet is possessed of a proper self-respect. A sense of justice is also natural to man as created. Justice is an attribute of God and is essential to a moral being. This sense of justice causes one to feel a natural anger, indignation, or displeasure at an act of injustice. Every good person feels it when he beholds the sight of oppression of the helpless. Jesus felt it and God often felt it with Israel. Depravity results in a derangement of this natural anger so that it becomes vindic- tive, selfish—it becomes hatred. This leads one to sinful acts. Sanctification does not remove-from one that sense of justice nor what is included in it, but does restore it from the depraved condition. Other natural qualities such as acquisitiveness, humor, and the desire for pleasure are deranged through sin, but restored in sanctification. It is not always possible to distinguish clearly between emo- tions and manifestations of depravity and of essential human nature. The effects of sanctification are not uniform in all men, partly for the reason that the degree of the depravity is not the same in all. The personal experience of sanctification of no particular person can be cited as an example of what the effects of sanctification will be in all others. Sanctification does not destroy the essential qualities of human nature, does not remove all human imperfections, does not make one infallible, nor save one from the possibility of committing sin. Sanctifiea- tion is identical with Adamic perfection as to heart purity, but in various other respects Adamic perfection is not attained until glorification at the resurrection. This must be true in re- gard to the physical and mental natures. It is consistent with human probation under present conditions that we should not in all respects be brought to the condition of man in his original estate in this life. 3. A Definite Work—A question of special importance in determining what is the nature of sanctification is whether it is a definite, instantaneous work of grace or whether it is a gradual growth in holiness, of the nature of growth in grace. What has been said about it in preceding chapters assumes it is a definite, instantaneous purification. The proof that it is a ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 463 second cleansing is proof also that it is a definite cleansing. However, it seems important that more formal proof should be given on this point. The very nature of the work of sanctification, as we have set it forth, is opposed to the idea of gradual cleansing. L[vi- dently there is a growth in grace after conversion that may be called a sanctification of the life, but this is not to be confused with the instantaneous heart cleansing called sanctification. If depravity of the moral nature may be described as being like that in the nature of a lion which causes it to differ from the lamb, then the distinction between a growth into holiness and a definite cleansing of the heart from depravity might well be represented by the difference between taming the ferocious na- ture of the lion and miraculously converting a lion nature into that of a docile lamb. Sanctification is accomplished by the blood of Christ as is regeneration. Few would affirm regeneration is a gradual pro- eess. The ‘‘purging’’ of John 15:1-6 is a definite work. Its purpose is that those already in Christ and who are bearing the fruit should bear more fruit. According to this statement, holiness of life is the result, not the cause, of holiness of heart. The typical sanctification, the application of the blood on the golden altar, was a definite work, as was also the passing from the holy place to the most holy place of the tabernacle. Also the Scriptures represent some as being already sanctified. Very few, if any, of those who hold sanctification is attained by a process of growth ever believe themselves to have attained the experience. Herein the fruits of their theory differ from the Bible teaching of sanctification. We do not say that God might not if he so desired and be- cause of special conditions sanctify one by a gradual process, or that he might not wholly sanctify one at the time of justifica- tion, but it is clear that such is not the normal method; nor is such taught in the Scriptures, and it is better that we teach what is taught in the Bible than what is not taught there. V. Attainment of Sanctification 1. Attainable in This Life—For the attainment of sanctifica- tion it is of importance that one know it is possible during this life. This point is denied by the creeds of some denominations. 464 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY The point to be proved here is not the need of a second work, nor the possibility of entire sanctification, but that sanctification is attainable before the hour of death. That it is attainable during this life is evident from several Scripture statements already cited. Jesus prayed for his disciples that they might be sanctified in order that they might be kept from the evil. There- fore he recognized it as attainable in life. Likewise the apostle Paul prayed for the entire sanctification of the Thessalonians that they might be preserved. Some were sanctified to whom epistles were addressed. Of these the inspired writer said, ‘‘He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified’’ (Heb. 10:14). Sanctification is not only attainable in this life, but its attain- ment by every believer is important. Jesus prayed for the sanc- tification of his disciples at the solemn hour when he was ready to go out from the last supper to Gethsemane, betrayal, and death. It was worthy of a chief place in the last prayer for his disciples. The apostles also give it an important place. Paul at once inquired, when he went to Ephesus and found twelve disciples, if they had yet received the Holy Ghost. 2. Conditions for Sanctification—The conditions for sanctifi- cation are not formally stated in the Scriptures, but they may be known from incidental statements. They are briefly as fol- lows: The apostles received it by prayer (Acts 2). The Samar- itans and the Ephesians by the prayers and laying on of the hands of the others (Acts 8:15, 17; 19:6). A dedication of ourselves is necessary in the very nature of the case, however, to this cleansing and infilling’ of the Spirit, as in the ceremonial sanctification of the Old Testament. Consecration is important for sanctification, but this is not to be confused with the for- saking of all that Jesus set forth as a requisite to discipleship. It is rather a dedication to be a temple for the Holy Spirit’s indwelling. Too often sanctification is represented as an experience very difficult of attainment, which may be reached only after long praying and seeking, and which many may never be able to attain. The Bible rather represents it as for even the weakest of Christians. As Peter said in his Pentecostal sermon in tell- ing the penitent Jews of the possibility of their receiving the ~ Holy Ghost, ‘‘For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and. to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 465 shall eall’’ (Acts 2:39). The conditions are simple prayer and faith. ‘‘If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?’’ (Luke 10:18). 3. Assurance of Sanctification—The evidence of one’s being sanctified should not be expected to be experienced by the physi- eal senses. yoouowainna 10. Host PART VI THE CHURCH, OR ECCLESIOLOGY CHAPTER I ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH I.. Idea, of the Church 1. Sense of the Term.—The word ‘‘church’’ is the rendering in the common, English version of the New Testament of the Greek term éxxAnota (ecclesia). The sense of the English term ‘‘ehurch’’ in the New, Testament is determined wholly by the meaning of the Greek éxxAnota (ecclesia). The latter is derived from a compound term, é&x-xadéw (ek-kaleo), the latter part meaning to call and the former meaning out of. Ecclesia, there- fore denotes an assembly summoned or called out, a company selected or separated from the multitude. Before it was used of the Christian assembly it had a secular usage of the assembly of the citizens of a Greek city when summoned by the crier. Trench says, ‘* Ecclesia, as all know, was the lawful assembly in a free Greek city of all those possessed of the right of citizenship for the transaction of public affairs. That they were summoned is expressed in the latter part of the word; that they were sum- moned out of the whole population, a select portion of it, neither the populace, nor: yet strangers, nor those who had. forfeited their civil rights—this is expressed in the first. Both the calling and the calling out are moments to be remembered when the word is assumed into a higher Christian sense; for in them the chief part of its adaptation to its more august use lies.’’? Nota mere mob, but only an assembly summoned together was an ecclesia. The Hebrew word which is rendered ‘‘congregation’’ in the common English version, as in the expression ‘‘congregation of the: Lord,’’ is in’ the Greek Septuagint rendered éxxAnoia (ecclesia). The Hebrew church were the descendants of Israel, and were divinely called out from among the nations to be the special people of God. In the New Testament ecclesia is found one hundred and fif- teen times. In three instances it is used of the Greek assembly, 507 508 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY as in Acts 19:82, 39, where it is translated ‘‘assembly’’; two times it is used of the Hebrew congregation (Acts 7: 38 and Heb. 2:12) and translated ‘‘church’’; and one hundred and ten times it is used of the Christian church. In this latter use it refers to those whom God has called or chosen out from the world. The church of God, then, is simply the company of God’s called- out ones. The sense of the term ecclesia is of much value in fur- nishing us a correct idea of what is the true church. 2. The Universal Church.—’HxxAyota (Hcclesia), in its broad- est sense, is used of the entire company of those whom God has called in all ages whether they be on earth or in heaven. It con- sists of the aggregate of those who have been regenerated. In this sense the church is but one*and is so often represented in the Seriptures. Jesus said, ‘‘I will build my church’’ (Matt. 16:18). The singular number here indicates that the universal church is spoken of. ‘‘Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to him- self a glorious church’’ (Eph. 5: 25-27). Evidently the local church can not be represented here as the bride of Christ, else innumerable brides will at last be presented to Christ, a figure which is entirely incongruous. When the church is represented as the body of Christ only the universal church can be meant. Christ is ‘‘Head over all things to the church, which is his body’’ (Eph. 1:22). In Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 the physical human body is used to represent the body of Christ. Of this body Christ is said to be the head. But if the body of Christ were used of the local church, then we have the image of one head with innumerable bodies. Other texts in which ecclesia is used in the universal sense are, ‘‘He is the head of the body, the church’’ (Col. 1:18) ; ‘‘For his body’s sake, which is the church’’ (v. 24); also Eph. 3:10, 21 and Heb. 12: 23. In this general aspect the church is sometimes described as in- visible. It is so designated because it has no visible or earthly organization as do local congregations with their meetings and elders, or as do humanly organized denominational churches. This designation does not imply that the universal church is not truly organized with a divine spiritual head to which every mem- ber is related. The universal church is not merely the aggre- gate of all who profess Christianity, but is that company whom ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH 509 Christ has regenerated, in whom his Spirit dwells, and who are thereby joined to Christ and to one another. 3. The Local Church.—’Exxiyoia (ecclesia) is also used in the Scriptures of the local congregation. This is its most com- mon sense, being so used in ninety-two instances. Examples of this usage are, ‘‘the church which was at Jerusalem’’ (Acts 8: 1), ‘‘the churches of Galatia’’ (1 Cor. 16:1), and ‘‘the church of God which is at Corinth’’ (1 Cor. 1:2). The local church is the local embodiment and exhibition of the universal church. It is the company of the regenerate persons of a given commun- ity associated together according to the Scriptures for worship and the upbuilding of the kingdom of God. It is not merely an association of persons who have joined themselves together for social, benevolent, or even a religious purpose. WARN ee GUD7 | Moe Be Ong setae ame 606 LE Eb a RIS 636 | 2:2 Li e019 8) ass ad Ri nat peu Sen ee 575 * 0a Ne a edn Pe Or YL, pene enema COs 4S caine ae an. 607 Baten, 654, .050,.040 1) os (he coe he a lioceee BOA) Oat aoe ee ee 525 SCO es eae! BS Tete O a hes Peck reece ceed Pea Oog ho sd Lal eat ne ee 524 2:9....377, 379, 394, 402 Pre BOA LONTANS [5221 au Cs ee. ai 508 2 PETER NSA 1 LD OS Deane ted Seg OE: Pe te oe Sa Hats tis (00 a be gl HLS ee Oe Ao Sa 413 1h thy oe Sa Ree aS AM ge) Brite aaah A oe rie WA FANN Bah YS ope lal aR ek 285 TCL RIG AA ie ta GSAS G57 | AcdBuee eee ae LOS EAL ee 167, 171, 228 os es B36 O38 N71 Oi (trata cet cane CAS PN dae Wk SOM pe ees 540 ee EYES Se oe G29! 822 Mee ean AO alan? eka asal ere sesak 266, 646 “IS VRSER SN lia ALO SD eee BSS 408 wor ese tet. Ue week Sc) 643 TURD: Sak Sie a ae S15 eB Se eee eke: Dasara LO ie a fa 649 SL Pees ene ee aa Poa ede) Oh, ink ieee 630 1 TIMOTHY ES! Pea ede BOS ANS, AO gh es ROLLE cisudcsspccsceayen ces 649 AE Wg yak itr aE Hi USWA ELD bay gi We Qaeda ra SW po ACY Maer Smee seeds Ae 652 fT a SRR Re Bx) 405 | 9:14... Po SP PAL MSO 4 SU RASTA Zee 637 680 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY En bi peat ee ieee s ONe G31) (Gd coerce te tee 602, | <3). koe eee 544 Seth Cees VOR G7 MGsIn tide, 450) 449, | 1311-14 oe 552 SEO Ma Akaka eo 434i 1309) J Seen 623 1 JOHN 19:3) ;4 020 ee 622 TEESE 360 2 JOHN 19:5) 2 Oe 623 VAG Wet lexae err BG BRON Sayan ian eventing BoA De (sien eee 321 TEA CORES, Jean 428 18714") ore 546 DED ied eo ee gers 430 3 JOHN Et A eae ores | 501 eT hots AEE 441 |, og 14:11 ee 654 PEE htie SST WAOOM ANS he Mare teres Td TD Ta \ eee ee 196 DAU Sa ey eet 442 17-102 eae 622, 623 CYL Ge men Date 629 toe 17:10)/12) chee ” 618 B200 PRC Rae 430) | 6. ------------neeeeeeenereceeees 266.) 7821-4) 552 Ee tay Heme Oe 432 | 13 -.--2-----esceceeseeneecee GOS 1951) on eee 660 2S Gyre ape le 449, 19:6 ee 188 Ie can Reece a AS OP 441 REVELATION 191116 ies ioe 622 STi oth BLAS NG ASDF ASI i Spee wuse---B78, 574 | 20:1-6........621, 624, 625 Fae Mea G24 18 AAA Bel eerie ee ea yen 6854 (20:9 -22 er is 321, 623 Acosta fy Ae B29 OBGE eee 9201 90+11) -.acuereeee 649 A SAY ea ASA O10 naan ae ves G16) 20.1115: oe 626, 645 eg Berets usenet 480 843 74|61020 seenne eee 618) 120719013. eee 644 AS BE. Lisa rotadvencaesteaetie LOOT Ba Ode torres cereo en eres ss 635/197 Paute es ae 649 ABEL te eine teeteeeeed SS LAV TL ONee eee woe 413 FAST: Sie Cinco ANE Th PEERY ipa ean en) g23 | 21:3 eiho aah cane ae a 43045740 (Ge O0 ine ee eee 988 | 21:4 -------neeeeceeeeenee 662 Tar IA WO ALN OTA T Tac ee ae 5740 (21:8 ote 654 # ha) Le aa nit bf Vi iebiy 9 i f im! ar A wl eS es ; Pele hole he iy i rt 7 hit Date Due “A rs JY 30°53 a FEB 1 8°57 — tes — rte qe (GI "4 iy 744 eewa. 4 gee Wis iy i ty