'PI PiPipsiiiipiw^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 12.. i. .2-;, LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, N. J. Presented by u)r\e. CAu-v'Wov", n r Division... .i... Section _..v„.C . sec i J /S-tT ERRATA Pag'c 27, line !(>, for 'somchiny' read 'somctliing'' Page 50, line 6, for jilan read plant Pag"e 52, line 19, for Providences read Pro\-idenc'" Page 91, line 7 from bottom, for man read matter Page 133, line 18, for ali read all Page 237, line 21, for Revlation read Revelation Page 244, line 7, for Nairn read Nain Page 244, line 23, for Nairn read Nain Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/syllabusofsystemOOclar ^^-y^'''^^^!^^ A SYLLABUS OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY By DAVID S. CLARK, D.D. Instructor in Systematic Theology in the Philadelphia School of Christian Workers of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches FOR USE IN SCHOOLS AND CLASSES. To my beloved teachers in Systematic Theology, Prof. Archibald Alexander Hodge D.D. Prof. Francis L. Patton D.D. Principal John Cairns D.D. this volume is reverently dedicated. PREFACE. 1. This is a Syllabus. It presents only a brief outline for school and class. A few subjects are treated at some leng-fh because, either they have been matters of contro- versy, or have special interest at the present time, e.g"., Miracles, Election, Justification, Atonement, and Christ's Second Advent. 2. The Scriptures are the authoritative source of Christian theology. We have used to some extent a proof- text method, well aware of the modern objection to proof- texts. We believe that the exhibition of Scriptural teach- ing' is the true method of Christian theolog-y, and when a proof-text is properly interpreted according to its context and the analogy of faith it is not only a legitimate method, but absolutely authoritative. Biblical theology has its place and gets due weig'ht in the formulation of doctrine, but cannot appear at length in a syllabus, and must depend at any rate upon the proper interpretation of the text. Proof-texts may be and have been sadly misused. Some minds have the faculty of finding, in any text, what- ever they are seeking even when it is not there. But the abuse of a method is no refutation of its proper use, and w^e hope we have used the method, where it is used, in a legitimate way. The true method of theology is inductive, the gather- ing and classifying of facts, chiefly from the Scriptures, supported by any evidence from external sources, and thus providing the basis for doctrinal definition in accordance with the induction. The vital question for the Christian theologian is: What has God said? Modernistic attempts at theology are largely speculative, with no authority but the ipse dixit of the writer. For an example see "Christianity in its Modern Expression," by the late Prof. Geo. B. Foster. The Biblical source and the inductive method exclude no light from other sources. The field of induction is as wide as the universe and as deep as being. No field opens so wide a vista as theology. All science, all philosophy, all psychology, all realms of knowledge lay down their contributions to "the queen of the sciences." 3. Much criticism has been directed, in late years, against theology, as if it were an outgrown and useless science. As well might the physician repudiate anatomv —3— and materia medica, or the jurist despise Blackstone and the laws of evidence. All men are "incurably religious" and all men have a theology and must have one, whether they recognize it or not. Theology will not cease to be a science till men cease to think, or till they cease to ask: Whence did I come, what am I here for„ and whither am I going? Principal P. T. Forsyth sa^^s: "The prime need of religion today is a theology. Some minds, demoralized by their very religion, cry out against theology, metaphysics, and academics. It is a cry charged with the ruin of the Christian future." 4. Theo-centric and Christo-centric theologies are not in direct antithesis. The Theo-centric view is Theo-centric in regard to the source from which the system flows. The Christo-centric view is Christo-centric in regard to the fact toward which it flows, or in regard to the fact in which the system centers. One conceives of theology as proceed- ing from God, the other considers it as finding its chief expression in Christ, — the terminus a quo, and the ter- minus ad quern of revelation, — the point from which and the point to which one looks in his theological vision. 5. In dealing with the subject of theology it is posi- tively painful that a work like this cannot give even scant mention of the literature of theology. What a literature! How 'rich and vast and varied! How soul-gripping in its fascination! Alas that life is short! 6. The division into four parts. Theology, Anthropol- ogy, Soteriology, and Eschatology, follows the plan of Charles Hodge. While every theologian has his own plan, the present arrangement, though not perfect, has the merit of simplicity and con\'enience. 7. As portions of this work were prepared for class exercises with no view to publication, a few references have been lost, we trust thej/^ are not many. We cheer- fully acknowledge indebtedness to the following: Systematic Theology, Charles Hodge. Outlines of Theology, A. A. Hodge. Dogmatic Theology, W. G. T. Shedd. System of Christian Doctrine, I. A. Dorner. Systematic Theology, A. H. Strong. Outlines of Christian Theology, W. N. Clarke. System of Christian Theology, Henry B. Smith. Commentary on Confession of Faith, A. A. Hodge. Summary of Doctrine, Francis L. Patton. —4— Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, Theodore Christ- lieb. The Atonement, R. W. Dale. History of Doctrine, W. G. T. Shedd. Anti-Theistic Theories, Robert Flint. Christian Doctrine of Immortality, S. D. F. Salmond. The Personality of God, J. H. Snowden. The Coming" of the Lord; Will it be Premillennial? — J. H. Snowden. The Second Advent, David Brown. The Schaff-Herzog" Encjxlopedia, old and new edi- tions. 8. Many studj'-classes have been conducted in recent years, in the church and out of it, covering a variety of subjects. It is to be hoped that the most interesting-, vital, and useful of all subjects. Christian Doctrine, may have as larg-e a place in such study-classes as the importance of the subject deserves. If this volume shall contribute to this end its publication will be justified. Not every chapter is suitable to every class. The judg- ment of the teacher and the character of the class must determine the use. The writer has endeavored by simple language and explicit analysis to make the great subjects of theology easily comprehensible. No one is more alive to the deficiencies of the volume than the writer, who regrets that necessity for its use hur- ried the publication before it could be brought to finished form. Also that the warmth and glow that should char- acterize religious subjects are lost in condensation. It is hoped at least that those desiring a bird's-eye-view of theological subjects, a multum in parvo, may find it here. Deo gloria. DAVID S. CLARK. Philadelphia, Pa. —5— Systematic Theology INDEX PAGE. Introduction. Chapter (A) Chapter (B) Section Section Section T. II. III. DEFINITION. METHOD. Speculative. Mystical. Inductive. Chapter (C) THE SOURCE. Section I. Section II. Natural Theolog"y. Revealed Theology. Chapter (D) THE SCRIPTURES. Section Section Section Section Section Section Chapter (E Section Section Section I. Revelation from God. II. Inspiration. III. Authority of Scriptures. IV. Completeness of Scriptures. V. Perspicuity of Scriptures. VI. Text of Scriptures. ) THE RULE OF FAITH. I. Rationalist Rule of Faith. II. Roman Catholic Rule of Faith. III. Protestant Rule of Faith. Chapter Section Section Section Part I. Theology Proper. I. CAN GOD BE KNOWN? I. The Bible declaration. II. Sir Wm. Hamilton's Teaching. III. Distinction between apprehension and comprehension. Section IV. Can God be defined? -7— Chapter II. PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Section I. Can God's existence be proved? Section II. How much proof is necessary? Section III. Arguments for God's existence. Chapter III. ANTI-THEISTIC THEORIES. Section Section Section Section Section I. II. III. IV. V. Atheism. Polytheism. Hylozoism. Materialism. Pantheism. Chapter IV. ANTI-CHRISTIAN THEORIES. Section I. Deism. Section II. Rationalism. Section III. Christian Science. Section IV. Pessimism. Section V. A Finite God. Chapter V. THE NATURE OF GOD. Section I. The Oneness of God. Section II. The Personality of God. Section III. Substance and Attributes of God. Section IV. Transcendence and Immanence. Section V. A Trinity of Persons. Chapter VI Section Section Section Section Section Section VI. Section Section THE DECREES OF GOD. I. Purpose of God. II. Classification of Decrees. III. Events Embraced. IV. Order of Decrees. V. God's decree renders certain whatever is decreed. God's decree makes foreknowledge possible. VII. The decrees and free agency. VIII. Doctrine of Election. Chapter VII. THE WORKS OF GOD. Section I. Creation. Section II. Providence. Section III. Miracles. SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. INTRODUCTION. (A) Definition. The word "theology" comes from the two Greek words "Theos" God and "logos" discourse. Theology is a science, and sometimes called the "Queen of the Sciences." Science is not only a collection and arrangement of facts, but the discovery and statement of the laws that govern them. So Theology gathers and arranges the facts and points out their relations, thus seeking to present the subject in an orderly and harmonious system. A sufficient definition is: Theology is the science that deals with our knowledge of God and his relation to men. (B) Method. I. Speculative. This method is deductive — deducing the system from some a-priori philosophical principles. The Deistic, Pantheistic, and Rationalistic theologies were speculative. Their theology is derived from their philosophy. II. Mystical. There were those who claimed special revelations from God, apart from and superior to the Scriptures; and formulated their theology from this sup- posed revelation. Swedenborg. Anabaptists. Joseph Smith. III. Inductive. The inductive method is the method of natural science, the gathering of facts, classification, and study of the laws that govern them. This is the true method in theology as in all science. (C) Source. I. Natural Theologry. This embraces the facts con- tained in the works of God as distinct from the written revelation. 1. The created universe reveals much concerning God. Ps. 19:1. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firma- ment sheweth his handywork. Rom. 1:20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made. —9— 2. Natural theology is insufficient for the needs of man. It tells of no way of pardon and peace with God. It provides no escape from sin. It offers no way of salvation. It has no dynamic, or incentive to holiness. It contains no revelation of the future. II. Revealed Theology. Revealed theolog"3^ is that which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The Scriptures contain all the necessary facts. Re- vealed theolog'y teaches all that natural theology teaches and more. Whatever may be known about God and his relation to men from the material universe or the consti- tution of the human mind is recognized in the Scriptures. The theolog"ian does not discard any truth whether in nature or revelation; but as all truth is harmonious, the facts of natural theolog'y and the facts of revealed theol- ogy do not contradict, but supplement each other. (D) The Scriptures. I. The Bible contains a revelation from God — is a revelation from God. 1. If there is a good God there is certainly a revelation. Cannot conceive that God would not reveal him- self. Father and son. He made man capable of knowing, obeying and worshiping him and a revelation is necessary to meet these capabilities. There is the strongest presumption possible in favor of a revelation. 2. If there is a written revelation, the Bible of all books fills the bill. No other book has superior claims. If the Bible is not God's written word, there is none in the world. 3. It is beyond controversy that the Bible is gen- erally trustworthy. , It is as credible as ordinary history at least. On the face of it, it is a plain book and honest in its statements. If the Bible can be believed at all then we mai' believe what it says about itself; and hundreds of times it saj^s: "Thus saith the Lord." 4. The facts of the book show its divine author- ship. (a) Attested by miracles. (b) Reveals what only God could know; e.g. his- tory of creation. Prophecies. (d) Has the loftiest moral system in the world. (e) The power it exercises over the world. (f) The harmony and unity of the whole. (g") Tells what man most needs to know. Meets his needs mental and spiritual. Reveals the whence, what, and whither of life. Comforts him in sorrow, g'ives purpose to his life, reassures him in face of death. Holds out the incentive of a beatific destiny. Gives a reinedy for sin, and a way of salvation; is in fact what one would expect of a revelation. II. The Inspiration of the Scriptures. 1. Definition. Inspiration is the divine influence exercised on the writers of the Scriptures to preserve thein from error in their teaching'. Inspiration did not make men mere inachines; was not a merely mechanical process, but employed their knowledge, faculties, style, etc. Inspiration is not inere dictation; yet some thing^s were dictated. Inspiration guided the writers in collecting" and expressing" what God wanted them to teach. A difference between inspiration and revelation. 2. Proof of Inspiration. It is important to ask, what do the Scriptures say of their own inspiration — not what this or that man may think, but what does God, in the Scriptures SAY? The Scriptures assert it of themselves, and they must either be believed aS' true in this respect or rejected in all respects. (a) The Old Testament claims^ inspiration. Deut. 4:2. Moses' words are said to be the commands of God. Deut. 4:5. I have taught as the Lord commanded me. Deut. 6:1-2. These are the commandments which the Lord God commanded to teach. II. Sam. 23:2. The Spirit of God spake by me and his word was in my tongue. Is. 1:10. Hear the word of the Lord. Jer. 1:2. To whom the word of the Lord came. — II — • Jer. 1:9. Behold I have put my words into thy mouth. Ezek. 3:1. Son of man eat this roll and go speak unto Israel. Ezek. 3:4. Son of man go get thee to the house of Israel and speak with my words unto them. Hos. 1:1. The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea. Joel 1:1. The word of the Lord that came to Joel. Amos 1:3. Thus saith the Lord. 2:1. Thus saith the Lord. Amos 3:1. Hear the word that the Lord hath spoken. Ob. 1:1. Thus saith the Lord God. Micah 1:1. The word of the Lord that came unto Micah. (b) The New Testament declares the inspiration of the Old Testament. Lk. 1:70. As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets. Acts 4:25. Who (thru the Holy Spirit) by the mouth of thy servant David hath said. Heb. 1:1. God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake by the prophets. n. Tim. 3:16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God. L Pet. i:ii. Searching what the Spirit of Christ who was in them did signify. n. Pet. 1:21. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of men; but holy men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit. (c) The Inspiration of the New Testament. Inspiration was promised to the Apostles; and accordingly they present their words as the words of the Holy Spirit. Matt. 10:19. It shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. Jno. 14:26. The Holy Spirit shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you. Jno. 15:26-27. The Spirit of truth shall testify of me, and ye shall also bear witness because ye have been with me from the beginning. Jno. 16:13. When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth. Acts 2:33. Having received the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this which ye now^ see and hear. Acts 15:28. For it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary' things. I. Thes. 1:5. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit, and in assurance. L Cor. 2:13. Which things we speak, not in the words wliich man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth. H. Cor. 13:3. Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, I will not spare. H. Pet. 3:16. Puts Paul's epistles on a level with the Old Testament. li Thes. 2:13. When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it, not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God. — 12— 3. Differing- theories of Inspiration. (a) No inspiration. The Bible but a human book. (b) That the event was inspired but not the rec- ord of the event. (c) That the thought was inspired but not the words. Answer: We think in words. Shedd says: "An idea is an internal word. A word is an external idea." The Scriptures recognize this: Ps. 14:1. The fool hath said in his heart. Lk. 3:8. Begin not to say within yourselves. The Bible always refers to the words in speaking of inspiration. Holy men SPAKE. ALL SCRIPTURE, etc. (d) That writers were preserved from error in matters necessary to salvation, but not as to other matters like history, chronology, science, etc. Answer: It is impossible to tell what is and what is not necessary to salvation. If the history is false the doctrines cannot be true. If the gospels are mythical we have no Saviour. If the resurrection of Christ is a fancy, our faith is vain. Such vital matters as the incarnation, atonement, salvation, resurrection, and future rewards and pun- ishments, require the guidance of an infallible Spirit to avoid a statement of them that would be mislead- ing. (e) Plenarj'^ and Verbal Inspiration is the doc- trine of the church. Plenary inspiration means that the Bible is in- spired in all its parts. Verbal inspiration means that in the making- of the Scriptures the superintendence of the Holy Spirit extended to the words. The Scriptures assert a verbal inspiration. See proofs above. What the Scriptures say of their own inspiration determines our doctrine. The Scriptures constantly claim that their words were given or directed by the Holy Spirit. Objection is sometimes made that if verbal inspi- ration holds, then must the Bible use the exact and —13— technical languag"e of modern science. But the Bible uses the lang"uag"e of common speech exact enoug"h and understood bj' all as the technical terms would not be. At any rate who has guaranteed that the tech- nical language of science will never change? (f) Does inspiration guarantee inerrancy'? Some controversy over this. Inerrancj'^ does not mean that the wTiters were faultless in life, but preserved from error in teaching. They themselves may have had wrong conceptions about many things, but did not teach them; e.g. as to earth, stars, social or political life, etc. Inerrancy does not mean that a wrong interpreta- tion could not be put on the text, or that it could not be misunderstood. Inerrancy does not deny the flexibility of lan- guage as a vehicle of communication. It is often difficult to conve3' an exact statement because of this flexibility of language, or possible variation of mean- ing in words. Inerrancy means that the truth is conveyed in words which, understood as they were meant to be understood, express no error. What do the Scriptures saj' as to their own iner- rancy? ist, That thej^ are the word of God. and God can- not err. 2nd, Matt. 5:18. One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, etc. 3rd, Jno. 10:35. The Scripture cannot be broken (as to a single word), 4th, Gal. 3:16. Paul's argument turns on the singular or plural number of a word — seed. III. The Authority of the Scriptures. (a) Protestantism has always stood for the au- thoritj^ of the Scriptures. If the Scriptures are the word of God they are of absolute authority'. There is no appeal from the word of God to any higher court. All appeal from the Scriptures to the church, or tradition, or reason or public sentiment is illogical and destructive. I. Jno. 5:9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. I. Thes. 2:13. When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of man, but as it is indeed, the word of God. — 14— (b) Romanists exalt the church above the Scrip- tures, and claim an infallible church. They criticise Protestants for taking" authority from the church and placing" it in a book. The testimony of the church is valuable as to cononicity, in determining" what is Scripture, but the authority of the Scriptures is not derived from the church. A man may be a witness to my claim, without my deriving that claim from him. (c) Rationalists make reason the supreme author- ity- Schleiermacher based his theology on the feel- ing's, Dorner on experience, Ritschl on the congruitj^ of experience and revelation. IV. Completeness of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are sufficiently complete. All thing's needful for salvation and life are contained in the Scriptures or readily deduced therefrom. No new revelations are necessary like those of Swedenborg and the Mormons. Tradition is not on a level with the Bible. The Scriptures do not g"o into all the details of life; but in these we may be g"uided by the general prin- ciples and spirit of the book. Some say: "What is not commanded is forbidden." We had better say: "What is not commanded cannot be enjoined." V. Perspicuity of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are sufficiently clear. They may be read by the unlearned man, and are desig'ned for personal use. (a) Romanists deny this and claim that men must not interpret for themselves, but accept what the church declares to be the sense. (b) Protestants open the Bible to all, but admit the benefit of scholarship and prog"ress in accurate interpretation. The Protestant position is best; because — The Scriptures are addressed to all men. We are commanded to search the Scriptures. The practice of the Apostolic age confirms it. Note the Bereans and that Timothy knew the vScrip- tures from a child. Wherever the Scriptures are read the best t>T)e of Christian life prevails. —15— VI. The Text of the Scriptures. The orig-inal manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek were those immediately inspired, and of which authenticity and inerrancy are affirmed. The Scriptures have come down to us in manuscripts of the orig-inal lang-uages. in quotations of early writers, and in translations into other languages. The text is singularly, or at least comparatively, pure. Some alterations and mistakes of copyists have oc- curred. Our difficulties are chiefly due to these mistakes of transmission, and failure to understand idioms and idio- syncrasies of other ages, and to render them properly. The oldest extant Hebrew manuscripts date from the 9th or loth century A. D. The oldest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are from the 3rd or 4th century. (E) The Rule of Faith. I. Rationalists make reason the rule of faith. They repudiate both the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. II. The Roman Catholic Rule of Faith. (a) Includes the Apocrapha in the canon. (b) As the Scriptures are considered incomplete, tradition becomes a second authority, or the comple- ment of the Scriptures. (c) As the vScriptures are considered obscure the church claims to be the infallible interpreter. (d) The Latin Vulgate is the authoritative text authorized by the church. III. The Protestant Rule of Faith. (a) Shorter Catechism, Quest. 2. What rule hath God given, etc. (b) The canon is established as follows: — As to the Old Testament, the books contained in our Old Testament and these only were the sacred books of the Jews. Christ and his Apostles quoted and gave their sanction to all the parts of the Old Testament as the word of God. As to the New Testament, the books now con- tained in our New Testament are accepted on the testimony of the early fathers and councils that they proceeded from the Apostles, or those associated with them. —16— (c) As to the Apocrapha, it is rejected — Because it was not included in the Jewish canon, and not written in Hebrew. Because never quoted or referred to by Christ and the Apostles as a part of the holy scriptures. Because the contents are not such as to justify a claim of inspiration, either as to historical truthful- ness, harmony with other scriptures, or as a moral standard. (d) Relation of Reason to Revelation. Neither religion nor revelation is contrar^' to rea- son; we are not asked to believe the impossible or the contradictory. Reason means more than mere reasoning" or the working- out of a syllogistic dernonstration. Reason means the whole cognitive faculty or power of the mind to know. The Scriptures do not repudiate reason, but ever appeal to it. Reason is therefore necessary as a primary condi- tion of knowledge. Reason must apprehend a revelation, examine its evidences, and judge of its credibility. Revelation does not derive its authority from reason but presents itself to reason for reception and understanding. Reason is essential to deduce from revelation necessary inferences and conclusions, and apply them to practical ends. Revelation may disclose what the human mind could not discover, e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity, or that for which it can assign no reason. Revelation may be incomprehensible to some or all finite minds and yet true. Comprehension is not the test of truth. What is comprehensible to one mind may be incomprehensible to another. The babe cannot understand Geometry nor the finite mind the infinite God in all his being and all his ways. Incomprehensible and contradictory are not equivalent terms. In short reason must apprehend, examine, judge, receive, and use revelation. —17— PART FIRST, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. THEOLOGY PROPER. Chapter I. Can God be Known? Section I. The Bible declares: — Jno. 17:3. This is life eternal to know God, etc. Isa. 11:9. The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord. The manifestation of God in nature, his revelation in the Scriptures, and his incarnation in Jesus Christ assures us that God can be known. Section II. Sir Wm. Hamilton taught that God could not be known because he is the Absolute and the Abso- lute has no relation to anything- else, and therefore un- knowable. Knowledge would imply a relation and the Absolute has no relation. But his definition of the Absolute was wrong. He further taught that God could not be known be- cause he is the Infinite and the infinite is the illimitable and the illimitable is the unknowable: — that the infinite is the all and therefore there is no distinction between subject and object. Knowledge would imply such a dis- tinction and therefore destroy his infinity. A knowledge of the infinite would divide between the knower and the known and therefore the known would not be infinite. This again is a wrong conception of the infinite. The infinite is not the all. This doctrine has been termed Agnosticism. It had its rise in the philosophy of Kant, chracterized in some respects the Transcendentalists, found expression in Hume, Hamilton, Mansel and Huxley and came to cul- mination in Herbert Spencer. Section III. We must distinguish between apprehen- sion and comprehension. We can know that God is, without knowing all he is. We can touch the earth while not able to embrace it in our arms. The child can know God while the philosopher can- not find out the Almighty unto perfection. Section IV. Can God be defined? Can we put God into definition? If by "define" we mean to limit, we cannot define God. But we can point out those characteristics which mark his being and thus make a definition of God. The best definition is Shorter Catechism 4, God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. —18— Chapter II. Proofs for the Existence of God. Section I. Can God's existence be proved? Disting"uish between proof and mathematical demon- stration. The proof of God's existence is not the proof of a mathematical equation; but the proof of cumulative evidence, such as is recognized in every courtroom in the world. It is proof that carries conviction because of its ra- tional evidence. Section II. How much proof is necessary? A little proof may show that there is a God, while no amount of proof that man can gather can ever prove there is no God. The imprint of a bird's foot in a rock would prove that sometime a bird had visited the Atlantic seaboard. But before one could say that no bird had ever been here he must know the whole history of the coast since life began on the globe. A little evidence may show that there is a God; but before any man can say that there is no God, he must analyze all the matter in the universe, he must track down all forces, mechanical, electrical, vital, mental and spiritual, — he must hold converse with all spirits and un- derstand them thoroughly, he must be in all points of space at every moment of time lest God somewhere and somehow eludes his notice. He must be omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal, in fact he must himself be God before he can dogmatically affirm that there is no God. Belief in a personal God, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, is called Theism. Section III. Arguments for the existence of God. 1., The Ontological Argument. Ontos logos. The O'ntological Argument runs thus: — the human mind possesses the idea of an absolutely perfect being. But the most perfect being must have necessary exist- ence, and necessary existence requires actual exist- ence. A contingent being may or may not exist; but the most perfect being must have actual existence. For an extensive discussion of this argument, and refutation of Gaunilo's objection, see Dogmatic The- oolgy, Shedd, Vol. I, p. 222 ff. 2. The Cosmological Argument. Kosmos logos, (also called Aetiological.) (a) This argument is derived from the law of cause and effect. It is an intuitive truth that every —19— effect must have an adequate cause. The universe is an effect therefore it must have had a cause. The cause must be distinct from the effect else the effect would be its own cause and therefore nothing- could produce something- which is a contradiction. The world or the universe is an effect because everything- in it, substance order and life, is change- able and mutable. Matter as we know it is composite. Life on this g-lobe had a beg-inning. A first cause is therefore a logical necessity. Plato and Aristotle argued from motion to an eternal self-moving power. Heb. 3:4. Every house is builded by some man, but he who built all things is God. The alternatives are, the eternity of the present order, or an infinite series of causes. The former is refuted by our observation and con- sciousness, and the latter is unthinkable. (b) Hume objected that we know nothing of cause only of sequence, that because one thing follows another is no proof of cause and effect but only an invariable sequence. Even though we see a man make a watch or a gun and cannot escape the fact of causation thus far, yet we have never seen worlds made and are not enti- tled to conclude that the world had a cause. (c) It is objected that this argument does not prove that the cause is GOD. Answer: This arg'ument is just one link in the chain of evidence and is supplemented by others. (d) Any doctrine of evolution or development cannot refute the cosmological argument. No effect can transcend its cause. The stream cannot rise higher than its source. Something cannot come from nothing. Life cannot arise but from the source of life. Intelligence cannot proceed from the non-intelligent. Personality cannot come from the impersonal. A process of development requires a maker of the process. See Outlines of Theology, A. A. Hodge, page 35. 3. The Teleological Argument. Telos logos. This is the argument from design, or purpose, or adaptation. Design implies a designer.' The world exhibits design therefore it had an intelligent maker. The old illustration of the watch is valid still. Seeing — 20 — a ship in a bay no one could believe that its pieces of steel and timber floated tog-ether and adjusted them- selves into a great dreadnought with all its compli- cated structure. The world is full of design. The Bridgewater Treatises, one of which deals with the hand, supplies abundant evidence. Chemistry, Astronomy, and all the sciences bear witness of design. The arg-ument is not limited to the material world but embraces the mental constitution of our nature as well. The possession of memory, affection, will, etc., shows evidence of design as well as the construction and functions of the body. One objection to this argument is that adaptation is rather accidental than desig"ned, e.g". because the nose is used to support spectacles it does not follow that it was made with that specific design. Such denial could not be made of all the evi- dences of desig-n in the world. The eye was evidently desig-ned for sight and was no mere accident. If it is asked how this adaptation is accounted for if not by a desig-ner the answer is, by chance or by law. There is a million to one against chance. As for law, the law has to be accounted for as well as the fact. Law requires a law giver even when we speak of natural law. 4. The Argument from Man's Moral and Reli- gious Nature. (a) We have a moral nature, the author of that nature must be a moral being. Conscience testifies to the fact of a moral law. That law implies a moral law giver. (b) We have a sense of responsibility; we feel that we must answer fdr what we are and for what we do. This feeling of responsibility is not to ourselves, nor to mankind in general, but to some superior being who is cognizant of good and ill, whO' rewards the good and punishes the evil. That being must be a person, a moral person greater and higher than our- selves. (c) The universality of the moral nature shows that it is not due merely to education, but is a part of our nature as given to us by our Creator. (d) Sin brings a sense of guilt, a conviction that we deserve punishment. This implies a righteous judge. — 21 — (e) We see that good and evil are not proportion- ately rewarded in this world. This requires an adjust- ment hereafter, and necessitates a just tribunal before a just judge. (f) Man has certain ineradicable religious convic- tions. 1 Some one has said: "Man is incurably religious." It is a matter of fact that where he has no knowledge of the true religion he invents one for himself. The great heathen religions are essentially just the mighty strivings of the human spirit to answer its own reli- gious questions, and express its ineradicable convic- tions. Thej^ all bear indubitable testimony to the religious nature of man and therefore indirectly to the being of God. Man's sense of dependence on a higher power is universal; his quick appeal to a higher being in time of danger is instinctive; his conceptions of infinity, his longing for immortality, his sense of life's incom- pleteness are inherent in his nature. A heathen woman hearing- for the first time of a God of mercy, love and goodness exclaimed: "There, I told you there must be a God such as that." Helen Keller when first told, by Phillips Brooks, of the great and good being called God, smiled radiantly' and re- plied: "Wh3^ I have known him all the time only I did not know his name." Man feels profoundl^^ convinced, without formal argument, that there must be some objective reality to his heart's deepest need, and answering its inextin- guishable cry: else his nature is a mockery and he is imposed upon in the very constitution of his being. The universal human heart says: there must be a God. The cry of human nature can only find the answer to its cry in a personal, living and loving God. Plato was right when he said that atheism is a disease. Again, the moral intuitions of men are the pre- requisites of any knowledge of God. They provide the human capacity into which the God-knowledge should come — the soil prepared to receive the seed — the ear attuned to detect his voice. God's personality, love, justice, truth, holiness are comprehensible only because God has implanted in the structure of human nature the element or power of receptivity. Into this structural receptacle God's rev- ^22— elation conies, and fits the nature thus prepared like a key to its lock. Human nature was made for the rev- elation, and the revelation was made for the human nature and we have the three-fold testimony — the wit- ness of human nature — the witness of revelation— and the witness ojf their fitness for each other. 5. The Historical Argument. The history of the world gives evidence of an overruling" power. That God has been in the history of the human race can scarcely be doubted by an unprejudiced mind. The principles of God's moral g'overnment are ex- hibited in the history of nations as well as in the experience of men. Ps. 75:7. But God is the judge, he putteth down one and set- teth up another. Dan. 2:21. He removeth kings and setteth up kings. Dan. 5:21. Till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men and he appointeth over it whomsoever he will. Eng-lish Protestantism looks upon the defeat of the Spanish Armada as a divine intervention. The settlement of America by Protestant immi- grants saved it from the fate of South America and thereby saved the world for democracy. Who will deny that God's hand was in all this? When destruction threatened the world by Ger- man ag-g-ression, men said: "Where is now thy God?" But we now reply with the trench poet: "I know when noble men rose up to fig"ht There is a God, there is a God." The historical arg^ument also includes the fact that all nations have had the belieif that there is a supreme being". What all the world has believed may well be true. 6. Kant's Objections. Kant subjected the arguments for the existence of God to a searching criticism. As to the Ontological he held that the idea was no guarantee of objective reality; the Cosmological argument was offset by the possibility of an infinite series of causes which Kant held to be thinkable; the Teleological argument gave us only an artificer but not the God of theology; the Moral argument after some restrictions, was allowed considerable weight and was a practical evidence of the existence of God. —23^ Kant's position on these subjects was warped by his philosophy which was a transcendental idealism. He held that as to the external world we know only phenomena but not things in themselves; and that even this knowledge is conditioned by a-priori concepts of the mind; that appearances give us no knowledge of things. Kant's system had serious consequences. His arguments helped rather than refuted the Deism of Hume. On the other hand it was but a short step from his theory of knowledge to ultra idealism that denied the existence of any external world. And further, after his valuation of the arguments for the Divine existence it is not strange to hear his disciple, Fichte, declaring that the moral order of the world is God and there is no other God. Since Kant's premises were wrong his conclusions were also wrong. A wrong psychology gave rise to a wrong theol- ogy. We deny Kant's premises and hold to the valid- ity of the arguments which he repudiated, and assert that we have knowledge of things through phenom- ena. If Kant's reasoning were valid it would apply against the moral argument which he admitted; for if our Knowledge be a delusion our moral concepts may be also. The phenomenal theory o|f knowledge was an- swered by Dr. James McCosh. Whoever impugns the trustworthiness of our fac- ulties falls into the pit which he himself has digged. He virtually denies the truth of his denial. It is true as Thomas Aquinas pointedly said: "Etiam qui negat veritatem esse, concedid veritatem esse; si enim Veri- tas non est, non verum est non esse veritatem." Chapter III. Anti-Theistic Theories. Section I. Atheism. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Atheism is incapable of proof. No one can prove that there is no God. But Atheism is chiefly occupied in denials rather than affirmation. —24— The Atheist may substitute for a personal God the persistence of force, the laws of nature, or the potentiality of impersonal substance. Atheism is refuted by proving Theism to be true. Section II. Polytheism. Polytheism is the belief in many Gods. Polus, many; Theos, God. Polytheism seems to have arisen by means of nature worship. A personal being" was supposed to preside over the natural elements as sun, moon, rivers, winds, etc. Polytheism has always led to moral degradation. Many of the gods were believed to possess all the evil passions of the human heart, and the worshipper never rises above the object of his worship. If polytheism exists in the world today it is a vanish- ing minimum. The law of parsimony requires us not to assign more causes than necessary, hence a single personal and infinite God satisfies the rational mind more than a multiplicity of gods. It was the rational weakness of Polytheism that gave Mohammedism its opportunity, and contributed to its success. Section III. Hylozoism. Hylozoism is the doctrine that matter is endued with life, that the world has a soul that works out the shapes, forms, motions, and life observed in nature. The universe is its own cause. Hylozoism is not unlike Pantheism. It contravenes Theism in its denial of a personal and eternal God who is extramundane and supramundane, the Creator and judge of men. Section IV. Materialism. 1. Materialism denies the reality of spirit, ignores the distinction between matter and mind, accounts for all mental and spiritual phenomena as the properties and functions of matter. One says, "The brain se- cretes thought as the liver secretes bile." Brain has fibers of thinking as the legs have fibers of motion. In Materialism there is no God, devil, angel, or human soul; no heaven, no hell, no immortality but the persistence of matter and force. —25— 2. Objections to Materialism. (a) Our own consciousness assures us that we are more than mere matter. We know ourselves to be different from and better than stone or tree. Our whole moral nature with its sense of rig^ht and wrong and moral accountability protests against materialism. Our conceptions of eternity and immortality resent the assertion that the grave ends all. Man's mental and spiritual nature finds no adequate end in death. (b) All experience and observation show that life can only come from previously existing life, therefore the life of this world has a living cause. No sponta- neous generation has ever been prbven. There is a bridg"eless chasm between dead matter and living" personality. (c) All the evidence of intellig'ent design and pur- pose in the world contradict a blind materialism. (d) Materialists assert that as muscular action is attended by heat, and nervous energ-y is attended by heat, and even thought is attended by the production of heat, therefore all alike are only physical force and there is no need to assume a vital or spiritual sub- stance to account for them. Admitting the concomitant heat in each action, what directs the physical force and nervous energy into lines of purposeful, designing and premeditated action? Can phj^sical force of any kind display rea- son, purpose, design? Though thought be attended bj^ heat, it does not folloAV that thought and heat are identical or that correlation of these two forces is possible. (e) Materialists assert that life depends upon the proper adjustment, proportion and chemical combina- tion of material particles, that the difference between dead and living protoplasm is a matter of combina- tion. But it is just as confidently asserted on the other hand that living protoplasm is exactly identical with dead protoplasm so far as its chemistrj^ is concerned. Therefore that which makes them differ is not their chemistry. Life is not a matter of chemical combination nor of material arrangement of any kind, (f) Materialism seeks vindication as reducing the world to a unit^^ Some kind of Monism has been the goal of philosophy, and a materialistic monism claims to satisi^y the demand. But the materialistic monist has failed to justify his claims. In reducing the world —26— and its life to the unity of matter he is met with the fact that matter itself is not a unity. There are about 70 elements in matter. The materialist must reduce all matter to one element to prove a monistic philoso- phy. But even if he could do this he could get no farther than his one element in accounting- for the variety in the world's form and life; for one element cannot combine with itself to produce something different. If he should reduce all to two elements the combination of the two might give rise to a third or more; but then there would be duality and not unity. The materialist must also reckon with force. If matter is the ultimate principle, is force the result of matter? and the materialist must say yes. If then matter as the ultimate principle gives rise to force, it g-ives somehing which as a unity it does not possess which is unthinkable. But if as many say, matter is the result of force then materialistic monism vanishes in favor of a dynamic monism. ' Section V. Pantheism. 1. Pantheism is derived from Pan — 'all and Theos —God. Pantheism signifies that God is all and all is God. It is further expresesd by "hen theos estin" — God is one. Nothing exists out of God. God comprises all in his (or its) own existence. Pantheism is briefly summarized thus: — In the eternity of the past existed a something designated Being; impersonal, unconscious, with no power of will or choice, neither matter nor spirit, but having the potentiality of both. This Being devel- oped by the law of necessity into the universe as it is, and has been, and will continue to develop ad infin- itum. It has come to its highest development and reached consciousness in man. The universe is God, and God is the universe, and man is the highest exist- ence-form of God. There is no personal God aside from personality in man. All individual forms rise up from this Being and disappear into it again, as the waves of the sea rise to form and lose their individual existence in the waters of the ocean and go on form- ing new waves of the same substance. There is there- fore no personal immortality. Man appears for a brief time and loses himself in the great universe of Being. —27— His substance may enter into other beings and that is all the future he has bej^ond the grave. Pantheism conceives of the universe as but one substance with the two attributes of extension and thoug-ht. All material things are this substance in extension, and all immaterial things are the same sub- stance under the category of cog'nition. The physical world is one aspect of this substance, the mental world is the other aspect of it. In the development of the uni\'erse it is both cause and effect. Pantheism underlies the old Hindu philosoph3\ It was revived in Europe by Spinoza about 1650, ran its course through Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and Schleier- macher etc. and has somewhat tinged some modern theology. 2. Objections to Pantheism. (a) Pantheism assumes the existence of the eter- nal something; but offers no proof of its existence, and no proof of what it is. (b) It makes personality proceed from imperson- ality. ■If personalitj' is a pre-eminent virtue, the panthe- ist's God out of which all things arise, is less than the sentient beings of this world. (c) If God is impersonal we can neither love nor pray to such a God, and religion is an unreality. (d) Pantheism's Absolute Being is not absolute at all, because deficient in personalitj^ (e) Personality' is not, as Pantheism says, a lim- itation to being, and therefore impossible to the in- finite. Personality does not depend on the contraposition of the non-ego; but the personal ego must have real existence before there is anj^ contraposition of the non-ego. (f) Pantheism reduces the universe to the law of necessity, and thus destroys all free agency. Spinoza sa^^s: "The totality of finite objects is posited in the Essence of God and not in his Will." All development is by necessity and not through purpose. (g) If God is all, then all the evil of the world is as much a part of God as the good; and as all things come by a law of necessity', the evil is a necessity. —28— This blots out all distinction of right and wrong-, and destro3^s morality in the world. (h) It seems most reasonable to believe that where there is causation there is volition, and where there is volition there is life, intelligence and person- ality. Chapter IV. Anti-Christian Theories. Section I. Deism. 1. Deism admits that there is a personal God, that he created the world and impressed on it the laws that govern it. Having done this God withdrew from the world and leaves it to the reign of natural law. There is no revelation, no miracle, no incarnation, no super-natural manifestation, no intervention of God in the affairs of men, no providence, no control. God has nothing more to do with the world that he has made. 2. Objections to Deisni. (a) It is absurd to suppose that God would make a world and not care for the world that he has made. All nature, from the farthest reach of the tele- scope to the deepest research of the microscope, ex- hibits the painstaking care with which God made the world. That he should not care for it contradicts all our notions of the fitness of things. (b) All evidence of an overruling providence, all sense of responsibility for human conduct, all proof of revelation, stands opposed to Deism. (c) It is subversive of all morality to deny that God is a moral governor. The lives of Voltaire and Thomas Paine bear testimony. 3. History of Deism. Lord Herbert (1648) may be regarded as the founder of English Deism. He held a much higher and better form of infidelity than appeared in the fol- lowing century. His was a mixture of truth and error. He believed in God, piety, repentance and pardon as the result of repentance, rewards and punishments in this world and the next; but repudiated a written revelation and distinctive Christianity in the incarna- tion and atonement of Christ. —29— After Lord Herbert, Deism ran the gamut of steady deterioration, throug-h the materialistic Hobbes (1679), Chubb (1747), Bolingbroke (1751), and others till it reached its full development in David Hume (1776). Hume's system invalidates not only the truths of revealed religion, but of natural religion as well. English Deism was followed by French Deism, represented by Helvetius, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and others. French Deism was more superficial than English Deism, though perhaps more brilliant in its literary form. The replies to Deism were many and effectual by Richard Baxter, Ralph Cudworth, Samuel Clarke, John Conybeare, Joseph Butler in his "Analogy," Na- thaniel Gardner in his "Credibility of Gospel His- tory," and others. Deism was met and completely routed by these Christtan apologists. Section II. Rationalism. Rationalism arose about the middle of the i8th century. The philosophy of Christian Wolff (ob. 1754) lent its injfiuence to the movement. Wolff himself was not a rationalist but stressed the importance of natural theology, and sought to show that the doctrines of religion were demonstrable by reason. His followers passed on to the position that nothing was to be accepted as true but what was demonstrable by reason. What men considered demonstrable by reason was a vei"y variable quantity'. Wolff held that revelation gave us certain mysteries, things necessary and otherwise unknowable. The moderate rationalists held that the Bible con- tained some supernatural revelations but limited this to things approved by reason. This generally excluded mir- acles. The radical or Deistical rationalists denied all super- natural revelation. Reimarus (ob. 1768) wrote the Wolf- enbuettel Fragments published by Lessing 1777, in which he calls for the repudiation of supernatural revelation in order to rescue more securely natural religion and ethics. Observe: 1. Rationalism is an effort to derive all religious knowledge from reason as a source instead of getting it from other sources. —30— 2. By reason is meant not merely the process of reasoning but all the contents of the cognitive powers, whether innate ideas or a-priori principles. 3. There are various kinds of proof, mathemat- ical demonstration, cnircumstantial evidence, cumula- tive evidence, testimon3% etc. 4. What seems proof to one man may not seem proof to another. 5. The testimony of honest men is valid proof where other forms of proof are not available. The doctrines of the Trinity, Virgin Birth, Resurrection of Christ, etc. are received on testimony. 6. The doctrines of the Scriptures are not unrea- sonable, not contrary to reason or contrary to known truth. 7. Christianity is rationally defensible. We do not for a moment admit that Christianity cannot be vindicated in the forum of the world's thought. 8. Reason has its proper place in religion, neither revelation nor reason can dispense with the other. Orthodoxy does not repudiate reason, only its right to pre-establish religious truth from itself. 9. Rationalism in denying revelation became more irrational than the orthodoxy that it repudiated. For the irrationality of Rationalism see Objec- tions to Miracles. 10. The force of Rationalism was greatly weak- ened by Kant (ob. 1804). Kant wrote his "Critique of Pure Reason" to show that reason is not competent to prove any religious truth. He denied the value of the Cosmological and Teleological arguments and rested his belief in God and religious truth on man's moral nature. As Kant sought to discredit our knowledge of an outside world, his followers Fichte and Schelling used his method to prove that there was no such world. Eventually Rationalism gave way to this idealistic Pantheism. Section III. Christian Science. 1. Statement. Christian Science is idealistic Pantheism. It is pantheistic in its view of God. "God is all and all is God."— Science and Health. It is idealistic in its view of the world. "Matter will be finally proven to be nothing but mortal illu- sion." — vScience and Health. It denies the reality of matter, sickness and sin. It claims to be Christian Science; but it is neither scientific nor Christian. 2. Objections to Christian Science. (a) It is unscientific. It denies the trustworthiness of our senses. That is unscientific. It is not based on facts established by observa- tion and experience; but denies the most palpable facts, and asserts the most monstrous absurdities by deduction from false premises. It is speculative and not scientific; it comes by its conclusions not by induction from a collection of facts but by deduction from hypothecated postu- lates. It denies the reality of matter which we can see, feel, weigh and measure, and declares the belief in matter to be an illusion of mortal mind. It contra- dicts our consciousness and observation in the denial of sin, and pain, and sickness. It will not stand the test of physical science, and just as little the test of mental science. (b) It is unphilosophic. Philosophy's problem is to answer the whence, why, what, and whither of things. Christian Science in denying the reality of the material, and the trustworthiness of our senses has thrown overboard the half of human knowledge. No true philosophy can result when half the facts are ignored. It gives no rational account of the origin of things nor of their purpose and destiny. Its philo- sophical postulates are erroneous, as is seen in its call- ing the infinite the all. (c) It is un-Christian, rather anti-Christian. It denies the personality^ of God and makes God a principle. Sometimes indeed it speaks as if God were personal, but its favorite term is principle. It says: God is good, God is truth, God is love. But it goes further and adds: Good is God, truth is God, love is God. Thus it identifies these attributes with God and deifies the attributes. It denies the creation of the material universe. It denies the creation of man. Man is co-existent with God, has no actual being apart from God. This is its element of Pantheism. O'n this basis, too, it is de- clared that man cannot sin. —32— It denies the incarnation in the Christian sense. Mary did not g-ive birth to an actual body but a spirit- ual idea, an idea produced by her communion with the divine Principle. It denies the Deity of Christ except as all men are divine. It denies the resurrection of Christ. It denies the atonement of Christ. Some one said: "What becomes of the atonement when suffering" which was not suffering (only a *g"reat illusion'), in a body which was not a body (only a 'mortal belief), was offered in expiation for sin which was not sin?" It denies that salvation is by the death and blood and substitution of Christ. What rig'ht has it to call itself Christian? rt puts no fair interpretation on the Scriptures. It makes Mrs. Eddj^ supplementary to Jesus Christ and the Scriptures, setting" forth Science and Health as the hig-hest development and interpretation of Christian truth, Mrs. Eddy describes the Bible as: legend, fable, myth, full of mistakes, full of thousands of errors, a compilation of human documents, etc. etc. But she describes Science and Health as: revealed truth, the perfect word of God, truth without mixture of human error, divine teaching, infallible teachiri^, etc. Christian Science denies the true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent, and is therefore a false religion and an Anti-Christ. Section IV. Pessimism. Pessimism is the philosophy that regards the world and life as essentially evil. It holds that the world, if not the worst that can be, is at least suffi- ciently evil to be worse than none at all. Its distinguishing characteristic may be expressed by the formula: — "To live is to desire, to desire is to want, to want is to suffer, and therefore to live is to suffer." It adopts the words of Sophocles: — "Never to have been born is the happiest fate and the next best thing to die young"; or the words of Byron: — "Count o'er the joys thine hours have seen; Count o'er thy days from anguish free. And know, whatever thou hast been, 'Tis something better not to be." —33— The hig'her grades of life suffer the most and the lower the least. The lowest animals are therefore happier than man. Ignorance, in one respect, is pref- erable to knowledge as providing less ground for ex- quisite suffering. However if men were not so ignor- ant and knew better what life really is, they would will not to live; they would refuse to preserve them- selves, and to propagate their species, and would wel- come death as the highest good. This philosophy was exploited by the German Schopenhauer, 1788- 1860. His system is tinctured with Pantheistic Buddhism. He says: "Brahma is said to have produced the world by a kind of fall or mistake; and in order to atone for his folly he is bound to re- main in it himself, until he works out his redemption. As an account of the origin of things that is admira- ble." Again, 'According to the doctrine of Buddhism, the world came into being as the result of some inex- plicable disturbance in the heavenly calm of Nirvana. Subsequently by a series of moral errors the world became gradually worse and worse until it assumed the dismal aspect it wears today. Excellent." He does not accord so much excellence to the Biblical account, but says: "In its explanation of the origin of the world Judaism is inferior to any other form of religious doctrine professed by a civilized nation." Schopenhauer begins one of his chapters thus: — "Unless suffering is the direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim." The aim of existence is to suffer and the suffering is forced on us by a malevolent necessity. Schopenhauer's philosophy is destructive and im- moral. He boldly advocates the right and virtue of suicide, though he seems not to have had the courage or consistency to practice it. In another chapter he advocates polygamy and concubinage, and declares that woman should not be intrusted with property or the management of affairs, but made subject to and the servant of man. Perhaps the most charitable thing we can say of Schopenhauer's philosophy is that it seems to be the product of a disordered mind. Both his mental and moral make-up must have possessed a peculiar twist to have produced such a monstrosity. His work is so —34— irrational as to refute itself. We may add that his life was like his philosophy. Yet monstrous as it was Schopenhauer's philoso- phy was taken up by others especially by Von Hart- mann, of whom Strauss remarks: "Von Hartmann says that this world is so bad that none would have been better; Von Hartmann's philosophy is part of the world; and as such it is so bad that it would have been better if it had never been." For an able discussion and refutation of Pessi- mism, see Prof. Flint's "Anti-Theistic Theories." Section V. The Doctrine of a Finite God. There is a current view that God is a limited be- ing-, and himself subject to a process of evolution — that God is developing under the same laws or similar laws, as the universe. The fact of evil in the world has led some minds to a belief in a finite God, and this belief has gotten new impetus from the world war. John Stuart Mill concluded, from the presence of evil in the world, that God cannot be both good and omnipotent. If good he cannot be omnipotent, and if omnipotent he cannot be good. Either he is malevo- lent in permitting evil, or helpless to prevent it. In either case he is limited; either in goodness or in power. Prof. William James, philosopher and psycholo- gist of Harvard University, declares for a finite God; and supposes that this finite God of the known uni- verse is subordinate to a greater and all-inclusive Absolute. The brilliant French philosopher Bergson, though not so definitely declarative on this subject, seems open to this interpretation by those who seek to carry out his "Creative Evolution" with its "vital thrust" to its legitimate conclusions. George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, R. H. Dotterer and others fall into the same class. In regard to this we remark: — 1. Neither God's goodness nor power is limited by the fact of evil. God being infinitely good and omnipotent may have reasons for the permission of evil, though these reasons are to us inscrutable. 2. The imperfection of the finite does not neces- sarily imply imperfection in God. Imperfection belongs to the sphere of the finite. Moreover the freedom of a —.35— rational creature makes its moral imperfection at least a possibility. And again the government of the world shows that God allows large liberty to the created personality. 3. It would seem to be a necessity of thought that the infinite is the logical corollary of the finite. We are impelled to the conclusion that there must be an infinite. The infinite bounds and limits the finite. Our very limitations compel us to recognize an unlim- ited. 4. A finite and developing Deity would be neces- sarily less in each preceding age; and diminishing to- ward a past eternity would ultimately be a negligible minimum, or nothing. Then the question of a begin- ning being raised we are involved in mental difficult- ies and absurdities that are logically intolerable. An uncaused progression is unthinkable, but an eternal first cause satisfies all rational requirements. 5. A developing universe is satisfactorily account- ed for by an infinite and immanent God; but what can account for a developing Deity except some other super-divine immanent Infinite? And what have we gained? 6. This view of God is too nearly akin to an evolutionary Pantheism, the sin of which system is that it blots out all freedom, all morality, and event- ually all personality for the individual. Imperfection, disease, sin, crime are all a fatalistic divine develop- ment, equally necessary and equally God. Some one has said: "In this system everything is God but God himself." The doctrine of a developing God lends it- self too much to the submerging of God in the uni- verse, and the universe in God. Chapter V. The Nature of God. Section I. The Oneness of God. 1. The oneness of God is indicated by the law of parsimony. It is a law of reason not to assign more causes than necessary. If one first cause is sufficient we may assume that this is all. 2. The universe is one system indicating one designer. -36- 3. Our moral accountability leads us to feel re- sponsible to some one who is our Creator. 4. The Scriptures constantly declare that there is but one God. Section II. The Personality of God. 1. Proof of the personality of God. (a) All the arguments for God's existence are also proofs of his personality. The efficient cause of the world could not be less than a person. The world exhibits intellig"ence and purpose and therefore re- quires an intellig"ent and desig'ning- Creator. And an intellig"ent Creator must be a person. (b) Our own personality is proof of a personal God. The product is not greater than its cause. If we have personality the cause of our personality must likewise be a person. If there is in us intelligence, will, self-consciousness our Creator must possess the same. We know ourselves as persons; we know our- selves as finite causes; it is therefore in line with our own experience to refer causation to personal agency. (c) There is further proof in the moral nature of man. The fact that man is incurably religious, the universality of religious conviction, the depth and strength of religious sentiment, all require the fact of a personal God. Man's religious nature is but a mockery, a tanta- lizing deception, if there be no God to whom men may look up and whom they may revere. Augustine voices the universal human heart when he says: "O God, thou hast made us for thyself and we cannot rest until we rest in thee." Man cannot worship a nonentity, or pray to a principle, or feel responsibility to a material force. The constitution of man's nature demands a per- sonal God. (d) The Scriptures represent God by the personal pronouns and put them in his mouth: "I am that I am." (e) Joseph Cook lays down the following points as to the personality of God: (i) "There cannot be thought without a thinker. (2) There is thought in the universe. (3) There is therefore a thinker in the uni- verse. (4) But a thinker is a person. (s) Therefore there is a personal thinker in the universe." 2. Objections to the Personality of God. Materialism, Pantheism and Agnosticism deny or cast doubt on the personality of God. Some specific arguments are as follows: (a) That we cannot know reality. It is said that all knowledge of the external world comes through the senses; that we perceive only phe- nomena, and not things themselves; that therefore we have no certain knowledge of any thing ab extra. If phenomena do not misrepresent the thing itself, at least we have no certain assurance of their similarity. Kant, Spencer and other agnostics denied the trustworthiness of our senses and therefore of our knowledge. Thus the mind cannot reach assurance of any- thing outside of itself; if indeed its own intuitive prin- ciples are not as much at fault as its perceptions; so that the mind clothes the not-self with conceptions of its own fabrication. This doctrine of the relativity of knowledge, as it is called, has been used to oppose the belief in the personality of God. Answer: If all knowledge is as uncertain as this philosophy asserts, then this philosophy is as uncertain as the rest. "Why should we believe an agnosticism that renders all belief impossible, including a belief in the fundamental principles of that agnosticism?"^ — Snow- don. Some one has said that "such denial of knowledge must denj^ its own denial," that "agnosticism commits suicide and then strangel^^ keeps on talking." This theory destroys all knowledge. If the human mind is fundamentally a perversive organ of knowledge then no knowledge is possible, and every human being is deluded. In this connection several things must be firmly held: First, That the mind is a true instrument of know- ledge. Second, That our senses are sufficiently trust- worthy for the acquirement of knowle'dge. Third, That phenomena represent reality, and that we know things by means of phenomena. -38- Fourth, That finite knowledg-e is true knowledge though finite. The human mind can know God to the extent of its comprehension. (b) A second objection to the personality of God is that personality is limitation and limitation is in- consistent with infinity. It is said that there can be no personality without self-consciousness, and that this implies the distinction between the self and the not-self, between the subject and the object. Thus personality, by its very constitution, is lim- ited by the not-self over against the self, and the object over against the subject; and that such limita- tion cannot belong to an infinite being. Answer: This argument proceeds upon the false assump- tion that the infinite is the all, and anything that is not God impinges on his infinitude. That is the fun- damental postulate of Pantheism. The fact is that the lack of personality is a limit- ation rather than the possession of it. In the realm of our knowledge and experience it is the unintelli- gent, non-moral and unconscious world that suffers limitation. The possession of personality enlarges the scope of being and the exercise of its powers. The distinction of self and the not-self is not a limitation to a being purely spirtual. The objection in question applies to the spiritual realm the condi- tions of the material. Section III. Substance and Attributes. 1. Substance is that in which certain attributes inhere. Substance has being, power and permanence. There are two substances and only two: matter and spirit. The world is matter; God, angels and souls of men are spirit. 2. The substance of God is pure spirit unmixed with matter. The Confession of Faith says: "with- out bodily parts or passions." When we speak of God as spirit we refer to his substance in which his attributes inhere. When we speak of God as a spirit we refer to him as a personal being. When we speak of the essence of God we mean all that is essential tO' his being as God, i.e., substance plus attributes. —39— 3. His substance is spirit; his attributes are the qualities or properties of that substance, such as Eternity, Infinity, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, HoH- ness, Love, Immutability, Sovereignty, etc. 4. We assign to God the properties of spirit, and deny to him the properties of matter. When the Scriptures speak of God's eye, ear, hand, etc., thej^ speak metaphorically. This is called anthro- pomorphism. 5. The attributes of God are disting-uishing" marks of His being, a few of which we consider as follows: (a) Omnipresence. God fills all space and per- vades all things with His invisible and immaterial substance. The interstellar ether may help our conceptions of His infinity and immanence, but is not a perfect illus- tration. The ether is part here and part among the stars. Not so God. God is incapable of partition; — not part of him here and part there; but the whole undivided essence of God present at every point of- space, at every moment of time. Though equally omnipresent to all creatures at all times, 3^et He makes special manifestation of Him- self at certain times and is then said to be specially or particularly present; as to Moses at the burning bush, or where two or three are gathered together in His name. The infinitude of God is misunderstood by the Christian Scientist who says that there can be only one infinite; and as God is infinite there can nothing exist but God. That would be true if God were a material being. This is a fundamental error of Chris- tian Science. (b) Eternity. "From everlasting to everlasting thou art God. He has existed from all eternity and exists to all eternity" — no beginning, no end. All the past and all the future is as vividly present to the divine mind as the present moment. There is no succession of thoughts in the divine mind; nor succession of feelings, or purposes. All God's thoughts, feelings and purposes are from eter- nity. Doctor Hodge says that with God all duration is an eternal now; which might seem to obliterate all distinction of past, present and future. —40— But the divine mind must mark the distinctions of past, present and future matters of fact; though all things may be equally vivid to His thought. Nothing can be added to God's knowledge, feel- ing or purpose. He is therefore immutable — the same yesterday, today and forever. Since God is eternal, He must be self-existent, and absolutely independent of all other beings as to His purpose, action or being. (c) Sovereignty. This is His absolute right to govern and dispose of all creatures as He pleases. His sovereignty rests on: — His infinite superiority. His absolute ownership, by right of creation. The absolute dependence of all things on Him for their being and continuance. Section IV. Transcendence and Immanence. 1. God is transcendent, which is sometimes ex- pressed by saying, He is supramundane or extramun- dane. God is above and apart from the world. Hegel denied the transcendence of God, saying: "God is not a spirit beyond the stars. He is the spirit in all spirit." (a) He is not to be confounded with the universe as is done by Pantheism and Christian Science. (b) He is not to be regarded as a totality of which the universe is a part, i.e., sort of a two-faced unity. (c) He is not related to the universe as soul to body. (d) A cause and its effect cannot be one and the same, therefore we hold to the transcendence of God. Subject and object implies a distinction, therefore we do not confound Him with the world which He has made and which is the object of His providence and care. A man is more than this work; so is God. (e) God's love to men. His forgiveness of sin, and man's sense of responsibility rest on the transcendence of God. When transcendence is lost man's sense of sin and accountability vanish, as in the Pantheistic and semi-Pantheistic systems. 2. God is immanent or intramundane. (a) He is not only above and separate from the physical universe, but He pervades all things with His mystical invisible substance. This is more than omni- present law and power; it is immanent personality. —41— (b) Man works upon matter from without. God can and does work from within. Whatever develop- ment there is in the universe ilkistrates God's working from within. Man builds a house or ship by working" from with- out. God builds a tree by working" from within. (c) We must not stress the transcendence of God so much as to make Him a mechanical God; nor stress the immanence of God so much as to lose Him in the laws of nature. (d) We must distinguish between God immanent in the universe and God identical with the universe; the latter is Pantheism. (e) W. Newton Clarke in his Christian Doctrine of God, says: "At present it is apparent that the universe oper- ates or is operated from within. The forces that are found at work are resident forces. The universe has the appearance of a self-working- sj^stem. Not only its vastness, but its internal self-sufficiency, forbids us to think of it as controlled from without. If God is the operant force of the great system, and it is operated from within, then certainly He is within, with His operative will and energy." Section V. A Trinity of Persons. 1. The Godhead is a trinity" — Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (a) Shorter Catechism 6. How many persons are there in the Godhead? There are three persons in the Godhead, the Fa- ther, Son and H0I3' Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. This is a matter of revelation, we could not know it otherwise. (b) Proof. The personal pronouns are applied to each of the persons of the Trinity. The Father addresses the Son, the Son addresses the Father. The Apostolic benediction plainl^^ implies the dis- tinction of three persons. The baptismal formula also designates the three persons. One person of the Trinity sends another. The Father sends the Son and the Father and Son send the Spirit. Hence the distinction of three persons is plain. Opposed to — Arianism, Sabellianism, Unitar- ianism. —42— 2. The Son and Spirit are equally God with the Father. The Son and Spirit are not less eternal and poAver- ful than the Father. All are equally eternal, equally powerful, equally glorious and equally God. The Son is not a creature as the Arians believed, did not derive his existence from the Father but is self-existent from eternity together with the Father. John i:i. The same is true of the Holy Spirit. The terms Son and Spirit refer to their relations in the Godhead, or their mode of subsistence, and not to their origination. The deity of each person is shown by the fact that all divine names, titles, attributes, works and worship are given to each. The deity of Christ is considered in Soteriology under the head: The Redeemer. 3. These three persons are one God, a trinal unity. The persons of the Godhead are not as separate from each other as a human person is from every other person. (a) There is no division of substance; not part of it the Father and part of it the Son, and another part the Spirit. The one undivided, and indivisible substance is common to the three persons. In other words the substance is numerically one. In our own spiritual substance it is not one part of the mind that thinks and another part that feels and another that wills; but the whole soul thinks, the whole soul feels, the whole soul wills. (b) Theological dogma asserts the unity or iden- tity of the attributes also, or that the attributes are common to all the persons. Not three intelligences, three wills, etc.; but one intelligence, one will, one power in the three persons. The numerical oneness of substance and identity of attributes is not supposed to obliterate the distinc- tions of personality and result in only one person; however mysterious and incomprehensible to us. (c) The distinctions in the persons lie in their relations to each other, and in their offices and oper- ations in the divine economy. —43— 4. Relation and Offices. The Father stands in a fatherly relation to the Son, and the Son is called the Only-begotten. The Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. The word beget or begotten as applied to the Godhead does not express a mode of becoming, but a mode of existing. The Nicean and Athanasian Creeds speak of Christ as very God of very God. This is not to be understood as meaning that the substance of the Son was derived from the substance of the Father instead of being co-existent and co-eternal with the Father. 5. Errors as to the Trinity. (a) The Arians denied the deity of the Son. They believed him to be pre-existent before the incarnation but to be a creature, less than God, greater than men but of different nature from the Father. (b) The Semi-Arians held that the Son was of like nature with the Father but not equal. The Arians expressed the distinction by the word Heteroousios, the Semi-Arians by Homoiousios, the orthodox bj^ Homoousios, different nature, like nature, same nature. (c) The Sabellians held to a modal trinity that there were not three persons in the Godhead but one person manifesting^ himself in three modes. In one respect he is Father, in another Son, and in still another Spirit. This is entirely inconsistent with the language of the New Testament. (d) The Socinians and modern Unitarians look on Christ as a mere man, a good man, and a great teach- er. If a good man we may surely believe him when he claimed to be the Son of God. Mark 14:61,62. 6. The Second Person of the Trinity. This is treated in Soteriologj' under the subject, The Redeemer. 7. The Holy Spirit, or Third Person of the Trinity. The term Spirit is applied to the third person not to differentiate his substance from that of the Father and Son; for all are numerically one substance and all equally spirit. The term Spirit distinguishes his per- son. And spiration in regard to the Spirit corresponds to generation in regard to the Son as expressing the mode of subsistence. —44— (a) The Spirit is God. Where the Holy Spirit is mentioned in Scripture it is plain that he is regarded as God. He is coupled with the Father and Son in the Apostolic Benediction and the formula of baptism. Divine attributes are assig"ned to him. Divine worship is offered to him. Divine works are attributed to him, e.g. inspira- tion, regeneration, sanctification, etc. Divine names are also applied to him — Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of His Son, Eternal Spirit, Spirit of Holi- ness, Spirit of Wisdom, Spirit of Grace, etc. (b) The Spirit is a Person. Personal pronouns are applied to him. He speaks and is spoken to. Acts 13:2. The church has always prayed to the Holy Spirit. Agency is affirmed of him. He reveals, convicts, regenerates, comforts, seals, intercedes, etc. etc. He bestows extraordinary gifts, as on the day of Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius. When we are bidden not to grieve, resist, and sin against the Spirit, his personality is implied. It is important to observe that personality in man requires separateness from others, or distinct individ- uality. But this is not true of the Godhead where there is substantial unity, or oneness of substance. So that personality as applied to man only approximately expresses the fact as applied to the Godhead. The work of the Holy Spirit in redemption is treated in that part of Soteriology called Pneumatol- ogy or the Application of Redemption. Chapter VI. The Decrees of God. Section I. God has a purpose. Catechism 7. What are the decrees of God. (a) Involved in his personality. (b) Proved by the Scriptures. Is. 14:27. The Lord hath purposed and who shall disannul it? Is. 43:13. Yea before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work and who shall hinder it? Is. 46:10. Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying: My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. —45— Dan. 4:35. He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, etc. Acts 15:18. Known unto God are all his works from eternity. Acts 17:26. And hath determined the times before appointed. Ephes. i:ii. Being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. Section II. Classified as (a) Positive. What he does he purposed to do. (b) Permissive. What he permits he purposed to permit. Section III. God's purpose embraces all events. (a) All the general course of history. Acts 17:26. (b) Particular events. Gen. 45:7-8. God sent me before you to preserve you a poster- ity on the earth and to save your lives — so now it was not you that sent me but God. Micah 5:2. The birth of Christ in Bethlehem. (c) Good acts of men. Ephes. 2:10. For we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Jno. 15:16. Ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you and ordained 5^ou that j^e should go and bring fortli fruit. (d) Evil acts of men. Prov. 16:14. All things hath the Lord wrought for their des- tined purpose; yea even the wicked for the day of evil. Acts 2:23. Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. Acts 4:27-28. Against thy holy child Jesus, herod et al. were gathered together to do what thy hand and thy counsel predestin- ated to come to pass. (e) So-called accidental events. Ps. 34:20. He keepetli all his bones: not one of them is broken. (f) Means as well as ends. Acts 27:31. Except these abide in the ship ye cannot be saved. 2 Thess. 2:13. God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. I Pet. 1:2. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. If God chooses a man unto salvation, he chooses the means to effect the end. -4^ Section IV. The order of the decrees. To create. To permit the fall. To save. To use the necessary means. Section V. God's decree renders certain whatever is decreed. 1. True of the positive decrees. 2. True of the permissive decrees. (a) This is hard to understand. Since the per- missive decree concerns only sinful acts of which God is not the efficient cause it is hard to see how per- mission makes them certain to come to pass. Dr. Shedd says it is inexplicable. The most reasonable explanation is that the sin- ful^ nature will g"o to the boundary set by the permis- sion of God; hence God's bounding- of sin renders certain what and how much will come to pass. Satan could g-o no farther with Job than God per- mitted; but it is certain that he would g^o as far as God allowed. (b) The truth of the fact is proved by the predic- tion of sinful acts. Christ's death was foretold, hence it was certain. True of every predicted sinful act. Hence permis- sion makes certain. Section VI. God's decree makes foreknowledg"e pos- sible. We cannot see how God could foresee anything- unless he had decreed it. Only that is foreknown which is certain, and that only is certain which is decreed. God's decree cannot rest on an undecreed event; else certainty would rest on uncertainty, which is impossible. What is forekown must first be predetermined. Section VII. The decrees in reference to free ag-ency. The decree, thoug-h rendering- future events certain, does not violate free ag"ency. 1. In g-ood acts God operates on the ag-ent and his ag-ency comes into play. 2. In evil acts God allows the ag"ent to carry out his own will. 3. This may be illustrated by three men. One is induced b}^ rational persuasions to yield his will to God and obey him; He has exercised his free agency. —47— Another not yielding- to ordinary persuasion is sovereignly reg-enerated by God's supreme and gra- cious power, g-iven a new nature in harmony with God, and does his will out of a new heart. He was not an ag-ent in his regeneration but was and is in every act of his life. A third yields to no persuasion ordinary or extra- ordinary. God allows him to take his own chosen way. He also is a free ag^ent in his sin. Section VIII. The Doctrine of Election. This subject is treated in Soteriology. Chapter VII. The Works of God. Section I. Creation. 1. The fact of a Creation. Gen. i:i. In the beginning GOD created the heaven and earth. The Bible puts the fact of a creation in its first statement. (a) The purpose of the first chapter of Genesis is not to teach science. It is not intended to be a text book on Geology or Astronomy or any other of the natural sciences. We are not to expect scientific minutia, or de- tailed scientific description, nor technical scientific terms. The purpose of Gen. i is to introduce the story of redemption. Its point of view is the cross of Christ down the vista of the ages. It is the foreword to the plan of salvation. Col. Robt. Ingersoll made much ado about Moses's mistake in crowding- the whole subject of Astronomy into five words, "He made the stars also." What a shameful misappreciation of the glorious heavens! But this was a mistake of Ing-ersoll and not of Moses. The author of Genesis was not teaching Astronomy. He was showing" as a necessary starting point that God was first of all, and above all and creator of all, and this he could do in five words as well as in five vol- umes. This much was pertinent enough in a day when men were tempted to worship the stars. They were creatures; God was the Creator. -48- (b) Creation stands opposed to the eternity of matter. Matter shows evidence of composition, and also of arrangement, therefore not self-existent. If the physical universe were eternal its develop- ment would have been complete before time began. (c) Creation stands opposed to emanation. We think it derogatory to the nature of God that the physical universe and especially sinful beings should be an emanation from the substance of an in- finitely holy God. (d) Creation stands opposed to the non-existence of matter as taught by Christian Science and all idealistic philosophies. 2. Time of Creation. (a) There are various views as to the days of creation. ist. Long periods. The word day often de- scribes a long period. 2nd. Days of vision. Days when the writer had apocalyptic visions of the creation. 3rd. Twenty-four-hour days — successive. 4th. Twenty-four-hour days — not successive. The beginning-day of a new development. The last view harmonizes with the mention of evening and morning as composing the day, referred to bj^ the writer. The Jewish day began in the evening and there- fore it was natural to place the word evening first in order in the periods that constitute the day. Again this view provides for long periods between the days of creation and therefore has all the advan- tage of the first view. About these questions however no one need be too dogmatic. (b) Creation in Genesis is timeless and dateless. We are not told how many thousands or millions of years ago God created the world; nor how long the work lasted. This contrasts with some of the ancient cosmogo- nies which assume to give dates and times. 3. Order of Creation. (a) Lower to higher, nothing, chaos, order, life, higher life. —49— (b) Order of life according- to Genesis and Geol- ogy. Genesis puts plant life before animal life which would seem to be the natural order. Formerly it was supposed that Geology bore wit- ness to marine fauna previous to plan life, which seemed to make a discrepancy between Genesis and Geology. Later discoveries of graphite deposits are said to show the existence of vegetable life at an earlier date than any heretofore assigned to marine life. If this is so it brings the order of Genesis and Geology into harmony, allowing for the fact that de- tails and minutia are not given. So great is the agreement of Genesis and science that the conclusion is amply warranted that the author of the one is also the author of the other; and it may pertinently be asked: Who could disclose the secrets of creation before science was born or man was on the earth but the omniscient Creator? 4. Harmonies of Genesis with Science. (a) The fact of a beginning. (b) Creation bj^ intelligence. (c) The heavens before the earth. (d) The unity of the heavens and the earth. (e) Original chaos of earth. (f) Duration of time. Shown in the Spirit's brooding. (g) Light before the sun. (h) Creation not simultaneous. (i) Breaks in the continuity. (j) Progression from lower to higher. (k) Vegetation before animals. (1) Like producing like: "whose seed is in it- self, after its kind." (m) Man the last of the creatures. (n) Man on the same day as the higher ani- mals. (o) Man's body from the dust of the earth. (p) Man a dual being. (q) Mankind from a single pair. We hear much of the discrepancies between reli- gion and science. The harmonies are far more strik- ing and significant. —50— 5. The Creation of Man. This subject is treated in Anthropology. 6. Creation and Evolution. (a) Materialistic evolutionists denj^ creation by the fiat of God. They assume the eternity of matter and the laws of nature and make all the ordered uni- verse and its animate forms to arise by natural laws and natural selection. This eliminates all intelligent design and purpose in the trend of the world's life. It is bald atheism and blind chance, contradicted on every page of nature and by all human experience. (b) Pantheistic evolutionists assume the eternity of impersonal being, developing by a law of necessity into the universe as it is. Like materialism it leaves no room for intelligent foresight nor for overruling providence. Both sj^stems stand opposed to creation by the power of an infinite will. (c) Theistic evolutionists make God the creator, and evolution the method of his working. God cre- ated matter, gave it its laws, imparted life to certain forms or germs, and by controlling providence and immanent power wrought out the forms of the world's life. (d) Remarks on Evolution in general. I St. Evolution being a method or process does not undermine the doctrine of creation, but assumes it as a starting point. 2nd. Evolution was at first claimed for material forms, subsequentl}' carried into the mental and spirit- ual realms of man's existence, further applied to. the Scriptures and relig-ious literature and ideas, and more recently suggests that God himself is an imperfect and developing Deity. 3rd. The Darwinian form of evolution with its transmutation of species is burdened with so many difTiculties that it has been rejected by many of the scientific men of the past generation such as Agassiz, Lord Kelvin, Sir Wm. Dawson, Dana, Guyot, Vir- chow, Romanes, and is rejected by an increasing num- ber of the present generation. Haeckel laments: "Even Wundt now is writing the other thing." Some of these difficulties will be considered under the topic: The creation of man in Anthropology. —51— 4th. A newer form of evolution supposes that each species had its own specific primordial germ and developed therefrom without transmutation of species; but developing- variation within the limits of the species. This theory meets with less opposition and is open to less dispute and does not differ greatly from the ordinary view of creation; but must ever be re- garded as an hypothesis without conclusive proof. 5th. There are some elements of truth in the theory of evolution. 6th. The question of evolution is to be settled by science rather than by the Scriptures, except so far as it contravenes the plain teachings of the Scriptures. Section II. Providence. Shorter Catechism, Quest, ii. God's works of providence are his most holy, wise, and powerful pre- serving and governing all his creatures and all their actions. Providences embraces two elements: Preserva- tion and Government. First Element — Preservation. By creation God called the world into existence and by preservation lie maintains it in continuance. God's upholding power is as necessary for contin- uance as his creative power was for existence. If God should withdraw his preserving power all created things would cease to be. (a) Proof. Acts 17:28. For in him we live and move and have our being. Heb. 1:3. Upholding all things by the word of his power. Col. 1:17. By him all things consist, i.e., hold together. Ps. 63:8. Thy right hand upholdeth me. Neh. 9:6. Thou preservest them all. No created being is self-existent, not having the cause of its being in itself. It must depend for con- tinuance on its creator. As nothing can exist without God's will, so no- thing can continue without his will. This continuance is not inherent in the substance created or in its properties or in the general laws of nature, but is due to the constant exercise of God's power. (b) Its Extent. God upholds the material universe. He continues the existence of all spiritual beings. —52— He upholds wicked men while they sin but is not the efficient cause of their sin. The universe is interpenetrated by the living- es- sence and is sustained by the immediate ag^ency of God. (c) Opposing" Views. Materialism excludes all supernatural ag"ency. Deism denies anj^ providential agency, ascribes all to natural law. Pantheism assumes the eternitj^ and self-existence of the universe as a developing system. Some, as Jonathan Edwards, Emmons and Hop- kins have held to a continual creation instead of a preservation. According" to this, nothing exists from moment to moment but everything is created de novo each mo- ment by the agency of God. This is not according" to the Scriptures. It would extinguish all second causes. It would destroy the responsibility of men for their evil acts. According to this God is the only agent. God effects everything"; the creature nothing. It also destroys all continuity of existence, where- as we know ourselves to be the same from year to year. Second Element. Government or Control. God governs all his creatures and all their actions. This g"overnment is holy, wise and powerful. 1. Proof. It follows as a natural inference that a personal God who created the world would also govern it, Man's sense of responsibility and dependence, man's quick appeal to God in times of danger show a universal, innate conviction that God g"overns the world. The Scriptures show that God's government ap- plies as follows: (a) To the physical nature. Ps, 104:14. He causeth grass to grow. Ps, 135:7. He causeth vapor to ascend, lightnings, rain, wind. Ps. 145:16-17. He giveth snow like wool, hoar frost, ice, cold. Acts 14:17. He giveth rain from heaven and fruitful seasons. (b) The animal creation, Ps. 104:21. The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God. —53— Matt. 6:26. Behold the fowls of the air, etc. Matt. 10:29. Not a sparrow falleth, etc. (c) To the events of human history. I Chron. 16:31. Let men say among the nations: The Lord reigneth. Ps. 47:7. For God is the King of all the earth. Dan. 2:21. He changeth the times and the seasons, he removeth kings and setteth up kings. (d) To individual Hfe. r. Sam. 2:6. The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up. Prov. 16:9. A man's heart deviseth his ways but the Lord directeth his steps. James 4:15. If the Lord will, we shall live and do this or that. (e) To so-called fortuitous events. Job 5:6. Trouble doth not spring out of the ground. Prov. 16:33. The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole dis- posing thereof is of the Lord. (f) To the smallest particulars. Matt. 10:30. The very hairs of your head are all numbered. (g") To the free actions of men. Phil. 2:13. For it is God who worketh in you both to will and do of his good pleasure. Ex. 12:36. And the Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians. (h) To the sinful actions of men. II. Sam. 16:10. Shimei cursing David, the Lord said to him, curse David. Ps. 76:10. Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee and the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain. Rom. 11:32. For God hath shut up all under disobedience that he might have mercy upon all. Acts 4:27-28. Herod and others gathered together to do what- soever thy hand and thy counsel predestinated to come to pass. 2. Theories of divine government. (a) Systems that deny divine control. Materialism from its nature excludes all divine government. Pantheism holding" to a development by the law of necessity from an impersonal something, leaves no room for super-natural agency. Deism holding to a personal God, denies that he intervenes in the affairs of the world, but leaves all thing's to the operation of natural laws. (b) Some make God the only efficient cause, and assign all action to his agency, denying the agency of all second causes. —54 — J. H. Thornwell in his earlier writings said, "The only efficient cause that exists in the universe is the fiat of the Deitj^" Dr. Emmons held that if any creature were en- dowed with activity or power to act, it would be inde- pendent of God. He says: "We cannot conceive that even omnipotence itself is able to form independent ag^ents, because this would be to endow them with divinity. And since all men are dependent agents, all their motions, exercises or actions must originate in a divine efficiency." John Scotus Erigena taught that "omnis visibilis et invisibilis creatura theophania." Many of the reformers in vindicating God's sov- ereignty were led to minimize the efficiency of second causes. Men searching to understand what matter is have resolved it into force and asking what force is have said it is the power of God, thus from the scientific side, men have been led to attribute all activity to God. The objections to this are evident: If there is no such thing as a second cause, man has no responsibility. If God is the only agent in the universe, all evil must be attributed to him. It contradicts our consciousness of personal free agency. The truth is: God is the First Great Cause. God has created beings with the power of self- determination, capable of action and of originating action, and responsible therefor. God upholds or preserves in being all creatures else no being or action would be possible to them. God governs and controls his creatures so that they are never without, nor beyond his power in their freest actions, that he incites and promotes all that is good, and limits, bounds and overrules all that is evil. (c) The relation of Divine to human activity. In all the activity of second causes God's agency is a concurrent force. It is evident however that this is not the same in all cases. The concurrent agency of God is not the same in evil as in good actions. In evil acts God upholds in being the evil agent, and that may be a matter of mercy, but God's agency —55— is not so to be construed as to involve him in the quality of the deed only so far as he prevents and overrules. On the other hand God's activity in the good acts of men partakes of more efficiency. "It is not you that work but God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." How far then is it the act of God and how far the act of man? How do human and divine actions coalesce? It is not that it is God's activity to such an extent and man's the rest of the way; as if there were a dividing point where God's agency leaves off and man's agency begins. It is not that of joint action as when two horses draw a load, the combined activity of both. It is rather that God operates upon the soul inducing, inciting and moving the agent to the exercise of his powers in lawful ways. While the act is that of the individual it is nevertheless due more or less to the predisposing agency and efficiency of divine power. Sec. III. Miracles. 1. The definition of a miracle. (a) W. G. T. Shedd. "A miracle is an extraor- dinary act of God." (b) A. A. Hodge. "A miracle is an event in the external world obvious to the senses, which cannot be rationally attributed to any agency but God, which accompanies a messenger from God, to authenticate his message as divine." (c) A. H. Strong. "A miracle is an event palpable to the senses, produced for a religious purpose by the immediate agency of God." (d) Dorner. "Miracles are sensuously cognizable events, not comprehensible on the ground of the caus- ality of nature, but essentially on the ground of God's free action alone. Such facts find their possibility in the constitution of nature and God's living relation to it; their necessity in the aim of revelation which they subserve." (e) Theodore Christlieb. "Miracles are the effects of God's power in the domain of nature, supernatural phenomena, the eft'ective causes of which cannot be -56- found in the usual course of nature nor in the spirit of man but only in the immediate interposition of higher divine powers." "Regeneration, consolation, peace, etc., occupy a middle position between miracles in the wider and those in the narrow sense." (f) David Hume. "Miracles are violation of the laws of nature. (g) Strauss. A miracle is a "rent in nature's har- mony." The term miracle is variously understood and de- fined. In the narrower sense it is limited to the extraor- dinary act of God in the external world. In the wider sense it includes such spiritual results as regeneration, conversion, and sanctification. The prevailing usage is in the narrower sense. 2. Classification. In their modus operandi miracles may be classified as: — (a) Immediate. Immediate miracles are those in which the agency of God is without intervening means, as the creation of the world, the raising of the dead, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In these miracles no means are evident. (b) Mediate. Mediate miracles are those in which God employs natural forces or elements, sometimes intensifying natural agencies beyond the usual to effect a given end. Examples of mediate miracles are the flood where- in the subsidence of the earth's crust, the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep, the inflow of water to lower levels effected the deluge. The separation of the waters of the Red Sea by a strong east wind, the feeding of Israel with quails, some of the plagues of Egypt, the destruction of Jabin's army by storm and flood, perhaps also the destruction of Sennacherib's army. The employment of these natural means does not render the event any less a miracle. God's interven- tion is seen in directing these forces to a particular end at a particular time. —57— 3. Are miracles probable or improbable? (a) The fact of a free personal God settles the possibility of miracles. If God is the creator of the world no one can deny his right and power to inter- vene in it. He who believes in God as a free personal Will has settled for himself the possibility of miracles. Once admit that God is an omnipotent personal being free to act, and the manifestation of that God in the world is a foregone conclusion. But the manifestation of that being otherwise than in nature is a supernatural affair and therefore a miracle. And that a free beneficent God should be confined to manifestation in nature only, contradicts that free- dom as wellas the fitness of things. It is illogical to admit the miracle of creation and deny the possibility of subsequent miracles. What God has once done he must always be able to do, otherwise he would cease to be God. (b) If miracles are possible to a free, omnipotent, personal God, are they equally probable? Given a God of mercj^, goodness and love on the one hand and a suffering, perishing world on the other hand what is the probability that God will intervene? The presumption that God will intervene is over- whelming. Is it not more probable that God will take special measures to rescue the work of his hands and the objects of his love than to abandon them to a fate without end and without a remedy? God so loved the world that he gave his Son, the greatest of all miracles. Once admit that love, as an attribute of the personal God, and the miracle of redemption will appear a logical sequence. Admitting the facts of a personal God and a sinful world the antecedent probability of miracles becomes a strong conviction. Spinoza denied the possibilitj^ of miracles, because he denied a personal God. Hume denied the probability of miracles because he denied the freedom of God, and imprisoned him in the world which he had made and fettered him in natural law. If the. miraculous is impossible no prayer need be offered at the bedside of the sick and dying, no cry for help arise in face of threatening death. From a -58- blind, deaf process of nature you may only await your destiny. If over the coffin of husband, wife or mother, you long- for the touch of a vanished hand and the sound of a voice that is still, you are rudely informed by these false philosophers of the non-miraculous, that there is no resurrection, no recognition, no fellow- ship forever. If you sig-h for deliverance from an evil nature you are answered by the apostles of uniformity that the new birth itself would be an unnatural interrup- tion of your naturally sinful development. If the supernatural is ruled out of life all the holi- est aspirations of the human heart would be buried in the g-rave of the miraculous. Let the heart of the world answer which is the more probable. Is the Creator a moral or a non-moral God? Does the world exist for a physical or a moral end? Proper consideration for these questions will show how probable it is that miracle will ensue when there is a sufficiently important moral or beneficent end to be served thereby. 4. Are miracles necessary? The world has a final cause as well as a First Cause. The final cause is the g^lory of God in the bea- tific destiny of man. If that final cause is ever to be achieved arniracle would seem to be a necessity. Sin has come into the world and ruined man's nature. He is now a fallen creature, under curse and under bondage to sin. Salvation cannot come to man through the opera- tion of natural law. Left to himself man goes down to increasing- depravity and eternal doom, natural law will not save him. Natural law condemns him. Natural law inflicts the penalty. The very uni- formity of natural law makes the sinner's doom cer- tain. "The soul that sinneth it shall die" is natural law. "The wages of sin is death" is natural law. As long as fire burns and water drowns and gravi- tation exerts its power, natural law will exact the utmost penalty for transgression. If therefore man is saved it must be that super- natural power rescues him from the consequences of his sin. —59— The revelation of God's law and especially the plan of salvation was necessary to salvation and that is miracle. The incarnation of Jesus Christ was necessary to salvation and that was a miracle. The resurrection of Jesus Christ was necessary to break the power of death and that was a miracle. And if our bodies rise to enjoy their deliverance from the curse of sin that also will be a miracle. Miracles are therefore a necessity in the plan of redemption, and in the final cause of the world. 5. Are miracles a violation of natural law? Spinoza said: "The laws of nature are the only realization of the divine will; if anything in nature could happen to contradict them God would contra- dict himself." Spinoza's fallacy is in the first half of his sen- tence. He makes God and nature identical. If there is no God but nature then of course there is no miracle. Miracles do not violate natural law because: — (a) Natural law operates during the working of the miracle. One law is superseded by another law. When I support an apple in my hand the law of gravitation does not cease to act, but another power prevents the apple from falling. So when an aeroplane flies among the clouds, or a steel vessel floats, or a ram forces water to run up an incline. The natural laws are operative all the time, but human contrivances effect their purpose while no law of nature is suspended or violated. So with miracles. When the leper was cleansed the disease did not reverse itself and contribute health to the body; but a higher power counteracted the force of the lower and effected the result. When the dead were raised it was not the law of decomposition that reversed itself and became a means of life, but a higher law that intervened. Natural laws continue to act while miracles are being performed. (b) Nature is subject to the power of will. The human will can act directly on the human organism (and through that organism on other things). I say to my hand, "Move," it moves. "Do this," and it does it. If the human will can initiate action without means, shall not the immanent God produce effects in the universe with no means but his omnipotent will? If physical nature and realms of life below man are subject to his power are not all realms below God subject to his divine power? If.it is no violation of natural law for a human will to act upon physical nature, is it a violation of natural law for the divine will to do so, since God is as immanent in the universe as our souls in our nat- ural bodies? (c) The natural is the product of the supernatural. Since the natural proceeds from the supernatural, it must always continue to be open to its influence, else the higher would be conditioned by the lower which is unnatural. Natural law expresses the will of the Creator in a g"enerally uniform operation. But the law is not above its Creator. It does not command him, but he it. "If the laws of nature originally proceeded from God, is he the only one who is not master in his own house?" — Christlieb. (d) The miracle, once it is effected, takes its place in the natural course of things without producing dis- harmony. The healing of the sick and the raising of the dead did not abrogate the laws of health, nor disturb the course of life in the world. The incarnation of Jesus Christ did not disturb the laws of birth, nor reverse moral obligations in the spiritual life of the world. No disharmonies in the natural laws of the world have been introduced by the advent of miracles. The laws of nature still hold and operate as before. In considering miracle and natural law this should not be overlooked. 6. Are miracles inconsistent with the uniformity of nature? Deniers of miracles make much of the uniformity of nature. They say that the uniformity of nature's laws makes all miraculous exceptions unbelievable. (a) We admit a general uniformity in nature. — 6i— We even declare that such a uniformity is benefi- cent, otherwise no one could plan for the future. If seasons did not uniformly' follow each other, if daj^ and night did not regularly succeed, if seed did not bring- forth after its kind, if nature had no established laws the world would be in hopeless confusion and perplexitj^ But while there is a general uniformit3' there is not an absolute uniformity. If nature were as absolutely uniform as the object- ors to miracles contend, the world would be as hope- less as if the contrarj^ were true. (b) Examples of non-uniformity. It is a law of nature that cold contracts but there is a beneficent ex- ception to that law a few degrees above freezing point without which life would be impossible on a great part of the globe. The seasons are not absolutely uniform, in fact no two seasons are exactlj^ alike. In all nature there are differences as well as sim- ilarity. The creation of the world was a break in the uniformity that preceded it. Each species of animals that appeared on the earth, and there were scores of them, broke the preceding continuity. Man's appear- ance was another break in the uniformity. Nothing like him had ever appeared before. All through the history of the world there have been breaks in the uniformity. So too the incarnation of Jesus Christ was an exception to the general law of birth in the world. Every new species of animal life was an interven- tion by the Creator; and the incarnation was a special intervention for a special moral purpose that justified it. (c) If miracles were no exception to the general uniformity the^^ would largely fail of their purpose. Just because the^' are exceptional do they excite atten- tion and serve their purpose and teach their lesson. If burning' bushes had been as common as budding bush- es Moses would not have turned aside to see. If the plagues of Egypt had been everyday occur- rences they would have been no sign that Jehovah was with Moses. If resurrection were as common in the world as birth we would miss the supernatural in it. That miracles are exceptions to the common rule gives them special value. —62— 7. Are miracles evidential or didactic? (a) Much was written a few j^ears ago denying- that miracles had any evidential value. It was said that from being the chief supports of a revelation, they had become the chief difficulty; that the more the Scripture records abound in miracles the more are they to be disbelieved. The records were even appealed to to show that Christ disapproved of miracles, at least for evidential purpose, for when his g^eneration asked him to show them a sig"n, he refused to g"ive it. It was therefore customary among such writers to g"ive miracles a didactic rather than an evidential value, if they assigned any value to them at all. (b) Miracles are didactic. Admitting- the fact of the miracle, the didactic value is scarcely open to dispute. (c) Miracles are evidential also. This is clearly taught by Christ and the Apostles. Matt. 9:6. But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins. I say to the sick of the palsy, arise. Evidential. Matt. 11:5. Go show John again those things which ye have seen — the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, etc. Evidential surely. Jno. 3:2. Master we know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man could do the miracles that thou doest except God be with him. Jno. 5:36. The works that I do bear witness of me. Jno. 9:30, 32. Why herein is a marvellous thing that ye know not whence he is and yet he hath opened my eyes. If this man were not of God he could do nothing. Since the world began was it not heard that any MAN ever opened the eyes of one that was born blind. Jno. 20:30, 31. Many other works did Jesus which are not writ- ten in this book, but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name. Jno. 10:37, 38. All this shows clearly that miracles are evidential in their character. 8. Is the age of miracles past? It is sometimes asked: If there ever were miracles, why do they not occur today? Is not the common ex- perience of men a sufficient negation of miracles? As to the frequency or infrequency of miracles we remark: — —63- (a) They are g"eneralh' connected with a revela- tion, or a messeng-er from God. Some authorities put this fact in the definition of a miracle. (b) They usually occur in great crises of the world's moral life; as for example, in the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and the training- of a people for God, in Elijah's conflict with heathenism, and in the manifestation of Jesus Christ. (c) Different conditions may make them more frequent in one age than another. (d) They are not to be expected where natural law is sufficient. (e) They are not to be expected where revelation is sufficient. (f) They are infrequent in an unbelieving" age or place. Mat. 13:58. He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. (g) The Scriptures have never said that the age of miracles is past. (h) Many miracles have occurred subsequent to the days of the Apostles. TertuUian and Origen tes- tify of miraculous happenings long" after the days of the Apostles. Theodore of Mopsuestia (429) says: "Many hea- then among" us are being healed by Christians from whatsoever sicknesses they may have, so abundant are miracles in our midst." (i) The Scriptures bear their testimony. Jno. 14:12. He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do because I go to the Father. Mk. 16:17,18. And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents, and if they shall drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. Many miracles, signs, wonders and judgments are foretold for the consummation period of human his- tory. 9. Objections to Miracles. (a) Spinoza's Objection. "The laws of nature are the only realization of the divine will. If any thing" in nature could happen to contradict them, God would contradict himself." Spinoza's premise is wrong, his conclusion is therefore wrong. He begs the question to begin with. —64- He assumes the thing- that he ought to prove, viz. that the laws of nature are the only realization of the divine will. Spinoza's philosophy determined his theolog"y. A Pantheistic philosophy leaves no room for supernat- ural interposition. Denjang" a personal God of course Spinoza must deny miracles. Hume's Objection. Hume says: "Miracles are violations of the laws of nature: but we learn from experience that the laws of nature are never violated. For miracles we have the questionable testimony of a few persons; against them we have universal experience; therefore this stronger testimony nullifies the weaker and more ques- tionable." Every statement in this passage is false. First. Miracles are not a violation of natural law. Second. Every day's experience shows that man has power over the forces of nature; much more has God. Third. The testimony to miracles is abundant, throug"h many ages, by many people, and anything but questionable. When a dozen disciples of Christ would lay down their lives rather than deny the facts which they had seen, the testimony cannot be called questionable. Consider the character of these men who bore wit- ness, and the purpose of their doing so, not for g'ain, pleasure, preferment, etc. No personal ends were to be gained for which they risked martyrdom. Fourth. "Against them universal experience" — that begs the question — that is the thing- in dispute. Universal experience is not against miracles. A uni- versal experience must include the experience of all men. A million men mig'ht say they had never wit- nessed a miracle; but their testimony' would not be valid ag^ainst a comparatively small number who could testify to what they had seen or experienced. No court in the world would accept the testimony of a man who did not see something' on an occasion when he was not present. If we include in miracles the fact of regeneration and other spiritual effects, the number of witnesses is innumerable. Hume arg-ues that it is more probable that the testimony is false than that the miracle is true. -65- Hume looks at the question from a one-sided view point. His Deistic or naturalistic philosophy warps his judgment. He leaves out of consideration the moral and spir- itual needs of the world, and also the fact of a loving" and personal God with a purpose to save the creatures of his hand. A moral and religious view of the world puts the probability in favor of the miraculous. Hume has been refuted in detail by English apol- ogists such as Campbell, Paley, Whately, Wardlaw, Pearson and others, and by German writers as well. (c) Objections by Rationalism. Rationalism arose about the middle of the i8th century, about 1750. It sought to offset belief in mir- acles with the advanced knowledge of nature. Its ten- dency was to put natural religion in the place of supernatural. It tried to explain away miracles by attributing them to natural causes, and attributing to those who performed them a knowledge of phj'sics, chemistry, pyrotechnics, etc. Thunder- and lightning were thought sufficient to explain the miracles on Sinai, Carmel and the voice at Christ's baptism. The loaves and fishes were not multiplied, but the example of the lad induced others to share their sup- plies etc., etc. All this was in sheer disregard of the record for which the rationalists had no respect. Radical Rationalism rejected revelation and exalt- ed human reason as sufficient to discover God and all human duty. Reason was the sole authority and happiness the chief end of man. But human nature degenerated by sin, is not sufficient for itself without instruction and education by God. That reason is insufficient for human guidance is proved by the condition of the whole heathen world. Paul says: "The world by wisdom knew not God." After all has been safd that can be said for innate ideas and intuitive truth it still remains true that rea- son is essentially a faculty, a receptive faculty whose function is to hear, learn and embrace the truth re- ceived from without and above. —66— If God can reveal himself in nature in its ordin- ary forms and phases, why can he not reveal himself for special ends by unusual phases of nature or with- out means of any kind? This form of rationalism was Deistic and all the arguments against Deism and all the reasons for the insufficiency of natural theology hold against this form of Rationalism. (d) Kant (1724-1804) and Fichte (1762-1814) raised the objection to direct revelation that even if it should occur no one could distinguish between a divine com- munication and the subjective operation of his own intellect. To this it is answered, first that all revelation was not internal, many revelations were given by outward means such as theophanies, angelic appearances, etc. And second, the recipients of revelations do de- cidedly distinguish between their own thoughts and the revelation. Prophets strove to understand the meaning of the revelations they had received. I. Peter 1:10-11. Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you; searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ who was in them did signify. Abraham, Zacharias and Mary were incredulous in regard to the promises of posterity. Gen. 17:17. Luke 1:18. Luke 1:34. And Peter protested against the revelation as to unclean meats and Jeremiah protested against his call to prophesy. Paul too clearly distinguishes between his own words and the Lord's; "This I command, yet not I, but the Lord." "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." (e) Jacob Grimm (1785-1863) supposed that God's speaking to man would imply that he subjected him- self to the changes and developments of time, which the Uncreated and Immutable cannot do. But revelation implies no change in the essential nature of God. Revelation itself may be marked by development, and God may reveal himself more and more while the essence of the Divine nature is un- changed and undisturbed. (f) Schenkel (1813-1885) declared that a supposed revelation by theophanies and angelic agencies de- -r.7— stroys the spiritual conception of God by mixing- up his manifestation with the alternations of material phenomena. If creation is possible to a spiritual God theo- phanic revelation cannot be less so. If the former does not destroy the true idea of God surely the latter should not. Man acts on and throug-h material forms, why deny such prerog^atives to God? Moreover man is largely appealed to by material phenomena, why should God not reach him through these natural channels? (g) David Strauss (1808-1874) says: "We now know for certain at least what Jesus was not and what he did not do, viz. nothing superhuman nor supernat- ural." Strauss refuted the rationalists in their natural- istic explanation of the miracles, but sought to over- throw them on other grounds. Strauss endeavored to undermine the trustworthiness of the Scriptural rec- ords, especially the gospel history. In his Leben Jesu, 1835, he attributed the gospels to the growth of myth and legend. In the edition of 1864 he put more stress on intentional invention. According to Strauss the admirers of Jesus wove around his memory all the wonderful things narrated in the gospels. And as they conceived him to be the Messiah, he must do more and greater things than those attributed to Moses and the prophets. So too many of his sayings were adorned with a miraculous tale. "I will make you fishers of men" grew into the story of the miraculous draught. When he said the unfruitful tree should be cut down, this grew into the story of the withered fig tree. The early Christians read in the second Psalm, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee," hence the myth that Christ was the Son of God, etc., etc. Thus the story of Christ was expanded and decorated till the Gospels were pro- duced and composed some time in the second century. All but a meager residuum was myth, legend, or inten- tional fabrication, and nothing miraculous or super- natural. Strauss was ably answered by Tholuck, Neander, Ullmann, Ebrard, and others. Strauss was the fabri- cator instead of the early disciples. His whole work is sheer supposition, with no regard for historical —68— accuracy or truthfulness. All investigation has shown the gospels to be trustworthy. All evidence shows them to have been written too early for myth and legends to grow. If the first century was such a myth- making age, it is unaccountable that no miracles were attributed to John the Baptist who was held to be a great prophet. Strauss pays no heed to the historical spirit of the first century, nor to the statements of John: "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you," and the statement of Peter: "We have not followed cunningly devised fables." Strauss must also explain why men would persist in such fabrications to the loss of all worldly goods, personal comfort, and life itself. The lives of the Apostles can be explained only on the ground of their intense conviction of the truth of what they proclaimed. Strauss was a disciple of Hegelian philosophy, and to his Pantheistic conception no miracle was possible. To him all miracle was a sign of myth. In his last work he endeavored to prove that there is no con- scious or personal God. He was unhistorical, capricious, and often ridicu- lous. After these years his views have few adherents. Every day drives new nails in the coffin-lid of the Tubingen Theology; and there is scarce one now so poor as to do it reverence. (h) Renan (1823-1892) in his "Les Apotres" says: "Miracles are not performed in the places where they ought to be. One single miracle performed in Paris before competent judges would forever settle so many doubts. But alas none has ever taken place. No miracle was ever performed before the people who need to be converted — I mean before unbelievers. The conditio sine qua non of the miraculous is the credu- lity of the witnesses. No miracle was ever performed before those who could thoroughly discuss the matter and decide in regard to it." On this we remark: That many of Christ's miracles fulfilled the very conditions that Renan demands. They were perform- ed before the unbelieving Pharisees, and before suffi- cient numbers to verify and multiply the testimony. -69- Credulity was not always the easy circumstance. Thomas demanded palpable proof of the resurrection. The Pharisees could not deny the miracles but attrib- uted them to Beelzebub. Nicodemus a learned man said, "No man can do the miracles thou doest except God be with him." In the Jewish and Roman world there were cer- tainly wise and learned men who were competent judges. If not many miracles are witnessed in Paris it might perhaps learn the reason from Nazareth. Miracles are not performed to convince men against their will. Some possibility of doubt generally remains where faith is required; giving to faith an ele- ment of trust that differentiates it from knowledge. God works no miracles to convince men who do not want to be convinced, or who have abundant evi- dence at hand. "If thej" hear not Moses and the prophets neither will thej' be persuaded though one rose from the dead." In 1863 Renan published his "Vie de Jesus," in which the historicity^ of the Gospels was evaporated into poetic fancy. Both Strauss and Renan built their works on cre- ative imagination. To conjecture how a thing might have been is not to prove how it was. (i) Celsus the heathen of the second century, Reimarus (1694-1768), Voltaire and other deists ac- cused Jesus Christ or else the Gospel writers with in- tentional fraud. This is refuted by a single question: How could the regeneration of the world proceed from an im- moral deceiver? or how could a few fraudulent men give to the world the loftiest, purest, most spiritual movement the world has ever known! (j) Others have said that Christ was self deceived or the disciples deceived in regard to him. Then we are to believe that the Greek and Roman world and the high civilization of the present day were imposed upon by a few ignorant Galilean fisherman who were themselves deceived, and that our great educational institutions, our Christian civilization, and the moral power of Christianity are all the product of a mistake, or due to the fabrications of a few dreamers. (k) It has been urged that miracles imply imper- fection in the original plan therefore inconsistent with —70— God's omniscience; that it is charg-ing- the Almighty with mistakes in the work of his hands. Is the work of God so faulty that he must intervene to mend its mechanism, as a poor mechanic would do to his faulty construction? This overlooks the distinction between the works of God as they came from his hand and as subsequent- ly ruined by sin. Miracle is not an attempt to mend a faulty con- struction but to restore it to its original perfection. 10. Special arguments for miracles. (a) The denial of miracles is the denial of a free, living, personal God. (b) The denial of a free living- personal God sub- verts all religion and all moral life. If no miracle we have either no salvation, or no other life than this, and no barrier to the grossest materialism. Men will neither fear, love or serve what has no power over them or relation to them. (c) If no miracle, Christ was not incarnate God, never rose from the grave and offers no hope for the future. (d) If no miracle all things in nature and history must be explained on the basis of natural law, which would involve g-reater difficulties than belief in mir- acles. If no miracle there was no creation and the world is eternal; no preservation or providence and the world has continued itself in existence, or is the favor- ite of mere chance. If no creation, nian and all life is the product of spontaneous generation, a scientific absurdity. If no miracle, we must explain the fact of Israel, her laws, and institutions; the Bible; prophecy; Christ and his character and teaching's; the disciples and their convictions; the Christian Church and its tvork in the world; Christianity and its regenerating power; the twice born men and their new life; — and explain all these as the products of natural law, chance, decep- tion or falsehood. By denying miracles we are compelled to believe in less believable prodigies. (e) He who has once been the subject of regener- ating grace and has experienced the saving power of God, and lives in communion with him, will have little difficulty in believing in miracles. —71— PART SECOND. ANTHROPOLOGY. Index Page. Definition. Chapter I. THE ORIGIN OF MAN. Section I. Not Pre-existence. Section II. Not Emanation. Section III. Not a Form of God. Section IV. Not the Product of Spontaneous Gen- eration. Section V. Not Accounted for by Evolution. Section VI. Evolution and the Scriptures. Section VII. A Newer Form of Evolution, Section VIII. Man Created, Chapter II. THE DESCENT OR PROPAGATION OF MAN. Section I. Creationism. Section II. Traducianism. Chapter III. THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN. Section I. How long has man lived on the earth? Section II. Reasons assigned for a great antiquity. Chapter IV. THE NATURE OF MAN. Section I. Dychotomy. Section II. Trichotomy. Section III. The Unity of the Soul. Section IV. Relation of Soul to Soul. Section V. Free Agency. Chapter V. THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. Section I. As to His Body. Section II. As to His Soul. Section III. Pelagian View as to Man's Original State. Section IV. Romish View as to Man's Original State. —73— Chapter VI. THE COVENANT OF WORKS. Section I. Statement. Section II. What is a Covenant? Section III. Evidences of such a Covenant. Section IV. In the Covenant Adam Represented Posterity. Section V. Probation. lapter VII. THE FALL OF MAN. Section I. Was There a Fall? Section II. Two Difficulties. Section III. Observations. Chapter VIII. RELATION OF ADAM TO POSTER- ITY. Section I. Scriptural Statement. Section II. Explanation. Chapter IX. SIN. Section Section Section Section Section Section Section VII. Section VIII. Section IX. Section X. I. II. III. IV. V. VI. The Fact of Sin, Definitions of Sin. Nature of Sin. Orig-inal Sin. Total Depravity. Pelagian View of Sin. Semi-Pelagian View of Sin. Roman Catholic View of Sin. Arminian View of Sin. View of Pantheistic Theologians. Chapter X. INABILITY. Section I. Various .Views. Section II. What Inability is not. Section III. The Doctrine of Inability. Section IV. Proof of Inability. Section V. What Can Man Do in His Salvation? Section VI. Objections Answered. -/4- PART SECOND: ANTHROPOLOGY. "Anthropolog-y" is a word derived from two Greek words, "anthropos" man, and "logos" discourse. Therefore. Anthropolog"y is the doctrine- concerning- man. Strictly speaking concerning his origin, nature, fall and sin; but not concerning man as the subject of grace as that belongs to the division of Theology called Soteriology. Chapter I. The Origin of Man. Section I. Not Pre-existence. No record of it. No proof of it. No memory or consciousness of it. Bible shows creation; and that all sprang from Adam. If pre- existence be assumed man must be either eternally pre- existent or created by God, in that pre-existent state. Applies only to the soul. Section II. Not Emanation, from the substance of God. 1. Because emanation implies that the substance of God can become corrupt and this is derogatory to the character of God. 2. Substance is that in which attributes inhere and if we partake of God's substance we would possess the attri- butes of omniscience, infinity, etc. Section III. Not a form of God, which is Pantheism. God and man are separate being^s, not confounded or blended. Section IV. Not the product of spontaneous genera- tion. Science knows of no spontaneous generation of anj^ kind. Section V. Not accounted for by Evolution. 1. Evolution is a process and a process does not ori- ginate anything. 2. Darwin believed that God created the first form or forms of life, a very few, and all genera and species arose from such starting point. 3. Later evolutionists like Haeckel asserted that life originated from the molecular motion of dead matter and developed into all subsequent forms of living beings. —75— 4. Objections to Evolution. (a) No example of transmutation of species ever known. (b) No missing" links ever found. Would require thousands of links. (c) Science shows great gaps between different species and that each came without known antecedents in the lineal descent.^ (d) Not sufficient time. (e) Sterility of hybrids. (f) Earliest remains of man are of high development. (g) Vast superiority of man over animals. (h) Degeneration. A late theory is that the ape de- generated from man. (i) Opposed by the greatest scientists: Agassiz, Lord Kelvin, Virchow, et al. (j) Haeckel's Embryological Plates. (k) Some later geological discoveries reverse in some measure the order in which life was supposed to appear on the globe. Pre-Cambrian strata and fossils supposedly old lie on top of Cretaceous strata and fossils supposedly young. This over wide areas, reversing the evolutionary order in loco. (1) Admission of Evolutionists. Darwin said in i860, "I have never for a moment doubted that, though I cannot see my errors, much of my book (The Origin of Species) will be proved erroneous"; and again in 1862, "I look at it as absolutely certain that very much of the 'Origin' will be proved rubbish; but I expect and hope that the framework will stand." Huxley said: "In vain have the links that should bind man to monkey been soug'ht: not a single one is there to show. The so-called Protanthropos who should exhibit this link has not been found. None have been found that stood nearer the monkey than the men of to- day." Huxley at one time believed that he had found the nexus between the animate and inanimate world in the deep sea ooze which he named Bathybius. He afterwards i"It is evident that there is a manifest progress in the succession of beings on the surface of the earth. Among the vertebrates there is an increasing resemblance to man. But this connection is not the consequence of a direct lineage between the faunas of different ages. There is nothing like parental descent connecting them. The fisher of the Palaeozoic age are in no respect the ancestors of the reptiles of the Secondary age; nor does man descend from the mammals which preceded him in the Tertiary age." — Agassiz. -76- gave up the theory for very good reasons. He subsequent- ly declared a link to be found connecting the horse with the four-toed Orohippus. Others dispute the validity of the argument. It is doubtful if the supposed link is a toe, and at any rate the variety of form is within the limits of the equine species and therefore not a proof of the trans- inutation of species. (m) Conversion of Evolutionists. Romanes, in his earlier years an avowed evolutionist, later renounced it. Mivart, who once considered evolu- tion sufficient to account for man's body, later held that it could account for neither his body nor his soul, and called natural selection "a puerile hypothesis." Prof. Virchow, formerly an advocate of Haeckel's views, subsequently declared: "It is all nonsense. It can- not be proved by science that man descends from the ape or any other animal. Ever since the announcement of the theory all real scientific knowledge has proceeded in the opposite direction." (n) The arguments for Evolution based on structural similiarities, embryonic development, rudimentary organs, reversion to type, pathological conditions and remedial agencies, are met by counter explanations; and are incon- clusive against the mass of evidence on the other side. Section VI. Evcflution and the Scriptures. How far do they agree? 1. The Scriptures declare that God created man. 2. The Scriptures do not declare HOW God created man, whether instantaneously, or by process of develop- ment. The Scriptures declare that God formed man's body of the dust of the ground. It is possible to understand this as brute dust as well as inanimate dust; development of man's body from the animal being regarded as God's way of forming that body. Some hold that man's body was derived from the animal form, while his soul was a creation de novo. Others hold that both body and soul were derived from the animal but by special superintendence and contribu- tion by God. This is the view of theistic evolutionists. It is possible to interpret the Scriptures from the standpoint of theistic evolution; but impossible from the standpoint of a materialistic evolution. —77— 3. Evolution toward the g'oal of man, requires intelli- g;ent choice on the part of the author of the process. No evolution is possible without an innate tendency to variation; that innate tendency requires a cause and implies a purpose; and a law of variation that can persist, throug-h countless ages, and myriads of forms, till it reaches its g"oal in "the crown of creation" forever settles the question of materialistic evolution. Through all the forms of life "one increasing purpose runs." 4. The question of evolution per se, as a method of divine working', is not to be settled so much by the inter- pretation of Scripture as by the investigations of science. It is essentially a scientific question and is to be met on scientific g-rounds. The Theologian deals with it only be- cause it injects itself into the realm of God's relation to the world and to man. The arg"uments pro and con are many; but the balance of arg^ument at the present time seems decidedl^^ ag'ainst evolution; at least in its Darwinian form. 5. Evolution is important to the theologian because evolutionists have used the theory to reconstruct the doc- trines of the Scriptures. As used by them it affects many fundamental doctrines, e.g". creation, man, the fall, sin, Christ, the incarnation, atonement, etc. etc. Section VII. A newer form of Evolution is not so objectionable. The newer form of evolution supposes that instead of transmutation of species there was one form or germ ori- ginated for EACH species, and that each species devel- oped from its own primordial g^erm. Section VIII. Man's Origin was in Creation by God. 1. Either full g-rown or developed from some specific form created bj^ God. Gen. 2:7 shows a mediate creation as regards man's body and an immediate creation as re- g"ards his soul. Whether the mediate creation was by fiat or development from some prior form nothing" is said. 2. Created a single pair (Some think more than one pair, e.g. Agassiz). (a) Bible proof. Gen. 1:27. Male and female created he them. Rom. 5:12. Through one man sin entered into the world, and so death passed upon all men for that all sinned. -78- I. Cor. 15:22. For as in Adam all die — Acts: 17:26. And hath made of one (blood) all men. The unity of the human race underlies the doctrine of orig-inal sin by virtue of Adam's fall. (b) Lang-uag-e. The gfreat similarity of roots in primitive languages points to a unity of language in the earliest days. It has been shown that the earlj^ Egyptian was derived from the Babylonian, and the Babylonian was a mixture of Sumer- ian and Semitic. So too, similarities have been traced be- tween the Chinese and the Accadian. A bear in Ethiopian is called Deb, in Hebrew Dob, in Aramean Debba, in Arabic Dubb. This indicates a com- mon origin for these races and incidentally shows that the fatherland was a place where bears are familiar objects. "About 170 roots serve to connect tog'ether the various groups of Asiatic languag^es and of these about fifty are still traceable throug"hout the entire number, that is to say in Accadian, Eg"yptian, Arj'-an, Semitic and Mongolic speech alike." — Conder. Unity of languag'e is strong evidence of unity of race. (c) One Blood. The law of sterility of hybrids does not apply to the human race. The union of different families or races uni- formly proving fertile. The most diverse types thus prove themselves to be of one blood. (d) It is easier to account for divergence from one source than to account for manifest unity from diverse sources. (e) The tendency of scientific thought is to unity not only of mankind; but also of animals and man. The ten- dency to unity has even run to extremes. (f) The mental, moral and spiritual natures of all men are identical. (g) Differences are due to environment. The Irish driven from their homes two hundred 3"ears ag-o have developed a prog"nathous physiognomy. The Jews are fair in one latitude, olive in another and black in Africa. Missionaries spending years in Africa have changed several shades in color of skin. Rawlinson says that Negroes are not represented on the Egyptian monuments before 1500 B.C. 3. Man occupies a mid-position between nature and God, filling the vast hiatus between the material and spir- itual with a body that relates him to earth and a spiritual nature that relates him to God. —79— 4. Without man there would be none to appreciate God's material creation and none on earth to enter into communion with God. 5. The Creation of Woman. We have the account of the formation of woman in Gen. 2:21-23. (a) One view is that this is a pictorial view of some- thing- that took place in the evolution of man's ancestral line, his phylogenetic history, by which the sexes were separated from a common stock. (b) Some one has supposed that Adam and Eve were created twins, joined by some cartilag-enous bond, like the Siamese twins; that this was severed at an early period resulting- in two complete persons of opposite sex. (c) Another view is that the original man was bi- sexual. The Jews have a tradition that Adam was created double-sexed, and that the two sexes were afterward sep- arated. The Hindus have a similar account. These hermaphroditic explanations may be plausible? guesses, but no verification is now possible. (d) We have the account in Genesis, which gives us too few details on which to construct a theorj^ and leaves us in entire ignorance of the process of woman's forma- tion. The Bible has little to say for the purpose of gratify- ing curiosity. All it sees fit to tell us is that man and woman have a common Creator, and a common nature; and are supplemental to each other for their own good and for God's purpose concerning the human race. Chapter II. The Descent or Propagation of Man. Man is a race or a species. A bond of nature unites all mankind. Angels are sexless and therefore are not a race or species and have no common history or common character. But man is a race, descending one from another, and all from one pair. Theology does not consider the descent or propaga tion of the body. That is left to Ph^^siology. —80— But the theological question is this: Is the soul of man derived from the parents as the body is? There are two views: — Section I. Creationism. This view asserts that the soul is not derived from the parents, but is created de novo for everj^ individual born into the world. Because of: — 1. The indivisibility of the soul substance. 2. Scriptural language. Is. 57:16. The souls that I have made. Eccles. 12:7. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit to God who gave it. Heb. 12:9. Fathers of our flesh — Father of spirits. (Observe no "our in the last clause, therefore not our spirits.) Zech. 12:1. The Lord who formeth the spirit of man within him. Observe, — these passages can be understood to refer to mediate creation as well as immediate. 3. The person of Christ. If Christ's human soul was derived from human kind would it not partake of our common sinfulness? The traducianist answers this by saying that as Christ's birth was a supernatural event at any rate, his human nature was preserved from the taint of sin by supernatural sanctification. 4. Individuality is urged as an argument for Crea- tionism. Children often differ much from their parents. Answer to argument from individuality: Children have two parents and a conibination of traits may produce traits different from both. Again heredity draws from remote ancestors. Every person has two parents, four grandparents, eight great- grandparents, and every further step is multiplied by two. Here is sufficient cause of variety and individuality^ Section II. Traducianism. Traducianism means that man's soul is derived from the parents and therefore mankind is a race or species in regard to soul as well as body. The arguments for this view are: 1. The fact of hereditary traits in our mental and moral make-up. —81— 2. It accounts for the transmission of our sinful nature from Adam to posterity. 3. Otherwise it is hard to maintain the justice of God in the punishment of inherited sin. 4. It is chfficult for Creationism to explain how each created soul is sinful. 5. Traducianism best accounts for the universality of sin. Among angels some fell and some did not because there was no racial connection; and no transmission of sinful nature from one to another. 6. Traducianism admits the concurrence of the im- manent God in all the traduction of the human race as his providence, power, and purpose are over all things. 7. Scripture passages favoring traducianism. The Scriptures do not make this point a matter of defiinite teaching, and all appeal to Scripture texts is an effort to discover by inference how the matter was regard- ed by the writers. However very valuable suggestions are thus derived. Some passages are as follows: Jno. 1:13. Born, not of blood. This contrasts spiritual birth with natural, implying that natural birth is traducian. Jno. 3:6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. In this citation the word flesh is understood to mean the whole man as unregenerate. Rom. 1:3. Concerning his Son who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. Rom. 5:12. By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all sinned. I. Cor. 15:22. As in Adam all die. Ephes. 2:3. By nature the children of wrath even as others. Heb. 7:10. For he (Levi) was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. NOTE: Each view faces a difficulty. Creationism: — How explain the sinful nature of each created soul? Traducianism: — How can an indivisible substance transmit itself? —,9' Chapter III. The Antiquity of Man. Section I. How long has man lived on the earth? The common belief has been about 6000 years. This is due to Usher's chronology found in the margin of many Bibles. Usher's chronology is based on the Hebrew text but is rather uncertain for the early periods, because the genealogical lists are evidently not complete. The lists subsequent to Abraham are condensed, and evidently so before that time. So difficult to form an accurate chronol- ogy. The chronology derived from the LXX would make the human period about 7500. There is also some diffi- culty in understanding Hebrew statements of numbers. Conservative geologists say that 10,000 years are sufficient for all scientific problems involved. When men quote millions of years, take it with sev- eral grains of salt. Section II. Reasons assigned for a great antiquity of man. (a) Inventions supposed to mark different ages, stone age, iron age, bronze etc. These not successive but con- temporaneous. There was a stone age in America only a few hundred years ago. (b) Human remains found in strata deeply buried. The question is, how did they get there? Maybe washed there through holes or buried in caves now fallen in, or burrowing beasts carried them, or convulsions of nature buried them. Earthquakes often sink one area and raise another. A brick found in the Nile sand was supposed to be of great antiquity, till another was found much deeper with a modern inscription. How long does it take for a brick to sink into a quagmire? Skeleton and boat in sand of Mississippi. Coins, axes, and arms in peat bogs of Europe, mostly Roman. (c) Human remains associated with bones of animals now extinct. Cannot prove that both are of same age. The flood may have washed them together into the same strata or into caves, or sea currents washed them where found on sea coasts. (d) Caucasians and Negroes are plainly on the monuments, and it must have taken a long time previously —83- to develop the differences in the races. We cannot tell how long- it took to differentiate the Mongolian, Cauca- sian, and Negro, or whether some. such differences were in Shem, Ham, and Japhet. The Bible does not g'ive us any statement as to the age of man on the earth. However it is wise to discount all extravagant claims. Chapter IV. The Nature of Man. Gen. 2:7. The Lord God formed man of the dust'of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Section I. Dychotomy. According to Gen. 2:7 man is composed of two substances, and only two, body and soul. 1. The body is material substance; the soul is spirit- ual substance, or spirit. Substance is that which has be- ing, potency and properties; it is that in which attributes inhere. The attributes or properties of matter are bulk, weight, hardness, etc. The attributes of spirit are thought, volition, affection, etc. These substances are different because their properties or attributes are different and opposite. The properties of matter do not belong to spirit, and the attributes of spirit do not belong to matter. These two substances constitute man. The body is matter; the soul is spirit. There are no other substances. All substance is either matter or spirit. The soul vivities the body. When the soul is withdrawn the body is dead. The soul is the seat of the personality. 2. Proof of Dychotomy. (a) We know ourselves as body and soul. The testi- mony of consciousness is favorable to Dychotomy. (b) In the record of man's creation there is mention of body and soul, and no more. (c) The Scriptures frequently mention the two ele- ments. I. Ki. 17:21. Let the child's soul come to him again. Eccles. 12:7. The dust returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit unto God who gave it. Jas. 2:26. The body apart from the spirit is dead. Matt. 10:28. Able to destroy both body and soul in hell. I. Cor. 5:3. For I being absent in body but present in spirit. —84- (d) In the Scriptures soul and spirit are used int^r- chang"eably. Gen. 41:8. His spirit was troubled. Ps. 42:6. O my God my soul is cast down within me. Jno. 12:27. Now is my soul troubled. Jno. 13:21. He was troubled in spirit. 3. The relation of the soul and body to each other is mysterious if not incomprehensible. How the body acts on the mind and how the mind acts on the body we cannot understand though we experience such action daily. The mind bids the body act and it acts. The body conveys impressions of the external world to the mind and the mind receives the same. Emotions of the mind affect the body, e.g., blush. Diseases of the body, especially of the brain, affect and disorder the mind. The manner of union between the mind and body is inscrutable. Section II. Trichotomy. Trichotomy is the view that man is composed of body, soul and spirit. This is a mis- conception. There are only two substances in man: body and spirit. The misconception arises from the relation of the spirit to the body.^ The soul or spirit vivifies the body and this life is sometimes conceived of as a separate entity or substance; but is only a special relation of the soul to the body. In I. Th. 5:23 Paul uses the expression "Spirit and soul and body" doubtless to express man in his totality, his spiritual nature, his bodily nature and his earthly life. Heb. 4:12 speaks of dividing" the soul and spirit, how- ever not in the sense of separating one from the other, but cutting, or smashing" throug-h, as you might cut a stick into two pieces. It does not imply two things but cutting in two a single thing. The words soul and spirit are used interchangeably. Sometimes the word mind is used for soul though properly the word mind expresses the cognitive powers of the soul or spirit. In the account of man's creation we have mention of only two substances, the one matter, the other spirit. In the account of man's death Eccl. 12:7 only two substances. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was and the spirit to God who gave it. l"The distinction between psyche and pneuma is a functional, and not a substantial, distinction." — Goodwin. —85— Again the power of worship or adoration is ascribed to the souL "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul," etc. Nothing higher could be ascribed to the spirit. Again, it is the soul that is saved. Jas. 1:21. Able to save the soul. Mk. 8:36. Gain the world and lose his soul. Nothing more could be said of the spirit. The spirit is not something higher than the soul, nor different from the soul; but one and the same. As to the distinction between "soul" and "spirit" perhaps it is best to say that soul refers to the immaterial part of man regarded as a human personality while spirit refers to that same immaterial part with reference to its constituent substance, or as to its divine origin. Section III. The soul is indivisible either as to parts or action. It is not one part of the soul that thinks, another part that feels and another that wills; but the whole soul that thinks, feels, wills etc. Cognition, volition, affection, etc., are not divisions of the mind or soul, but a classification of the activities of the soul. Section IV. The Relation of Soul to Soul. (i) Individualism. Each soul is an individual sub- sistence, separate in its consciousness and activities from all other souls; of the same kind, but not the same nu- merical substance as the souls of his fellow-men. (2) Realism (Better call it Commonism). Realism teaches that men are not individual souls; but that a common scul-substance or spirit pervades the human race. That is, that the same, single, numerically- one substance constitutes the souls of all the race. Thus your soul and my soul and the souls of all inen are nu- merically but one substance. Illustration: Your suits of clothes made all of one web without cutting one suit apart from the others. Waves of the sea different in form, but all one body. Objections to Realism: — (a) This is a mere supposition without proof. (b) If a common substance constituted our souls, then we would have a common consciousness; and what I thought and purposed, you would know, and vice versa. —86— (c) This would make all men one man, as the three persons of the trinity are one God. (d) This destroys individuality on which our per- sonal responsibility depends. We don't want to surrender our individual personality. Section V. Free Agency. There are three main theories as to Free Agency. 1. Fatalism. This doctrine teaches that all events are determined by a blind necessity. There is no freedom of the individual; no liberty of choice; no self-determina- tion. All thing's must be as they are, with no possibility of being different. In this view there is no free agency. The cause of this necessity may be in the nature of things, or the uniformity of natural laws over which there is no intelligent control, or even in the decree of God. Materialism is essentially fatalistic. Pantheism is also tinged with fatalism. Fatalism destroys all responsibility and therefore de- troys all morality. 2. The independence of the will; or the self-determin- ing power of the will. By this is meant that man's will is independent of his other faculties, — that man decides or may decide irrespective of his knowledge, feelings, con- science, desires, inclinations, or inducements. If so, this is to act irrationally. Man is free to choose but the will does not act regard- less of all considerations. Properly speaking, it is not the will that acts; but the whole man that wills. 3. True Free Agency. Free agency means that a man acts free from compul- sion by some external power, — that he acts in accordance with his own nature,— under the influence of his know- ledge, desires, feelings, inclination and character. The Bible teaches that a man is a free agent; bids him choose; and holds him responsible for his choice. If man were not a free agent he would have ho re- sponsibility. On the whole a man acts as he thinks and feels, and in accordance with his character or nature. -87- 4. Relation to Reg"eneration. We must remember here that reg'eneration comes in by divine intervention to change the nature and determine the life. Man is not an agent in his regeneration. This new creation or new birth is not a violation of free agency any more than man's creation at the begin- ning. In his old life he acted in accordance with his sinful nature, and in his new life he acts in accordance with his new nature. In all therefore he is a free agent. And in his regeneration he was not an agent at all. 5. The Will in Psychological Discussion. The age-long debate concerning the will has resolved the disputants into two main classes: Determinists and Indeterminists. The Indeterminist says that man exercises his will independently of any other faculty, or may do so, that human volition is spontaneous, that it is or may be wholly undetermined by motives, reasons, inducements, or any- thing other than itself. Whedon teaches that man may project his volitions without any reason whatever; that each volition is a separate and distinct creation of the soul out of nothing. The Determinist says that human volitions are deter- mined by a number of other things that act as reasons, motives, antecedents, etc., controlling the exercise of the will thus or so. There are however two classes of Determinists. Spin- oza, Hobbes and Huxley are determinists; so also are Ed- wards, Hodge and Patton, but with a very different sort of determinism. The first trio are physical determinists, the latter are psychical determinists. Physical determinism applies physical causation to psychical events. Materialists and Pantheists line up on this ground; to the detriment of all responsibility and morality. This doctrine blots out the soul, and makes man little better than a machine, operated by blind forces. Psychical determinism, on the other hand, is deter- mination by character, reason, motives, persuasions, etc. recognizes the inter-relation of the human faculties, the influence of character, and racial antecedents, and the power of appeal to determine the will. It recognizes the Ego as the efficient cause or agent of the volition; and that he is a free agent, not acting —88— under compulsion from without; but acting in accordance with his own nature as a rational being-. In Reformed Theology this is not held to controvert the sovereignty of God in Regeneration or in the commu- nication of grace. Man acts in accordance with his char- acter however that character is acquired. Between Determinism and Indeterminism there has been strenuous debate. Much of the argument against Determinism, however, is applicable only as against phys- ical determinism, which all theistic philosophy unites in condemning; but as against psychical determinism the ar- guments are not valid. Indeterminism offers the following arguments: (a) That it is supported by consciousness. But it is more than doubtful if this is true. Conscious- ness testifies that we are the agents in our volitions, that we are free agents, but not that the volition is uninflu- enced by the contents of our being; or by anything ab extra or ab intra. Rather the consciousness tells us that our volitions are determined by whatever appeals to us most powerfuly at the time. (b) It is said that the will can decide against the strongest motives. Adam decided for evil; and evil is a far inferior motive than good. But if this argument is true, it is only true when by "motive" is meant something outside of the mind as end or object, and not the motive in the mind itself. What seems to the mind most desirable at the time determines the choice whether intrinsically the best or the worst. (c) It is said that we sometimes choose when there is no motive for choosing this rather than that. But there may be a reason which we cannot perceive or fail to perceive. At any rate the rule of all life is to choose for some reason, and to act otherwise is to act unintelligently. (d) It is said that power of contrary choice is neces- sary to moral responsibility. Moral accountability must be maintained whatever be the true doctrine of the will, but this argument does net support indeterminism any more than it does determinism, unless it is directed against a physical determinism or fatalism. The question between Determinism and Indetermin- ism is this: — Why does the agent put forth this volition rather than that? What determines the choice? —89— If it is said that there is no reason for such choice, the answer is: — (a) This is inconceivable. (b) This destroys responsibility. If volition does not express a man's character then there is neither virtue or blame in the exercise of the volition. And if character does not determine conduct how can we know that it is not the bad man who exhibits good behavior and the g"ood man who is filling" the world with bad volitions? (c) If volitions are undetermined by character then why do the volitions of a man bear any similarity or uni- formity? Why are the mean man's volitions mean and the mag- nanimous man's volitions generous? Indeterminism has no answer to this question. But the truth in the case is that a good tree bringeth forth good fruit and an evil tree evil fruit. (d) If there is no reason for human volition then what becomes of character? What becomes of the unity of life? Or of moral accountability? Or of all efforts to influence men by argument or inducement of any kind? (e) We must choose between the theory that niake> the action of the will absolutely fortuitous, and the view that regards the will as determined by character, motive, or mental state in the moment preceding volition. (For thorough discussion see Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Article "Will" by Francis L. Patton, from which the foregoing paragraph has been largely dtawn.) Chapter V. The Original State of Man. Section I. As to his body. (a) Seemingly full gTown. (b) Immortal. The Scriptures always represent death both physical and spiritual as the result of sin. If man had not sinned then not subject to death. How preserved in physical being? The original constitution of man was evidently of high quality. The long"evity of the patriarchs, even after sin had entered, shows a remarkable constitution. And the earliest fossil remains of man show him highly devel- oped. A tree of life was in the gaiden, Gen. 3:24. It is again referred to in the end of Revelation as being for the heal- ing of the nations. Or translation without death, as in the case of Enoch, may have become the means of immortality. As to this we have no certain information. (See System of Christian Theology, H. B. Smith, p. 259.) Section II. As to his soul. (a) Created in the image of God. This includes knowledge, holiness, moral nature, ra- tional nature, free agency, dominion, etc. Man was created capable of communion with God. The implications in this fact are many and important; bearing on the being of God, the nature of God, the apriori certainty of a revelation, etc., etc. (b) Shorter Catechism 10: How did God create man? God created man male and female after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness and holiness with dominion over the creatures. Section III. Pelagian doctrine of Man's Original State. (a) Man created mortal. Would have died like all animals. So also Russellism. (b) Man created characterless; neither holy nor un- holy; neither righteous nor unrighteous; but capable of becoming either. This position is due to their desire to make man re- sponsible only for his acts and not for the character out of which the acts proceed. But the Scripures show that acts proceed from character. Section IV. Romish view of Man's Original State. (a) According to Romanism man was created soul and body; but the two were in disharmony; a mutual and natural antagonism between soul and body. This per- tained to man as he came from the hands of God. This savors of Manichaeism which regards man as essentially evil. But Romanism teaches that God conferred on man the added gift of Original Righteousness to harmonize the conflicting elements of body and soul. Accordingly the original state of man was not the perfect, harmonious, happy condition implied in the state- —91— ment: "God saw all thing's which he had made and be- hold they were ver^- good." Original righteousness was therefore not a con-created grace; but an added supernatural gift. (b) A second feature of this Papal anthropology is that apostasy involves the loss of that supernatural gift; but not of any natural and original grace. By the fall man reverts to the condition in which he was by creation, a conflict between flesh and spirit. In losing original righteousness, he loses nothing with which he was endowed by the creative act, but only the subse- quent gift. Original righteousness being a supernatural gift, ori- ginal sin is the loss of it. Original sin therefore brings man back to his original condition, which was conceived of as neither holy nor sinful; but yet one of conflict and disharmony. This conflict arises from the nature of things, or by creation itself, and not from any act of apos- tasy on the part of man. (c) This afli'ects the nature of original sin as held by the Roman Catholic theolq.'j}'. Original sin is therefore not truly and properly sin. Man is born in the same negative state in which Adam was created. Bellarmin says: "The state of man after the fall differs no more from the state of man as created in puris naturalibus than a man originally naked differs from one who was clothed, but has been stripped of his clothing; neither is human nature any worse (except for the act of transgression) than it was made by God." Section V. The Evolutionist's View of Man's Original State. Primitive man is the culmination of animal develop- ment. His starting point is the point where the animal ar- rived at self-consciousness and accountability^ There was no fall; but rather a "stunibling" upwards." Sin is the remains of his animal nature. Sin is not something that came into the human race after its creation; but something that belongs to the ori- ginal nature of the race, and inseparable from the process of creation. Original sin belongs to man's original nature as he came from, the hands of his creator. —92- Chapter VI. The Covenant of Works. Section I. Statement. (a) Conf. 7:2: The first covenant made with Adam was a covenant of works wherein life was promised to Adam and to his posterity upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. (b) Cat. 12: What special act of providence, etc. (c) Gen. 2:17: But of the tree of knowledge thou shalt not eat — in day eatest — die. Section II. What is a covenant? (a) An agreement between two or more persons. (b) A promise suspended on a condition. God being infinitely superior to Adam might impose a covenant with or without consent; but every reason to think Adam acquiesced in it. Section III. Evidences of such a covenant. (a) Gen. 2:17. (b) The parties, God and Adam. (c) The conditions, Perfect obedience. (d) The penalty, death. Both natural and spiritual death. (e) The promise, life. More than natural life; he had that. The promise is not stated in the narrative but im- plied as the alternative of death. Spoken of in Rom. 10:5 and Gal. 3:12. (f) All the plan of redemption is presented as a cove- nant, e.g. to Noah, to Abraham, to Israel. Old and new dispensations are covenants. So evidently here. Here are all the signs and parts of a covenant. Section IV. In this covenant Adam represented all his posterity. Cat. 16: Did all mankind fall in Adam's first trans- gression? Section V. The observance of this covenant for a certain time constituted a probation. (a) The probation was fair. Adam was fortified by his holy nature, happy environ- ment, fellowship with God, and by positive warnings and promises. (b) Adam's holiness was not established by long con- tinuance, he was not indefectible, and he yielded to the —93— insinuations and persuasion of Satan and fell and all his posterity with him. Had Adam stood the test his character would have be- come fixed and immutable like the saints in heaven. Chapter VII. The Fall of Man. Section I. \\'as there a fall? (a) Denied bj^ evolutionists, Pantheistic and other- wise. (b) Taught in the Bible. Gen. I.-III. Taught in Cat. 13. Did our first parents continue in the estate etc. Section II. Two difficulties. (a) A psychological difficultj" How could a holy be- ing entertain a desire to sin? How could a sinful volition originate in a holy will? If volition is determined by desire and character how can a holy character have a sinful volition? (See System Christian Theol. H. B. Smith, p. 263) Temptation was placed before them. The natural desire for food and knowledge was awakened, and inducements were present- ed that led to an exercise of their free agency contrary to their own good. The act was not sinful per se but because forbidden. (b) A moral difficulty: Whj^ did a holy God permit sin? (For thorough discussion, see System Christian The- ology, Henry B. Smith, pp. 146-159.) Section III. Observations: — • (i) God could have prevented sin. (2) Permitted it for reasons that we do not know. (3) Made man a free agent to choose for himself. (4) Would seem that sin must be a possibiliti^ where free agency is a fact. (5) God over-rules sin for eventual good. (6) God's love is more evident in redemption than if man had never sinned. (7) After all is said the origin of sin must ever remain a mystery and the reason for it inscrutable. —94— Chapter VIII. Relation of Adam and His Sin to Posterity. Section I. Scriptural Statement. Rom. 5:12. By one man sin entered, into the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men for that all (have) sinned. Rom. 5:14. Death reigned from Adam to Moses even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. Rom. 5:17. By the offence of one death reigned by one. Rom. 5:19. As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, etc. I. Cor. 15:22. For as in Adam all die, etc. Cat. 16, Did all mankind fall in Adam's first trans- gression? Section 11. Explanation. (a) There has been much debate over the question whether there was a mediate or an immediate imputation of Adam's sin to the race. A mediate imputation means throug"h the medium of natural generation or heredity. Immediate imputation means a direct imputation without any medium whatsoever. Did the penalty of sin fall on the human race direct- ly, or indirectly through the medium of an inherited cor- rupt nature? There is an element of immediateness in the fact that death is the direct and immediate consequence of sin, and so far as any human race was involved or in contempla- tion it was prospectively dead the moment that Adam sinned. But there is an element of mediateness in the fact that the corruption of nature and the penalty on the individual took actual effect through the medium of natural genera- tion or transmission of nature. (b) Federal and Natural Headship. Adam was the federal head of his race because he represented them and stood his probation for them as well as for himself. But Adam was the natural head of the race, and the natural headship is the basis of the federal headship. Because he was the natural head he was the federal head. Adam stood probation for the race and they lost their probation in him. The race fell in Adam because they were substantially though not individually in him. Indi- viduality had not yet arisen for his posterity. All man- kind sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgres- —95— sion. The race inherited a corrupt and sinful nature, which is itself under condemnation because of its sinful- ness and which nature is the root of actual transgression in the individual. (c) Another explanation is called, The Theory of Direct Divine Efficiency. This is the system of Samuel Hopkins and Nathaniel Emmons, New England theolo- gians. Their system is called Hopkinsianism. Their fundamental position was that all holiness and sin are in the exercises of man's will; and there is no holi- ness or sin in the nature of man apart from these exer- cises. That is, that all sin consists in sinning. If man has no sinful nature out of which his sinful acts proceed, how explain the sinful deeds of the whole human race? This was their explanation: — God in his sovereignty established a "constitution," or divine arrangement in which it was appointed that if Adam sinned, all his pos- terity should sin in their first moral acts. This was attributed to the decree of God and not to the sinfulness of an inherited nature. The older Hopkinsianism did not admit a soul prior to action. These objections apply to this view: — It refers the sinfulness of the race to the divine effi- ciency and makes God the author of human sin. It further neglects the racial unity that exists in the substantial oneness of human nature under the law of heredity. (d) Another hypothesis is that of Physical Depravity. This is the view of Nathaniel Wm. Taylor, professor of Dogmatic Theology in Yale College, in the early part of the 19th century. The view is, that by Adam's fall man's physical con- stitution suffered such derangement as to make it certain that man would sin. There was soul prior to action but it was innocent or neutral. The phj^sical deterioration de- termines the fact and certainty of sin. Objections to this view: — It makes sin too much of a physical thing or the result of a physical condition. Unless regeneration and atonement have physical ef- fects it is hard to see how they apply in the salvation of man. It minimizes culpability by referring sin to physical deterioration which in itself is not sin. -96- Chapter IX. Sin. Section I. The fact of sin. 1. Proved by Scripture. Jer. 17:9. The heart of man is deceitful above measure and desperately wicked. Ps. 14:3. There is none that doeth good no not one. Isa. 53:6. All we like sheep have gone astray. Rom. 3:9. We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. I. Jno. 1:8. If We say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. I. John 1:10. If we say that we have not sinned we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 2. Proved by consciousness. Consciousness distinguishes between pleasure and pain; between happiness and misery; between perceptions and intuitions. (a) So it also distinguishes between right and wrong. It thus bears testimony to the fact of evil. (hj The fact of sin is a universal conviction. All nations under all forms of religion are conscious of sin, and that sin is a specific thing different from all other af- fections of the soul. Man everywhere feels himself subject to a law of right and knows that he ought to do the right and refrain from the wrong. He knows also that he has not done the right and has done the wrong. (c) The testimony of consciousness goes farther, it leads to a personal God. The universal human heart feels responsibility to a being higher than man and over all men, who commends or condemns him in conduct and character. The sense of obligation in men always relates itself to a being who may be pleased or displeased, and that being and his will constitute the law of right and wrong. Thus man's innate being bears witness to sin. Section 11. Definitions of Sin. 1. The Manichaean View. (a) Statement. This old philosophy taught that matter was eternal and sinful, and that spirit is also eternal and good. These two principles are intermingled in man. He has a soul from the kingdom of light, and a body from the kingdom of darkness. —97— Sin is the defilement of the soul by union with a material body; and must be overcome by destroying- the influence of the body on the soul. (b) Refutation. This theory destroys man's responsibility by making sin essential to the constitution of man as he is in this world. It makes God the author of sin in giving- man a body. If sin be union with a body, then redemption must be the destruction of the body; which is inconsistent with the Scriptures, which regard the soul as the seat of sin, and make redemption a spiritual and not a physical process. Again all men regard anger, malice, deceit, revenge, etc. as sinful; and all men are conscious that these are not affections of the body. The Roman Catholic view of sin is tinged with Alani- chaeism. The system leads to asceticism as a means to moral betterment. 2. Limitation of Being is another definition of sin; also called Finiteness. (a) Statement. All being or substance is good, all non-being is evil. God is the Absolute being and therefore the supreme good. God is good because he is infinite; the world has a share of goodness but is imperfect because finite. This limitation of being does not apply merely to physical being but to spiritual being also, with the ignor- ance, mistakes, the blundering, and incapacity incident to imperfect knowledge and limitation of powers. This is the view of Spinoza, Leibnitz, Bauer of the Tubingen school, Biedermann. Swiss Protestant ob. 1885, a disciple of the Hegelian and Tubingen schools. Also the view of Ralph Waldo Emerson, and of Prof. Josiah Royce of Har- vard, and others. It is a Pantheistic conception of sin and will be found where Pantheism has tinged men's thought. Prof. Royce saj's: "Evil is a discord necessary to per- fect harmony. It is in itself evil, but in relation to the whole it has value by showing its own finiteness and im- perfection." We remark that discord is not necessary to harmony and in no way constitutes it. Some one has said: "With- out black we would never be able to know white." This is a fallacy. Our discriminating differentiation is not based wholly upon opposites. These assertions are made to im- -98- ply that evil is the necessary background of good. The most that can be said is that good implies the POSSIBIL- ITY of evil but never its necessity. Emerson taught that man's imperfection is not sin, and that the cure for it lies in education. Biedermann in his Dog"matik writes: "Evil is the fin- iteness of the world-being, which clings to all individual existences, by virtue of their belonging to the immanent world-order." Bauer saiys: "Evil is what is finite, for the finite is neg^ative; the negation of the infinite." "If other beings than God are to exist, there must be in them, so far as they are not infinite as God is, for that very reason a min- imum of evil." Thus all men are evil because they are finite and can become good only by becoming infinite or by becoming God. This theory is at heart Pantheistic. In Pantheism there is no antagonism between God's mind and man's, for man is God in development. There is therefore no holy law objective to man and no responsibility to a high- er being, since man himself is the highest being. Sin is therefore only an incident of incompleteness; the imper- fection of partial development. (b) Refutation. First; This contradicts our moral nature. No man regards himself guilty because he is finite; and feels it would be unjust to punish him for it. Second; the cure for partial development would not be atonement and regeneration, but evolution; and that to infinity if that could ever be. This theory is what Dr. Strong calls the "green apple theory" and very appropri- ately remarks that "sin is not a green apple that needs only time and sunshine and growth to bring it to ripeness and beauty and usefulness; but sin is an apple with a worm at its heart. The evil of it can never be cured b^^ growth." Third; If man does not become infinite and therefore cease to be sinful then sin must be eternal. Fourth; If infinity is goodness there is slight hope for any man. Fifth; Limitation is a connatural condition of man's existence. Therefore sin is chargeable to the Creator, if there be any Creator in this view. Sixth; Jesus Christ because finite in his human nature must have been a sinner. Seventh; Sin is not negative; it is a positive virile force. Eighth; If sin be limitation it is therefore a necessity to all finite existence and leaves no place for liberty or responsibility. Thus the theory overlooks entirely the moral aspects of evil, and fails to distinguish between infinite good and infinite extension. Ninth; If this theory were true then might makes right; the great and strong are good, and the weak and poor are always bad. It would make Satan himself a comparatively good being because a great and powerful spirit. 3. Defect. Another theory is that which makes sin defect. Defect is the absence of anj^thing that belongs to the nature of a thing. That a stone cannot see is not a defect of the stone because sight does not belong to the nature of a stone. That a man cannot see is a defect of the man because sight belongs to the nature of a man. But the moral judgment of the world declares that this is not sin. There is no ground of responsibility' in a man's not having eyes, or anns, or limbs. There is no ground of punishment or blameworthiness in it. It may be a misfortune to be pitied but not a sin to be con- demned. This is true of physical defect. But there is a sense in which it is proper to say that sin is defect. It is moral defect. But even to say that sin is moral defect is only a partial definition of sin; because it embraces only the subjective fact of man's moral na- ture, and not the objective fact of God's law as the stan- dard of measurement for that nature. 4. Selfishness. . Another theory defines sin as selfishness. This theory has had very wide acceptance in recent decades. The objections to it as an adequate definition of sin are conclusive. (a) Selfishness must come under the category of sin; not sin under the category of selfishness. The larger term embraces the smaller; or the general term embraces the particular. Sin is the larger term of which selfishness is only a species. (b) To say that sin is selfishness is not ultimate. We are bound to ask the question, wh^^ IS selfishness sin? Why is selfishness wrong? Why does it bring conviction of guilt? Why is selfishness blameworthy? What makes selfishness sin? — loo — This compels us to give a reason WHY selfishness is sin, and that reason forces us back to a higher law. The theorj' looks too exclusively on the manward side of human relations and responsibility-, and leaves out of account one factor that explains and gives force to every ethical principle, viz. relationship to God. (c) To say that there is an element of selfishness in all sin is not sufficient. The statement itself is doubtful. A man might sin for some other person's pleasure or benefit, and it is doubtful if that could be called selfish- ness. Even if an element of selfishness is found in all sin it would not prove that the essence of sin is selfishness, any more than showing that speech belonged to all men would prove that the essence of humanity is speech. (d) Some would use the word self-li-ness instead of selfishness. The theory would then be stated thus: God is the proper center of the soul and sin consists in putting ourselves in the place of God; in preferring our own will .to the will of God; and so sin is selfiiness. This is a less objectionable form of the theory, but still unsatisfactory as a definition of sin. This form of the theory admits that the will of God is paramount; and therefore that sin must be defined in reference to the will or law of God. The evil is not that man walks according to his own will or wish, but the evil is that his will is not in harniony with God's will. The evil is not that man walks in his own ways and delights in his own thoughts. Every sane man must act in accordance with his own mind and heart; but the evil is that his mind and heart are not in conformity to God. Even this form of the theory leaves unanswered the question, why selfliness is sin. 5. The Evolutionary Doctrine of Sin. The Evolutionist regards sin as the remains of the animal nature out of which man sprang. It is derived from his animal ancestry'. It is not so much a fall from a higher level as a failure as yet to rise by the law of evolution to a higher level. John Fiske, "Destinj^ of Man," 103, says: "Original sin is neither more nor less than the brute inheritance which every man carries with him, and the process of evolution is an advance toward true salvation." Objections. (a) This view is based on the evolutionary theory, which itself is not proved. — lOI — (b) It makes sin a necessity; being- the product of deterministic laws. (c) This lays the responsibility for sin on the Creator and not at the door of the man's free will. Sin must be referred ultimately to freedom or it is not sin. If man were an animal he could not sin, and if he can sin he is not an animal. (d) It makes sin to arise out of the sensuous nature, whereas many sins such as anger, pride etc. are not sen- suous sins. (e) If sin is the survival of brute inheritance we have no ground for sin in Satan and fallen angels. (f) It involves the absurdity that a part is greater than the whole. According to this theory an entire animal nature is not sinful, but the mere remains of that animal nature is sin in its deepest g^uilt. 6. The True Definition of Sin. Shorter Catechism, 14. What is sin? Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of the law of God. This is a Scriptural definition. It includes the exact elements and terms set forth in the holy Scriptures. T. Jno. 3:4.. Sin is the transgression of the law. I. Jno. 5:17. All unrighteousness is sin. Here are both the transgression and the want of con- formity plainly declared to be sin. This is an inspired account of the nature of sin, and is ultimate, inclusive, and conclusive. It recognizes both the human deficiency and the objective standard of moral measurement. The true nature of sin is contrariety to God, which includes all phases of evil and is not reducible to lower terms. This is what makes sin to be sin; — not limitation, nor selfishness, nor sensuousness, but discord with God. If there were no law of God there would be no sin, neither would there be any moral good. Section III. Nature of Sin. 1. Not a corruption of the substance of the soul. Not the mixture of some other substance with the soul. After the fall the soul of man was still a spiritual substance, or a spiritual substance inhabiting a body. 2. But a corruption of the faculties and especially of the moral character of the soul. — 102 — 3. Has relation to law, i.e. the law of God; departure from God and his law. 4. Sin includes pollution and guilt. Guilt embraces two ideas: (a) Blameworthiness. (b) Liability to punishment. Christ in assuming- our guilt took our liabilitj'^; not our blameworthiness. Section IV. Original Sin. 1. Statement. (a) Shorter Catechism, i8. Wherein consists the sin- fulness of that estate whereinto man fell? The sinfulness of that estate whereinto inan fell consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, the corruption of his whole nature , which is commonly called original sin, etc. The word "which" may grammatically refer to all three particulars, or only to the last; but it is usual to include all three in our conception of original sin. This term is generally used to designate the hereditary moral corruption common to all men at birth. (b) Henry B. Smith — "Original sin means in theology just one thing: not the first of Adam; not the first sin of each man; but the general condition of all the members of the race by birth, before actual transgression, into which they are brought in consequence of the fall of Adam, the head of the race. (c) The Formula of Concord, the best expression of Lutheranism, says: — "Christians ought not only to ac- knowledge and define actual faults and transgressions of the commands of God to be sins, but they ought also to regard that hereditary disease by which the whole nature of man is corrupted, as a specially dreadful sin, and in- deed as the first principle and source of all other sins from which all other transgressions spring as from their root." (d) Calvin. Original Sin is "an hereditary depravity and corrup- tion of our nature, diffused through all the parts of the soul, rendering us obnoxious (i.e. liable or subject) to the Divine wrath." "This thing, therefore, should be strictly observed: namely, that our nature being so totally vitiated and depraved, we are, on account of this very corruption, considered as convicted, and justly condemned in the sight — 103— of God, to whom nothing" is acceptable but righteousness, innocence and purity. "And this Habiht}' to punishment arises not from the delinquency of another; for when it is said that the sin of Adam renders us obnoxious to the divine judg-ment, it is not to be understood as if we, being" innocent, were unde- servedly loaded with the guilt of sin; but, because we are all subject to a curse in consequence of his transgression, he is therefore said to have involved us in guilt. "Nevertheless we derive from him, not the punishment only, but also the pollution to which the punishment . is justly due." "And the Apostle himself expressly declares, that death has passed upon all men for that all have sinned, — that is, have been involved in original sin. And therefore infants themselves, as they bring their condem- nation into the world with them, are rendered obnoxious to punishment b3" their own sinfulness, not by the sinful- ness of another. For though thej' have not yet produced the fruits of their iniquity, yet they have the seed of it within them — whence it follows that this native depravity is properly accounted sin in the sight of God, because there could be no guilt without crime." — Institutes, II. i. (e) The Formula Consensus Helvetici. This was written by Turretine and Heidegger, Swiss theologians and is one of the best statements of the doc- trine of Original Sin. "As God entered into a covenant of works with Adam, not only for himself but also with the whole human race in him as the head and root, so that the posterity who were to be born of him would inherit the same integrity with which he was created, provide he should continue in it; so Adam by his sad fall sinned not for himself only, but for the whole human race who were to be born, and lost the blessings promised in the covenant. We are of the opinion therefore that the sin of x\dam is imputed to all his posterity by the secret and just judgment of God. For the Apostle testifies that 'In Adam all have sinned. By the disobedience of one manj' were made sinners;' and 'In Adam all die.' "But it does not appear how hereditary" corruption, as spiritual death, could fall upon the entire human race by the just judgment of God, unless some fault of this same human r^^ce, bringing in the penalty of that death, had preceded. For the most just God, the judge of all the earth, punishes none but the guilt}'. "Wherefore man, previous to the commission of any single or actual transgression, is exposed to the divine — 104 — wrath and curse from his very birth, and this in a twofold manner; first, on account of the transgression and disobe- dience which he committed in the loins of Adam; and sec- ondly, on account of the hereditary corruption inherent in his conception, which is the consequence of this primitive transgression, and by which his whole nature is depraved and spiritually dead. "Thus it appears that original sin, by a strict discrim- ination, is twofold, and consists of the imputed guilt of Adam's transgression and the inherent hereditary corrup- tion consequent upon this." (f) The Arminian view of Original Sin will be treated in Section IX. 2. Proof of Original Sin. (a) From the Scriptures. Ps. 51:5. Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me. Gen. 8:21. The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Matt. 7:16-19. Grapes of thorns or figs of thistles? Job 14:4. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Job 15:14. What is man that he should be clean and he that is born of a woman that he should be righteous? Jno. 3:6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Ephes. 2:3. We were by nature the children of wrath even as others. Ps. 58:3. The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (b) Proof of original sin is found in the universality of sin among men. If Adam's sin were nothing but a bad example, as the Pelagians hold, there would naturally be many who would escape that example. A sense of sin and guilt has always attended the human race. There is a consciousness of sin as innate and this consciousness as well as the practice of sin is universal. It is explainable on the ground of inborn depravity. (c) There is proof of original sin in its early mani- festation. Before observation, training, or example be- come effective the child manifests an evil nature. Ps, 58:3. See above (d) Our ultimate experience. The interpretation of our experience and conscious- ness in regard to sin leads us to conclude that the begin- nings of sin in us cannot be limited, or ultimately traced, to a definite volition; but go back to an internal bias in our natures that prompts the volition. There is in us what is termed an "immanent prefer- —105— ence" for evil. This preference or bias constitutes our character out of which our choices spring. 3. The Nature and Effect of Original Sin. Two questions arise here: Is original sin truly of the nature of sin? And, does it condemn to eternal death? Is the race as a race lost and condemned by virtue of the original transgression? Are men under sentence of eternal death because of original sin, or only for actual transgressions? The answer is, that original sin is trulj' of the nature of sin and condemns to eternal death. Observe: — (a) The Reformed Confessions recognize this to be true. The Form of Concord describes original sin as "a specially dreadful sin." The Concensus Helevtici says: "Wherefore man pre- vious to the commission of any single or actual transgres- sion is exposed to the divine wrath and curse from his very birth." Calvin says: "We are on account of this very corrup- tion, considered as convicted and justly condemned in the sight of God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteous- ness, innocence, and purity." Shorter Catechism 19. What is the miserj^ of that estate into which man fell? All mankind by their fall lost communion with God, are under his wrath and curse and so made liable to all the miseries of this life, to death it- self, and to the pains of hell forever. (b) It constitutes our character as evil. An evil char- acter is, per se, spiritual death. If original sin is sin, then inevitably it involves spiritual death. (c) It is the root out of which actual sin springs. The root cannot be better than the fruit which it bears. Sin- fulness attaches to character which lies beneath and before all actual transgression. "Out of the heart proceed evil thoug'hts, murder, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness." (d) It is represented in the Scriptures as sin and con- demnable. Rom. 6:6. O'ur old man is crucified that the body of sin might be destroyed. This recognizes the sinfulness of the old unreg'enerale nature. Rom. 7:5. When we were in the flesh, sinful passions wrought in our members. — 106 — Gal. 5:24. They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts. All this shows that the inherent underlying- nature is evil. Jas. 3:11-12. The fountain and tree produce according to their nature. I. Cor. 15:22. In Adam all die. Rom. 5:14. Death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's first transgres- sion. Rom. 5:16. The judgment was by one to CONDEMNATION. Rom. 5:18. By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to CONDEMNATION. Rom. 5:12. Death passed upon all men for that all sinned. The best exegesis of this verse refers the "sinned" (a definite past action) to the sin in Adam arid makes all men joint agents with Adam; and thus asserts that death temporal and eternal was the penalty of that sin for ali men. (e) The penalty of spiritual death falls on all, and this is evident because physical death falls upon infants who have not actually transgressed. If one part of the penalty of original sin takes effect on all, it is logical to conclude that the other part does also. Section V. Total Depravity. 1. Total depravity does not mean that men are as bad as they can be, but that the whole man is depraved by sin. 2. This depravity affects all man's faculties. This is evident because it is the whole soul that thinks, and the whole soul that feels or wills. And a sinful soul must necessarily affect all activities of that soul in the exercise of its faculties, and affect them according- to its inherent nature. 3. Even the body is affected by the depravity of the soul. The soul commands and uses the body. Not being restrained by holy dispositions, but driven by unholy pro- clivities, the appetites and passions of the body grow to inordinate proportions affecting the whole life physical, as well as moral. 4. The depravity of human nature, and not the loss of any faculty, is the cause of inability. — 107 — Section VI. The Pelag-ian View of Sin. 1. Sin consists in voluntary acts, or deliberate choice of evil. 2. Only that corruption of nature which is the result of choice is sin. 3. Adam's sin injured only himself. There is no ori- ginal sin. No imputation but onl^^ imitation of Adam's sin. He set a bad example; that is all. No corruption of nature from Adam, but all born as pure as Adam at cre- ation. 4. Man can do all that is required of him. If I ought I can. Ability' limits obligation. No obligation where there is no ability. 5. Men may live without sin, and often do. 6. Salvation is man's own act choosing the right; man saves himself. 7. Fails to recognize that evil character is the cause of evil acts. Section VII. Semi-Pelagian View of Sin. This modified the Pelagian view. 1. Man is not dead in sin but sick. Weakened by the fall. 2. Man needs the help of divine grace in salvation, to complete and perfect the work. 3. Man begins the work of reformation and God assists his efforts. Section VIII. The Roman Catholic View of Sin. 1. Man created body and soul, but these antagonistic to each other. 2. Original righteousness was an added gift to har- monize the antagonistic elements of matter and spirit in man's constitution. 3. In the fall man lost his original righteousness and so was left in the state of disharmony' in which he was created. 4. Original sin is the loss of original righteousness and the consequent disharmony. 5. All are therefore born in sin, but baptism removes this original sin and leaves nothing in the soul that is properly of the nature of sin. However all may sin again because of remaining concupiscence (fomes, fuel) but this concupiscence is not of the nature of sin. The Roman Catholic Church thus converts the doc- trine of original sin into the doctrine of original evil, not sin itself but fomes, the fuel of sin. Considering it as sensuous or physical merely, they once raised the ques- tions: "What is the particular quality of the body in which this fomes consists; was it contracted from eating the apple, or from the breath of the serpent, and can it be cured by medicines?" 6. These teachings do not apply to the Virgin Mary. Section IX. The Arminian Doctrine of Sin. 1. The Arminian peculiarity concerns chiefly the feature of original sin. In other features of the doctrine of sin they conform generally to the position of the other reformed churches. The Arminian, or Remonstrant, view is set forth by Episcopius in his Confession or Declaration, (Confessio sive Declaratio Remonstrantium). It is further explained in his Apology (Apologia pro Confessione). The two works do not seem to harmonize completely. The Confession reads: "Adam transgressed the law of God. By that transgression man was made liable to eter- nal death and manifold miseries But since Adam was the stem and root of the whole race, — he involved all his posterity in the same death and misery, and impli- cated them with himself, so that all men indiscriminately, Jesus Christ excepted, through this one single sin of Adam, have been deprived of that primitive felicity, and have lost that true righteousness which is necessary in order to eternal life, and thus are born even now exposed to that death which we have mentioned, and to manifold miseries. "And this is commonly denominated original sin. In respect to which nevertheless the doctrine must be held that the most benevolent God has provided for all a rem- edy, for that general evil which was derived to us from Adam free and gratuitous in his beloved Son Jesus Christ. — 109 — So that the hurtful error of those is plainly apparent who are accustomed to found on that sin the decree of absolute reprobation, invented bj^ themselves." If this languag^e is to be taken at its face value it teaches that original sin passed to all men by natural propagation and that it involved all men in the penalty of eternal death. And if we further apprehend this reference to redemp- tion, it teaches that the atonement canceled, in lump sum, or by job lot, as it were, the whole racial guilt of original sin, leaving man liable only to the penaltj^ of actual trans- gression. However in the 'Apology,' which is Episcopius' de- fense and explanation of the 'Confession,' it is shown that original sin is not regarded as truly and properly sin. The Apology reads: "The Remonstrants do not regard original sin as sin properly so called, which renders the posterity of Adam deserving of the hatred of God; but as an evil, infirmit3^ injury, or by whatever other name it may be called, which is propagated to his posterity by Adam devoid of original righteouness. Whence it results that all the posterity of Adam, destitute of the same righteousness are whollj^ unfit for and incapable of attain- ing eternal life, — except God bj^ his new grace go before them and restore as well as supply new strength by which they may attain it. But that original sin is not evil in any other sense than this — that it is not evil in the sense of implying guilt and desert of punishment — is plain. It is not evil in the sense of implying guilt, because to be born is confessedly an involuntary thing, and therefore it is an involuntary thing to be born with this or that stain, infirmity, injury or evil. But if it is not an evil in the sense of impl^'ing' guilt, then it cannot be an evil in the sense of desert of punisii- ment, because guilt and punishment are correlated. So far therefore as original sin is an evil, it must be in the sense in which the Remonstrants define the term; and is called original sin by a misuse of the word sin." 2. Summarj^ of special ])oints in the old Arminian- ism. (a) Original sin is not properly sin and does not condemn to eternal death. (b) Adam's guilt was individual and not imputable to posterity. (c) Man by the fall fell heir to a misfortune, or evil of nature, which is not guilt. (d) This evil attaches to the physical and intellectual, but not to the voluntary nature of man. It becomes the occasion of actual transgression; but is not penal or condemnable. The modern doctrine is represented by Wesleyan Ar- minianism. 3. The Weslej'-an Arminian View of Sin. The Wesleyan view modifies slightly the old Arminian view. The Wesleyan doctrines were expounded by Watson in Britain and by Whedon and others in America. The Methodist Episcopal Church is the modern repre- sentative of Arminianism. Wesleyan Arminianism embraces these points: (a) Posterity inherited from Adam a corrupt and sin- ful nature. (b) Man is now born with a corrupt nature, and there- fore unregenerate. (c) But men are not born with g'uilt in the sense of liability to penalty. (d) The penalty of original sin is removed, job lot, from the race by the sacrifice and atonement of Christ, so that men, though born with a corrupt nature, are not con- demnable for original sin. (e) Holy ability was lost to man in the fall, so that he cannot rehabilitate himself; but ability to co-operate with grace is furnished him by virtue of Christ's redemp- tion. (f) Grace sufficient to attain eternal life is given to all men and becomes efficient if the^' but co-operate with the grace given. This grace becomes effective by human co-operation and thus the success of the divine influence depends upon the use which man makes of it; or in other words grace is made effective by man. (g) Ability to co-operate is from the Holy Spirit. (h) By some, e.g. Whedon, this ability was an obliga- tion or debt on the part of God. However Paul asserts that salvation is of grace. (i) All who co-operate and persevere to the end are elected to be saved, making election conditional upon human effort. 4. Remarks on Arminianism in General. Arminianism embraces much evangelical truth, but some errors, as the following particulars will show, (a) As to the nature of Original Sin. The Scriptures teach that man's moral inheritance — Ill — from Adam is of the nature of sin, and that all men are under penalty of eternal death. We are by nature the children of wrath. .Man is condemnable for what he is as well as for what he does. The depravity of nature is as truly heinous in the sight of God as the actual transgression that springs from it. Arminianism does not fully recognize the evil inherent in human nature. (b) As to universal remission of original sin. Appeal is made to Rom. 5:18. The free gift came upon all unto justification of life. This is a mistranslation. Not "upon all" as the A. V. has it, but "unto all"' as the R. V. A misinterpretation also, as it would express universal salvt'ition if given the sense which the Arminians have claimed. The application of Christ's redemption through justifi- cation and regeneration is personal and not racial. There is a common grace, but this of itself does not remove the corruption of the human nature nor regener- ate the soul. (c) That God is under obligation to afford his grace to men, and that it is a matter of debt or justice and not an unmerited gratuit3% we can not admit. "By grace are ye saved through faith." (d) The Arminian doctrine of grace does not save men, but enables man to save himself. It makes divine grace and purpose dependent on the human will. It con- ditions the divine on the human, thus making the divine in some sense secondary. — "Through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." Arminianism offers man a chance of salvation instead of salvation. Adolph Saphir says: "My objection to the Arminian or semi-Arminian, is not that they make the entrance very wide; but that they do not give you any- thing definite, safe, and real when you have entered. Do not believe the Devil's gospel, which is a CHANCE of salvation: chance of salvation is chance of "damnation." (e) If all are born with a corrupt nature, something more is necessary than grace-to-co-operate for those inca- pable of co-operation, as infants, imbeciles, and other in- capables. Only sovereign election and sovereign grace will ap- ply in such case. — 112 — ■ (f) The Arminian doctrine of salvation divides the efficiency between the divine and human wills. The Calvinistic doctrine assigns the efficiency to God's will, and makes human co-operation the effect of divine grace. The former is called synergism, the latter, monergism. "The dependence upon grace in the Arminian systein is partial; in the Calvinistic system is total." — Shedd. Section X. View of Pantheistic Theologians. The view of Pantheism has been fairly presented in the section which treated of sin as Limitation of Being, or Finiteness. That treatment considered sin chiefly from the philosophical view-point. There is another shade of mean- ing that arises from the religious point of view. The philosophy of Spinoza and the psychology of Kant contributed a powerful influence to theological spec- ulation. Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schleiermacher, and the NeAV England transcendentalists were among those thus af- fected. These were not all out-and-out Pantheists, but all \vere strongly colored by Pantheism. Their system of thought or doctrine, if we may call it such, was semi- Pantheistic, emi-idealistic, semi-philosophic and semi-reli- gious. Schleiermacher especially has left an influence on modern theology, greater than was deserving, and regard- ed himself and is regarded as a Christian theologian. He was indeed sincerely devoted to Jesus Christ though he repudiated the Old Testament, the miracles of the New Testament, and even left the personality^ of God as an open question. The following particulars represent the Pantheistic tjieology in its characteristic form, and show how sin is defined under this conception. 1. There is an eternal and absolute being (called God), impersonal but omnipotent, out of which all things have developed. 2. This being comes into form in the visible universe and reaches its highest development in the consciousness of man. 3. Man has a world-consciousness, or a consciousness affected by the world. 4. Man has also, or should have, a God-consciousness, i.e. a consciousness that God, the absolute and eternal be- ing, is within him. —113— 5. This is religion. Religion consists in the recogni- tion of the fact that God, the primal being, is the only cause; and that we are only the form in which his (its) causality is revealed or exercised. 6. The ideal state of man consists in control by the God-consciousness, and its absolute predominance over the world-consciousness. 7. Sin therefore is the lack of that control or predom- inance of the God-consciousness, Chapter X. Inability. Section I. Various Views. 1. The Pelagian View: Man has no inabilit^^; but has full ability to do all that God requires. There is no need of regeneration, or any divine grace in sanctification or spiritual growth. 2. The Semi-Pelagian View: Man was weakened by the fall; but not all ability was lost. He needs divine grace to assist his personal efforts. 3. The Augustinian or Calvinistic View.. Man is to- tally disabled by the fall, and so wholly dependent on the Spirit of God for the inception and development of spirit- ual life. The first view says man is well; the second that he is sick; and the third that he is dead. Section II. What Inability is not. 1. It is not the loss of any faculty of the soul: — intel- lect, feeling, will or conscience. 2. It is not the loss of free agency. 3. It does not mean that fallen man possesses no virtues. Fallen and unregenerate men often display inany qualities that are admirable. 4. It does not mean lack of capacity to know God and receive grace. Section III. The doctrine of Inability means: — 1. That fallen man is unable to keep God's law and merit life by his works. —114— 2. That man is unable to reinstate himself in God's favor. 3. That he is unable to change his nature, regenerate himself, and become holy. 4. That he is unable to exercise right affection or in- clination toward God. 5. That this inability is self-acquired bj^ the race and therefore culpable. 6. Inability is not an inability to exercise volitions; but an inability to be willing to exercise holy volitions. Section IV. Proof of Inability. Jno. 3:3. Except a man be born again he cannot see the king- dom of God. Jno. 3:6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Jno. 6:44. No man can come to me except the Father who hath sent me draw him. Jno. 15:4-5. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except as it abide in the vine, no more can you except ye abide in me. With- out me ye can do nothing. Rom. 8:7. The carnal mind is enmity against God and is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be; so then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. I. Cor. 15:10. By the grace of God I am what I am. II. Cor. 3:5. Not sufficient of ourselves to think any good thing. I. Cor. 4:7. Who maketh thee to differ and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Ephes. 2:8. By grace have ye been saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Catechism 82, Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God? Section V. What can man do in his salvation? 1. He can hear God's message concerning himself and learn of his sinfulness and inability. 2. He can examine the perfection of God's law and discover how far he falls short of it. 3. He can try to obey that law, which will still more convince him of his inability. 4. He can learn that there is no hope for him without divine grace. —115— 5. He can call on God to do the work that he cannot do himself; he can say with David: "Create in me a clean heart O God, and renew a right spirit within me." Even this implies that God's grace has been active in awakening him to a sense of his danger and guilt. And besides it is all of God's grace that the means are fur- nished to instruct him, and warn him, and point the way of safety and life. Section VI. Objections Answered. 1. If not able then not under obligation to keep God's law. That depends on how the inability arose. If it is a created inability then there can be no obligation; but if acquired the obligation remains. 2. If unable to obey divine law then we are not free. This objection grows out of a confused idea of freedom. A man is a slave to sin but acts out his own inherent pro- clivities, and so is free. Question is asked: Can a sinner repent if he will? That depends on the meaning of "will." If by "will" we mean inclination being willing on the whole, then the answer is, Yes. But that is itself repentance; and merely means can a sinner repent if he repents? If by "will" we .mean volition, the answer is. No, for a man cannot change his nature by a mere volition. 3. If no ability, nothing to do. Answer: I cannot heal myself but can apply to the physician. Shown above what a man can do. 4. If must depend on God must wait his time. God's time is now. If man feels his own ability he will take his own time. 5. Why command a man to do what he cannot? Be- cause God bids us do so. And further God supplies the needed grace, "My grace is sufficient." — ii6 — PART THIRD. Chapter SOTERIOLOGY. Index Page. I. PRESUPPOSITIONS OF SOTERIOL- OGY. Chapter II. GOD'S PURPOSE TO SAVE. The Order of the Decrees. The Covenant of Redemption. The Covenant of Grace. The Doctrine of Election. Various Viev/s of the Nature of Elec- tion. Section I. Section II. Section III. Section IV. Section V. Chapter III. THE HISTORICAL OF REDEMPTION. ANTECEDENTS Section I. The Typolog-y of the Scriptures. Section II. Prophecy. Section III. The Heathen Religions. Section IV. The Conclusions of Human Speculation and Philosophy. Section V. The Awakening" of Universal Expecta- tion. Section VI. A Growing- Revelation. Chapter IV. THE REDEEMER. Section I. Section II. Section III. The Incarnation. The Person of Christ. Christ's Mediatorial Offices. Chapter V. THE ATONEMENT. Section I. The Importance of the Doctrine. Section II. Terms Defined. Section III. The Two-fold Work of the Atonement. Section IV. The Atonement Expresses the Total Divine Nature. Section V. The Main Features of the Atonement. Section VI. Objections to the Atonement. Section VII. Theories of the Atonement. Section VIII. The Vicarious Versus the Moral-Influ- ence View. Section IX. Eternal Atonement. Section X. Union of Objective and Subjective. — ii8-~ The following" chapters dealing' with the application of the atonement may be called Pneumatology, or the work of the Holy Spirit, through properly a part of Soteriolog"y. Chapter VI. VOCATION. Chapter VII. GRACE. Chapter VIII. REGENERATION. Chapter IX. FAITH. Chapter X. CONVERSION. Chapter XL JUSTIFICATION. Section I. Definitions of Justification. Section il. The Nature of Justification. Section III. The Ground of Justification. Section IV. The Means, Condition or Instrumental Cause. Section V. The Effect of Justification. Section VI. Difficulties and Objections. Chapter XII. SANCTIFICATION. Section I. Differs from Justification. Section II. Definition of Sanctification. Section III. A Supernatural Work. Section IV. Agency and Means of Sanctification. Section V. Effect of Sanctification. Section VI. Perfectionism. Chapter XIII. PERSEVERANCE. Section I. Statement. Section II. Proof. Section III. Objections. Section IV. Answers to Objections. Chapter XIV. THE SACRAMENTS. Section I. Definition. Section II. Efficacy of the Sacraments. Section III. The Number of the Sacraments. Section IV. Baptism. Section V. The Lord's Supper. -119— PART THIRD, SOTERIOLOGY. Soteriology, (soteria logos) means the doctrine con- cerning" salvation. In general it embraces, God's purpose to save, the person and work of the Redeemer, and the application of redemption by the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and lives of men. Chapter I. The Presuppositions of Soteriology. By this is meant the basal facts on which the doctrine of Soteriology rests. 1. God's sovereign rule. God as creator, ruler and saviour underlies all the provisions of salvation. 2. Man's responibility to his creator, and his capacity for weal and woe. 3. The covenant of works, expressing God's will and man's obligation. (a) The law of God requires perfect obedience. God as a perfect being cannot require less than per- fection in his moral law. Matt. 5:48, Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect. I. Pet. 1:16, It is written: Be ye holy for I am holy. I. Jno. 5:17, All unrig-hteousness is sin. (b) That law cannot be lowered. There can be no partial abrogation of God's law on account of man's in- ability. That law must be met to the last letter. God's law expresses his essential being. All God's laws are in harmonj^ with immutable right and truth. God's law can no more be set aside than the attributes of his nature can be set aside. Mercj^ can not infringe on justice, else there would be disharmony among the attributes of God's being. Hence the necessity of an expiatorj^ atonement that expressed justice and mercy alike and maintained the harmony of the divine nature. To abrogate God's laws is to abrogate God's essential nature. 4. Man's fall. . (a) This involves his condemnation and sentence to death. (b) His original sin, corruption of nature, and inabil- ity. On the basis of these facts Soteriology proceeds. -I2( Chapter II. God's Purpose to Save Man. Section I. This involves the order of the decrees. This refers to the logical order in thought rather than to a chronological order, inasmuch as the decrees of God may be considered to be simultaneous in respect to time. 1. The Supra-lapsarian view. This as the term indicates puts the decree of election before that of permitting the fall. The order therefore would stand thus: (a) The decree to save some and reprobate others. (b) The decree to create both classes for the'se ends. (c) The decree to permit the fall. (d) The decree to provide a salvation for the elect. 2. The Sub-lapsarian view. This as the term indicates is that the decree to elect is logically subsequent to the decree to permit the fall. The decree to elect contemplates men as already fallen. The order then would read thus: (a) The decree to create. (b) The decree to permit the fall. (c) The decree to provide salvation sufficient for all. (d) The decree to secure the application of this salva- tion to some. 3. The Sub-lapsarian limited-atonement view. This makes (c) and (d) of the above order exchange places. The decree to provide salvation having reference spe- cifically and only to the elect; thus limited in its purpose and effect. The order would read thus: (a) To create. (b) To permit the fall. (c) To elect some. (d) . To provide salvation for those elected. This puts the purpose of the application into the pur- pose of the making. It may be said in behalf of the latter view that God must have intended what has taken place, and if the atonement is limited in its application God must have intended it so to be, and thus it is limited in its purpose; that the purpose of God must conform to the event, else God's purposes fail. All this is undeniable. However, whatever limitations there are may be better conceived of and treated as belonging to the application than to the making of the atonement. — 121 — It is sufficient to say that the atonement is infinite in its inherent value, capable of universal application, and that God's purpose must have embraced the making- of such an atonement, but limited in its application to those who, in God's wise choice, are the recipients of his efficacious grace. Section II. The covenant of redemption. 1. Catechism 20, Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery? God having- out of his mere good pleasure from all eternity elected some to ever- lasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer. 2. There was such a covenant made. (a) The parties to the covenant, the Father and the Son. Jno. 6:37, All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me. Jno. 6:39, Of all that he hath given me I should lose none. Jno. 8:42, Neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Jno. 10:29, My Father who gave them me, etc. (b) The plan of the covenant was to save man by a redeemer, who should become a substitute for man, bear the penalty of his sin, fulfill all the demands of God's law, justify or acquit the sinner on condition of faith, restore him to God's favor, sanctify him wholly and glorify him forever. (c) This covenant was made in eternitj^ but takes effect in time. It first appears in human history at the fall in the promise of a redeemer. Section III. The Covenant of Grace. Issuing from the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son is the covenant of grace between God and man. 1. The plan of salvation is always presented as a covenant, with parties, conditions, promises, and penalties. 2. The covenant of grace takes the place of the covenant of works in which man failed through the fall. 3. The covenant is the same in all dispensations, patriarchal. Mosaic and Christian. To Adam was given the promise of a redeemer, and rites and sacrifices insti- tuted to prefigure the atonement. To Noah after the flood the covenant was renewed. — 1 22 — With Abraham and his seed the covenant was re-estab- lished. Moses and Israel embraced that covenant as a national obligation. The gospel in the New Testament is still the procla- mation of the covenant. 4. The condition is the same in all dispensations. Faith in a redeemer to come held the same place as faith in a redeemer already come. 5. Christ is the redeemer in all dispensations. The Old Testament saints were saved not by the works of the law but by faith in a redeemer to come. Gal. 3:18, Foi" if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more oi promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Section IV. The Doctrine of Election. 1. Scriptural statement. Ephes. 1:4, According- as he chose us in him before the founda- tion of the world. Ephes. 1:5, Having in love predestinated us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will. Jno. 15:16, Ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you. Jno. 15:19, I have chosen you out of the world. Acts 22:14, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee that thou shouldst know his will, and «ee the Righteous One and hear the voice of his mouth. Rom. 8:29-30, For whom he did foreknow, he also did predes- tinate, etc. 11. Thess. 2:13, God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation. I. Peter 1:2, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God — unto obedience. I. Peter 2:9, But ye are a chosen generation — who hath called you out of darkness. Isa. 41:9, Shows God's distinguishing choice. Jno. 6:37, All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me. Jno. 6:44, No man can come to me except the Father who hath sent me draw him. Acts 13:48, And as many as were ordained to eternal life be- lieved. Rom. 11:5, a femnant according to the election of grace, and if by grace, then it is no more of works. Rom. 9:11, For the children not yet being born — that the pur- pose of God, according to election might stand. Ephes. 2:10, We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God made ready beforehand, that we should Walk in them. These passages and others show that God elects men to salvation. —123— etc. 2. The extent of the elective decree. How far does it apply in the plan of salvation? A general view of the plan is as follows: — Purpose to save. Choice of Redeemer. Sending- him in the incarnation. Making' the atonement. Offer of salvation to men. Sending the g"ospel to the nations, Europe, America, Proclaiming" it in local churches. Bringing- the external call to the individual. Persuasion b^^ the Spirit to accept the call. Reg-eneration of all who accept. Regeneration of some who never heard the call. Regeneration of incapables, e.g. infants, imbeciles, etc. Regeneration of some who refused, making- them will- ing- by special grace. Passing by some who persistently refuse. Using this enumeration as a merely tentative or rough outline of events in the plan, the question is, how far down the line does the decree of election extend? Does it stop short of the individual at any point m the line? Is election racial, national, general, or personal? Is it merelj" a purpose to save, without terminating on a particular object? What is the terminus ad quern of election? A study of the Scriptural passages will determine the answer. A careful observation of the passages adduced will reveal that the Scriptures teach an election that is per- sonal. No other interpretation can be put on the texts that embody the doctrine. Section V. Various Views of the Nature and Ground of Election. The doctrine of election is a common doctrine of Christendom. Practically all evangelical churches hold the doctrine of election in one form or another. There is however some varietj^ of view as the following discussiorx will show. 1. Conditional Election, This view regards election asr entirelj' conditional. — 124 — • The election rests on the condition of faith and holy living-. God's decree determines to save the believer and con- demn the unbeliever, to reward the righteous and punish the wicked. Farther than that the decree does not extend. The condition is supplied by the undetermined will of man. This view has its evident weakness, ist. If anj'thing is undetermined it cannot be fore- known. A purely conditional election renders nothing certain and therefore the elect are outside the compass of God's knowledge. The Socinians Avere frank enough to admit that God cannot know the uncertain actions of men. The Arminians were less consistent in shrinking from such a conclusion. 2nd. The Scriptures teach that the divine decree is immutable. Is. 46:10, Declaring' the end from the beginning — my covinsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure. Rom. 9:11, — not of works but of him that calleth. Whatever rests wholly on the human will must be mutable for the human will is mutable. 3rd. "Faith is the gift of God"; if the gift of God it is not wholly separable from the divine decree. 4th. The language of the Scriptures shows that elec- tion is personal, and that men are elected TO faith and holiness; therefore a conditional election does not cor- respond to the Scriptural representations in the matter. That election is personal is shown by: — Phil. 4:3, — whose names are in the book of life. Heb. 12:23, — who are registered in heaven. I. Thess. 1:4, Knowing, brethren beloved of God, 3'our election. That election is to faith and g^ood works is seen in: — Acts 13:48, — and as many as were ordained to eternal life be- lieved. Jno. 15:16, — and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit. Ephes. 2:10, — created in Christ Jesus unto good works. I. Pet. 1:2, Elect — unto obedience. If election is unto faith and good works, then faith and g"ood works can not be the condition of election. 2. The Doctrine of Limited Objective. This view does not concern the g'round of the elective decree, but the extent of it; or the terminus ad quem. Under this view may be included all schemes that stop short of the election of the individual to salvation. John Milton held that "there is no particular predes- tination or election but only general." —125— Some limit the divine decree to the predestination of certain nations, communities, and generations to the knowledge of true religion, and the external privileges of the gospel. — So Archbishop Sumner. The gospel has come to Europe and America while the orient has lain in darkness and the curse of false religions. This great fact we must all admit; but does this exhaust the meaning of the term "election"? Others make election terminate on the outward cir- cumstances of the individual. Archbishop Whately says: "Election is the choice of individual men to niembership in the external church and the means of grace." No man ever had a chance to choose when or where he would be born, whether his parents should be heathen or Christian, moral or depraved. Providence casts some into favorable, and some into unfavorable circumstances Some have the benefits of the means of grace from in- fancy, and some enjo^' little or none of these advantages. All these things are due to God's over-ruling providence, and not to human choice. But is this the terminus ad quem of election? Does God's decree determine the external circumstances and stop there? What is the ultimate objective of election? Is it circumstantial or personal? La3^ these views side by side with the passages from God's word teaching the doctrine of election and it will be seen wherein they fall short. 3. Arminianism sa^'s: Foreseen faith and works is the ground of election. What appeal to Scripture? Rom. 8:29, Whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate. I. Peter 1:2, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Answer — This doubtless refers to God's knowledge of the persons whom he would elect, not to foreseen faith as the ground of election. Difficulties of Arminianism. Leaves no basis for foreknowledge. How can God foreknow unless he first determined? Makes man elect himself, therefore no real election by God. "If man niay fall from grace it cannot be certain if he has true faith till after death; therefore his election must take place after he is dead." — Shedd. Salvation of infants, imbeciles, dying sinners, some heathen must depend on the mere choice of God, and not on foreseen faith and works. The old Arminians held that election was general, not personal, that the decree of election did not concern indi- — 126 — viduals but was God's purpose to save believers as a class. 4. The Lutheran View. It is difficult to present the Lutheran doctrine of election because of contrariety of view. Luther was an Aug"ustinian predestinationist. Melancthon was also in his earlier years; afterwards he inclined to synergism. It is said however: "Still later Melancthon declared for the view that the adjutorium of the Holy Spirit is required even in order tO' the will to accept the Gospel." (Classical meaning of adjuro is: to adjure, compel, solemnly swear.) The Form of Concord, the acknowledged creed of Lutherans, embraced the following positions: It denies the doctrine of absolute election. But admits that there is an election; but that nothing in us is the cause of election. It teaches man's spiritual inability, — that the Holy Spirit is the sole agent of regeneration; but that the grace of God may be effectually resisted. The saved do not resist; and the lost effectually resist the offered grace. These propositions seemed somewhat unsatisfactory to many and led to subsequent diversity of view. Man's absolute inability and the Spirit's absolute agency in regeneration seemed to agree with predestina- tion. And man's ability to resist the grace and power of the Spirit seems out of harmony with the omnipotence of that grace and power in regeneration. And the non-resistence that distinguishes the saved is hardly consistent with the view that there is nothing in the man regarded as a cause of election. The difficulties of the creed were bridged over by saying that while fallen man has not spiritual ability, librum arbitrium in spiritualibus, as asserted by Semi- Pelagianism and synergism, yet he has natural ability, librum arbitrium in civilibus; he has his natural powers, can read and hear God's word, receive the sacraments, use means of grace etc. These have such inherent super- natural power as to produce a saving effect on all who do not resist their influence. Thus the employment of natural powers afforded human co-operation, while divine grace was the efficacious cause of salvation. Still it must be observed that divine — 127— grace is needed for the right use of even our natural powers. The later Lutheran theologians have abandoned the position of the Form of Concord because as they say: "it ascribes the highest spiritual efficiency to a power not spiritual in nature, although through the medium of the means of grace." They teach that freedom of choice is restored by the power of g-race through using- the means of g-race. This freedom of choice restored has then to decide for or ag-ainst Christianity. This abandons the view of the Form of Concord that in the elect there is no ground of their election. This leaves out of sight the case of the unbap- tized infant, incapable, and heathen; whose salvation, if saved at all, must rest on an absolute decree. This view will meet with further consideration under the head of Dorner's view; he being one of the later Lutheran Theologians. 5. Dorner's View. Man by the fall came under bondag-e to sin. This deprived him of his freedom of will or freedom of decision. By his natural powers unaided by grace he cannot decide for Christianity. The first aim of grace therefore is to restore freedom to the power of making such a decision. By the knowledge and persuasions of the gospel and by prevenient workings of God's Spirit man is restored to his freedom. Some culture by Christian grace must pre- cede the decision for or against Christ. There needs a gratia praeparans et praeveniens in order to give the means necessary to man for the decision. Man given this freedom by supernatural grace is now able to make the decisive resolve of life. "Thus is it possible to restore freedom in the natural man who lacked it in spiritualibus, and thereby absolute predestinationism, Pelagianism and Synergism are ex- cluded." "This goal (decision) is certainly and inevitably reached in the case of all, that they know what they are doing in rejecting Christianity." "The call to salvation and power to decide in its favor must come to all in due course." Yet Dorner feels that he cannot entirely dispense with election. He concedes that election determines to what nations and individuals the gospel is sent. "The called are all called to salvation and as called —128— they are set apart or elected to believe and be saved," and then he adds: "Rather according- to Scripture there is an election in the stricter sense. Holy Scripture teaches the eternal election of believers before the foundation of the world." On its face this admission looks like strict Calvinism and if that is the teaching of the Scriptures, it is for us the final word. Remarks on Dorner's View. In the fall man did not lose his free agency. The unregenerate man is still a free agent, and fol- lows sin by deliberate choice. Whatever Dorner means by the loss of freedom it cannot mean free agency. But in the fall man did lose his ability to render obedience to God's law, and ability to retrieve his lost position in God's favor. His inability in this respect was complete. Corruption of nature and bias to sin or bondage in sin was the direct result of the fall; but man's ability to choose, in accordance with his own nature and desire, remained; and that is, in theological terminology, called freedom or liberty. Freedom and ability are not the same. I have freedom to fly but not the ability. Dorner's special point is that prevenient grace restores to man the freedom to decide. If that is all, man's choice of God would be absolutely contingent and not certain. It would still be possible that all men might decide wrongly. But freedom of decision is not the vital point on the human side but actual decision. Does God merely afford men freedom of decision, or bring them to actual decision? "It is not ye that work, but God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." If, as Dorner admits, election determines to what nations and individuals the gospel shall be sent, and if as he further teaches, prevenient grace awakens the con- science of the sinner, breaks his bondage to sin, inclines his desire Godward, awakens longings for moral worth and brings him to the point of decision, how near to, or how far is this from, personal election? Dorner says: "There is no election excluding freedom of acceptance or rejection and replacing it by an almighty volition" and "the power to decide must come to all in due course." We reply, God is sovereign and may secure acceptance — 129 — ■ by the fiat of regeneration as well as by the persuasion of prevenient grace. Again infants and incapables cannot decide; their only alternative in Dorner's view, if that point must be reached by all, is a second probation. Dorner does not say, in loco, when or where this opportunity comes to all, but in his eschatology we find the suspected sequence in the doctrine of a second probation between death and the resurrection. 6. The Augustinian or Calvinistic view teaches that the ground of election is found in God's sovereign pleasure. This view is held by the Presbyterian bodies, the Reformed bodies, the view taught in the Thirty Nine Articles of the Anglican Church, Baptists, the Welsh Methodists, etc. For an extended statement of this position see The Westminster Confession of Faith, or the Canons of the Synod of Dort. For a brief statement we have Westminster Shorter Catechism, Quest. 20: "Did God leave all mankind to perish in the state of sin and misery?" ' "God having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery and bring them into an estate of salvation by a redeemer." Proof I, from Scripture — Ephes. 1:5, Having predestinated us according to the good pleasure of his own will. Ephes. i:ii, Being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. II. Tim. 1:9, Who hath saved us and called us with a holy call- ing, not according to our works but according to his own purpose, etc. Rom. 9:11, For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to elec- tion might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, — It was said: The elder shall serve the younger. Rom. 9:15, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. Rom. 9:21, Hath not the potter power over the clay. Rom. 11:5-6, A remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, not of works. Proof 2. Repentance, faith, and works are the result of the decree; not the cause. Ephes. 1:4, Chose us that we should be holy. I. Peter 1:2, — unto obedience. Phil. 2:13, It is God who worketh in you, etc. Ephes. 2:8, Saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. —130— II. Thess. 2:13, Chosen you to salvation through sanctification and belief of the truth. Rom. 8:29, Predestinated to be conformed to the likeness of His Son. Acts 13:48, As many as were ordained to eternal life believed. Observe — That if grace is the g^ift of God it is not the cause of the gift. The teaching of the Scriptures is that faith, etc. results from the decree and not that the decree results from the faith. Proof 3. The Scriptures speak of an election by God. If language has any meaning this must mean that God chooses the individual unto salvation. Any view that substitutes for God's choice a scheme that makes man elect himself does not measure up to the teachings of the Scriptures on this subject. Proof 4. God's choice involves all the antecedents of man's salvation without which man could not exercise any choice at all. No man ever chose when and where he would be born, who would become his parents, how he would be taught and trained, whether the Gospel was to be sent to Europe and America, or whether they were to remain heathen, whether the Gospel should ever sound in his ears or he forever remain ignorant of its contents and call. All these things that enter so much into man's salva- tion were chosen absolutely and alone by God. Proof 5. If the ultimate and determining element in man's salvation rests in man and not in God, there would be the possibility that no man would ever be saved and Christ might have suffered and died in vain. God not only made certain an atonement but made certain its application in the saving of men. Proof 6. If infants, imbeciles, incapables and any heathen are saved it must be by the direct and sovereign election of God. If we were called upon to pray for a dying man in his last coma we would do so in the full assurance that it was God's undoubted prerogative to answer our prayers and save that man. And thankful would we be that it was God's choice and not man's that determined that man's salvation. Proof 7. If the initiative of salvation is with God, and conviction, persuasion, and enabling are the work of God's Spirit, then election is a foregone conclusion. Observe — God's sovereign election affords a larger hope than any other view of election that we have con- sidered. If God may sovereignly elect whom he will then all ages, races, and conditions are open to his benevolent choice. We may therefore indulge a hope for many who have never heard the gospel, and for the man at whose bedside we pray though sunk into the unconsciousness that precedes death. If the determining choice rests with the perverted, rebellious, depraved human will, how few will be saved! but if on the will of the God who loved, and gave, and died to save, then a great multitude whom no man can number. There is always larger hope in God than in man. If our hope depends on man we lean on a broken reed; if on God we lean on an almighty arm. Election is not there- fore a "horrible doctrine" of narrow limitation; but the ground of world-wide expectation. It is a source of real comfort and blessed matter of thankfulness as we look on a world ruined by sin and contemplate its chance of salvation. Some Objections to the Calvinistic View. It is inconsistent with free agency. Answer: First, The man that is convinced, convicted and per- suaded by the word and Spirit of God to confess his sins and embrace the offered salvation is as free as the man whom you persuade to take a walk or to invest in gilt- edged securities. There is no violation of his free agency. And it must be remembered that God can bring to bear sufficient inducements to incline any man. Second, The man who resists God's call by word and Spirit and providences, and whom God allows to pursue his own chosen way to destruction and perdition, cannot complain that he is not a free agent. He has chosen his w^ay and followed it. Third, If God intervenes over all opposition and rebellion on the part of the man, and sovereignly regen- erates him, as was seemingly the case with Saul of Tarsus, at the height of his rebellion, that man is still a free agent in every act of his life. He was a free agent in his opposition, he is a free agent in his obedience; and in his regeneration he was not an agent at all. In no case does God's decree contravene free agency. And it is God's sovereign right to regenerate whom he w411. No extrinsic power can limit God nor deprive him of his sovereignty. It represents God as partial in his dealings with men. Answer: As a matter of fact God does not treat all men alike. Some are born in heathen lands, some in Christian en- vironments. Some are born with high endowments, some — 132— with inferior faculties. God chose Israel for his people, left others in ignorance of the true God. He provided salvation for man, left fallen angels to the doom of their sin. The parable of the vineyard laborers shows God to be sovereign in the dispensation of his gifts. "Shall I not do what I will with my own?" It is unjust to the non-elect. Answer: Strict justice would condemn all. God is not under obligation to save any. All salvation is mercy; all con- demnation is justice. Dr. Strong illustrates thus: — "It is not true that, because a governor pardons one convict from the peniten- tiary, he must therfore pardon all. When he pardons one no injury is done to the rest." It represents God as acting arbitrarily and without reason. Answer: That is asserting more than any man knows. We do not know all God's reasons for saving particular men; nor his reasons for passing some by, except that it is for their sins. "God's mere good pleasure" does not mean that there are no reasons in God's mind why he acts thus or so. "They err who think that of God's will, there is no reason except his will." — Hooker's Eccl. Polity. Sovereignty is "just a name for what is unrevealed in God." — T. Erskine. A particular election is inconsistent with an offer to all. Answer: A. A, Hodge, Outlines p. 229, says: "Nothing but a sinful unwillingness can prevent any one who hears the gospel from receiving and enjoying it. The gospel is for all, election is a special grace in addition to that offer. The non-elect may come if they will. The elect will come. The decree of election puts no barrier before men prevent- ing them from accepting the gospel offer. Any man, elect or non-elect, will be saved if he accepts. The non-elect are left to act as they are freely determined by their own hearts." Rowland Hill was criticised for preaching election and yet exhorting sinners to repent, and was told that he should preach only to the elect. He replied that if his critic would put a chalk-mark on all the elect he would preach only to them. God bids us to preach the gospel to all; that some are not saved, is because of their willful, sinful rejection of the offered mercy. These, as the Westminster Confession says, "God is pleased to pass by and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath FOR THEIR SINS." There are mysteries in the doctrine of election before which we may bow in humility; but as to the FACT of an election, the Scriptures leave us in no doubt. Chapter III. The Historical Antecedents of Redemption. Before the covenant of redemption came into objective realization long ages of preparation came and passed. If our first parents expected the Redeemer in their immediate offspring it was not to be. If the uncertain Gen. 4:1 expresses such a hope, it was doomed to disappointment. Paul declares. Gal. 4:4, "When the fulness of time was come God sent forth his Son." Among the developments of the preparation we may mention: — Section I. The typology of rite and ceremony, of person and history. A type is a prefiguration of spiritual things in visible form. And the race had long education for the fact of redemption in the school of typology. In Rom. 5:4 Paul makes the first Adam the type of the second Adam. The rite of sacrifice and the meaning of the shed blood in this religious tutelage dates back to the gates of Eden. The Lord made them coats of skins; presumably from animals sacrificed. Abel brought the firstlings of his flock. Even in Abel's day, sacrifice was the customary thing, and the proper and improper means and methods already distinguished. The trial of Abraham's faith in Gen. 22 illustrates the surrender of a beloved son, the submission of that son, and the fact of vicarious deliverance; and Christ, in Jno. 8:56, remarks: "Abraham rejoiced to see my day, he saw it and was glad." In Jno. 3:14 Christ represents the brazen serpent as a type "of the crucifixion. In Matt. 12:40 Jonah is the type of Christ's burial. I. Cor. 10:11, Now all these things happened unto them as types, and they are written for our admonition. —134— The rites in regard to the sin-offering-, the rites on the great day of atonement, and the Passover observances were all rich in typology. Besides, some individual expe- riences, particularly of the patriarchs, and some facts of national history entered into the typological education and preparation for the great fact of redemption. Section II. Prophecy. Prophecy is prefiguration in words, as type is prefig- uration in facts. Special reference to the prophecies concerning the coming of Christ is made in Chapter IV, Section I, para- graph I. From the first promise, "The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head," till the announcement of John, "There cometh one after me," the whole scope of pre- dictive prophecy is educative and preparatory. Thus the world was growing in knowledge and expec- tation through the centuries, and by the history and prophecy of Israel the Hebrew religion became possessed of a most lively hope of speedy consummation. Section III. The Heathen Religions. What part did the heathen religions play, if any, in the world's preparation? That there were some elements of truth in them we may readily admit. That they re- flected some light of a primitive revelation need not be denied. That they were, however, most of all, the mighty efforts of the human spirit to answer its own questions and solve its own problems is the best solution to be given them. Every smoking altar, every bleeding victim, every ascetic privation, every priestly intervention was a testi- mony to the guilt of sin and the need of remission. The whole mighty fabric of heathen religion, in all its variety, awfulness, and degration was an age-long revelation of the need of a Saviour and salvation. And the hopeless- ness and ineffectiveness of it only enhanced the testimony. Man was learning the bitter lesson of apostasy from God. And the utter failure of all human plans and efforts to regenerate the human race showed clearly the helpless- ness of man without God and his revelation. The hea- thenism of the world was thus over-ruled by God to make preparation for the coming Redeemer. And when the ful- ness of time came, the Gentiles, from their experiences of failure and defeat, showed as much receptiveness for Christianity as the people of Israel, if not more. —135— Section IV. The conclusions of human speculation and philosophy. It is both interesting- and instructive to observe liow pagan speculation approaches Jewish and Christian thought. (a) Socrates, 469-339 B. C. According to Socrates man's chief end is happiness; but such happiness as is to be found in well doing and obedience to the will of God, and with the blessing of heaven. Socrates attributes to knowledge what the book of Proverbs does to wisdom. Ignorance is sin; knowledge is virtue; but these terms are used in an ethical sense, assuming that a man is as he thinks. Socrates believed in one supreme God, creator and ruler of the universe, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, wise, just, and good. Socrates believed in the immortality of the soul, in provi- dence, prayer, and the reflex or self-retributive nature of sin. (b) Plato, 427-347 B. C. Plato's idea of God was very similar to the Christian idea. What he had assimilated from Jewish literature and thought is uncertain; but many of the early Christian fathers recognized in his system a considerable element uf Christian thought, and looked upon him as sustaining a sort of propaedeutic relation to the Christian dispensation. His definition of God reminds us of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and is as follows: "God is the begin- ning, middle, and end of all things. He is the supreme mind or reason, the efficient cause of all things, eternal, unchangeable, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-pervading, all- controlling, just, holy, wise, and good; the absolutely perfect, the beginning of all truth, the fountain of all law and justice, the source of all order and beauty, and espe- cially the cause of all good." Plato held to the existence of subordinate gods, but these were the children and ministers of the one Supreme. As for Atheism, he held that to be a disease. Plato also believed in divine government, immortality, future re- wards and punishments and much that approached Christian thought. It would seem that Plato realized the need of human redemption to save the individual and to perfect the race; and consequently the need of a divine teacher and revealer to bring in a better than any existing society or govern- ment. But this is what Plato's system could not supply. It furnished no Savior, no atonement, no regenerating -136- agency, no justification by the righteousness which is of God by faith. Besides it is full of many errors amid its excellence. His proposal to better man by education, laws, government, community of goods and wives, morti- fication of the body (Manichaeism), transmigration of souls etc. falls far short of the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe. Thus the loftiest efforts of human philosophy are but the groping and feeling of men after God if haply they may find him. And yet, as the Apostle said, "The world by wisdom knew not God," — knew indeed something of him and about him, but still far short of the experience of the Apostle who could say, "I know whom I have be- lieved." (c) Philo, 20 B. C— 42 A. D. Philo was an Alexandrian Jew, and he presents an example of Jewish speculation more organically antece- dent to Christianity than pagan philosophy. Among other subjects Philo wrote largely on the exegesis of the Penta- teuch. This puts him in direct line as antecedent to Christian doctrine. What interests us most in this con- nection is his doctrine of the Logos. Between God and the finite imperfect universe is a world of intermediate beings. At the head of all the graded intermediaries is the Divine Logos. The intermediaries proceed from the Logos; but the Logos proceeds from God. Through him the world was made and through him God holds to- gether, supports and directs all things. How much this reminds us of Jno. 1:3, and Col. 1:16-17. The Logos doctrine of Philo has been called: "The Jewish prologue of Christianity." The approaches to Christian doctrine on the part of Jewish and pagan spec- ulation are in no wise derogatory to Christianity as a unique and supernatural system. They are rather con- firmatory of its truth. We gladly recognize the fact that "the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world" has enabled the pagan seeker after truth to discover the being of God and the nature and destiny of man, "for the invisible things of him from the foundation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and God- head." Thus the doctrines of the Christian religion are justified at the bar of the highest intellectualism. And we are profoundly thankful that the learned Jew, browsing among the facts of the Old Testament, came so nearly discovering, and vindicating by that al- most discovery, the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, —137— which the modern Jew denies. Slight wonder, indeed, if the roots of Christian Trinitarianism are found in the Old Testament, and that the enemies of the doctrine so nearly stumble upon the fact. Every approach to Christian truth on the part of non-Christian systems only vindicates the rationality of Christianity, and prepares the way of the Lord. And when these groping" hearts and minds come back to the true religion they find in it the truth they sought. Section V. The Awakening of Universal Expecta- tion. It has been frequently conceded that, as the fulness of time drew near, there was a general expectation throughout the heathen world that some one was about to come with new light on the problems, and new help for the ills of the human race. This expectation grew out of several considerations: (a) The exceeding degradation of human society which alarmed men as to the extent and result of it. (b) The failure of the heathen religions to cure the ills of the world. (c) The fact that in some instances religious systems descended from corruption to perversion, e.g. fetishism was a low descent that amounted to perversion of reli- gious ideas and practices. The nature worship too might be included in this class, where religion was associated with the vilest immorality. (d) The unanswered longings and aspirations of the human heart and mind; and the natural desire for clearer light on the whence and why and whither of human exist- ence. This incurable longing is expressed in the words put into the mouth of the dying Greek: — "Shall we meet again?" "I have asked that question of the hills that look eternal; of the clear streams that flow on forever; of the blue sky in whose azure dome my raised spirit has walked in glory. All are dumb. But as I look upon thy living face, and see the love that mantles in its blush, I know that we shall meet again, Clemanthe." The longing for immortality' and eternal fellowship is irrepressible, and imperishable; and everj^ serious mind cries out for reasonable certainty. In this respect Christ is well described as "the desire of the nations." The doc- trines of Christianity^ are too good not to be true; and they answer the cry of the universal human heart. The world hoped for some answer to the universal need and did not hope in vain. -138- Section VI. A Growing- Revelation. This was another element of the pre-Christian prep- aration, embracing', among others, the following points: (a) Growth of the doctrine of God. (b) Growth of the knowledge of sin and its need of remission. (c) Growth in the forms and literature of devotion. (d) Growth of the Messianic idea and hope. (e) Growth of the doctrines of a future life. Section VII. National Specialties. (a) The Jews developed religious ideas and expecta- tions. (b) The Greeks developed language and dialectics. (c) The Romans developed law and inter-racial inter- course. The latter was specially promoted by commerce and g-ood roads. Chapter IV. The Redeemer. Section I. The Incarnation. Catechism 21, Who is the Redeemer? Cat. 22. How become? 1. Christ is the Messiah which was to come. The seed of the woman (but not of the man). Ful- filled in the virgin birth. Abraham's seed. Gen. 22:18. Of the tribe of Judah. Gen. 49:10. A prophet like unto Moses, Deut. 18:15. The son of David, Is. 11 :i, Jer. 23:5. Time of his appearance, While second temple stood, Hag. 2:9, Mai. 3:1. End of seventy weeks, Dan. 9:25.1 Place, — Bethlehem, Micah 5:2. Preceded by a forerunner. Is. 40:3, Mai. 3:1. Declared to be God, Is. 9:6. Is. 7:14 Immanuel. Nature of his ministry. Is. 61:1-3, Lk. 4:18-21. His crucifixion, Ps. 22. His vicarious sacrifice, Is. 53. All these features of prophecy are fulfilled in Jesus IRefer to Dan. 9:24-27. Command to build and restore Jerusa- lem dated 457 B. C. See Ezra 7:6-8. 70 weeks or heptads till Messiah — 70x7 — 490 years. 457 years from Ezra's mission to i A.D. 26 years till Christ's ministry. 3Vi years duration of ministry. 3^/4 years the cut-off half of the last heptad. "In the half of the week sacrifice to cease." 490 years — 70x7. —139— Christ and cannot apply to any other, showing- that Jesus Christ is the Messiah foretold. No one can yet arise to combine this prophecy in him- self for the records are lost to prove his claim. 2. Christ's Pre-existence is involved in his incarna- tion. John i:i. John 8:38, I speak that which I have seen with my Father. John 8:42, I proceeded forth and came from God. John 8:38, Before Abraham was I am. Phil. 2:6, Being- in the form of God, etc. The Arians believed in Christ's pre-existence; but not in his Deity, holding- that he was a created being lower than God, higher than man. 3. The incarnation involves Christ's humiliation. Catechism 27. Phil. 2:6-8. 4. The Virgin Birth. (a) The faith of the church. The earliest Roman creed is the Apostles' Creed, dating 100-150. The Apostles Creed says: — conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary. For 1500 years this was the almost undisputed tradition of the church. (b) Denials. Tom Paine in the Age of Reason attacked the doc- trine. Voltaire and the Deists did the same. The rationalistic schools also ranged themselves against the Virgin Birth. Schleiermacher the Pantheistic mystic, father of the subjective schools, followed by the modern New Theology and the Unitarians. In 1892 Prof. Wustenburg (German) declined to assent to the Creed because it contained the doctrine of the Vir- g-in Birth, and since then Germany, Britain and America have been stirred by discussion. Evolution was supposed to eliminate the supernatural from the physical world. (Of course not so). The ten- dency was then to go on and eliminate all the supernat- ural from the Scriptures and religious belief. Evolution- ary schools are therefore antagonistic to the Virgin Birth, Wellhausen issued editions of the gospels in which he omits Matt. 1-2, and Lk. 1-2. If we cut and slash as we please we can eliminate anything, but that is sheer piracy. All the unmutilated MSS. and versions have these chapters and it is contrarj^ to all manuscript authority to cut them out. —14 Harnack has a great reputation as a scholar. Holds to the genuineness of Luke. Good thus far. But Harnack acts the part of the censor on the chapter of the birth and deletes its plain words. He cuts out Lk. 1:27, in which Mary is twice called a virgin. He cuts out Lk. 1:34, Mary's question: How shall this be? He cuts out Lk. 1:35, The angel's answer to Mary. Then fitting" the parts together he has a story with the supernatural left out. But this is arbitrary and unwar- ranted. There might be an excuse for such a process if these verses were omitted from the majority of the best MSS., but the MSS. are against him. Even when this is done Matthew's account remains and it is not easy to make a consistent story out of Matthew and leave out the super- natural. (c) The grounds of the denial. Anti-supernaturalism repudiates all miracle. Subjective speculation substituted for the authority of the Scriptures. It is said that the doctrine was no part of the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. We do not know all that they preached and taught. The question is settled by the records. If they didn't preach anything about it, it still stands on the testimony of the written gospels. It is said that Mark and John do not mention it. Mark does not treat of the boyhood of Christ. Begins with public ministry. John deals with the Deity of Christ, not with his humanity. Had before him the works of Matthew and Luke and did not need to repeat. It is said that Paul does not preach it and therefore not true. Silence is no argument. Paul does say: — "born of a woman." Paul does say: — "mystery of g-odliness. Christ born in the flesh." Paul does say: — "He who was in the form of God, took on him form of a servant." Thus Paul teaches the incarnation, and "born of a woman" may refer to the fact of the virgin birth. It is curious about these critics as follows: What Paul DOES say they don't believe, but what he does NOT say they believe with all their hearts. —141— What Paul does say has no force; but what he does not say is proof positive. (d) Proof of the Virgin Birth. The gospels of Matthew and Luke. These books are the genuine writings of the men whose names they bear. And the ist and 2nd chapters are integral portions of the books. All manuscript evidence shows this. Matthew's account is written from the standpoint of Joseph. Shows all Joseph's scruples and questionings and fears, and how these were met. Luke's account is from the standpoint of Mary, and shows her questionings, and astonishment, and wonder, and visit to Elizabeth, etc. We naturallj^ inquire whence this information came. And there were only two persons in all the world who could supply it and these were Joseph and Mar3^ Here then we have in Matthew the story as it came from Joseph's side of the house, and in Luke the story as it came from Mary's side of the house. In Matt. 1:16 we have: "Joseph the husband of Mary OF WHOM was born Jesus." Which person is the antece- dent of whom? Answer, Mary, and not Joseph. How do we know? By the pronoun in the original, which is not masculine, and therefore does not refer to Joseph; not plural and therefore does not refer to both of them in common; but is feminine and refers to Mary. An old Syriac MS. has "Joseph begat Jesus." Referred to by a Unitarian in the North American and answered by Prof. Machen. Doubtless this is just the mistake of a copj^st who had written the word so many times in the chapter that he wrote it once too often. This one MS. would have little weight against the united testi- mony of scores of other MSS. and versions. But the absolutely crushing reply is this, that that very same old Syriac manuscript in that very chapter gives an account of the virgin birth just as we have it in our texts. The loss of the Virgin Birth would not necessarily destroy the doctrine of Christ's deitj'. That is abundantl}' proved in other places. The virgin birth fits all that we know of Christ in all his character and ministry, and is a fitting beginning of such a life. We will not therefore tear it from our Bibles or ex- punge it from our creeds, but keep on repeating: I believe in Jesus Christ, conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the virgin Mary. —142— 5. The Incarnation involves also Christ's Exaltation. The statement of the doctrine is found in the Cat- echism Question 28. This doctrine involves the following" points: (a) His Resurrection. (b) His Ascension. (c) His Session at the rig-ht hand of God. (d) His coming' to judg"e the world at the last dscy. Section II. The Person of Christ. 1. Statement of the doctrine. Shorter Catechism 22, How did Christ, being- the Son of God, become man? Christ the Son of God became man by taking- to him- self a true body and a reasonable soul; being- conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virg^in Mary and born of her yet without sin. Confession of Faith, Chap. 8, Sec. 2. The second per- son in the Trinity, being- very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did — take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without sin. So that two whole and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood were inseparably joined tog-ether, in one person, without con- version, composition, or confusion. Which person is ver}'- God and very man, yet one Christ the only mediator. 2. Christ's Deity. He was God; the second person of the Trinity. Proved by: (a) Christ's claims. Matt. 16:17, Accepts Peter's declaration. Matt. 26:64, At his trial declared himself the Son of God, and condemned. Jno. 8:38, I speak that which I have seen with my Father. Jno. 8:42, I proceeded forth and came from God. Jno. 10:38, I and my Father are one. Jno. 14:9, He that liath seen me hath seen the Father. Jno. 14:10, I am in the Father and the Father in me. (b) The teaching-s of the Apostles. Matt. 1:23, Called Immanuel. Matt. 16:16, Peter declares: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Mk. 1:1, The gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Lk. 1:35, The one that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Jno. 1:1, The Word was God. Jno. 1:14, The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. —143— Jno. 20:31, These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God. and that believing, ye might have life through his name. Phil. 2:6, Being in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal etc. Col. 1:16, For by him were all things created. Col. 2:9, For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (c) Confession of others. Is. 9:6, He shall be called — The Mighty God, The everlasting Father. Matt. 27:54, The centurion and others: Truly this was the Son of God. Lk. 4:41, And demons came out of many: — Thou art Christ the Son of God. (d) Titles applied to Christ. God. Immanuel. Alpha and Omeg^a. King- of Kings, and Lord of Lords. (e) His works. His miracles, his resurrection, supernatural knowledge, his lofty doctrine. (f) His power and influence in the world. (g) Another proof of Christ's Deity is the fact that all judgment is committed to the Son. Jno. 5:22, For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son. Acts 10:42, It is he who hath been ordained of God to be the judge of living and dead. Acts 17:31, Because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in rigliteousness by that man whom he hath or- dained, whereof he hath given assurance to all men in that he hath raised him from the dead. It is inconceivable that any one should pass upon the destiny of all men but he who is omniscient God. (h) The experiential proof. The best proof is the experience of divine grace that regenerates the soul. A candidate for the ministry being asked by the examiner how he knew Christ was divine, replied with emotion: "Why, bless you, man, he saved my soul." 3. His Humanity. (a) Christ had a human body, could be seen, felt, handled. — L John 1:1. He was born, grew, came to maturity, appeared in form as a man, ate, drank, thirsted, slept, was weary, died, was buried, rose and was recognized by his physical char- acteristics. He was called: The man Christ Jesus, I. Tim. 2:5, also The Son of Man, seed of the woman, son of David. The genealogy in Matthew traces his descent from David and the one in Luke from Adam. —144— Lk. 24:39. Behold my hands and my feet, — handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have. Rom. 1:3, — who was born of the seed of David according- to the flesh. Heb. 2:14. Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also himself likewise took part of the same. (b) Jesus Christ also possessed a human soul; called "a reasonable soul," a rational human nature, i.e., a spirit with its powers of intellect, feeling-, will and conscience. He loved, sympathized, wept, exercised the feeling-s of a man, thought, talked, willed, chose thus and so, groaned in spirit, and was troubled. Heb. 2:16. Verily he took not the nature of angels but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Heb. 2:17, In all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren. Lk. 2:52, And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor, etc. Matt. 26:38, My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death. Mk. 13:32, Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not even the angels, neither the Son etc., shows some things not known to the human mind of Christ; which could not "be true of his divine nature. If Jesus Christ did not have a human soul as well as a human body, he could not be truly man. 4. The distinction of the two natures. (a) The word "nature" here means substance with its attributes. The two natures are the human soul with its faculties and a divine substance with its attributes. (b) These two natures stand together in the person of Christ. (c) The Logos or the second person of the Godhead does not take the place of, and exclude the human soul of Jesus, as some ancients believed. In such case there would be no true humanity. There is a complete hunian nature and a complete divine nature in Jesus Christ. (d) The two natures are not mixed or confused so as to make a third something neither human nor divine; as an acid and alkali unite and form a neutral salt. If the two natures were mingled Christ would be neither truly God nor truly man; and he is declared to be both God and man. (e) Each nature retains its attributes, just as the body and soul of man are one person and two natures, and each nature retains its peculiar attributes. The body does not partake of the attributes of the soul, nor the soul partake of the attributes of the body. So Christ's humanity does not partake of the attributes of divinity, nor his divinity partake of the attributes of his humanity. —145— Christ's human mind increased in wisdom; but his di- vine mind was always omniscient. His human will had only human power, but his divine will was omnipotent. 5. The union of the two natures in one person. (a) In the person of Christ there is a complete human nature, body and soul, and a complete divine nature, with all its attributes. ih) These are one person and not two. It mig-ht be thought that the human nature of Jesus constituted a person and the Logos or second person of the trinity constituted a person and therefore there were two persons. But the human nature of Jesus was never a separate person, never had any existence apart from the divine nature, had no individual subsistence. The Logos united not with a human person., but with a human nature. Again the two natures never address each other nor send each other as is the case with the persons of the Trinity. Again the one person of Christ is spoken of in terms true only of the human nature; and again in terms true only of the divine nature; and still again in terms true of both natures, but always as one person. e.g. Things said of the person true of the divine nature only: — "Before i\braham was I am" true of the divine nature. "The glory which I had with thee before the world began." Things said of the person true of the human nature only:— "I thirst." "My soul is sorrowful even unto death." "Crucified the Lord of glory" — Crucified body only. Of the acts of Christ some are purely human, — eating", drinking, sleeping. Some purely divine, — creation, preservation, resurrec- tion. Some theanthropic, — that is, in which both natures concur, — The work of redemption is theanthropic. God spoke to us by his Son, — theanthropic. He sat down on the right hand of God, — theanthropic. This linguistic usage shows that the two natures are regarded as but one person. We are two natures in one person and sometimes des- ignate ourselves by one of the natures as, I walk, or I think. The same I that walks is the I that thinks. — 146 — (c) This union is not tlie transmutation of one sub- stance into another. The divine nature does not become human and the human nature does not become divine. The text John 1:14, The Word became flesh, must not be pressed to mean a transmutation or transubstantiation of the divine into the human. This would take away the divinity. If the divine nature should take on the limita- tions of the human it would cease to be divine. A spirit has not flesh and bones, neither becomes flesh and bones. The attributes of matter are the opposite of those of spirit and vice versa. We must understand this text in the light of what we know from other sources and passages. Th,e word "became" has not the force of trans- mute; but means, came to pass, occurred, took place. Now what occurred or came to pass? Why a new visible human personality', the God-man, — the human mode of existence in which Christ appeared. This came into exist- ence. John further expresses the Incarnation by saying", I. John 1:2, The life was manifested. I. John 4:2, Jesus is the Christ come IN flesh. He was in the flesh, but not identical with it. And "flesh" here means the whole human nature and not merely body. II. Jno. 1:7. Deceivers confess not that Jesus Christ is come IN the flesh. I. Tim. 3:16, Manifested in the flesh. These passages draw a distinction between the Logos and the flesh in which he was manifested. This ought to dispose of any transmutation theory. When the Catechism says: "God became man" it means that God united himself with man, so that he appeared as a man; and not that he changed himself into a man. (d) In the theanthropic person there is a union and communion of natures (koinonia idiomatum) ; but not a communication, impartation, or transfer of the attributes of one nature to the other (communicatio idiomatum). The humanity does not impart its limitation to the divine nature, and the divine nature does not make the humanity infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. The Lu- therans hold the communication of divine attributes to the glorified humanity of Christ to support the doctrine of consubstantiation, so as to have an inexhaustible body of Christ in the Lord's Supper. But we think that if divine attributes are conferred on —147— the human it ceases to be human, and if human attributes are transferred to God he would cease to be God. The human does not become divine nor the divine human. The attributes of matter cannot be transferred to spirit, nor the attributes of spirit to matter; but they may exist in a personal union as is the case with our bodies and souls. But there is a union and communion of natures in the theanthropos which does impart knowledge and power without making" the human divine. I can impart know- ledge and inspiration to you; but I cannot impart the sub- stance or faculties of niy mind. The Jews said: How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Christ's knowledge was more than that gained in ordinary ways. The human Jesus had as much knowledge and power as the divine nature contributed to him; but that doubtless limited by a human capability. If he knew the thoughts of men, read their hearts, it was the divine nature that conveyed such knowledge to the human mind of Christ, and the human was the medium of expression for the divine mind. If he was ignorant of the day of judgment, it was because the divine nature had not disclosed the thing to his human intelligence. When Christ was a babe in the manger his divine nature was just as omnipotent and omniscient as ever but did not manifest itself at that time. Avoid the error that the divine nature came upon Christ first at his baptism. The relation of the human mind in Christ to the divine mind was similar to the relation of a prophet's mind to God. As the prophet Isaiah could know no more of the secrets of God than God disclosed to him, so the human mind of Christ could know no more than the Logos made known. General Remark: — There is in the Godhead three persons in one sub- stance. There is in Jesus Christ three substances, human bod3^ human soul, and a divine nature. In man there is one person in two substances. In Jesus Christ there are two sets of faculties; a human mind, feeling and will; and a divine mind, affec- tion and will; and these two sets of faculties are so united as to constitute but one person. —148— 6. Christ's sinlessness and impeccability. (a) Sinlessness means without sin. Impeccability means not conquerable by sin. One is expressed by "posse non peccare." The other by "non posse peccare." (b) Christ is universally believed to be sinless. (c) All are not agreed as to his impeccability. Some say that temptation implies the possibility of sin and if it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal. But it is answered that there may be a high degree of temptation where there is no possibility of its succeeding. Impeccability means not that temptation could not appeal to Christ, but that it could not conquer him. This was due to the support of his divine nature, as the divine nature would be involved in culpability if the person yielded to sin. No temptation to Christ arose out of a sinful nature as is true of man; but the solicitation addressed to his holy nature may have been quite as powerful. Heb. 4:15, Tenipted in all points like as we are yet without sin perhaps means that he was tempted as we are except by those desires that arise from inward evil. 7. Errors as to the Person of Christ. (a) Denial of His humanity. The Gnostics denied Christ's humanity on the ground of their Manichaean philosophy. That philosophy taught that evil arises from matter. Man consists of a spirit combined with a material body and bj^ this union with the material the spirit is defiled. Salvation therefore consists in emancipation from the body. To effect this redemption Christ came into the world. It was necessary he should appear as a man; but as he could not be connected with matter and retain his spirituality his body was only a phantasm, a mere appear- ance without substance or reality. He therefore was not born nor did he suffer and die. Some admitted he had a body not of matter but some ethereal or celestial sub- stance. The Docetae were a Gnostic sect who made this posi- tion famous. (b) Denial of His Divinity. The Arians held that God was one eternal person and that Christ was the first created being, by whom God created the world, super-angelic, became incarnate in —149— Jesus of Nazareth. Nevertheless he was a creature of dif- ferent substance from God, — Heteroousios. The Semi-Arians held that the absolute self-existent God was one person. The Son was a Divine Person, not equal with the Father, not identical in substance, but similar, — Homoiousios. The orthodox of that day said that Christ was of the same nature with the Father, — Homoousios. Unitarians now deny the Deity of Christ. They con- sider Him a mere man. (c) The Apollinarians held that the Logos took the place of the human soul; so that Jesus Christ was a human body plus a Divine Spirit. They were led to this because many of them believed that even man's soul was part of the divine substance. They therefore attacked the two complete natures in Christ. (d) The Nestorians denied the union of the two na- tures in one person. They insisted on the distinction of the two natures till they practically made two persons. If there are two natures in Christ as separate as two shilling's why then there must be a human person that says I, and a divine person that says I. (e) The Eutychians went to the opposite extreme and said there was only one nature and that was divine. Everything- about Christ was divine, even His body was divine, it was the Logos that was born, and the Logos that suffered and died. Eutyches said that there were two natures before the union, but only one after it. The two natures were so united as to become one. (f) The Lutherans hold to the communication of divine attributes to the human nature, so that the human nature of Christ is Almighty, Omniscient, and Omni- present both as to soul and body. These divine attributes of the human nature were either concealed on earth or assumed at the ascension. (g) The Doctrine of modern Kenosis. i.e. emptying. Phil. 2:7. The Logos became man by reducing himself to the capacity of a babe and then increased in wisdom and power till at length he assumed divine nature. Like a great gas jet reduced to a spark and then turned up to full head. This makes God undeify Himself, makes the Re- deemer not truly man. He would not be the seed of Abraham if he had no human soul. —150— (h) The Socinians held that Christ was mere man in himself, had no prior existence but had a miraculous birth, and was baptised with the Holy Ghost and became Divine and is to be worshipped. The Unitarians are really a branch of the Socinians. (i) The Russelites like the Socinians believe that Christ was a man on earth but became God. We meet them by showing- that Christ was called God while on earth and claimed to be God while on. earth. He was called Son of God before He was born. (j) Pantheistic Christology. Pantheism recognizes no personal extramundane God. All things developed out of an impersonal something that always existed. God comes into visible form in the ma- terial universe, and into the highest form in the intelli- gence and consciousness of man. Incarnation means God existing in the human race. Religion consists in the recognition by man of his oneness or identity with God. He who has the greatest conviction and most vivid and abiding consciousness of this oneness with God is the most religious man. Jesus Christ was that man. He was the ideal man; not different in his origin from any other man but possessed with a greater God consciousness. For this reason he is called Divine or God. His material and spiritual substance was just the same as that of any other man; and he saves by bringing to mankind a better conception of their oneness with God, His death, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension are matters of no account. He does not save by His death and expiation; but by influence over men, in making them more conscious of their Godhood. Section III. His Mediatorial Offices. Cat. 23, What offices does Christ execute as our Redeemer? 1. The office of Prophet. Cat. 24. Christ is the revealer of God. (a) In the theophanies of the Old Testament. (b) In the inspiration of the prophets. (c) In the Incarnation, with its direct and personal teachings, e.g. I speak that which I have seen. (d) By the inspiration of the Apostles and others who wrote the Scriptures. —151— (e) Christ sent the Spirit by whom inspiration was g^iven, hence the Cat. says "By word and spirit." (f) There is no need of further revelation. Rev. 22:18, "If any one shall add." 2. The office of a Priest. Cat. 25. (a) What is a Priest? Heb. 5:1. "Every high priest is ordained for men in thing's pertaining to God that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for men." Heb. 8:3. "As every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices therefore it is needful that this one also have something to offer." In the Old Testament the priest offered expiatory sacrifices on the ground of which men's sins were remitted. He came to God for men, presented sacrifices and inter- ceded for them. He was thus a mediator between God and man. The Old Testament priesthood was a type of Christ's priesthood. (b) The priesthood was fulfilled in Christ. There is now no priest in the strict sense of that word. There is no expiatory sacrifice now to be offered. Christ did that once for all. Christ did not appoint priests to offer sacrifices but he did appoint teachers and preachers to minister to the church. Romanists teach that salvation can be obtained only through the intervention of the priest; because the sacra- ments are the channels of grace and to be available must be administered by men canonically ordained. Hence they have priests, and call the Lord's Supper an atoning sacrifice, a real expiation of sin, in which Christ's sacrifice is repeated. (c) The important feature of the priestly office called the Atonement will be considered under a special head. (d) Christ makes intercession at God's throne for his people. He presents his plea on the ground of his atone- ment. To make the Virgin Mary an intercessor between man and Christ is derogatory to Christ and attributes undue prerogatives to a human being. 3. The Office of a King. (a) God as Creator was and is sovereign over all his creatures. (b) By the fall man revolted to the kingdom of Satan. (c) God re-established his kingdom on earth by a covenant requiring faith in a Redeemer. —152— (d) Entrance into this kingdom was by personal ac- ceptance of the covenant. (e) The kingdom assumed more and more organiza- tion as time went on; under the early patriarchs, Abraham, Moses and Christ. (f) Christ came as King. The kingdom had been in the world since Eden but the King was not visibly present. (g) Submission to the king, to his laws and rule, is essential to citizenship in the kingdom. (h) The kingdom is eternal, spiritual, both visible and invisible. (i) It is a mistake to suppose that the word "king- dom" in the Bible refers only to a future Millennial rule; or that the kingdom was removed from the world when Christ ascended; or that the church age is to be distin- guished from the kingdom age. (j) Catechism 26 describes Christ's office as King. Chapter V. The Atonement. Section I. The importance of the doctrine. 1. The Atonement is the central fact of Christianity. Any system that leaves out the Atonement is not Christi- anity. 2. This was the subject of the first promise; "The seed of the woman," etc. 3. Christ said: "To this end was I born, and for this purpose came I into the world." 4. The Atonement is that on which man's salvation depends. Whoever trifles with the atonement trifles with his own and the world's salvation. This is the danger of Christian Science. It repudiates the atonement by the suffering and death of Christ, and therefore repudiates the way of salvation. This is the danger of Unitarianism and all systems which make Christ but a man, and deny his expiatory death. — T53— Section II. Terms defined. To understand the doctrine of the atonement the terms must be discriminating-ly apprehended. 1. Atonement is not sufficiently defined by calHng- it at-one-ment. That expresses only one idea in the doctrine — namely the feature of reconciliation. The atonement means far more than that. 2. The word guilt expresses two thing's: ist, blame- worthiness, pollution, moral turpitude, criminality; 2nd, liability to punishment or penalty. 3. Expiation means purging out, washing away, cov- ering, making reparation or satisfaction; especially by suffering a penalty, — as expiating a crime. Paying the penalty implies the securing of remission. Expiation is a very important word in the doctrine of the atonement. 4. Propitiation means to appease or render favorable one who has been offended. Guilt is expiated and God propitiated. 5. Vicarious means substitutionary; a vicar is a sub- stitute or one who takes another's place. 6. Reconciliation means bringing into harmony or agreement. 7. Impute means to set to one's account. Rom. 2:26, Shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circum- cisiori? f Rom. 4:3, Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Our sins were imputed to Christ, his righteousness imputed to us. Thus in the Atonement a vicarious sacrifice expiates guilt, propitiates God, and reconciles God and man. Section III. The two-fold work of atonement. Christ effected the atonement: — 1. B5" obedience to the law. 2. By his sufferings and death. By his obedience Christ fulfilled the law expressed in the covenant of works, which Adam failed to keep, —154— By his sufferings and death he paid the penalty due for sin. The law offered life for obedience and threatened death for disobedience. The precept of the law as well as the penalty of the law must be fulfilled. Christ met all the demands of the law both precept and penalty. Had he failed in either, no atonement would have been made, and no redemption effected. The reality of the expiatory work is not confined entirely to the physical sufferings and death, or what is called the objective side of the atonement. The subjective side must have its weight. The physical suffering is not more important than the righteous disposition that led him to submit to it. The spiritual attitude of Christ toward the work of atonement has more qualitative value than the physical sufferings and death. We must feel that the atoning work was wrought by the spirit of Christ quite as much as by his bodily sacri- fice, or more. Distinguish carefully the usages of the terms subject- ive and objective in this connection. Christ's physical experiences are called objective, and his spiritual experiences subjective. There was therefore a subjective and an objective side to Christ's work. But the atonement as a whole was objective to man with a subjective result by way of application. Those theories that describe the atonement as merely subjective constitute one of the worst heresies of the age, since they deny the vicarious and expiatory aspects of Christ's work. Section IV. The Atonement Expresses the Total Di- vine Nature. 1. There can be no antagonism between any two or more of God's attributes. Some have stressed God's justice to the exclusion of his love, and some have stressed God's love till justice was ruled out. (a) Anselm made satisfaction necessai"y for the honor of God; which the theologians of the Reformation modi- fied to mean the justice of God, or the requirements of God's law. And while this later form of the satisfaction theory expresses an essential fact, it must be duly coupled with the love of God as the moving cause. "God so loved the world that he gave his Son." —155— "God comniendeth his love to us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for the ung"odly." The Atonement is the supreme expression of God's love; and it is the characteristic of love that it longs to impart itself and possess its object. To leave out God's love is to leave out the heart of the Atonement. (b) On the other hand, the moral influence advocates, from Abelard to Horace Bushnell, have stressed God's love to the exclusion of his justice. They repudiate substitu- tion, satisfaction, expiation, etc. as unnecessary and unde- sirable. Man is nioved by God's love, turns to God in view of his love; and atonement is nothing- but repentance. (c) God's nature is a perfect harmony, and every act of his is in perfect consistency with every attribute of that nature. Any view of the Atonement that leaves out of account any attribute of his nature is partial and to that extent misleading. Holiness is so essential to his nature that God cannot look upon sin with approval; and justice is so essential that sin cannot go unpunished. Love is so essential that holiness could not be perfect without it, and holiness in turn is so necessary to love that love would be capricious and erratic unless guided and controlled by holiness. The Atonement, therefore, is not the expression of one attribute of God's nature, but of all. 2. Again the Atonement is equally the expression of all persons of the Godhead. All views that place Father and Son in any degree of opposition, as if the Father had to be placated at the expense of the Son, are misleading and mischievous in their tendency. The Son is equally involved with the Father in the expression of his justice; and the Father is equally in- volved with the Son in the expression of his love and sacrifice. The Atonen:ient expresses the entire Godhead with all the divine attributes. Section V. The main features of the Atonement. 1. It was in one aspect sacrificial. (a) Some say "We are not saved by Christ's death, but by His life," — usually said by Unitarians. This class set up Christ as an example, but deny the efficacy of His death. Thus salvation comes as the reward of character and works, as we pattern after Christ; but everywhere the Scriptures stress Christ's death. (b) Christ's sacrifice was more than the sacrifice of a martyr. A man might be a martyr to a good cause, and his example very praiseworthy; but that sacrifice would make no atonement for sin. The meaning of Christ's death is miles deeper than mere martyrdom. (c) The sacrifices of the Old Testament were types of Christ's sacrifice, and whatever they meant, Christ's death must also mean. As they were sacrifices for sin, so Christ's death was a sacrifice for sin. (d) The New Testament represents Christ's death as a sacrifice. John 1:29, 36. Behold the Lamb of God. I. Cor. 5:7. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. Eph. 5:2. Christ hath given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God. Heb. 7:27. This He did once when He offered up Himself. Heb. 9:14. Offered Himself without spot to God. (This is said after a reference to Old Testament sacrifice.) Heb. 9:23. Christ a better sacrifice. Heb. 9:26. Now hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacri- fice of Himself. Heb. 10:12. But He, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God. Man^'' of these texts being s]:)ecifically addressed to Jewish Christians, could bear no other meaning than this, that Christ was a sacrifice in the same sense as the sacri- ficial offerings of the Old Testament dispensation. 2. The Atonement was expiatory. (a) Statement: In the atonement, Christ paid the penalty of sin, fulfilled the law. satisfied justice, and se- cured remission. Catechism: How does Christ execute the office of Priest? Confession of Faith, Heidelburg Cat- echism No. 60, Formula of Concord, and all Lutheran and Reformed confessions make similar statements. (b) Proof from the Old Testament. The sacrificial rites of the Old Testament show how penalty was exacted, and remission and forgiveness de- clared. Lev. IV. and VI. describe the sacrificial atonement for sin. Lev. 1:4. And he shall put his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. This placing of the hand on the head showed the transfer of the guilt of the offerer to the offering. Lev. 4:3-4. The sin of a priest: Shall bring bullock, lay hand on head, kill the bullock, and sprinkle the blood before the Lord. Lev. 4:13-20. Sin of whole congregation: bring a bullock, lay hand on head, kill, and sprinkle blood. Vs. 20: And the priest shall make an atonement for them and it shall be forgiven them. —157— Lev. 4:22. When a ruler hath sinned: bring an offering. Vs. 26: And the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning- his sin, and it shall be forgiven him. Lev. 4:27. If any one of common people sin through ignorance. Vs. 29: Lay his hand and slay. Vs. 31: Priest shall make atone- ment, and it shall be forgiven. See also Lev. 4:35, Lev. 5:10, Lev. 5:13, Lev. 5:16, Lev. 5:18, Lev. 6:7. All show sin expiated by sacriiice and forg"iven. Lev. 16 gives rites of Day of Atonement. All point to expia- tion and removal of sin. The rites on the grteat Day of Atonement included the sprinkling of blood on the mercy-seat, showing how the blood stood between the law and the sinner. The law cursed the transgressor, but the blood removed the curse. Lev. 16:8-10, 21, 22. Two goats, one sacrificed — one called scape- goat, led away to the wilderness. Ohe goat sacrificed to show the paying of the penalty, and one led away to show the removal of guilt. Lev. 17:11. It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. II. Chron. 29:23-24. And they brought forth the he-goats for the sin-offering before the king and congregation, and they laid their hands upon them, and the priests killed them and made reconciliation with their blood upon the altar, to make an atone- ment for all Israel. The Passover shows how all were delivered who were behind the blood. (c) Proof from the New Testament. The New Testament puts Christ's death in the same lig"ht as the Old Testament sacrifices. John 1:29. "Behold! the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world." Matt. 26:28. "For this is my blood of the New Covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Rom. 5:9. "Being justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him." Heb. 1:3. "When he had by himself purged our sins." Heb. 9:13-14. "For the blood of bulls and goats sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works to worship the living God. Heb. 9:22. "And almost all things arie by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9:26. "But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:28. "So also Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." Heb. 10:4. "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins." Heb. 10:9-10. "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified thrlough the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Heb. 10:12. "But he, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God." Heb. 10:14. "Foi^ by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -158- I. John 1:7. "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." Rev. 1:5. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood." Rev. 7:14-15. "These have come up out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in the temple; and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them." No one can look at this array of Scripture teaching" and fail to see the expiatory nature of Christ's death. 3. It was vicarious. The vicarious feature of the atonement is so essential that no unvicarious theory, in any adequate wa^^ repre- sents the facts or the meaningr of the atonement. (a) Proofs of the Old Testament. All those passages already cited which describe the laying" of hands on the head of the victim teach the trans- fer of guilt to the victim and the vicarious nature of the offering. This is plainly taught in: Lev. 1:4. "And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him." Lev. 16:21. "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over him all the iniquities of the chil- dren of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness." The priest confesses over the head of the scape goat all the iniquities and transgressions of Israel. Lev. 16:22. "And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniqui- ties unto a land not inhabited." This shows the imputation of the guilt of the offerer to the offering. The name by which the victim was called:— viz. sin offering", or guilt offering indicated the transfer of the sin or g"uilt to the offering. Isa. 53:4-5. "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgr'essions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." Isa. 53:11. "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifi' many; for he shall bear their iniquities." Isa. 53:12. "Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: he was numbered with the trans- gressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." —159— (b) Proof from the New Testament. Jno. 1:29, Christ is called the Lamb of God. If the Lamb was a substitute in the Old Testament economy the inference is that Christ was such. Matt. 20:28, Christ came to give His life a ransom for many, the word "for" is in Greek "anti" which always means "in stead of" therefore as a substitute. Mk. 10:45, same. 11. Cor. 5:15, If one died for all then all died. The preposition "for" is "huper" which sometimes means "in behalf of" and some- times denotes substitution. The sense in this place requires the idea of substitution. II. Cor. 5:21, He made him to be sin for us; plainly the "for" implies substitution. Gal. 3:13, Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law having been made a curse for (huper) us. The idea is plainly one of substitution. I. Peter 3:18, Christ once suffered for sins, the righteous for (huper) the unrighteous. See, The Atonement, R. W. Dale, pp. 133-137-) Heb. 9:28, says he bore the sins of many, their sins were laid on him as the sins were on the head of the goat. I. Pet. 2:24, Who himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sins should live unto righteousness by whose stripes we were healed. (For an extended discussion of this passage see The Atonement, R. W. Dale, pp. 131-138.) 4. It satisfied the demands of justice or the Law. The law of God cannot be annulled neither can its demands be lowered. How should man be just with God? is the cry of the awakened conscience. But how shall God be just and justify the ungodly, was the question that divine love set itself to answer. Love says: Save the sinner. Justice says: Exact the penalty. Both are attributes of God. How then shall God be just and justify the ungodly? The atonement of Christ is the answer. The atonement of Jesus Christ satisfies the demands of justice and answers the cry of divine love, and as well gives the awakened conscience a sufficient ground of hope. Rom. 5:9, Being justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him. Rom. 3:25, Whom God hath set forth a propitiation (mercy seat) through faith in his blood to manifest his righteousness in passing over sins. Rom. 3:26, That he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. Rom. Chap. 2-4, argues thus: All are sinners. All are con- demned by the law for sin. God effects redemption by Christ. Redemption is received by faith. Rom. 7:4, Ye were made dead to the law through the body of Christ. Illustrated by a wife set free from the law. Rom. 8:1-2, There is now no condemnation, etc. — r6o — Gal. 2:16, Man is not justified by the works of the law, but only by faith in Jesus Christ. Gal. 3:13, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us. Gal. 4:4-5, God sent forth his Son to redeem them that were under the law. Rom. 10:4, Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth, 11. Cor. 5:21, He made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Phil. 3:9, Not having thine own righteousness but the righteous- ness which is of God by faith. The rite in the Holy of Holies showed that the de- mands of the law were met by the blood of the sacrifice. The present-day New Theology demands the remission of sin without atonement. It makes light of sin and abrogates the law. The whole teaching of the Bible in the rites of the Old Testament, and in the facts and teachings of the New Testament shows that a substitute always bears the pen- alty when sin is forgiven. Heb. 9:22, Without shedding of blood there is no remission. Dr. Shedd page 392 says: "If penalty were remitted by sovereignty merely, without any judicial ground or reason whatever: — if it were inflicted neither upon the sinner nor upon his substitute, this would be the ABOLITION of penalty, not the remission of it." 5. It was Sufficient. (a) Christ's sufferings were not equal in kind and amount to all that which a lost race would have suffered. (b) Neither was it a little taken for much (accepta- tione gratuita). God could not accept an insignificant penalty for the sins of the race. Else the blood of bulls and goats would have been sufficient. If anything less could have availed then Christ need not have come. This doctrine of acceptatio or acceptilation was the view, of the Remonstrants.^ and of Duns Scotus before them. l(The Remonstrants were a branch of the Arminians residing in Holland. Grotius was one of their able defenders.) The Remonstrants denied that Christ's work was a satisfaction of justice and said that it was just a condition on which God agreed to remit sin. They said that the sacrifice of bulls and goats was no equivalent for trans- gression but God saw fit to make that a ground of remis- sion and so also with Christ's death. They said, the holder of a captive can take what he pleases as the condition of deliverance though it be in no —161— comparison to the value of the captive. So Christ made no real satisfaction for sin but God in his sovereignty can take it as such. But this is open to the objection that "the sovereignty that compels justice to be content with less than its dues can compel it to be content with nothing." — Shedd II. 453. "If a government has power and authority to say that fifty cents shall go for a dollar, it has power to extinguish debts altogether and to say that nothing shall go for a dollar."- — vShedd II. p. 453. "The principle of justice surrendered in part is surren- dered altogether." (c) Christ's atonement had an inherent worth that rendered it a complete satisfaction. (d) Christ being a person of infinite worth and dig- nity made an atonement of infinite value, and therefore sufficient for all time and all men. Heb. 7:25, Wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost who come unto God by him. 6. The Atonement is propitiatory and reconciliatory. (a) The atonement of Christ propitiates God, renders him favorable or gracious and reconciliation is effected between God and man. (b) The question arises whether God is reconciled to man, or man to God; whether the atonement effects a change in God toward man, or in man toward God. (c) The Scriptural teaching bearing on this point is expressed thus: Rom. 5:1, Being justified by faith we have peace with God. Rom. 5:9, Being now justified in his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him. II. Cor. 5:18, God hath reconciled us to himself through Christ 11. Cor. 5:19, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. II. Cor. 5:20, We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. Col. 1:21, And you who were once alienated and enemies, yet now hath he reconciled. (d) The obvious meaning is that the atonement pri- marily affects God's relation to the sinner; bj^ satisfying his justice, removing his just displeasure against man as a sinner, and affording the basis of grace and pardon. The evident purpose of an ancient sacrifice was to appease the deity to which it was offered; and Christ's sacrifice was "to save -from wrath" and open the way for reconciliation. — 162 — Ultimately the change affects man; and by the grace of God leads to a subjective change in him by which he is reconciled to God. This is directly ascribed to the atonement. In brief, the atonement expiates sin, propitiates God, and reconciles first God to man, and second man to God. Section VI. Objections to the Atonement. The Atonement is receiving- a fire of criticism in this day. It is one of the doctrines most strenuously attacked. A certain preacher said bluntly in a recent sermon: "It is nowhere said in the Scriptures that Christ is an atonement for sin." While the word "atonement" is not directly applied to Christ, yet he is called "the lamb of God," "a ransom," "our Passover," etc. He is shown to be our substitute, and to have purg:ed our sins, and to have reconciled us to God. All the elements included in the work of atonement are ascribed to Jesus Christ. One would have to destroy the whole Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation to g^et out of them the doctrine of the Atonement. A few of the objections are as follows: 1. That neither guilt nor righteousness can be trans- ferred from one to another. There is a sense in which this is true and a sense in which it is not true. Our guilt considered as moral turpi- tude and pollution of nature and character was not trans- ferred to Jesus Christ; but guilt in the sense of penalty or liability to punishment was transferred. If it is possible for one man to pay the debt of another, or become a substitute for another, it was possi- ble for Christ to pay our debt and to be our substitute. 2. That it represents God as unmerciful, cruel, vin- dictive, and blood-thirsty in requiring" a sacrifice of a life to appease his wrath. (a) It was an act of mercj^ to mankind to permit a substitute. (b) It was a greater act of mercy that God not only permitted a substitute but that he himself provided one, and himself became that substitute. (c) Since the law of God could not be annulled nor lowered and sin could not go unpunished, God himself in the person of his Son submitted to the penalty in order to -163- set man free. That was mercy in the superlative. God so loved the world that he gave his Only-begotten Son. After reading John 3:16, no man can deny God's mercy. 3. That there is no need of an atonement. This is a very prevalent objection at the present day. It is said that all that is necessary is for the sinner to repent and for God to forgive him on the ground of his repentance. (a) But that is not God's view of the matter. God has taught us something very different in his word. From end to end the Bible teaches that salvation is only by a vicarious sacrifice. It is God's place to state the conditions on which man may be saved. It is man's business to accept the condi- tions as God has laid them down. Man is not yet wiser than God. Since God has provided a vicarious sacrifice it is not for man to say there is no need of it. That is inex- cusable presumption. It is teaching for doctrines the com- mandments of men. (b) If man should repent and obey perfectly there- after, that would be but his duty anyway under the re- quirements of God's law; but could not atone for years of transgression before repentance occurred and obedience began. The law that has been broken and the wrong that has been done requires atonement. (c) God cannot remit sin without atonement because he has threatened to punish it, and his veracity is at stake. He has declared that the wages of sin is death. The day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." "How shall God be just and justify the ungodly?" Athanasius answered this objection in his day. "Sup- pose," he says, "that God should merely require repentance in order to salvation. This would not be improper in itself did it not conflict with the veracity of God. God cannot be untruthful even for our benefit. Repentance does not satisfy the demands of truth and justice. If the question pertained solely to the corruption of sin, and not to the guilt and ill desert of it, repentance might be sufficient." One could wish that Athanasius had said a little more on this line. The corruption of sin is only one side of it. Reformation does not satisfy the whole requirement in regard to it. The guilt and ill desert of sin is the other side of it. God's perfect law and God as a perfect gov- ernor cannot ignore either aspect of sin. In his provision for man's salvation God has had due regard for every — 164 — aspect of sin and g'uilt. To ignore the guilt and deal only with the pollution of sin would compromise the essential attributes of God. Moreover if repentance alone is neces- sary, the whole incarnation is useless, and Christ has come and died without sufficient reason. (d) Sin cannot be pardoned without atonement be- cause God is the moral ruler of the universe and cannot sacrifice the interests of moral government. Sin is not merely a private matter. It concerns the government of the world. Private rights may be relinquished but not public welfare nor universal laws. The objection, if true, would lower God's attribute of righteousness and destroy regard for all law. (e) The atonement best displays God's glory and con- serves man's highest good. If God inexorably demanded the punishment of sin and refused any substitute he could not display his mercj^ If he excused sin without atone- ment he could not display his holiness and justice. If either of these attributes were obscured in man's sight, then man would not feel constrained to be better than his God. The atonement vindicates every attribute of God and reveals his nature to man for his admiration and emula- tion. 4. Another objection is that it is unjust to punish the innocent for the guilty. This objection, as most of the others, proceeds from the Unitarian standpoint in making an absolute distinction between the offering and the offerer. If God had laid the penalty on some innocent being without his consent, that would have been injustice; but if God himself assumed the penalty it was no injustice to man, and no injustice to him who voluntarily assumed it; but rather the expression of divine and infinite love. 5. If sin is punished it cannot be forgiven, and if forgiven it cannot be punished. This objection is illustrated thus: "If a murderer is pardoned he cannot be hanged, and if hanged he cannot be pardoned." This is answered thus: "If a murderer is pardoned the law is simply set aside and justice not exacted. But God's mercy and justice are both better exhibited in the substi- tute who bears the penalty and secures the remission." The illustration does not fit the case because in God's government mercy and justice must both be displayed. -165- 6. Another objection is that Christ could not suffer the penalty of sin without enduring remorse and eternal death. Christ's infinite dignity and worth gave to his suffer- ings an infinite value which was full legal equivalent for the sins of a race; and more than sufficient for all the penalty due to the whole race, for all the suft'erings of the race would be only finite at most. 7. Atonement leads to Anti-nomianism. That means that if Christ satisfied the law we may be negligent of it. It is a sufficient answer to say that "faith without works is dead." Section VII. Theories of the Atonement. 1. Patristic Theories. (a) Satan conquered mankind and made them his slaves. Christ conquered Satan and delivered man from bond- age. (b) Satan conquered Adam and enslaved his posterit5^ To deliver man Christ offered himself as a ransom to Satan and Satan accepted the offer but Christ broke the bonds of Satan because there was no sinfulness in Christ by which Satan could hold him. (c) Satan's right to. man rested on man's sinfulness; but when Satan accomplished the death of Christ he pre- sumed on rights that were not his and as a penalty for- feited his claim to mankind. 2. The Governmental Theory. God as a moral governor cannot let sin go unpun- ished. To exhibit his hatred of sin God inflicted its pun- ishment on Jesus Christ. It was designed to warn the impenitent that they cannot escape. It was just a great exhibition of God's displeasure against sin. The Atonement was didactic. It was a mere symbol. Dorner (Volume IV. page 121) says: "The reason why Christ is the most potent symbol of atonement is because he is more than a symbol, because in him the atonement has become present reality. Were his life and suffering not operative, but mere symbol, they could then scarcely signify what this theory supposes. How far is such suffering, supposed to be a —166— divinely ordained symbol, from suggesting a manifesta- tion of divine love, unless such divinely inflicted suffering mediates and affects forgiveness, instead of merely signi- fying or promulgating it." 3. The Moral Influence Theory. , This theory denies the expiatory and vicarious nature of Christ's work and assigns its value to the moral effect produced by Christ's teaching, example and manifestation of self-sacrificing love. According to this theory Christ is not an expiatory sacrifice, not a substitute for man, paid no penalty, made no satisfaction to justice. But he is a teacher, an example, and a manifestation of divine love. He saves not by his death but by his life. He produces a moral effect thereby on the hearts and minds of men, — hence the designation "Moral Influence Theory." This view was taught by Horace Bushnell in his "Vicarious Sacrifice," by W. New- ton Clarke, "An Outline of Christian Theology," pp. 337- 358. It characterizes generally the systems known as "New Theology." 4. The Pantheistic View of the Atonement. Man is the highest form of God, but at first he does not know it. He is thus at variance with his own true nature. When he comes to the knowledge of his unity with God, this variance is taken away. This is called reconciliation. He now knows himself to be one with God. This is atonement on its subjective side. . But what has Christ to do with this? What part does he play in effecting the atonement? This the question on the objective side. Christ's place in this view was this: Christ most of all men realized his God-oneness. In him the God-con- sciousness was perfect. This was his gospel. By his teaching, his example, and his own perfect realization of God-oneness he leads others into that realization for them- selves. This is how he effects the atonement. Schleiermacher, perhaps not so radical a pantheist as some others, enlarges on this view. According to him Christ bore our sins in this way: — Christ saw deeply into the nature of sin; observed its prevalence; and the misery and ruin it caused. This op- pressed him and wore on his spirit, so that he suffered with the suffering world, and bore the burden of the world's sin. This suffering of the world stirred Christ's sympathy in the most powerful way. His sympathy goes out to man — 167 — and leads him into painful struggle for human betterment. This is Christ's active work in atonement. That sympath}^ draws us into fellowship with him by faith in him, to the effect of our greater holiness and blessedness. This is the subjective result in this process of atonement. The effect on God is that God sees us in this union with Christ, and is well pleased, and determines to let salvation flow to us through Christ's mediation, and for his sake. Thus Christ becomes our substitute. See Dorner IV. p. 49-53, for more extensive statement. 5. Remarks. In all these theories there is some truth but all are defective and incomplete. We must recognize the truth and reject the error. The Patristic theories rightly hold to deliverance from the power of Satan, but fail to express the other important features of the atonement. The Governmental theory is right in saying that the atonement teaches God's displeasure with sin, but that is only one point in many. The Moral theory stresses the subjective effect of the atonement on the individual, while denying the main objective facts. The Pantheistic view ignores entirely every objective and historical fact, except perhaps the exalted character of Christ. Schleiermacher's brand of it writes the atonement in the terms of experience with little regard for the Biblical record or an^^ external authority". The complete answer to all these theories is the exhi- bition of the true nature of the atonement as taught in the Scriptures. All theories of the atonement are efforts in the right direction, viz. to understand and express its meaning; but quite likely any or all of them fall short of a perfect expression. It takes the whole Bible to explain the atonement. Our widest conceptions may touch only the fringe of its meaning. The atonement in its height and depth and length and breadth is beyond our mental and spiritual limitations. Before the cross of Calvary the world has paused and gazed and wept and worshipped in adoring wonder, and well it may. However, the Scriptures plainly show certain features of the atonement which have been set forth above. These, —168— for convenience, are sometimes called the satisfaction theory, or vicarious theory; though we may question the propriety of the term "theory." Expiation, substitution, etc., are rather FACTS of the atonement than a theory. Strictly the theory pertains to the questions: how the atonement expiates sin; how it made satisfaction; to what was the satisfaction made; and how did it affect man? The early fathers said it ransomed man from Satan. The governmental theory said it was purely didactic, and its effect was educational. The moral influence theory says it was a stimulating- example. Anselm said it satis- fied God's honor. The Reformers that it satisfied the justice of God or the law of God. In recognizing the truth in the satisfaction of the divine nature in the atonement, we must avoid postu- lating an antagonism between any two or more of the divine attributes, as if God's justice and holiness were in opposition to his mercy and love, or that one set of attri- butes were satisfied at the expense of the other. God's nature is an undisturbed unity; his attributes are not inde- pendent of each other any more than the faculties of the human soul. There is love in his justice and justice in his love. The whole divine being expresses himself in the exercise of any attribute as the whole man does in think- ing, feeling, and volition. The atonement is a satisfaction to God's love as well as to his justice. The transaction is the harmonious blending of all sides of the divine nature in united exer- cise. Section VIII. The Vicarious versus the Moral View. As has been shown, the Scriptures teach a sacrificial, vicarious, expiatory, objective atonement. The only the- ory, which, in this age, is a rival or opponent of this is the Moral View. In addition to the proof already given, another line of argument shows the truth of the Vicarious View and the impossibility of fitting the Moral View to the teachings of the Scriptures. The proof of an objective, sacrificial, vicarious atone- ment is not confined merely to a strict interpretation of bare proof-texts, valuable as they are; but in several epistles the whole argument, in its subject, course, and peculiar turns, depends for its intelligibility on the under- lying conception of an objective, vicarious atonement. — 169 — 1. Argument from the epistle of James. The epistle of James condemns anti-nomianism. Let us ask on what view of the atonement would anti-nomianism arise in the Christian church. Plainly on the ground of a vicarious atonement. It is perfectly con- ceivable how a man might excuse his own direlictions on the ground of a substituted righteousness; and hence anti- nomianism would result. But such a situation would be impossible on the ground of the Moral Theory. Whatever virtues the Moral Theory lacks it certainly possesses the virtue of making anti-nomianism impossible. If men are justified on the ground of subjective character and not by an imputed righteousness, anti-nomianism could find no ground on which to stand. But anti-nomianism did appear in the early church, and men assumed that they could be justified by faith without works. James was obliged to resist the error and to declare that faith without works is dead. But all this shows that the vicarious nature of the atonement had been taught in the early church by the Apostles. Such a view, good and true as it is, would be open to just this misconception by the errorists, as the Moral Theory would not. Thus by the errors that arose and the arguments used against them we may discover what truth lay beneath. 2. Argument from the Epistle to the Romans. In the epistle to the Romans Paul states the funda- mental conception of Christianity-. He begins by showing the guilt of all mankind. And that the guilt of men exposes them to the wrath and judgments of God. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness," i:i8. He brings in the whole world as guilty before God, and proves both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin. "There is none righteous, no not one," "All the world is guilty before God" and "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." How then? "Being justified freely by his grace through the REDEMPTION that 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." — 170 — • From the doom and danger of God's wrath against sin and against us as sinners we are delivered by the propitia- tion made by the blood and therefore thus being delivered we have peace, not merely and primarily subjective peace; but the line of logic is that the danger from God's wrath has passed away, and he is at peace with us; "for being now justified by his blood we are saved from wrath through him;" "for when we were enemies we were recon- ciled to God by the death of his Son." What are the steps here? First, A guilty world. Second, The wrath of God against all sin and sinners. Third, Propitiation by the blood of Christ. Fourth, Deliverance from condemnation and peac'3 with God. Does this line of argument indicate that Paul believed in a sacrificial and vicarious atonement, or in the viev/ known as the Moral Theory? Would this have been Paul's argument if he had believed in the Moral Theory. Cer- tainly not. If Paul had held to the theory in question his argu- ment would have run thus: First, A world morally weak rather than guilty. Second, A God of pity and love; but no mention of Avrath against sinners. Third, An inspiring example in the life of Jesus Christ; but no propitiation by blood. Fourth, A justification by man's own works and char- acter excited by the example of Christ. But that is not Paul's argument. The whole argument of Paul and the first half of the epistle to the Romans would be unintelligible on the ground of the Moral The- ory. The case is strengthened greatly when we further con- sider the slander of Paul's enemies. The objection which the enemies make reveals explicitly the view which Paul proclaimed. "As we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil that good may come, whose damnation is just." —3:18. Paul ag-ain refers to the charge in 6:1:— 'What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" Paul had been accused of preaching a gospel that did not require a man to cease from sin; that is, an objective and not a subjective salvation. Paul's doctrine was open to this misconception. How easily the enemies could make this charge against a justification based on a vicar- ious atonement! They were quick to make the thrust. —171— But against a Moral Theory of the atonement, against a subjective justification no such charge would have been made. From such a standpoint it would be utterly irrelevant to raise the question: Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? "Some affirm that we say: 'Let us do evil that good may come.' " The charge was a slander; but if Paul had represented the work of Christ, not as a sacrificial and vicarious one, but as an inspiring example, luring men and exciting them to loftiness and holiness of life, the slander would have been impossible. The objection of Paul's enemies shows what he taught, viz. a vicarious atonement. And furthermore it is beyond dispute that Paul's whole argument would be meaningless on the basis of the Moral Theory. 3. Argument from the Epistle to the Galatians. The epistle to the Galatians reveals the fact that the Judaizers had tempted these unstable Christians to revert to the law as a requisite to salvation. Paul in this epistle endeavors to show how irrational it was for the Gentiles to have recourse to the Jewish law that could not save the Jews themselves. The law instead of saving condemned all who trans- gressed. "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them." Gal. 3:10. The law subjected Jews and Gentiles alike to a curse. But a promise had been given to Abraham that in him all nations should be blessed, Gal. 3:8. How then shall the promises to Abraham be fulfilled? How shall they be blessed whom the law curses? This question the Jew must face as well as the Gentile. How does Paul answer that question? Here Paul brings in the death of Christ. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for' us." — Gal. 3:13. "That the Blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." — Gal. 3:14. Paul's argument is this: The law pronounces a curse on every man, Jews and Gentiles alike. Christ has can- celed that curse for Jew and Gentile alike who believe on him. How foolish for the Gentile to put himself under the law that cursed him, in lieu of the redemption that Christ achieved by canceling that curse! Now ask: Would this have been Paul's argument if he had not believed in an objective atonement? —172— Can we remove from this passage the idea that Christ endured the penalty or the curse of the law? If Christ bore no penalty in his sacrifice on the cross what becomes of Paul's argument in Galatians? If Paul had held the modern Moral Theory he certain- ly would have encouraged the Galatians to repudiate all faith in a vicarious enduring of the curse and trust for justification to obedience to the law. But all Paul's argu- ment and appeal is based on the fact of Christ's enduring the curse and redeeming man therefrom. In addition to the proof based upon the epistles we continue the argument with the following considerations. 4. All the virtues claimed by the Moral Influence Theory are included in the orthodox doctrine, and more. The love of God is as much manifest in sending his Son to die as an expiatory sacrifice as it would be if Christ were only a heroic and inspiring example. The moral effect on the hearts of men in inciting them to faith and emulation is just as great on the orthodox view as on the other. Every advantage and value that the Moral Influence advocates can claim are duplicated in the expiatory view, and far more. 5. The Moral Influence doctrine is efficacious only where it is known and understood. It could have no pos- sible relevancy to infants, incapables and heathen. It is only available to those who understand it. It is therefore limited in its application, and is frequently coupled with a doctrine of second probation to supplement its defi- ciencies. 6. The Moral Influence Theory substitutes one effect of the atonement for the atonement itself. The end to be attained is the remission of sin and the eventual sanctifi- cation of the believer; but to the question, how this is to be effected, the answer is, by the atonement in its making and its application. The result is one thing, the cause another thing. 7. Horace Bushnell in his "Vicarious Sacrifice" has made himself the most illustrious advocate of the Moral Influence Theory in America. But in a subsequent work, "Forgiveness and Law," he modifies considerably his for- mer position, and admits much that he had previously denied. It is also stated on respectable authority that Dr. Bushnell confessed on his dying bed: "I fear what I have —173— written and said upon the moral idea of the atonement is misleading and will do much harm." And further that he exclaimed in view of death: "O Lord Jesus, I trust for mercy onlj' in the shed blood that thou didst offer on Calvary." 8. The Moral Influence Theory' g'ives no sufficient explanation of the sacrificial rites of the Old Testament, nor of the language of the New Testament referring to the death of Christ. 9. The Moral Influence Theorj' is a theory of sub- jective atonement; but the whole value of it must rest upon the objective facts of Christ's historical work. Take awaj^ the objective facts of the atonement and the sub- jective value goes also. All the value that a subjective atonement has is due to the objective reality. 10. The convictions of the universal human mind conclude that God's will is identical with the eternal law of righteousness, and that righteousness must be expressed in the divine acts. God's nature and man's nature as well declare that sin deserves punishment. God must punish sin, or God and the law of righteousness are at odds, and the Avhole moral universe in chaos. If God does not assert his righteousness b}^ punishing sin in the offender he must assert it in some way that will vindicate his holy nature in the eyes. of the moral universe. In the atonement God mercifully spares the offender and at the same time vindicates and manifests his right- eousness in a far more glorious manner than the punish- ment of the offender could have done. The sacrificial and expiatory nature of the atonement is demanded by the nature of God and the eternal law of righteousness. Section IX. Eternal Atonement. Is the atonement merely historical, or does it express eternal relations? Is it something wrought out in a few brief years and culminating in a few brief hours some nineteen hundred years ago? Is the whole idea of the atonement comprised in that fulfilling of precept and bearing of penalty- effected in Christ's incarnation, obedi- ence and death? Or is the atonement as eternal as the attributes of the Godhead, and based upon an essential, or substantial, or causal relation of the Deity to the human race? —174— 1. Dr. Roswell D. Hitchcock left a volume of ser- mons entitled "Eternal Atonement." In them he states his view of eternal atonement in these words: "His agony over sin is eternal. This agony of God over human sin is 'the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.' God himself atones; to himself atones; and so atonement is both eternal and divine." "This I may believe and this I must believe, that the atonement in which I cast the anchor of my hope is not temporal but eternal. God within himself, inflicted that upon himself, and suffered that from himelf, into which angels have never looked, and never can." A much more advanced position is taken by other theologians. 2. R. W. Dale, in his book "The Atonement," Lecture X., assumes that if the sacrificial and vicarious view of the atonement can be shown to rest upon the original relation of Christ to the human race, it will have a more secure foundation, and in fact without such basis it may be difficult to maintain the doctrine. This particular view of the atonement has not been generally apprehended by the church, and is not alto- gether easy of comprehension. Whether it is more scrip- tural or more speculative, its advocates seek, at least, to anchor it to revelation. Certain Scriptural expressions are laid as a basis. Jno. 1:2-3, All things were made by, or through, him and with- out him was not anything made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men. Heb. 1:2-3, By, or through, whom he made the worlds, wiio being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power etc. Col. 1:15-17, Who is the image of the invisible God, the first- born of every creature, or all creation; for by, or in, him were all things created — in heaven — and in earth,— ^and by him all things consist, or hold together. In these passages we have the Logos as creator and upholder, or the agency through which the divine power exerts its causal efficiency. "The image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" suggests that the Logos has a dual function in the relationship of Deity to the creation, that he stands officially between the two; that as in time he represents the perfection of the Godhead to the creature, so from eternity he represents to God the ideal perfection of all created things. In other words Christ, as "the firstborn of every creature," is the prophecy of creation, and, as "the image of the invisible God," he functions the perfections of the Deity to the intelligent universe. —175— From this dual function in the divine economy it is inferred that the relation of the Logos to the Godhead and the relation of the Logos to the universe, if not of the same nature, are at least equally vital. A vital relation between Christ and the human race thus becomes the basis of the atonement. This vital relation is supported by such expressions as: — "In him was life," — the life of the human race, — ^"and the life was the light of men," — that we died in him, that we are risen in him, — "abide in me," — "apart from me ye can do nothing," — "Christ liveth in me," — the church is the "body of Christ," — and "the fulness of him that filleth all in all." Etc., etc. In tliis view Christ is regarded as a representative of the race, but not a mere representative in the usual sense, not a representative by imputation, nor by a legal relation assumed for an exigency; but by virtue of a real union between the life of Christ and the life of the race. Christ is regarded as the ground and root of the uni- verse, and apart from him it could not continue to exist. And as head of the human race it is said: "Christ is, in very truth, by the original law of the universe, the repre- sentative of mankind." On this original and vital relation the atonement is founded. He is the life of humanity. He brings the race into the same relation to the Father that he himself enjoys. And this original relationship constitutes the reason why he should become a sacrifice and propitiation for mankind. He is not a mere substitute by "legal fic- tion," but represents the race because he is the life of the race. Accordingly if Christ must always represent the ideal relation of man to God, then, when sin came into the race, he could only continue to express such a relation by bearing the penalty which sin deserved. Hence the death of Christ restores the actual representation and we are permitted to retain or recover our original and ideal rela- tion to God through him. So it may be said that what Christ did to restore this relation is the ground on which men's sins are remitted. 3. A. H. Strong, in his Dogmatic Theolgy, presents a view similar to that of Dr. Dale, though somewhat more advanced. Dr. Strong's fundamental position is that Christ as immanent God is the life of humanity, and therefore re- sponsible for human sin, and under obligation to suffer its penalty in the redemption of the race. — 176 — The pivot of the whole position is the union of Christ with the race, not in the assumption of humanity in the incarnation, but in his original relation to the race. It is one thing" to rest the responsibility and obligation of the incarnate Logos, for the expiation of sin, on his union with the race in the incarnation; it is another thing to rest that responsibility and obligation on a vital organic union with the race in its creation. This point needs to be kept clearly in mind. The following quotations will set forth the position: "Christ, as the Logos, as the immanent God, is the life of humanity, laden with responsibility for human sin, while yet he personally knows no sin. Of this race-respon- sibility, and race-guilt which Christ assumed and for which he suffered, so soon as man had sinned, Christ's obedience and suffering in the flesh were the visible reflec- tion and revelation. Only in Christ's organic union with the race can we find the vital relation which will make his vicarious suft'erings either possible or just." — Dogmatic Theology, page 754. "If Christ's union with the race be one which begins with creation, and antedates the fall, — substitution, repre- sentation, propitiation, reconciliation, satisfaction are only different aspects of the work which Christ does for us, by virtue of the fact that he is the immanent God, the life of humanity, priest and victim, condemning and condemned, atoning and atoned." Ibid, page 755. "The solution of the problem (how Christ can justly make satisfaction) lies in Christ's union with humanit3^ The first result of that union is obligation to suffer for men, since being one with the race, Christ had a share in the responsibility of the race to the law and justice of God. Christ's sharing of man's life justly and inevitably sub- jected him to man's exposures and liabilities, and espe- cially to God's condemnation on account of sin. As the immanent God he was the life of the race and of every member of it." Ibid., page 775. Dr. Strong quotes A. J. F. Behrends, apparently with approval, as follows: "He is our representative, not be- cause he was in the loins of Adam; but because we, Adam included, were in his loins. Personal created existence is grounded in the Logos, so that God must deal with him, as well as with every individual sinner; and sin and guilt and punishment must smite the Logos as well as the sinner and that whether the sinner is saved or not." "Christ's union with the race in the incarnation is —177— only the outward and visible expression of a prior union with the race which began when he created the race. As 'in him were all things created,' and as 'in him all things consist,' or hold together, it follows that he who is the life of humanity must, though personally pure, be involved in responsibility for all human sin and 'it was necessary that the Christ should suffer.' " Ibid., page 758. "The imputation of our sins to him is the result of his natural union with us." Ibid., page 716. "Original grace like original sin is only the ethical interpretation of biological facts." Ibid., page 763. 4. The discussion of this subject involves the inter- pretation of Col, 1:15 ff., The image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature, or all creation. It is said that Christ as the image of God represents the perfection of God to the creature; and as the firstborn of every creature he represents the ideal perfection of the created universe to God. In this way a representative function or office is estab- lished of the Logos between the Godhead and the uni- verse; and in this representative capacity Christ becomes responsible for sin and atonement. A full discussion of this passage would lead us too far afield. But observe that the clause "firstborn of every creature" does not identify Christ with the creation; for the preceding clause asserts his divinity and the following verse declares him to be creator of all things. He cannot be creator and creature too. The genitive "of every creature" is not a partitive genitive but a genitive of comparison; not as regards time, as Meyer says, but as regards rank. This is a point to be held fast. The purpose of the passage is not to bring Christ down into any similarity to the creature, but the very reverse; in opposition to incipient Gnosticism, to exalt him above all comparison. He is called prototokos, firstborn, but the creation is called ktisis, marking the distinction by the terms em- ployed. Elsewhere he is called "firstborn from the dead," not to class him as one of the dead, but to show that resurrec- tion has its hope and cause in him. He is called "firstborn among many brethren," not to make him one of many, but to point out his higher rank. Some of the fathers understood prototokos to refer to his eternal generation. This may be doubtful, since the -178- New Testament usage of the word does not refer to beget- ting" but to bringing- forth. Meyer insists that the passage refers to Christ not as he was but as he is in his glorified state. In either case it marks the distance and difference between Christ and all things created, in heaven and in earth. Taking the whole context into view the purpose seems to be to stress the transcendent nature of Christ as against any minimizing tendency. The term firstborn conveys the meaning involved in the then familiar law of human primogeniture. As the firstborn ruled and guided the house of which he was the head so the firstborn of all creation is the Lord and gov- ernor of all. The supremacy of Christ above all created things is the dominating thought of the passage. Christ is not the first creature as the Arians would interpret prototokos. Nor may we saj'- with Olshausen that "the Son of God is the intelligible world." The doctrine of an eternal humanity of Christ, and the idea that he is the prototype of humanity, held by Beyschlag, and suggested by Dr. Dale, is declared by Meyer to be foreign to the context. Verse i6. For in (sometimes translated by) him were all things created cannot be made to mean that the uni- verse, material and spiritual, is an efflux of the divine substance; else ex autou would be required instead of en auto. "In him" has no Pantheistic taint, as Christ is ever distinguished from the universe which he made. Dr. Strong lays much stress on the expression, "in him" in connection with the creation. His peculiar doc- trine of Ethical Monism runs deeply into the idea that all things are created "in him." And his doctrine of the atonement is based on the idea that Christ is the life of humanity. "In him were all things created" contains no denial of instrumentality, but expresses the ground in which lay the possibility of their being. All things de- pended on him for their creation. The causal prerogative and power lay in him. Meyer affirms that the expression is a well known classical form to denote causality. The thing particularly to be remembered in regard to this passage is that it in no sense identifies Christ with the creature; but exalts him above and distinguishes him from the creature, and therefore does not lend itself to the view that the atonement is based upon an organic relation to the race. Another text that figures largely is Jno. 1:4, In him was life and the life was the light of men. —179— Dr. Strong- utters it and reiterates it, that Christ is the life of humanity. If the assumption, call it biological or philosophical at will, is true, it does not appear from this text. The zoe, life, was the phos, light, of men. Two things are to be observed: The zoe was the phos of men, not the zoe of men. Again the verb is "was," not "is." There is an absolute distinction between the zoe and the phos; there is no identity here. The preterite also excludes the present from the limitations of this partic- ular statement. Here is the revealing office of the Logos; the communication of divine truth in the primeval stage of the race; but identity? no. But this is true that the source of life is also the source of light. Another text that is referred to in this connection is. Rev. 13:8, Written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Observe: — • This is not to be understood literally. The crucifixion was an event in the history of the world. It may be regarded proleptically, a matter of divine purpose and foreknowledge. The American Revisers connect the time clause with the word "written" and not with the word "slain"; ex- pressing eternal election, not eternal atonement. In what sense Christ is the "life of humanity" is the crux of the whole situation. Dr. Strong in his Dogmatic Theology repeatedly makes the assertion but does not prove it, nor explain it. In his Ethical Monism he is equally vague and reticent. To say that Christ is the creator, and upholder of all things, and immanent God falls short of the statement that Christ is the life of humanity, and fails utterly in making him responsible for the sins of the race and there- fore responsible for their atonement. If man is regarded as the efflux of the divine essence there would be some basis for the position in question; but this is both unscriptural and unphilosophic. Christ is creator of all things in heaven and on earth material and spiritual, and any effluent conception is too essentially pantheistic. That would be divine monism. Some theologians, in explaining the moral power of Christ over the race, have declared that he was one with the race in sympathy and fellowship; but this is not what is meant. Others have rested the union of Christ and man on a federal representation voluntarily and graciously assumed; but this is exactly what is repudiated; and denominated —180— an arbitrary imputation and a legal fiction. We are not too much to fear God's arbitrariness. To some minds the exercise of divine sovereignty seems arbitrary. Creation was an arbitrary act. Redemption itself was arbitrary. The sovereignty that is arbitrary may be none the less gracious. If the gracious assumption of human guilt by imputation is arbitrary, then the original establishment of organic relation to the race, or the original purpose to create is also arbitrariness only one step farther away. Man is a moral and responsible being under the laws oT God, and legal relations and conceptions are not only pertinent but inevitable. The jurist's law is not the nat- uralist's law; but just as necessary in a moral universe. Biology and government are different realms. To confuse them brings but one result, confusion. That "he was made sin for us who knew no sin," in the accepted sense of the words, was no legal fiction but a legal reality. Further, if Christ's relation to men as creator consti- tutes the ground of his responsibility for human sin, it would follow by logical inference that his relation to angels, as the creator of things in heaven, would entail on him the responsibility for angelic defection. And if his relation as creator of men lays on him the obligation for their redemption, the same law must hold good in regard to fallen angels. The conclusion is inevit- able from the premises assumed. The arbitrariness of God's sovereignty would at least escape this conclusion: "for verily he took not on him the nature of angels but he took on him the seed of Abra- ham." The Scriptures everywhere represent salvation as a gratuity or a free gift, and that Christ came voluntarily, and gave his life voluntarily. This does not harmonize well with the conception that Christ lay under an obliga- tion that he could not escape. However much it is sought to tie up the doctrine with certain biblical expressions it still remains more specula- tive than scriptural. What then is the truth in the conception of eternal, atonement? It is certain that the atonement expresses eternal facts in the nature of God. God's eternal antago- nism to evil; God's eternal love for his creatures; the eternal attributes of mercy, justice, holiness, and love, etc., and the mutual relation of these attributes. These are eternal and immanent in the work of atonement. As revelation was a moral certainty growing out of the nature of God and his love for those made in his — i8i— imag"e, so atonement was a moral certainty on the same grounds. The necessity of atonement was a relative, not an absolute, necessity, — not the necessity of compulsion, or obligation, or debt to the creature, but a necessity to ends contingent in themselves. The atonement was a necessity if man was to be saved; and if, in saving man, God must maintain his veracity, and vindicate his holiness. The atonement finds its roots in the attributes of God. The divine actions are the expressions of the divine nature, and the divine nature necessitates the harmon^^ of all the attributes, holiness, justice, mercy and love, etc., else one attribute would destroy another. The incarnation, substitution, sacrifice, remission, and propitiation find their explanation in the immutable char- acter and harmony of the divine nature and in this sense we may speak of the eternal atonement. The atonement is particularly the expression of God's nature in its relation to moral government in a fallen world. Jt answers the question how God can be just and justify the ungodly. The historical work, was the concrete exhibition of eternal facts and immutable principles, making visible the invisible. We can quote Dr. Strong with approval when he says: "As the earthly tabernacle was made after the pattern shown in the mount, so the historical atonement was but the shadowing forth to dull and finite minds of an infinite demand of the divine holiness, and an infinite satisfaction rendered by the divine love." How God can create without imparting his divine substance to the creature, — how God can communicate his will and grace to men, — in fact how any spirit can com- mune with another, — how God can be immanent and yet apart from all the beings interpenetrated by his essence, — how God operates in regeneration beneath the sphere of consciousness, — how the sense of guilt and condemnation is taken away and peace possesses the soul of the believer, — all these things and many more are mysterious if not incomprehensible. But one thing is certain, we must so postulate the relation of God to man as not to lose the personality of God in man, nor submerge the personality of man in God; neither to compromise the holiness of God by making him responsible for human sin, nor render man unaccountable for sin by laying it upon his creator. Either line of aber- —182— ration is fatal to all moral life in the world. This is the sin of pantheism. Whatever view of the atonement effaces or obscures the transcendence and holiness of God and the individuality and responsibility of man proves itself false by the outcome. These fundamental facts must be held inviolable as the presuppositions of moral government and religious life in the world. Section X. Union of objective and subjective in the atonement. Before passing- to the APPLICATION of the atone- ment we may well consider briefly the relation of the objective facts to the subjective effect. One of the problems of the present-day theologian is to conceive and express the laws which connect the atone- ment with the new life springing from it. Have we regarded the atonement too much as a transaction and not as a living acting force? Is the atonement something done and finished nineteen hundred years ago, or a vitalizing power in the world now? In distinguishing between the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit, we cannot separate them entirely, nor fail to recognize that they are both of one piece. What Christ did without us and what he does within us are correlative. The moral influence theory cuts the fruit from the root; but we will cut the root from the fruit if we separate the atonement from the life that grows out of it. There is a vital union between the making of the atonement and the application of it. To receive Christ is to receive the atonement. Christ mediates the atonement to us by the communication of life. Christ communicates the atonement through the work of the Spirit. The work of the Spirit is the atonement in action. Not only must the atonement pay the penalty of sin, but right all the wrong of sin; and this work is present-day and age-long work. The atonement is more than a mere transaction past and gone; it is a living force. This is not confusing the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit but connect- ing them. -183- The following chapters are sometimes classified as a distinct PART called PNEUMATOLOGY. However they properly belong- to Soteriology since they embrace: The Application of Redemption, or the work of the Holy Spirit. The work of Christ was to MAKE the atonement; the work of the Holy Spirit was to APPLY it; to use general terms. Catechism 29, How are we made partakers of the redemption, etc. Catechism 30, How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption, etc. The purpose of God in man's salvation not only secures the making of an atonement; but secures the application of it, to those who are saved. Without the work of the Spirit all men would continue in rebellion and sin, and Christ then had died in vain. The Spirit's work is to make the atonement certainly efficacious to those who are saved. Chapter VI. Vocation or Calling. The first step in the Spirit's work is vocation or call- ing. 1. There is the external call of the gospel: e.g. "Ho every one that thirsteth." "Come unto me all ye that labor." "The Spirit and the bride say: Come." "Whoso- ever will let him come." (a) It is universal; addressed to all indiscriminately, Christ's command is to preach the gospel to every creature; because it is a proclamation of the terms on which God is willing to save sinners. (b) A universal call is not inconsistent with a per- sonal election, or non election, because it is the means to the end in one case, and a ground of condemnation in the other. (c) The call is addressed to men through the Scrip- tures. The way of salvation is not made known: — By the works of nature. By providence, By intuition. By the deductions of reason. Nor generally by internal revelation. —184— But the way of salvation is made known by revelation in the Scriptures. As to the external call there are many called and few chosen. 2. There is an effectual call by the Holy Spirit usually through the word by which men are brought into saving relation to God. Rom. 8:30, Whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified. I. Cor. 1:9, By whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son. I. Peter 2:9, Who hath called you out of darkness into his mar- velous light. I. Pet. 5:10, Who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus. Catechism 31, What is effectual calling? This call convicts, convinces, persuades, enables. It is effectual in that it secures the submission of the soul to God. It is particular, personal, efficacious and irresistible. Chapter VII. Grace. 1. Grace Defined. The word grace means favor. The kindly disposition toward man in the mind of God is called grace. The operation of a holy divine influence on man is called grace. The result of that operation in the heart and life of man is called grace. 2. Grace Distinguished. Common grace is a greater or less measure of grace granted to all who hear the gospel. Prevenient grace is the operation of the Spirit on the mind that precedes and excites its efforts to return to God. Sufficient grace is grace sufficient to lead to repent- ance and faith. Efficacious grace is such an influence of the Spirit as is certainly effectual in producing regeneration and con- version. Habitual grace is the indwelling of the Spirit in be- lievers. -185- 3. Grace and Truth. (a) Some hold that there is no influence of the Spirit on the hearts of men, but only the natural influence of the truth. (b) Luther and his coadjutors taught that the power of the Spirit was inherent in the word and that he never operates on the mind except through and by the word. They were led to this position by the claims of fanatics to direct communications from God independent of the Scriptures. (c) Reformed theology teaches that the Holy Spirit's influence is distinct from the natural influence of the truth; that the Holy Spirit also acts with the truth, pre- paring the mind for the truth, and making it effective, and further that the Spirit may act directly upon the mind and independent of the truth. Among other things the Spirit restrains evil, instructs, awakens, convicts, convinces, persuades, regenerates, sanc- tifies. He may use means or no means, act with the truth or without the truth, where and when and how he pleases. Catechism 89, How is the word made effectual to sal- vation? The Spirit of God maketh the reading but espe- cially the preaching of the word an effectual nieans of convincing and converting sinners and of building them up in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation. 4. The Effect of Common Grace. (a) Semi-Pelagians and Romanists hold that common grace is sufficient to enable the sinner to do that which will either merit, or secure larger degrees of grace, which if duly improved will issue in salvation. This puts the efficiency largely in the hands of man. (b) The Arminian confession says: "The Holy Ghost confers or is ready to confer upon all and each, to whom the word of faith is ordinarily preached, as much grace as is sufficient for generating faith and carrying forward their conversion in its successive stages. Thus sufficient grace for faith and conversion not only to those who actually believe and are converted, but also to those who do not actually believe and are not in fact converted." — "Confessio Remonstrantium." This makes salvation a matter of co-operation with common grace. (c) The Calvinistic and Reformed system teaches that there is a common grace that it is sufficient for some things, — to convince men of sin and of their need of — i8r>— redemption, and to render men inexcusable for sin and unbelief. Rom. 1:20, The invisible things of Him etc. are clearly seen. Rom. 2:1, Therefore thou art inexcusable O man. Acts 14:17, He left himself not without witness in that he did good etc. This common grace does awaken and incite to better thing's; but does not change the heart or regenerate the nature, and that regeneration is not effected by the co-op- eration of the human will. Dr. Shedd says: "The non-elect receive common grace, and common grace would incline the human will if it were not defeated by the human will. If the sinner should make no hostile opposition, common grace would be equivalent to saving grace. Acts 7:51, Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit. n. Tim. 3:8, Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth. "To say that common grace, if not resisted by the sinner, would be equivalent to regenerating grace is not the same as to say that common grace ASSISTED by the sinner would be equivalent to regenerating grace. In the first instance, God would be the sole author of regenera- tion; in the second he would not be." In answer to the question: What is the efficient cause of a change of heart we have the following replies: — Pelagianism says, the human will. Arminianism says, the co-operation of the human and divine wills. Roman Catholicism says, divine grace deposited in the sacrament of baptism. The Lutheran saj^s, the Spirit of God operating ordin- arily through the word and sacraments. The Reformed and Calvinistic faiths say, the Spirit working when and where and how he wills. Chapter VIII. Regeneration. 1. Regeneration is not a change in the substance of the soul. 2. It is not a new faculty added to the soul. 3. It is not moral suasion, 4. It is not co-operation of human and divine power, called synergism. —187— 5. It is not dependent on the congruity of the human and divine minds; but God is sovereign in regeneration and can reg"enerate when and whom he will; even men at the height of their rebellion. 6. It is an almig"hty creative act of God. 7. It is instantaneous. 8. It is without means. It is not proper to speak of the means of reg'eneration. There is no baptismal reg"en- eration in the sense that baptism is the efficient cause, or even an instrumental cause. 9. It is irresistible. Man can no more resist the new birth than he can resist his natural birth. God g"ave us being" without the exercise of our power or even our con- sent being- asked in the matter. 10. While regeneration does not change the substance of the soul nor add new faculties, it does produce a moral change, in disposition, in character, in the direction of the soul's activities; it brings in a new principle of life dom- inating and regulating the conduct; in short it imparts spriritual life. I. Jno. 5:12, He that hath the Son hath life. Ephes. 2:1, And you hath he quickened who were dead in tres- passes and sins. Ephes. 2:5, Even when we were dead in sins hath quickened us, etc. The word "quicken" is literally, "make alive." 11. Man ma3^ co-operate with prevenient grace and with subsequent or sanctifying grace; but is passive in regeneration. It must be particularly observed that while man may co-operate with prevenient grace, it is not human co-oper- ation that renders grace efficacious. God's grace needs no human assistance to make it effectual. All the effi- ciency of grace is of God. Even the co-operation that man renders is the pro- duct of God's grace. Ephes. 2:8, By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 12. Regeneration is below the sphere of conscious- ness, but its effects come into conscious apprehension in the graces of the Christian life. 13. Regeneration is absolutely essential to salvation. Jno. 3:3, Except a man be born again he cannot see the king- dom of God. —188— Chapter IX. Faith. 1. Usage of the word. (a) Objective faith. "Faith" sometimes connotes the object on which faith rests, or the essential contents of faith, as a body of truth. The following- are examples of objective faith: — "Hath denied the faith." "Preacheth the faith which once he destroyed." "Some shall depart from the faith." "The word of faith which we preach." "The faith once deliv- ered to the saints." Here faith means a body of truth or doctrine. "Christ our hope" points out the object on which our hope is fixed and is an example of objective hope. If I say: "The Bible is my faith." The word faith is used in an objective sense. (b) Subjective faith. The word faith also and more frequently expresses a quality or action of the soul." "I have faith" discloses subjective faith. "I believe, or exercise faith in God," expresses a sub- jective faith. "If ye had faith as a grain of mustard." "Thy faith hath saved thee." "Faith is substance of things hoped for," all express subjective faith. 2. Definitions of Faith. Faith is belief in that for which there is no proof — the infidel's definition. Faith is belief in what is unseen or not apprehended by the senses. This is not comprehensive enough. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and evi- dence of things not seen. Heb. ii:i. This may not have been intended for a strict definition of faith. There is a difference between a definition and a description or char- acterization. Faith is belief on evidence. Best definition of faith in the abstract. Faith is assent of the mind and consent of the will. This is true of saving faith. "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace whereby we receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered to us in the gospel." Cat. 86. Best definition of saving faith. "Faith is assent of the mind to what is probably but not certainly true." — Locke. —189— "Faith is any persuasion weaker than knowledge, and stroiig'er than possibility or probability." It is common usage to say of that which is uncertain, I think it is so; of that which is highly probable, I believe it is so; of that which is demonstrably certain, I know it is so. Here then we have faith as something more than opinion and some- thing less than certainty. This scarcely does justice to faith; which often includes the strongest convictions oi the human mind. 3. Kinds of Faith. (a) Speculative faith, or historical faith, is an intel- lectual apprehension lacking a moral or spiritual purpose. Acts 8:13. Simon Magus was said to believe. James 2:19. The devils believe and tremble. The faith that does not lay hold of Christ is not a saving faith. (b) Temporary" faith. A faith seemingly genuine but evanescent in character. Illustrated by the seed sown on the rock. (c) Saving faith. Such a faith as unites the soul to God, and issues in salvation. True faith has the element of affection as well as belief and the element of will or purpose combined with both. The Roman Catholic theologian distinguishes saving faith into explicit and implicit faith. When a man understands and intelligently believes he exercises explicit faith. But there are manj' doctrines which a humble man may not understand, and may never have heard, yet he may believe and accept all that the church teaches, be- cause he has confidence in the church. This is called implicit faith. The question may verj^ properlj^ be raised, whether the man has any faith as to the things of which he knows nothing. The Disciple or Campbellite has been accused of re- ducing saving faith to a mere intellectual assent to the truth. 4. Relation of Faith to Knowledg'e. (a) No sharp line can be drawn between faith and knowledge. Their spheres overlap. It cannot be said that we do not believe what we know or that we do not know some things which we believe. — 190 — I niay say: I know I washed my face this morning-. I may also sa3': I believe I washed my face this morning. The fact of knowing it does not curtail nor supersede belief in it. However, faith may differ from knowledge in the elements of emotion and will, in cases involving' a person. (b) Which takes precedence? Must we know in order to believe or believe in order to know? Here too no universal rule is admissable. There must be some apprehension before there can be faith in a person or a proposition. No one can believe in a God of whom he has never heard nor in a proposition that has never been before his mind. No one can believe in a God of whom he has no intellectual apprehension. On the other hand* there must be faith in the trust- worthiness of our senses, our faculties, and the processes of thought before siny considerable acquisition of know- ledge is possible. 5. Faith in relation to Salvation. (a) It is the connecting" link between the believer and Christ. The Spirit applies the redemption purchased by Christ by working" faith in us and thereby uniting" us to Christ. Gal. 3:26. For ye are all the sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Jno. 1:12. To as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God. Jno, 3:16. Whosoever believeth on him, etc. I. Jno. 5:12. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. Acts 16:3. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. (b) It is the instrumental cause of Justification. Rom. 5:1. Being justified by faith. (c) Results in peace, assurance, sanctification and all graces of the Christ life. (d) Faith is an appropriate condition of salvation be- cause an intellectual apprehension and belief of the truth is necessary in order to yield to it and obey it; and a per- sonal trust in God, and purpose toward him is essential to any filial relation. —191- Chapter X. Conversion. 1. Definition. Conversion is turning- from sin unto God. Conversion is the human side of that transaction which unites the soul to Christ. Faith, repentance and conversion are human activities. This does not deny that they are supernatural effects. They are both. "Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling, for it is not ye that work but God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Some authorities say that turn- ing from sin is repentance, and turning to God is faith. It is doubtful if such discrimination is valid. Rather the term repentance covers both. No better definition of con- version is found than that in the Shorter Catechism Ques- tion 87. What is Repentance unto life? "Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of- a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after new obedience." 2. Explanation. (a) It will be seen in the above definition how conver- sion involves the whole man. Observe, "sense of sin and apprehension," — there is the intellectual element; "grief and hatred," — there is the emotional element; "full purpose," — there is the volitional element; "endeavor," — there is purpose translated into action, (b) Repentance and conversion mean more than mere sorrow for sin. There is a sorrow of the world that worketh death. Judas had sorrow but no repentance or conversion. True examples of repentance are, Job, David, Peter, the prodigal, the penitent thief, and Saul; each of whom not only sorrowed for sin, but turned unto God. (c) How much conviction, sorrow, faith, etc. is neces- sary to conversion? H. W. Beecher once said: "How many knots an hour must the wind blow to take the ship out of the harbor? Will ten knots do it? Yes. Will five knots do it? Yes five knots will do it. Will one knot do it? Yes, one will do it if that is enough to move the ship." Lydia came by the gentle persuasion of the truth blessed by God, but it required an earthquake to move the Philippian jailor. (d) Does conversion occur but once? — 192 — Since conversion means turning" from sin unto God, and since regeneration is not immediate sanctification, all turning' to God is a conversion in a modified sense; but the best terminology confines conversion to the initial stages of the work, when a new principle becomes dom- inant in the government of the life. New blessings there ' may be, new steps, degrees of sanctification, fluctuations, falls and restoration, renewed endeavors and victories; but these are phases of a nature already changed by regeneration; and the first experiential chang'e we call conversion. 3. Logical and Chronological Relations. What is the order of events in the process of conver- sion? Does faith precede regeneration? Or must a man be reg'enerated in order to believe? Does a man turn to God to be saved, or does he turn to God because he is saved? The process of conversion is so complex that it is not wise to fix an exact chronolog"ical order; if indeed it is wase in all respects to fix a log-ical one. We may allow some variety in details. In some cases the steps may be sjaichronous, in others, faith, repentance, conversion, etc., may be very complex in themselves, and inanifest themselves in degrees and mea- sures rather than in integral steps. Logically and chronologically,' however, a regenerated life follows and is the result of a regenerated nature. Dr. Strong" illustrates: — -"A candidate for ordination was once asked which came first: reg"eneration or conver- sion. He replied very correctly: 'Regeneration and con- version are like the cannon-ball and the hole — they both g"o through together.' This is true however only as to their chronolog"ical relation. Logically the ball is first and causes the hole, not the hole first and causes the ball." 4. Divine and Human Agency in Conversion. (a) In regeneration God is the sole agent. Conversion belong-s to the human side of the work of g^race and involves human agfency. Yet even the human side is not devoid of divine ag"ency. God so works on man and in man as to incite and call forth his activity. Human agency in conversion is so interpenetrated by divine agency that no sharp line can be drawn between —193— the human and divine elements. No one can say just where the divine leaves off and the human beg"ins. Phil. 2:12-13. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. (b) This does not destroy man's freedom, really makes him truly free. God's work in man instead of interfering- with man's freedom, to mention but one thing-, takes off the pressure of man's innate moral depravity that hinders his free approach to God. Man is an agent, a free moral agent, however much God's agency is involved in man's activity. Everywhere in the Scriptures man is commanded to do that for which divine grace is required in the doing- of it. The man with a withered arm was commanded to stretch it forth. The paralytic was bidden to arise and walk. The impotent man to arise and carry his bed. So men are commanded to believe; yet faith is called the "gift of God." The lost sheep is carried home as if he had nothing to do; and the prodig'al walks home as if he had every- thing to do. While God turns men to himself, men are bidden to turn themselves. Ephes. 5:14. Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead and Christ shall give thee light. The immanent God stands at the springs of our action and the fountains of our being- below the point where consciousness begins. Chapter XI. Justification. Section I. Definitions of Justification. (a) Shorter Catechism 33 — -"Justification is an act of God's free grace wherein he pardoneth all our sins and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the rig-ht- eousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone. (b) Roman Catholic definition. "Justification is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renovation of the inner man." (c) The Arminian definition. —194— Justification is a "remission of sins," "a sentence of pardon." — Watson's Institutes. "The plain scriptural notion of justification is pardon, the forg'iveness of sins."— Wesley's Works. (d) Socinian or Unitarian view. Jesus Christ bj^ his life and example wins men to faith in God. This faith puts men into filial relationship to God, with consequent nioral chang'e. This rectifying" of life by faith is justification. No atonement, no imputed rig'hteousness; but subjective chang"e; alTecting" the moral rather than the legal status of man. The following- discussion will show which of these views is most scriptural and therefore correct. Section II. The Nature of Justification, There are two views, and really only two of the nature of justification. They are called the subjective or moral view; and the objective or forensic view. The one con- ceives of justification as an internal chang'e in the realm of our spiritual life; the other as an external change in the realm of our legal relations, or our relation to the law of God. On one side are the Roman Catholics, the Socinians or Unitarians, and those schools loosely designated as the New Theology. On the other side are the Lutheran, Reformed, Calvinistic and Arminian Churches. Strictly speaking, however, the Roman Catholic stands on both sides, teaching a justification by an inherent righteousness yet admitting a forensic side to the transaction, basing it on the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic idea of justification includes the idea of sanctifi- cation as well. This causes confusion in discussion. 1. The subjective or moral view. (a) Roman. This conceives of justification as something taking place within a man "renovatio interioris hominis," regard- ed by the Romanist as a removal of original sin and the infusion of righteousness by the rite of baptism. Justifica- tion therefore takes place because of an inherent right- eousness, or because of what a man is. Good works also are a basis of justification to the adult, according to the Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic position really amounts to two justifications; one because of an infused grace in baptism, the other because of the merit of good works wrought out by the man himself; both subjective in their nature. —195— (b) Evolutionary Schools, etc. The evolutionary schools from Schleiermacher on- wards, and those who hold to the moral influence theory of the atonement, also hold to the subjective nature of justification. These schools repudiate the doctrines of expiation by the sacrifice of Christ and imputation of his rig-hteousness, and base man's salvation on his inherent character. Hence justification is subjective. This leaves little hope for the thief on the cross whose character had been evil all his life. A dying sinner needs a safer basis for his salvation than his own character. As between the New Theolog-y and the Roman Catholic position the latter is preferable by far, for it proceeds upon the recognition of original sin, expiatory atonement and the need of supernatural grace. 2, The objective or forensic view. (a) Statement. This view regards justification as a judicial act; it discharges the sinner from the condemnation of the law, it is declaratory, it is a sentence of acquittal, it makes him right with the law, it assumes to treat him as righteous; it is not an infused righteousness, but a judicial righteous- ness on the ground of something done for him. It is not mere pardon, but includes pardon. These things must be embraced in the meaning of this forensic justification: viz. acquittal, pardon and acceptance. If justification were nothing more than pardon, and salvation dependent on subsequent character and works, then justification would not be a ground of assurance and therefore not a ground of peace, since salvation would still be entirely uncertain and would rest upon a shifting foundation. Acquittal and acceptance are as necessary as pardon for the peace of justification. The objection is raised that pardon and acquittal are incompatible, that in human jurisprudence if a man is pardoned he is not acquitted and if acquitted he needs no pardon. The cases are not parallel. In human tribunals if a criminal is pardoned justice is not exacted, it is simply set aside, but in divine government, justice cannot be set aside, the demands of the law can never be abrogated nor even lowered. God's problem in saving man was to be just and justify the sinner at the same time — see Rom. 3:26. In human tribunals acquittal means the discharge of the innocent; in justification it means the discharge of the — 196 — guilty. Justice must be done and pardon extended; and both are involved in the justification of the sinner, and in this case are compatible, (b) Proof. Is this a true conception of justification? That is an important question, and all the world is not agreed upon it. That this is the Scriptural view of justification appears from the following" considerations: — ist. The Greek verb dikaioo, to justify-, has a forensic or judicial sense in the New Testament. Whatever may be true in the classics, the New Testament usus loquendi is sufficiently clear. Observe its forensic usage and the impossibility of a subjective, sense in the following pas- sages: — Matt. 11:19. But wisdom is justified of her children. Matt. 12:37. By thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Luke 7:29. The publicans justified God. Luke 10:29. But he willing to justify himself said: Luke 16:15. Ye are they which justify yourselves before men. Acts 13:39. By him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Rom. 3:4. That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings. Rom. 3:28. We conclude that a man is justified by faith with- out the deeds of the law. Gal. 2:16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith of Jesus Christ for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Jas. 2:25. Was not Rahab the harlot justified by works when she had received the messengers and had sent them out another way? Old Testament passages used in the same way: — Job 9:20. If I justify, tsadaq, myself my own mouth shall con- demn me. Job. 32:2. Because he justified himself rather than God. Is. 5:23. Which justify the wicked for reward. In all these passages the word justify means to PRO- NOUNCE righteous or to ACQUIT and not to MAKE inherently righteous or holy. 2nd. If justify were used in the subjective sense of making holy, then it would be possible to substitute the word "sanctify" for justify in the passages where dikaioo is used. This would not make sense. 3rd. The New Testament distinguishes between justi- fication and sanctification. See I. Cor. 6:11. 4th. The word justify is the antithesis of condemn in Rom. 8:33, 34. It is God that Justifieth, who is he that condemneth? As condemn does not mean to MAKE sinful, so to justif^^ is not to MAKE hol^'. —197— Section III. The ground of Justification. What is that in consideration of which God acquits the sinner? 1. The Roman CathoHc says that while faith leads to baptism with its infused grace, the final ground of justifi- cation is good works. It is easy to see what an imperfect ground of acquittal this is, how insufficient for assurance and peace, and how purgatory is a natural sequence to such incompleteness. 2. The older Arminians made faith the ground of justification. The\' taught that the perfect obedience re- quired by the law is set aside in the gospel and that God is pleased to take our faith in lieu of it, or to count our faith in the room of righteousness. The Wesleyan Arminians differ somewhat from this. They define justification to mean pardon, and this pardon to proceed on the ground of the righteousness of Christ; but subsequent acceptance with God is based on evangel- ical obedience, or obedience of faith. 3. The view of the "New Theology" may be fairly represented by Horace Bushnell. This view repudiates all expiation of guilt by sacrifice, all substitution, all imputa- tion of Christ's righteousness or the transfer of Christ's merits to us. A man is justified, using the word in the sense of acquittal, on the ground of his own righteousness as he is incited to a righteous life by the example and inspiration of Jesus Christ. Christ is in the world to be a "power on character," and thus "invest the guilty souls of mankind in the righteousness of God." "The soul when it is gained to faith, is brought back, according to the degree of faith, into its original, normal relation to God; to be invested with God's light, feeling, character, righteous- ness, and live derivately (derivatively) from Him." Justification in this view is the restoration of man to his normal relation of faith in God, but the ground of his acquittal is the righteousness inwrought in his character. 4. The Reformed, Lutheran and Calvinistic view is that we are justified on the ground of the imputed right- eousness of Christ. (a) Statement. Our Shorter Catechism says God "accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us." Christ expiated our guilt, satisfied the law, both by obedience and suffering, became our substi- —198— tute, so that being united to him by faith, his death be- comes our death, his righteousness our righteousness, his obedience our obedience. God acquits us not for anything in usi, not for any- thing so imperfect as human faith, works, or merit, but for the perfect and all-sufficient righteousness of Christ set to our account. Dr. Shedd remarks: "Because Christ has suffered the penalty for the believer, he is pronounced righteous before the law in respect to its penalty; and is entitled to release from punishment. Because Christ has perfectly obeyed the law for him, he is pronounced righteous before the law in respect to its precept; and is entitled to the reward promised to perfect obedience." This affords a sure ground of acquittal, a valid basis for assurance, peace and joy. Nothing can invalidate a justification based on a perfect righteousness. (b) Proof. That this is the true doctrine appears as follows: It is proved by the whole system of substitutionary sacrifices in the Old Testament dispensation which were types of Christ's atoning death. It is proved by all those passages which speak of Christ as a ransom, a substitute, as dying in our stead, as bearing our sins, the just for the unjust, made sin for us, made a curse for us, etc., etc. It is stated in Isaiah 53:5. He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him and by his stripes we are healed. Is. 53:11. By his knowledg"e shall my righteous servant justify many for he shall bear their iniquities. II. Cor. 5:21. For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Rom. 4:6. Unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works. Rom. 5:18. By the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men, unto justification of life. Rom. 5:19, By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Phil. 3:9, And be found in him not having mine own righteous- ness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Col. 1:14, In whom we have redemption through his blood. Col. 1:20, — having made peace through the blood of his cross. Col. 1:22, In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight. Section IV. The means, condition, or instrumental cause of justification is faith. Faith is the instrumental, not the efficient or meritorious cause of justification. —199— Faith is the Hnk, the bond, the nexus between the believer and Christ. Faith is not the ground of justifica- tion because the believer's faith is an imperfect thing; it expiates no guilt, removes no penalty; is not of the nature of an atonement. But faith unites us to Christ and union with Christ results in justification. Rom. 5:1, Being justified by faith. Phil. 3:9, The rig-hteousness which is of God by faith — "of God" as the source; "by faith" as the instrument. Rom. 3:28, We conclude therefore that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Rom. 3:30, — justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircum- cision through faith. James does not contradict Paul when he says, 2:21, Was not Abraham our father, justified by works? And 2:24, ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only. James is not discussing the nature of justification but the nature of true faith. He is opposing anti-nomianism; he is exposing a spurious faith; he is showing the relation of faith and works; he is showing' that we are justified only by such a faith as bring"s forth good works. A work- ing" faith as against a dead faith. We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. In the passag"es Rom. 4:3 and James 2:23 where it is said that Abraham's faith was counted unto him for rigfht- eousness, the preposition in the original shows that it does not mean faith instead of righteousness or faith a substi- tute for righteousness. Section V. The Effect of Justification. (a) The Roman Catholic believes that the justifica- tion that results from baptism restores the soul to its state of original righteousness, so that nothing of the nature of sin remains in the soul. However the soul thus justified is not indefectible, but is liable to sin. (b) The Reformed confessions teach that justification results in: — Remission of sin. Acceptance with God. Title to eternal life. Increase of grace unto sanctification. Peace with God. "Being justified we have peace." Whether that peace is subjective in the experience of the — 200^ — believer, or objective in a condition of peace between God and man or both. Moreover good works follow on justification as the result and evidence of saving faith. Section VI. Difficulties and Objections. (a) To pronounce a man just when he is not just is to enipty the transaction of all moral value. This proceeds upon the ground that a man must be justified on account of his personal holiness, a condition which no man can fulfill. It is Christ who meets the demands of the law and on the ground of his righteousness only can man be declared just. But the moral values are not wanting, for justification is inseparable from sanctification. While Protestant theology distinguishes between what Christ does for us and what he does in us, the two are united and inseparable in fact. The relation of justifica- tion to regeneration and sanctification delivers it from any charge of moral emptiness or fictitious procedure. Justification is possible because it is always accompanied by regeneration, and union with Christ and is followed by sanctification. (b) How is acquittal from the penalty of the law con- sistent with remaining and actual sin in heart and life which would seem to demand a penalty for each trans- gression? It is the promise and pledge of ultimate victory over sin. Christ bore the penalty prospectively as well as otherwise and justification has a prospective force toward an end not yet reached. The grace of God implanted, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit vouchsafed to believers will dominate and extirpate the remains of human depravity. It must be written large: Justification and sanctification are insep- arable. — 201 — Chapter XII. Sanctification. Section I. Difference between Justification and Sanc- tification. 1. One an act, the other a work. 2. One declarator}', the other experiential. 3. One done for us, the other done in us. 4. One chang'es our relation to the law, the other chang"es our character. 5. One based on Christ's righteousness, other the se- quence of regeneration. Section II. Definition. 1. Greek word has two meanings — to purify, — to con- secrate, or set apart. 2. Catechism question, 35. What is Sanctification? Section III. A supernatural work. 1. Referred to God as agent. r. Thess. 5:23, The very God of peace sanctify you wholly. Heb. 13:20-21, The God of peace that broug'ht. Titus 2:14, He gave himself — 'that — purify unto himself a pecu- liar people. Ephes. 5:25 — that he might sanctify and cleanse it. 2. We are taught to pray for Sanctification. Ephes. 1:15-23. Paul prays for their sanctification. 3. Union of Christ and believers shows it. Jno. 15:4, As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me. Section IV. Agency and Means. 1. God, all three persons, especially the Spirit. 2. Faith, as uniting us to Christ. 3. Truth. Jno. 17:17, Sanctify them by thy truth, thy word is truth. Acts 20:32, — the word of his grace which is able to build you up. — 202 — II. Tim. 3:15, — Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise, etc. Jas. 1:21, — the implanted word which is able to save your souls. 4. All the means of grace, Cat. 88, 89. 5. Is man co-operative in sanctification? Section V. Effect. 1. To make holy. 2. By growth, rather than instantaneously. Cat. 35, 37. Ephes. 2:21. I. Pet. 2:2. II. Pet. 3:18. 3. Perfected at death. Cat. 37. Lk. 23:43. Rev. 21:27. Section VI. Perfectionism. 1. Pelagian view. (a) Man suffered no real loss by the Fall. No original sin, no inherent corruption, no loss of ability. Man can now render complete obedience to the law by his natural powers and the grace of Christ. (b) Grace is the goodness of God in giving us such ability, example and precepts of Christ, natural environ- ment, and natural influence of the truth. (c) Sin is voluntary transgression of known law. (d) God cannot demand what man is not able to do. (e) Man can do all that God requires; therefore can live perfectly. Observe: — Based on denial of any real fall, and on a wrong conception of sin. 2. Romish view. (a) Baptism cleanses from all sin, yet liable to fall into sin again. But there are two kinds of sins: mortal, and venial. Man by grace may avoid mortal sin; but never free from venial sins. (b) The law which men may keep is not the law in all its strictness but the law which man is capable of keeping; for God can not justly demand more than man can do, or what is due from man in his present circum- stances. (c) They distinguish between positive precepts and counsels of Christ. May do some things not required for salvation, thus do works of supererogation, and lay up a reservoir of merit from which the church may draw for others' benefit. —203— 3. Arminian View, Wesleyan. (a) The law that man can keep is not the original law of perfect obedience, not the original moral law; but a law suited to the debilitated state of man since the fall, called the law of Christ. (b) Sin. All imperfection is not sin. Wesley says: "Some deviations and transgressions need atonement; but are not sin. I do not call these sin." Observe: If not sin they need no atonement. (c) Such perfection as is claimed is attributed, prop- erly enough, to supernatural grace. Observe: — (i) Some misinterpret texts, e.g. I. John 3:9. (2) Some unduly exalt human ability. (3) All minimize the nature of sin. (4) All lower the demands of the law. Illustration. Difference between Perfectionist and others. One rears a ladder 100 ft., climbs to the top, and says: I have reached the top. Another rears his ladder to infinity, climbs 100 ft. and says: I'm not to the top yet. Climbs 1000 ft. and says: I'm not to the top yet. 4. True View. (a) Imperfect in this life. Cat. 82. Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God? Rom. 7:15-25. I. John 1:8. If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves etc. Prayer of everj' man should be: God be merciful to me a sinner, e.g. Paul. (b) All unrighteousness is sin. Cat. 14. (c) The fall destroj^ed man's ability; but not his oblig'ation. (d) God's law is absolute perfection, and there can be no lowering of it. Matt. 5:48. Mk. 12:30-31. Thou shalt love the Lord, etc. Can we do it? No. Law drives us to Christ — is a school-master. (e) Practical duty. Not discourage effort. Strive for holiness. Without holiness no man etc. Can't get holj'' too much; nor too soon. — 204 — Chapter XIII. Perseverance. Section I. Statement. 1. Cat. 36. What are the benefits which accompany or flow, etc. 2. Conf. of Faith. They whom God hatli accepted in his beloved, effectively called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end and be eternally saved. Section II. Proof. 1. Jno. 10:28-29, They shall never perish, etc. Rom. 11:29, For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Phil. 1:6. He who hath begun a good work in you will perfect it unto the day of Christ. I. Pet. 1:5, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. 2. A necessary inference from the doctrine of elec- tion. Rom. 8:30. Whom he did predestinate them he also called, etc. Even the Arminian doctrine of election on the ground of foreseen faith requires perseverance in faith of all the elect. They must posit the perseverance of the faith be- fore they posit the election for that is their ground of election. 3. It is implied in the covenant of grace, in which the Father gave a people to his Son. Jno. 17:6, — the men that thou gavest me out of the world, thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 4. Iinplied in the union of Christ and believers. Rom. 8:1. There is now no condemnation etc. Rom. 8:35. What shall separate us? etc. 5. Implied in the Atonement. Christ purchased his people. Matt. 20:28, — gave his life a ransom. Section III. Objections. Ezek. 18:25, When the righteous turneth away from his right- eousness. Matt. 13:20-21, Stony ground. — 205 — Heb. 6:4-6, — imposible — if they fall away to renew them again unto repentance. Heb. 10:26, If sin wilfully no longer a sin-offering. I. Cor. 9:27. Lest I myself should be a castaway. Section IV. Answer to Objections. 1. Some of these statements may refer to those not regenerate. 2. Some are hypothetical warning's to prevent back- sliding* or to show the dreadful guilt and dang-er of neg- lecting" truth and common grace. 3. Even the regenerate may backslide for a time, without being lost. — 206- Chapter XIV. The Sacraments. Section I. Def. Cat. 92. What is a Sacrament? No definition of a sacrament given in New Testament. Assume knowledg'e of Old Testament and verbal instruction. Section II. Efficacy of the sacraments, 1. Roman View. (a) Sacraments contain the grace which they signify. (b) They convey that grace "ex opere operato." The sacraments are charged or loaded with grace and administered by an authorized celebrant must convey the grace inherent in them. The administrator must intend to produce the effect which the sacrament is designed to accomplish. 2. Lutheran view. (a) Necessity of faith on part of recipient. Yet faith not the power in the sacrament, e.g. dry wood burns with g'reat power, yet dryness is not the power that burns the wood. Woman with issue must have faith yet her faith not the efficient cause of her healing. (b) The virtue of the sacrament is inherent in itself. Consubstantiation in the Lord's Supper. Approaches the Romish view. 3. Zwinglian view. (a) Sacraments are memorials like the rainbow, or the pile of stones on bank of the Jordan. (b) Are badges of men's profession. (c) Not means of grace in any special sense. Said that Zwingli has been misunderstood. 4. Calvinistic view. (a) Symbols of truth or facts of redemption. "Repre- sent." (b) Signs and seals of a covenant. "Seal." (c) Channels of grace. "Apply." (d) Efficacy not in them, nor in administrator, but through them the Spirit conveys grace to them who exer- cise true faith. Catechism 91, How do the sacraments become effect- ual means of salvation? The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, —207— not by any virtue in them, nor in him that doth adminis- ter them; but only by the blessing of Christ and the work- ing of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them. Section III. Number. There are two sacraments: Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. The Roman Church makes seven: Baptism, Lord's Supper, Confirmation, Orders, Marriage, Penance inclu- ding absolution, Extreme Unct., Section IV. Baptism. Cat. 94. What is Baptism? 1. Mode. — Immersion or Sprinkling. The classical usage of the word Baptizo, often means immersion but not always so. The word used about 90 times in the New Testament, therefore a New Testament usage. (a) Passages where it may mean to dip. Lk. 16:24, — -dip tip of finger. Jno. 13:26, — dipped a sop. Mk. 7:4, Washing pots, cups and vessels. But mentions couches or tables and also themselves. (b) Passages doubtful. Matt. 3:16, — away from (apo) the water. Acts 8:38-39, — into (eis) the water; and out of (ek) the water. Matt. 3:11, I indeed baptize you with water but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Rom. 6:4, Buried with him by baptism into death. Col. 2:12, Buried with him in baptism. (c) Passages where immersion is most improbable. Acts 2:41, were baptized about 3000 souls. Acts 9:17-18, Paul, and arose and was baptized. Acts 16:33, Jailer of Philippi. Acts 10:47-48, Cornelius and all in his house. I. Cor. 10:1-2, Moses and Israel in the sea. Old Testament purifications sometimes by dipping but usually by sprinkling as on the Mercy Seat and on the door posts, etc. Early baptismal fonts have been found and they are too small for baptism by immersion. 2. Subjects of Baptism. Cat. 95. To whom is baptism to be administered? (a) Adults, — who profess faith and promise obedience. (b) Infants of professing believers. Must they be church members? Rome baptizes all as being necessary to salvation.. —208— 3. Proof of infant baptisni. (a) Old Testament covenant included infants. See God's covenant with Abraham. Gen. 17:7-11. (b) The church is one and the same in all dispensa- tions and if infants were included in the old covenant, must be now. (c) Whole households were baptized. Acts 16:15, Household of Lydia. Acts 16:33, Jailer of Philippi and all his. I. Cor. 1:16, Paul baptized the household of Stephanos. (d) Tertullian and Origen speak of infant baptism as the prevailing usage of the church and as having been practiced from the beginning. (e) As children need and are capable of receiving the benefits of redemption they may receive the sign of the same. (f) The covenants of the parents involve the children. 4. Efficacy of Baptism. (a) Roman view. Efficacious unto salvation. A sine qua non. (b) Anglican view. Baptismal Regeneration. (c) Lutheran view. Efficacious if unresisted. Infants are incapable of resisting, and baptism efficacious to them; but may be forfeited by neglect, unbelief, or bad conduct in after life. (d) Calvinistic and Reformed view. Sign and seal of a covenant. The important thing is the covenant. Section V. The Lord's Supper. 1. The elements. (a) Romish view. Transubstantiation. The bread be- comes flesh and the wine becomes blood by the consecra- tion by the priest. Remains permanently so. Has the appearance of bread, but the senses not qual- ified to judge. Communication in one element, — bread. Must be unleavened bread. The whole Christ is in every atom of the elements, so that the bread in itself conveys both flesh and blood. The soul is inseparable from the body, and the divin- ity from the soul; so that partaking' of the body is par- taking of Christ. (b) The Lutheran view. Consubstantiation. This is temporary, confined to the — 209 — sacramental occasion. Afterwards the elements are com- mon bread and wine. The glorified body of Christ par- talces of the infinity and omnipresence of his divine nature, so everywhere present and inexhaustible. The body and blood of Christ may thus be received by believer and unbeliever alike, but of benefit only to the former. (c) The Reformed view. The elements are simply bread and wine. They represent the body and blood in a symbolical way. The presence of Christ in the sacrament is not in the elements but in the heart of the believer. Partaking- of the bread and wine signifies spiritual participation in the benefits of Christ's death or atone- ment. 2. The nature of the Lord's Supper. (a) Romish view. The Lord's Supper is both a sacra- ment and a sacrifice. As a sacrament, opere operato, it nourishes the soul by the actual substance of Christ eaten and drunk. As a sacrifice Christ is really offered anew for the expiation of sin; thus repeating the work done on the cross. (b) Reformed view. Catechism 96. What is the Lord's Supper? A memorial. A badge of profession. Exhibits the great facts of the atonement in Christ's death. The body and blood of Christ is not received corpo- really; but what Christ did by his body and blood is re- ceived by those who partake in faith. The sacrament signifies, seals, and conveys the ben- efits of redemption. Participation is a profession and renewal of covenant vows with Christ. A solemn and vital act. -2I( PART FOURTH. ESCHATOLOGY. Index Page. Chapter I. THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. Chapter II. THE STATE OF THE SOUL IMMEDI- ATELY AFTER DEATH. Chapter III. THE RESURRECTION OF THE BO-DY. Chapter IV. THE IDENTITY OF THE RESURREC- TION BODY. Chapter V. THE SECOND ADVENT. Section I. A Matter of Prophecy. Section II. Christ Will Come Ag"ain. Section III. Events That Will Precede the Second Coming". Section IV. The Man of Sin. Section V. Events That Will Accompany the Sec- ond Coming". Section VI. Pre-Millennialism. Section VII. Post-Millennialism. Section VIII. Christ Already Come and Always Pres- ent. vSection IX. The Non-Millennial View. Chapter VI. FUTURE PUNISHMENT. Chapter VII. SECOND PROBATION. Chapter VIII. HEAVEN. 211 — PART FOURTH: ESCHATOLOGY. Eschatology is the doctrine of last things. It embraces: Chapter I. The Immortality of the Soul. Section I. Denied by Materialism. Denied by Pantheism. Section II. Proof. 1. The analogical argument. The metamorphosis of the chrysalis. The rejuvenation of earth after winter. The germination of the buried seed, etc. 2. Life's aim only partly attained here, and immor- tality necessary to its completion. 3. Virtue must be rewarded and sin punished. The just deserts of all are not manifest here, and hence the moral necessity of another life. 4. The consent of all people. The belief in immortal- ity is a world-wide and age-long belief. 5. Non-Christian religions. (a) Fetishism possesses a belief in the survival of the human spirit. Also a belief in evil spirits against whom their charms were a supposed protection. (b) Babylonian and Assyrian religion. Accadian hymns. Lay of Istar's descent to Hades. The Epic of Isdubar or Gilgames, whether legendary or historical, bears witness to the beliefs of those who wrote and read the literature. (c) Egyptian religion. The Book of the Dead. Pres- ervation of bodies. (d) Hinduism or Brahmanism. Vedic literature and Hindu philosophy. (e) Buddhism. Transmigration. Nirvana. (f) Persian religion. Zoroastrianism. Sacred book, Avesta. The Persian beliefs were strikingly like the Jew- ish and Christian thought in many particulars, e.g. the coming of a prophet or Saviour, raising of dead, millennial stages, brief triumph of Ahriman, general judgment, sep- aration of evil from good, purgatorial fires, restoration of all, blessed immortality. — 212 — (g) Greek religion. Homer is polytheistic, Plato mon- otheistic but both believed in life after death. Socrates probably did. Aristotle doubtful. Greek burial rites and monumental decorations express belief in immortality, e.g". the coin in the mouth of the dead to pay his fare over the mystic river, the carved flame ascending heavenward, the fadeless wreath. (h) Chinese religion, antedates Confucius, who mod- ified it somewhat, rites express belief in immortality; burn paper utensils, etc. (i) North American Indians. Belief in happy hunting ground; burial of bows, arrows, axes, canoes, etc. 6. Revealed Religion. (a) The Hebrews had even clearer views of immor- tality than the nations round about them. It is sometimes said that the Old Testament conceives of rewards and punishments as bestowed in this world. True, but we find here a view of another life as well. The Old Testament speaks of the dead being gathered to their fathers, shows appearance of Samuel to Saul, David's hope of seeing his child, etc. Ps. i6:ii. In thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand are pleasures forevermore. Ps. 17:15. I will behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness. Ps. 48:14. This God is our God forever and forever. Ps. 73:24-26. Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel and after- ward receive me to glory, etc. Is. 26:19. Thy dead men shall live; together with my dead body shall they arise. Dan. 12:2. Many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (b) New Testament Proof. The doctrine of immortality is on nearly every page of the New Testament. Jno. 3:16. Shall never perish but have everlasting life. Jno. 14:2, 3. I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am ye may be also. Lk. 23:43. Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. Every reference to the resurrection is a proof of immortality. Too many references to quote. The whole system involves this doctrine. 7. If immortality be not true we are imposed upon in the very constitution of our nature, and all life is an insoluble mystery. —213— 8. Claims of communications from departed spirits are not sufficiently authenticated to furnish a dependable argument. Section III. Conditional Immortality. This is the belief that immortality is conditioned on regeneration and that there is no immortality apart from spiritual life. Spiritual life is indeed conditioned on regeneration; but a consistent theology does not identify the specific terms spiritual life and eternal life with spiritual existence and eternal existence. A fundamental postulate of Russelism is that the soul is not inherently immortal; from this it goes on to argue a conditional immortality. This is to be met by a denial of the premise and further by citing ample Scriptural proof to the contrary. Chapter II. The State of the Soul Immediately after Death. 1. Materialism says: It ceases to be. 2. Pantheism and Christian Science teach that it returns to the reservoir of being from which it arose. 3. Some say the soul sleeps till the resurrection. 4. Some say it goes to an intermediate place. Purga- tory. Limbus Patrum. Limbus Infantum. Paradise. Dis- tinguish between an intermediate place, and state. 5. The Bible teaches that it enters on its eternal reward or punishment. (a) Lk. 16:19-31. "Parable of Dives and Lazarus. (b) II. Cor. 5:8. Absent from the body and present with the Lord. (c) Lk. 23:43. Today thou shalt be with me in paradise. Paradise is not a middle place but heaven. 11. Cor. 12:4. Caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable words. Rev. 2:7. The tree of life which is in the paradise of God. Rev. 22:1, 2. And he showed me a river of water of life bright as crystal proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of its street and on either side of the river was a tree of life. The tree of life is in paradise. The tree of 'life is in heaven. The conclusion is inevitable that paradise is heaven. — 214 — Catechism 37, What benefits do believers receive from Christ at death? The souls of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory; and their bodies, being still united to Christ, do rest in their graves till the resurrection. Chapter III. The Resurrection. 1. Some say that it nieans only that the soul rises to a higher state. Mk. 12:26. Christ proves to the Saddu- cees that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob still live. Said that this proves no resurrection of the body but only immor- tality of the soul. But the Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul and on that ground denied the resurrection of the body. Christ cut at the root of their unbelief. 2. Swedenborgians teach that man has two bodies, an external and an internal, a material and a psychical. The external body dies and is buried and never rises again; but the internal body passes with the soul into the heavenly state and that is the only resurrection. I. Cor. 15:44. There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body. II. Cor. 5:1. have a building of God. 3. A bodily resurrection. (a) Only that can be resurrected that had been bur- ied. The word implies previous burial. Cannot be said of soul. (b) Christ's resurrection was bodily, therefore all others the same. (c) Proof texts. Dan, 12:2. Many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. Is. 26:19. Thy dead men shall live; together with my dead body shall they arise. Rom. 8:12. He that raised Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies. Phil. 3:21. Who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body. I. Cor. 15:42-44. Sown in corruption, etc. Jno. 5:28. All that are in their graves, etc. Jno. 6:39, 40, 44. Raise him up at the last day. (d) It takes both body and soul to constitute our complete personality; and Christ's redemption of us in- volves the redemption of our bodies. The fall involved man's body and redemption will not stop short of the entire restoration of all that was lost. —215— (e) Resurrection no more incredible than birth. Dr. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, p. 649, says: "It is no more strange that the human body should exist a second time than that it should exist the first time. That a full- formed human body should be produced from a micro- scopic cell is as difficult to believe as that a spiritual resur- rection-body should be produced out of the natural earthly body. The marvels of embrj^ology are, a priori, as incred- ible as those of the resurrection. The difference between the body that is laid in the grave, and the body that is raised from the grave is not so great as the difference be- tween the minute embryonic ovum, and the human form divine. If the generation of the bodj^ were, up to this time, as rare an event as the resurrection of the body it might be denied with equal plausibility. Acts 26:8. \Vhy should it be thought a thing incredible that GOD should raise tlie dead? Chapter IV. The Identity of the Resurrection-body. 1. Is it the same body that was laid in the tomb? Christ's resurrected body was the same body. Proved to Thomas. All biblical expressions imply sameness. Necessary to idea of resurrection. I. Cor. 15:42. IT is sown; IT is raised. 2. Wherein does that identity consist? (a) In unorganized matter identity' depends on same- ness of substance and form. A stone ground and scattered loses its identity for want of form. The same material recombined in the same form would restore the identity. Water frozen and melted preserves its identity. Same sub- stance and form. Water evaporated and condensed pre- serves identity. (b) Human identity maj'' not depend on sameness of substance. The human body may disintegrate and pass into other bodies and the same material become parts of several different men. The substance of our bodies changes every seven years. Yet we recog"nize the same bodies in age as in infancy, though the substance has changed several times. Therefore the identity of the human bodj- does not depend on the sameness of the material particles. — 216 — 3. Various views of the resurrection body. (a) Some think that some small particle of our pres- ent body will be sufficient out of which to form our rari- fied resurrection body. i-io,ooo part enough. Tertullian thoug-ht that God had rendered the teeth indestructible to furnish material for our future bodies. (b) Others think that in our bodies is an indestructi- ble germ which is to be developed into our resurrection body. This is a modern view and is the germ theory. (c) Expression together with form may constitute identity; and material substance may not be essential to identity. In a block of marble is the substance out of which a statue is to be made; but the statue is not there. It takes expression and form for that. A brother gone 35 years. Substance changed five times. Recognized at once. The material which your soul wears constitutes your body and becomes a medium of expression for your soul; and in expressing you continues its identity. (d) Recognizability enters into identity. Dr. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, says: "The resurrec- tion-body is an identical body. An identical body is one that is recognized by the person himself, and by others. No more than this is required in order to bodily identity. A living man recognizes his present body as the same body that he had ten years ago; yet the material particles are not the same identically." That the spiritual body is recognized is proved by: — Lk. 9:30-33. Moses and Elijah were recognized by Christ and pointed out to the disciples. Lk. 13:28. Ye shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God. This shows that they will be recognized and therefore others as well. (e) The Bible does not say in what the identity con- sists; but we think it rational to believe in an identity whether it consists in "sameness of substance, in expres- sion, or in the uninterrupted continuity of the indwelling vital force, or all of them, or in something different from them all." Abbreviated Hodge III. 777. (f) Summary: Into the resurrection-body therefore may enter to a greater or less degree: (i) Material substance. (2) Form. (3) Expression. (4) Recognizability. — 217 — (5) Continuity or connection. There is an unbroken continuity between the seed sown and the seed grown. There is also an unbroken continuity between the body of the infant and the body of the man. Dr. Shedd — "The resurrection-body is founded on, and constructed out of the previously existing" earthly body." Chapter V. The Second Advent.^ Section I. A matter of prophecy. 1. We are not to expect prophecy to be explicit like history. Of Christ's first advent it was prophesied that a Messiah should come, that he would be a redeemer, a king, a priest, and establish a kingdom which should absorb all the kingdoms of the earth. Yet none interpreted the prophecies rightly. "He did come as a redeemer yet not to break the Roman yoke with armies. He did come as a king, but not the kind of a king they expected. He did come as a priest, but the only priest that ever lived who was both priest and victim at the same time. He did establish a kingdom, but his king'dom was not of this world. "It was foretold that Elias should come. He did come, but in a way that no one could anticipate. It was foretold that Christ should sit on the throne of David; but that has proved to.be no earthly throne. "He is to subdue all nations, not by the sword; but by truth and love. From these things we are not to expect to find prophecy like history." (Reference lost.) 2. The Scriptures speak of a coming of the Lord and a day of the Lord when they mean something else than the Second Advent in its technical sense. Joel 2:1. — the day of the Lord cometh; it is nigh at hand. also V. II. Ob. 1:15. Here the day of the Lord refers to judgment on Edom. Zeph. 1:7, 14. Day of the Lord — day of punishment for the nation. Zech. 14:1. Day of the Lord — when armies gathered against Jerusalem. Is. 13:6. Day of the Lord — when Babylon shall be destroyed. Jar. 46:10. Day of the Lord — when Egypt defeated by Babylon. Jno. 14:22, 23. We will come unto him and make our abode ^vith him. iThis subject is given disproportionate space because it is a burning eschatological question at the present time. —218— Matt. 10:23. Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come. Matt. 16:28. There be some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. Jno. 14:3. If I go and prepare a place for you I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also. Jno. 14:18. I will not leave you comfortless; I will come unto you. Jno. 14:23. — and my Father will love him and we will come unto him, etc. Rev. 2:16. Repent or else I will come unto thee quickly. ReVj 3:20. If any man hear my voice and open the door I will come in to him. Section II. Christ will come again. 1. It will be a personal coming. Acts 1:1 1. This same Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. I. Thess. 4:16. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout. Heb. 9:28. And unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Phil. 3:20. Our conversation is in heaven from whence we look for the Savior. 2. He will come visibly. (Russellites say he has come but no one has seen him.) Matt. 24:27. As the lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west, so also shall the coming of the Son of Man be. Matt. 24:30. Then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and all tribes shall mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Rev. 1:7. Every eye shall see him. I. John 3:2. When he shall appear we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is. Section III. Events that will precede the second com- ing. 1. Preaching of the gospel to all nations. Matt. 24:14. The gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness to all nations, and then shall the end come. Mk. 13:10. And the gospel must first be preached among all nations. Matt. 28:19,20. Go ye therefore and teach all nations — and lo I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Rom. 11:25. Blindness in part is happened to Israel till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. — 219 — 2. The conversion of the Jews. (a) They shall be converted. Rom. 11:23, 24. They also shall be grafted in. Natural branches grafted into their own olive tree. Rom. 11:26. And so all Israel shall be saved. (b) Israel will be converted before the second coming. Gentiles converted by the preaching of the gospel, and the inference is that the Jews will be converted in the same way. Rom. ii:ii. Shows that the salvation of the Gentiles was to provoke the Jews to jealousy, or excite to rivalry. Rom. 11:31. Through the mercy shown to you; they also may now obtain mercy. This shows that the conversion of the Gentiles is to lead to the conversion of the Jews; and this evidently by the gospel. The mercy to the Gentiles was the gospel; and through this Israel is to obtain mercy. Matt. 23:39. Ye shall not see me henceforth till ye shall say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Implies con- version. Acts 3:19-21. Peter bids the Jews repent IN ORDER THAT times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord and that he may send the Christ. This shows their repentance must precede Christ's coming. 3. The coming of Anti-Christ is to precede the second coming of Christ. II. Thes. 2:1-3. Be not soon shaken in mind or troubled as that the day of Christ is at hand, for that day shall not come except — a falling away first and that man of sin be revealed. Who is he? Some think: Any great spirit of opposi- tion. Some person of great power and wickedness. Pap- acy; Napoleon e.g. Edw. Irving. (See next section.) I. Jno. 2:18. Even now are there many Anti-Christs. Section IV. The Man of Sin. 1. In Dan. 11:21-45 we have the description of a king called a vile person, one who shall pollute the sanctuary, cause the continual sacrifice to cease, and set up the abomination of desolation. This vile king was to be very powerful, make war and conquer, and show his peculiar spite against the holy land and the holy covenant. There is no historical character that fits this description so well as Antiochus Epiphanes the monster of the Seleucid dynasty of S3'ria, who reigned B. C. 175-164 and whose violence and desecration of the temple led to the revolt of the Maccabees and the rise of the Asmonean dynasty under which the Jews had independence for about 100 years. That this identification is correct is seen in the his- — 220 — torical allusions of the whole nth chapter. The king of the north and the king of the south are the figures in the scene. This refers to Syria and Egypt, in their conflicts for supremacy. The land of Israel lay between them, sometimes held by the Ptolemies, sometimes by the Seleu- cidae, and finally being utterly ravaged by Antiochus. There is no other period when these allusions will fit. They have their definite historical setting, and the identi- fication is unmistakable. The reference to the abomina- tion that maketh desolate is therefore applied historically to Antiochus Epiphanes, 2. In Matt. 24:15 Christ applies this prophecy of Daniel to the times of the destruction of Jerusalem. When ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place. The holj' place was an apartment of the temple at Jerusalem and these words of our Lord seem not only to connect this abomination with the siege of Jerusalem, but to place him among the besiegers. This therefore constitutes a second fulfilment of the prophecy of Daniel in the historical cir- cumstance of the fall of Jerusalem. 3. Passing now to Paul's epistles to the Thessalo- nians, we find some further references to the apostasy, the man of sin, and the coming of the Lord, or the day of the Lord. It is to be noticed that almost every passage in Thessalonians, in which the second advent is referred to, conceives of it as the judgment day, which shows that Paul identified the two. I. Thess. 1:10. To wait for his Son — which delivered us from wrath to come. I. Thess. 2:19. Believers a crown of rejoicing. I. Thess. 3:13. Unblamable in holiness. I. Thess. 5:2. As a thief in the night. I. Thess. 5:3. Sudden destruction. I. Thess. 5:23. Preserved blameless. II. Thess. 1:6. Recompense tribulation to them that trouble you. II. Thess. 1:9. Punished with everlasting destruction. I. Thess. 5:2, calls it "the day of the Lord," a term which, from Joel had stood in all prophecy as the synonym of the judgment. Paul in his first epistle to the Thessalonians refers to Christ's second coming as a ground of comfort in their persecutions, affirming their vindication and the destruc- tion of the wicked troublers. These Thessalonians just emerging from heathenism, and imperfectly instructed, conceived of the coming of Christ as immediately at hand, whereupon certain disorders arose, some becoming busy- — 221 — bodies and refusing" to work and eating- the bread of others. To correct these disorders Paul wrote the second epistle in which occurs the passage Chapter 2:1-12 refer- ring to the "day of the Lord," the apostasy, the man of sin and the "one who hindereth" or "he that letteth will let, till he be taken out of the way." "That day shall not come except there come a falling away, or apostasy, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, — only there is one that hindereth until he is taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked one be revealed." Who or what was this "man of sin"? As Christ re- ferred to his standing in the holy place, so Paul says: "He sitteth in the temple of God setting himself forth as God." Both passages connect him with the temple at Jerusalem, and locate him therefore about the time of Jerusalem's fall. The best opinion identifies him with the Roman Em- peror, or the line of Emperors of that time, and the de- scription fits the case. Verse 4 describes that man of sin as one who "oppo- seth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, so that he as God, sitteth in the temple of God, setting him- self forth as God." This was literally fulfilled in the Roman emperors. Caligula with his passion for deification, Nero the perse- cutor, Vespasian, the miracle worker, Titus who intro- duced his divine-self and idolatrous insignia into the Holy of Holies, and all that line of persecuting monsters, fill up the picture as Paul drew it in this passage. The other parts of the picture also fall into place. The apostasy referred to by Paul was the Jewish apostasy, the final rejection of the truth proclaimed in their midst. This is borne out by Paul's reference to it in the first epistle 2:15, 16, where he describes the Jews' treat- ment of Christ, Christians and Christianity, and ends by saying that wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." It is fair thus to assume that this is what Paul means by "the apostasy." The thing "that hindereth and will hinder until it be taken out of the way," is evidently something existing when Paul wrote. It was actually hindering then the complete manifestation of that Man of sin. It was shortly to be taken away and then all the power of the man of sin would be visited upon the infant church. It is not difficult to see how this corresponds with the Jewish state. It was soon to be taken away. It served as a shield and protection to the Christian church in those early years, not willingly indeed but none the less really. It was the policy of Rome not to interfere with the reli- g-ion of a subject nation, and in the early days Christian- ity was concealed from notice, by being" confused with Judaism. Rome was hostile to any new religion, but Christianity escaped that hostility under the toleration accorded to Judaism, until the Jewish state was swept away and the difference was perceived, and by that time the church had grown strong enough to withstand the storm that broke upon its head. The hinderer hindered until it was taken out of the way and then that wicked one was revealed with all his persecuting power. This is the answer which history has given in the interpretation of Paul's prophecies. Paul wrote this about 52 or 53 A. D. and in a score of j^ears the main facts had come to pass. The inquiry will very properly arise, if the man of sin is synonymous with the Roman power, personified in the emperors, how does this coincide with the statement that he shall be destroyed with the brightness of Christ's com- ing? In this connection observe three things: — 1. Paul does not say that the man of sin will be reigning and dominant at the time of Christ's coming, but only that he with all other wicked persecutors and troublers, will meet his doom and receive his deserts in the judgment at Christ's appearing. 2. That while Paul mentions the apostasy, the hin- derer, and the day of the Lord, he does not say that they are immediately consecutive. For aught we know centur- ies may intervene between them and still men wait for the sequence. The difference between Paul and the Thes- salonians was this: the Thessalonians were certain that Christ would immediately appear or at least in their life- time. Paul leaves the matter open. He does not teach that Christ will appear in their age, neither does he teach the contrary. He leaves that question for time to settle. 3. The phrase, "day of the Lord" may refer to the destruction of Jerusalem as well as to the second advent. The usage of the phrase makes it applicable to any great national judgment. Such is its constant usage in the Scriptures. Summing up, we see that the "abomination of desola- tion" which seems to be synonymous with the "man of sin" has had more than one historical counterpart. Whatever future manifestations of him may occur must be determined by the event. John who lived in the time of this man of sin, and felt —223 — some of his bitter thrusts mentions the Anti-Christ four times in his epistles: I. John 2:18. As ye have heard that Anti-Christ shall come, even now are there many Anti-Christs. I. John 2:22. He is the Anti-Christ that denieth the Father and the Son. I. John 4:3 (Revised Version). And every spirit which con- fesseth not Jesus is not of God; and this is the spirit of the Anti- Christ, whereof ye have heard that it cometh, and now it is in the world already. II. John 1:7. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an Anti-Christ. Section V. Events which will accompany the second advent. 1. The resurrection of the dead, just and unjust. Dan. 12:2. Jno. 5:28, 29. — all that are in their graves; all at once; at Christ's call. Rev. 20:12, 13. All the dead rising and coming- to judgment. I. Thess. 4:16. The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout and the dead in Christ shall rise first (i.e. before ascension). This shows that the resurrection occurs at the advent of Christ. 2. The Judgment. Matt. 25:31 ff. Shows Christ's coming followed by the general judgment. Schofield clearly wrong in making this a judgment of nations. II. Thess. 1:7-10. Shows coming connected with judgment. 3. The end of the world associated with the second coming". Matt. 13:39. In Parable of Tares: The harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. Matt. 13:40-43. Application of same. Matt. 13:49. Parable of the Net. So shall it be in the end of the world, the angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the good and shall cast them into the furnace of fire, etc. Sometimes said that the word "world" means age; and so not end of world. But it is the age of the world's affairs. The destiny appointed to the righteous and wicked shows what end is meant. II. Pet. 3:10-12. Elements melt, earth burned up, heavens on fire. Christ refers judgment and resurrection to "the last day." Jno. 12:48. The word that I have spoken the same will judge him IN THE LAST DAY. — 224 — Jno, 11:24. Martha (taught by Christ) says: I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at THE' LAST DAY. Jno. 6:39. — that of all that he hath given me I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again at THE LAST DAY. Jno. 6:40. — -may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at THE LAST DAY. Jno. 6:44. No man can come to me except the Father draw him, and I will raise him up at THE: LAST DAY. Section VI. Pre-Millennialism. 1. Statement. This doctrine teaches, as its name indicates, that Christ will come a second time before the millennium. It had some currency from A.D. 150 till about 250, afterwards gradually died out and has been revived to some extent in recent years. Pre-Millennialists understand the term "king-dom" to mean the millennial kingdom. They say that Christ came and offered himself and the kingdom; that both were refused; and that the kingdom was withdrawn from the world when Christ ascended; that there is now no kingdom in the world and will not be till Christ comes to reign personally and vis- ibly on earth, — "no kingdom without a king." This is therefore not the kingdom age but the church age. The gospel will not succeed but the world will be converted by the second coming. Christ's coming is said to be imminent, that he may come any day. The Bishop of London said a few years ago that it would occur in 1920. According to this view when Christ comes the godly dead will rise, the church ascend to meet Christ in the air, and Christ and the church will remain in the air for a period; said by some to be seven years. That period is a time of tribulation to the Jews and the wicked on earth. At the end of the tribulation Christ and the church come to earth and reign a thousand years. By this coming the Jews are converted and presumably all others. At the end of the thousand years Satan is loosed; the world goes from bad to worse, Satan's hosts war against the saints till fire comes down to destroy them. Then Satan is cast into the pit; then follow the resurrection and judgment of the wicked. THE CHART 2. Arguments for Pre-Millennialism as given by William E. Blackstone. (a) Anti-Christ is to be destroyed by Christ's second coming. II. Thes. 2:8. — 225— (b) Matt. 24:29-31. Christ's coming immediately after tribulation. (c) II. Tim. 3:12. All who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. The true church is a perse- cuted, suffering church, and this will continue till Christ comes again. II. Thess. 1:7. And to you that are afflicted, rest with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire. This continued persecution and suffering precludes any millennium until after Christ's coming. (d) The tares and wheat will grow together until the end (of this age), — Matt. 13:30. Evil men and seducers .will wax worse and worse, — II. Tim. 3:13. As it was in the days of Noah and Lot, even thus shall it be in the da3' when the son of Man is revealed, — Lk. 17:30. This absolutely precludes the idea of the millennial reign of righteousness in this dispensation. (e) The millennial kingdom will be a literal reign of Christ on earth, and not simply a spiritual exaltation of the church. Is. 32:1. Behold a king shall reign in righteousness. Jer. 23:5. I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a king shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and justice in the earth. This reign shall be upon the throne of David. Is. 9:7. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom to order and establish it with judgment and justice from henceforth even forever. Lk. 1:32. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. Verse 33 describes an everlasting reign. This visible reign shall be at Jerusalem. Jer. 3:17. At that time shall they call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord to Jerusalem. (Spoken in connection with restoration from Babylon.) Zech. 14:16. And it shall come to pass that every' one that is left of all the nations that came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the king, the Lord of Hosts, and to keep the feast of Tabernacles. The Apostles shall sit upon twelve thrones. Matt. 19:28. Ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Question is, what time is referred to?) Saints shall reign on the earth. Rev. 5:10. And hath made us into our God, kings and priests and we shall reign on earth. (Part of the song in heaven.) (f) Argument from the order of the resurrection. As Jesus was raised out of the dead and the rest of the dead were left, so the dead in Christ, that are his at his ■ — 226 — coming", will be raised out of the dead and the rest of the dead will be left until another and final resurrection, and the Millennium will occur between these two resurrections; thus clearly showing" Christ's coming" to be pre-millennial. I. Cor. 15:23 ff. Every man in his own order, Christ the first fruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming; — then (or afterwards) the end. i.e. Christ — ^saints — -the rest of dead at the end. (Forced Interpretation.) I. Thess. 4:16. — and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Rev. 20:4, 5. And I saw the souls of those that were beheaded — ^and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years were fin- ished. This is the first resurrection. Those who were beheaded are thought to be "tribulation saints," or those who perished in the tribulation under the reign of the Anti-Christ. 3. Remarks on Blackstone's Arguments. (a) That Anti-Christ will be destro5''ed at Christ's sec- ond coming" does not necessarily mean that he will con- tinue till that coming", but that he will share the fate that awaits all the wicked; and the Apostle John says, "There are many Anti-Christs." (b) Christ's coming" immediately after the tribulation. Even on the Post-Millennial view there may be a tribula- tion at the end of the world, when Satan is loosed from the pit. There are many tribulations, and Matt. 24 clearly fixes one of them at the fall of Jerusalem. (c) That the church is a persecuted church and that this precludes any millennial era before Christ's coming" is too large a conclusion for the basis on which it is placed. (d) As to the tares, evil men and seducers, and days of Noah and Lot, observe: The desig"n of the parable of the tares is to explain Christ's attitude toward evil and to teach the church's duty: — that evil is not to be uprooted by violence. The church must suffer its presence in the world; but that Christ himself will make that separation at the end of the world. This end of the world is the ter- minus of the world's affairs, as is shown by the final sep- aration, the ag"ency of ang"els, and the destiny appointed to the righteous and the wicked. The question of a mil- lennial reign is not in view; but a simultaneous judgment which Premillennialism denies, and that good and evil intermingle till the end of the world, then separation and destiny. The growth of evil in wicked men proves nothing as to the time of the second coming. The analogy to the days of Noah and Lot shows only that the coming will be sudden and unexpected, but shows nothing as to the time. — 227 — (e) The argument for a literal reign. This argument is too literal. If the Messiah must sit on a literal throne then must that literal throne last for- ever. Is. 9:7, Lk. 1:33. Apostles on twelve thrones: this assigns as a proof the very thing that is to be proved, viz. that the reign will be on earth. The question at issue is, what time is referred to. Rev. 5:10. Saints reigning on earth. The Revised Version gives a different meaning to this text. Christ says: The kingdom of God is within you. Also, my kingdom is NOT of this world, and the kingdom of God Cometh NOT with observation. (f) Argument from the order of the resurrection. Here we have three texts presented. I. Cor. 15:23 ff. The interpretation is forced. It is quite -as justifiable here to synchronize Christ's coming with the end. "Then the end." I. Thess. 4:16. The dead in Christ shall rise first. The infer- ence drawn here is clearly wrong as the context will show. The resurrection is "first" as respects the ascension, and not as respects another resurrection. Rev. 20:4, 5. Here the meaning is too uncertain to make the text decisive. See remarks on Rev. 20, on a subsequent page. David Brown in "The Second Advent," pp. 218-258, gives nine reasons why the resurrection mentioned in Rev. 20:5 is not literal but figurative. 4. General remarks on Pre-Millennialism. (a) The Scriptures do say that Christ will come again. This is admitted by all. The difference of opinion regards the time of the advent. (b) The Pre-Millennialists cite much from the Old Testament that refers to the first advent or the progress of the church in the world. There is no proof that the kingdom was withdrawn from the world when Christ ascended. (d) The distinction between the church age and the kingdom age is entirely unwarranted. The kingdom is in the world at the present time. (e) There is no satisfactory proof that the saints will return to earth after meeting Christ in the air. The only expressed sequence in loco is "so shall we ever be with the Lord." See Section VII. Paragraph 3. (f) When it is said that they reign with Christ a thousand years, it is not said whether that is in heaven or on the earth. Both views are held. (g) There is no proof that the church will remain in the air seven years or for any time. The week of Dan. —228— 9:27 evidently refers to some other event, and similar ref- erences are too vag-ue to justifj^ such a conclusion. (h) In Matt. 24:21, Christ mentions a time of tribula- tion which evidently refers to the destruction of Jerusa- lem. What typical reference it may have to some future event is not clear, (i) It is not in the Apostle's Creed, Shorter Catechism, Confession of Faith, or any other church creed. (j) Its method of interpretation is erroneous. (k) It is due more to eisegesis than to exegesis. Section VIII. Post-Millennialism. 1. Statement. In this view Christ comes at the end of the world. Then occurs the resurrection, both of the just and unjust; the general judgment; and the final sentence vindicating the righteous, condemning the wicked, and consigning each to their eternal destiny. It is called Post-millennial because it assig"ns Christ's coming to a period after the millennium. 2. Proof. (a) In Matt. 13, the parables of the Tares and the Draw-net show that the judg-ment is at the "end of the world." The word "age" indicates the world-ag"e, or what we call "time." The separation, the destiny assigned to righteous and wicked, in fact the whole setting indicate a final and not a preliminary scene. Also the judgment of both classes is simultaneous. The word, age, "aion," as applied to man in the Scriptures, has but two connota- tions, which correspond to our terms "time and eternity," "here and hereafter," "this world and the next." The one age is finite and the other infinite. In confi.rmation, see Matt. 12:32, Mk. 10:30, Lk. 18:30, Ephes. 1:21. (b) Christ's use of "the last day." Christ refers both judgment and resurrection to the last day, "THE last day." That is decisive. Jno. 6:39, — lose nothing-; but should raise it up at the last day. Jno. 6:40, — and I will raise him up at the last day. Jno. 6:44, — and I will raise him up at the last day. Jno. 12:48, — the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (c) Martha's use of "the last day." Jno. 11:24, I know that he will rise ag-ain in the resurrection in the last day. — 229 — And it is to be remembered that Martha was taught by Christ. (d) The Bible synchronizes the second coming" and the resurrection; and further synchronizes the resurrection and the last day and therefore synchronizes the second coming" and the last day. (e) The Bible synchronizes the second coming and the judgment; and further synchronizes the judgment with the end of the world, and therefore synchronizes the sec- ond coming and the end of the world. (f) The Scriptures represent the world as being con- sumed by fire in that day that comes as a thief. See II. Pet. 3:10-12. Here we have a phrase previously applied to Christ's advent, associated with the destruction of the world. The day that comes as a thief is the day when the elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Christ's com- ing marks the end of the world. (g) Jno. 5:28, 29. The hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. These verses show that the just and unjust will rise at the same time and not a thousand years apart. (h) Matt. 25:31 ff. Show Christ's coming followed by the general judgment. By no possibility of sane inter- pretation can this mean a judgment of nations as such, prior to the millennium, as Dr. Schofield declares. The GROUNDS OF THE JUDGMENT, the SENTENCE PRO- NOUNCED, the DESTINY ASSIGNED are out of all keeping with such a view. The terms apply to individuals and not to nations. "Everlasting punishment," and "life eternal," have no applicability to nations. (i) Christ and Paul take occasion to discourage the expectation of an early millennial kingdom. This expectation gained some currency among the early disciples. Inheriting from Judaism the idea of an earthly reign, they looked for Christ to set up such a king- dom while he was on earth. After his death some still clung to the hope of a speedy return and an earthly reign. This however was not consistent with Christ's own teach- ing, as the following will show: — The parable of the leaven shows the kingdom working gradually till the world is permeated with the spirit of the —230 — gospel. The claim that the leaven does not represent the kingdom is too preposterous to require refutation. The parable of the ten virgins represents the bride- groom as tarrying. Matt. 25:1-13. The parable of the talents shows the lord of the servants absent "a long time." Matt. 25:14-30, The parable of the pounds, Lk. 19:11-27, was spoken expressly to correct the mistake of a speedy consumma- tion. Christ bids the Apostles go forth and make disciples of all nations, Matt. 28:19. They could not rationally ex- pect this to be done in a few years. When the Apostles asked Christ before his ascension if he would at that time restore the kingdom of Israel, he answered by telling them that they must be his witnesses to the uttermost part of the earth. All this was entirely contrary to the expecta- tion of a speedy coming'. And further, four of the para- bles in Matt. 13 represent the kingdom by processes of growth. The Apostle Paul too has written some things that look the same way. Rom. 11:25, Blindness in part hath happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. The fulness of the Gentiles would not be accom- plished in a few brief years; generations of toil lay be- tween those early disciples and that blessed fulness. When the expectation of a speedy coming came to a climax in the Thessalouian church, Paul wrote his second epistle to correct that mistake. "Be not soon shaken in mind or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us as that the day of the Lord is at hand, or "is close," or (Lightfoot) "is imminent." He goes on then to give some reasons why it was not to be regarded by them as imminent. Thus we find a considerable body of teaching that was intended to counteract the mistake of some of the early disciples that Christ's second advent was soon to be expected. The idea persisted in some quarters of the early church till the first Ecumenical Council which definitely decided that such was not the purport of Christ's teaching. After that the early Chiliasm died away. (j) The kingdom is in the world at the present time. Dan. 2:44. And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed. This is a prophecy of Christ's kingdom to be set up in the days of the Roman rulers. Dan. 7:23-27. This is a further prophecy of the kingdom in the days of the fourth beast or the Roman power. — 231 — Matt. 6:33. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteous- ness. This is set forth as a present duty for every man. Matt, 13:38. The field is the world, the good seed are the children of the kingdom. -Matt. 18:4, Whosoever shall humble himself as a little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 21:31, The publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. Matt. 21:43. The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Mk, 12:34. Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. Lk. 6:20. Blessed be ye poor for yours is the kingdom of God. Lk. 16:16. Since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached and every man presseth into it. Lk. 10:9-11. The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. Lk. 12:32^ It is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Jno. 3:3. Except a man be born again he cannot see the king- dom of God. Who can imagine that this is a millennial kingdom not yet set up? Rom. 14:17. For the kingdoin of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. As these are graces of the Spirit now, the kingdom is here now. Col. 1:13. Who hath delivered us from the powers of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son. From these passages it is clear that the kingdom is in the world at the present time; not merely when Christ was on earth, nor when the millennial age shall arrive, but here and now in the visible and invisible church of God. Is Christ a king" now? If he is, then there must be a king- dom over which he rules. If he is not, then the work of salvation goes on without his kingly office, and thus his kingly office would not be essential to salvation. Grouping some teachings already observed we have these additional paragraphs: (k) All believers will be raised at Christ's coming at the last day and there will be a simultaneous resurrection of the just and the unjust. Jno. 6:39. And this is the Father's will, — ^that of ALL that he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. Jno. 6:40. And this is the will of him that sent me that EVERY ONE which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlast- ing life, and I will raise him up at the last day. I. Cor. 15:23. They that are Christ's at his coming; evidently all that are his. The pre-millennialist says some at Christ's coming and some no one ever knows when if ever. Since the pre-millennialist makes Rev. 20:11 ff. to refer to the, wicked only, there is no provision for the righteous dead to be judged at all nor raised at all after the Advent. The Bible has little to say as to the resurrection of the wicked; but its few references show them raised together with the righteous. Some passages on the resurrection of —232— the righteous make no mention of the wicked. This feature has been seized upon by pre-millennialists as evi- dence that they are not raised together. But their argu- ment is a non-sequitur, and a species of fallacious reason- ing. The wicked are not mentioned in those passages with the just, not because they do not rise at the same time, but because they do not rise on the same principle; because not united to Christ. In those passages the Apostles are speaking only of believers, the wicked have nothing to do with the point in view and so are not mentioned. The Socinians and Remonstrants used those same passages to prove that the wicked do not rise at all; the same species of fallacious reasoning. It is often said that ek nekron e.g. Acts 4:2, expresses an "out-resurrection from the dead," implying that some are raised up and out from others who are left behind. The argument will not bear examination, for references are found to both classes, and to Christ himself, without the ek. The following few passages bear on the resurrection of both classes: Dan. 12:2. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting- life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt; — "at that time." Jno. 5:28, 29. The hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth, they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation. This is absolutely conclusive of the simultaneous rising of the just and unjust. And the hour cannot be lengthened to include an age, for resurrection is said to be in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye; and whatever the pre-millennialist might claim as to a continuous age for the resurrection to life, he would not be so willing to make that claim of the resurrection to damnation; and the term "hour" applies to both. Acts 24:15. And have hope toward God which they themselves also allow that there will be a resurrection both of the just and unjust. There is here at least no hint of separate resurrections. Rev. 20:11-15. This is evidently a general resurrection. If this refers to the wicked only, what provision is left for the resurrection of millennial and post-millennial saints? Thus the Scriptures associate the resurrection of the just and unjust and the only fair conclusion is that it is a simultaneous resurrection. No other conclusion seems rational especially in the light of Jno. 5:28, 29. (1) The Judgment of the righteous and wicked is one transaction and simultaneous. —233— Matt. 10:32, 33, taken with Mk. 8:38 shows judgment of both classes when Christ comes. Matt. 7:21-23. Reception and rejection in that day. Matt. 16:27. For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward EVERY MAN according to his works. Matt. 25:16-30. The parable of the talents shows that the rec- koning is all one transaction for the faithful and the unfaithful. Matt. 25:31-46. This shows the judgment of all, evil and good in one great assize. Matt. 13:38-43. Parable of the tares, — judgment at the time of Christ's coming, the wicked judged then, not a thousand years after; the tares gathered first. Jno. 5:28, 29. Here resurrection and judgment axe combined; "all that are in their graves," a universal event, good and bad, in one "hour." Whatever may be said as to the length of the hour, here is the unity of the period, and transaction; as against the separateness, and multifarious and broken transactions of the pre- millennial scheme. Acts 17:13. Appointed a day in which he will judge the world. Here is all the world in judgnient, all at one time; no dismembered parts of the process discernible. Rom. 2:5-16. Will render to every man according to his deeds, to some eternal life to some wrath, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men. One day, one transaction, both classes. n. Cor. 5:9-11. We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ. Premillennialists say this refers only to the righteous. H. Thess. 1:6-10. Recompense tribulation to one, rest to the other, when the Lord is revealed from heaven. The wicked are "punished with everlasting destruction," "in that day." Here both classes get recompense at the same time, in that day; therefore not a divided judgment. n. Tim. 4:1. Judge the quick and dead at his appearing, all at his appearing; not some at his appearing and the rest a thousand years after. Rev. 20:11-15. In harmony with all the rest doubtless pictures a simultaneous and universal resurrection and judgment. How strangfe that, in the light of these facts, the pre- millennialist will deny a g'eneral judgment. 3. As to saints reigning" on earth. (a) When the saints meet the Lord in the air it is added: "So shall we ever be with the Lord." There is no hint of coming back to earth after their ascension. This would involve either a retransformation from the resurrec- tion-body to a natural bod5^ or their reigning on earth in their "spiritual" bodies. Rev. 5:10. And hast made us kings and priests and we shall reign on the earth. The Revised Version entirely changes this and reads: And madest them a kingdom and priests and THEY REIGN (present tense) on the earth. Rev. 20:4. And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. It is not said whether this is on earth or in heaven. See on Rev. 20, on a subsequent page. Matt. 19:28. Ye shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. —234— The Pre-millennialist understands that Israel will arise again as a nation, the tribal relations will be recon- structed, the Jewish worship set up with its old-time forms, ritual, sacrifices, and feasts; and the apostles will rule over the tribes. Two questions arise here: First, Is this to be taken literally, or is it a figurative expression as to the ministry of the Apostles to the Jews? Second, Do the terms "regen- eration," "when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory," refer to time or to eternity? The Pre and the Post answer these questions in differ- ent ways. That saints will reign in the Pre-millennial sense is not clearly made out in the Scriptures. (b) There is however some teaching as to heavenly attendants of the Advent. The passages usually cited are these: — • Deut. 35:2. And the Lord came from Sinai, he shined forth from Mt. Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints. Revised Version: And he came FROM the ten thousands of holy ones. This refers to God's appearance to Moses on Sinai, the ten thousands of holy ones are the heavenly hosts. This has no reference to the advent. Zech. 14:5. And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountain, for this valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal, and the Lord my God shall come and all the saints with thee. These prophecies have chiefly to do with restored Judaism after the captivity, and with the rebuilt Jerusa- lem in which work they were engaged. The wars may refer to the wars with Syria or Rome; some details would fit such a view; but whether this passage refers to the time of Christ's second coming cannot be gathered from the context. The fact of fleeing by the way of the valley is against such a view. Matt. 25:31. Here angels are the attendants. The term is ex- plicit. L Thess. 4:14. If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. Evidently resurrection. ' Jude 1:14. Enoch also prophesied of these saying: Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints. Revised Version: TO these also Enoch prophesied saying: Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his holy ones. Here agiais (holy) is the adjective, and muriasin (myriads) is the noun. The Authorized version made the former a noun and the latter an adjective. If the latter were an adjective, the ending would be ais, not asin. So the proper translation is "holy myriads," and if this refers —235— to the second advent, maj' be interpreted with its related passag-e Matt. 25:31, as referring to angels. These things maj^ be inferred from the above: — First, Angels will attend the advent. Second, The bodies that sleep will be raised up from the grave. Third, The disembodied spirits will be brought from their intermediate state to be reunited with the resurrected bodies. This much is clear. This far we may safely go, and more than this it is not wise to assert. Elsewhere we are taught that we must all appear be- fore the judgment seat of Christ that every one may re- ceive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be g'ood or bad. — 11. Cor. 5:10. Matt. 25:34. Come ye blessed of my Father inherit the kingdom prepared for you from foundation of the world, and v. 46, and the righteous (shall go) into life eternal. This may cover all that is meant bj" Christ bringing his saints. 4. As to Rev. Chapter 20, General Remarks. (a) Revelation is apocalyptical, mystical, obscure; and this passage as much as any. We should formulate our doctrines from the plain parts of Scripture and inter- pret the obscure by the obvious and not vice versa. (b) The Pre-Millennialist understands the second ad- vent to be described in the nineteenth chapter and the opening verses of the twentieth chapter to describe some concurrent circumstances. (c) "And I saw the souls of those that were behead- ed." Observe the mention of souls, not bodies. If John meant a literal resurrection, he should have said bodies. (d) The scenes where the souls are seems to be heaven and not earth, as shown by Rev. 6:9, where John sees the souls of those slain for the word of God. Where are they? Under the altar, in heaven, as indicated in the following verses 10 and 11. (e) The living and reigning is described as "the first resurrection." Dr. Shedd declares this refers to regenera- tion. And it is to be remembered in this connection that it is regeneration and not literal resurrection that delivers from eternal or the second death. And further, regenera- tion is spoken of as a resurrection, — See Ephes. 2:6, Ephes. 5:14, and Col. 3:1. (f) Rev. 20:4, 5. "Lived again, lived not again," — the word "again" is not in the Revised Version. —236— (g) Rev. 20:5, "But the rest of the dead lived not till the thousand years were ended," — these words are omitted from some manuscripts, especially the Vatican and the Syriac. "This is the first resurrection, "^ — no "is" in the original. It may therefore be read, "This resurrection is the first." And whether it means first in order of time, or first in dignity and importance is all an unsettled question. Observe too that there is no mention of a second resur- rection; none so enumerated, but a general resurrection is implied at the close of the chapter when "the dead small and great stand before God." 5. Interpretation of Rev. Chapters 19 and 20. The nineteenth Chapter of Rev. records a scene in which one rides on a white horse, with a sharp sword in his mouth, and he is called Faithful and True, Word of God, and King of kings and Lord of lords. This rider and his armies contend with their enemies, conquer them, and cast them into the lake of fire and brimstone. The Postmillennialist regards this, as also similar vis- ions in Revlation, as the triumph of the kingdom of God over all enemies and opposition, and by the ordinary means of the gospel. The sword that proceeds out of the mouth of the rider is, according to Biblical symbolism, the word of God; and the triumph effected by it is the triumph of the gospel or the cause of Christ in the world. Also the amplified details show this to be an extended process rather than a sudden event. The Premillennialist regards this record as the pro- phecy of the Second Advent, and the destruction of the Anti-Christ, preliminary to the thousand years of chapter twenty. Their order is: the First Resurrection or Rapture; Seven years of Tribulation; the Coming, and Destruction of Anti-Christ; the Thousand Years in which the world is to be converted after the failure of the gospel; Satan loosed; the Second Resurrection and Judgment of the wicked only, as given in Rev. 20:11-15. According to the Premillennialist this is history written beforehand and in chronological order. We cite Clarence Larkin, author of "Dispensational Truth," as a sample of this view: "The Book of Revela- tion is written in chronological order. After the fourth chapter the church is seen no more upon the earth until she appears in the nineteenth chapter coming with the Bridegroom 'from' Heaven. The entire time between —237— these two chapters is filled with appalling- judg-ments that fall upon those that 'dwell upon the earth,' and as the church is not of the earth, but is supposed to 'sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus' (Ephes. 2:6) she will not be among those who 'dwell on the earth' in those days." It would be interesting to note the inaccuracies of this statement but we must keep to the point in hand. If this is history written beforehand, or as is some- times said, an inspired order as well as an inspired record, it will be seen that the order does not fit the Premillen- nial scheme. If the nineteenth chapter describes the conversion of the world then the Premillennialist should insert this chapter between the 6th and 7th verses of chapter twenty. For according to that scheme the conversion of the world is after the Coming", after the Tribulation, after the bind- ing of Satan, and well within the thousand years. But if the nineteenth chapter does not describe the conversion of the world, but describes the Second Coming and the destruction of Anti-Christ, the order is still dis- rupted. For on this scheme the Anti-Christ is destroyed at the Second Coming', after the tribulation. But the First Resurrection or Rapture is prior to the Coming, and prior to the destruction of Anti-Christ, and prior to the Tribula- tion also. Therefore the Premillennialist should put Chapter 20:4, 5, which describes, on his view, the First Resurrection, or Rapture, before the nineteenth which de- scribes the Second Coming and Anti-Christ. And as well should he make 20:4, 5, precede all the chapters describing the Tribulation. We should therefore expect, on the Pre- millennial scheme, to find Rev. 20:4, 5, at the beginning of chapter four. The Postmillennial view reg'ards the triumph of the g"Ospel in the world as preceding" and issuing in the millen- nium, which better corresponds to the place of the 19th chapter in the account, if we are to consider a definite order in the narrative. And further that chapter 20:11 supplies the reference to the final coming" if any such ref- erence is needed. One fallacy of Premillennialism is to make Revela- tion to be chiefly concerned with events rather than with principles. Rev. 20:4-6. This difficult passagfe has received various interpreta- tions, and no one seems to be entirely without difficulties. Often we may not be able to tell certainly what a passage —238— means even when reasonablj^ certain as to what it does not mean. The following" interpretations may be noted: First. The Premillennial interpretation. All the righteous dead are raised, and dwell and reign on earth a thousand years; and the rest of the dead, the wicked, are not raised till the final resurrection described in verses 11-14, which is a resurrection and judgment of the wicked only. Second. A few martyrs and confessors are raised to share the glory of the millennial age. This view may be held by postmillennialists as well as by premillennialists. Third. These verses describe, not a bodily resurrec- tion, but the glorious character of the millennial church. The church of that day will be as though the martyrs had risen, i.e. possessed with the spirit and character of the martyrs. Their spirit and zeal will reappear; their cause crushed b^^ persecution and apostasy will rise and triumph. As Elijah was expected to come again, and came not in person but in a successor, as John Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah, and Christ said: This is Elijah which was to come, so in the niillennial ag"e the church will reappear in the power and spirit of the martyrs and confessors. The "living and reigning" of the saints is said to be the "first resurrection." And this living and reigning of the saints is the church triumphant in the millennial day, the resurrection of the cause that was slain by the sword, and burned in the persecutor's fire. The saints and church at length come into their own. The church, Phoenix-like rises from its ashes. A similar imagery is used in Ezek. 37:12 when God sscys to Israel in captivity: "O m3^ people I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel." In both cases no literal resurrection intended, but the restora- tion and triumph of God's people. Verse five saj^s: "And the rest of the dead lived not again TILL the thousand j^ears were finished." This may fairly imply that they WILL live again at the end of this period; not merel^^ raised at the final resurrection, but LIVE in the "little season" after the millennium. Now make this passage a figurative representation of these succeeding events and the contrast or antithesis is clear. The saint party lives a thousand years in triumph, while the other party is subdued. But after 'the thousand years the serpent party "lives again." It had been over- —239— thrown, now reappears and "lives again" and the old con- flict is renewed. This puts a clear antithesis between the living- and reigning of saints, and the rest that lived not TILL the thousand years were finished. Thus we have the living and reigning of the saints party, the living again of the serpent party, then the final conflict and deliverance, and the resurrection and judg- ment of all the dead. This was the view of St. Augustine, is held by Dr. A. H. Strong, and was ably defended by Dr. David Brown. Fourth. This vision shows the saints and martyrs in heaven. It was meant to show that the redeemed are in heaven safe from all the persecutions that raged below. It was written by John to encourage the church facing the persecutions of that and subsequent times. The saints of John's day needed just such encouragement. It nerved them to faithfulness to be shown the beatific glory of the martyr when the Roman sword had done its worst. It was not meant to show the raising of bodies, but the raising of souls to their heavenly home. 'And I saw the souls," etc. This is the first resurrection, the entrance upon hea- venly joys; and the second resurrection is the bodily resur- rection of all the dead at the end of the world. This is the view of Prof. C. A. Briggs and Prof. B. B. Warfield. Fifth. The first resurrection is regeneration which alone delivers from the second death. There are several passages that speak of regeneration or the new life as a resurrection. This view is practically involved in the preceding. Remarks on these views. The first or Premillennial view encounters serious difficulties. It contradicts the plain and repeated state- ments of Christ that the resurrection is at the last day. It contradicts the plain meaning of Christ in Jno. 5:28 that the just and unjust are raised at the same time. It is inconsistent with the close of this same chapter where it is said: "the dead small and great stand before God, and the books were opened, and the BOOK OF LIFE, and the dead were judged out of the things written in the books; and the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up the dead that were in them," plainly a GENERAL resurrection and a GEN- ERAL judgment; especially since the book of life was there. It contradicts Matt. 25:31 ff., which shows the final judgment to be at Christ's coming. — 240 — It reads into the passage, all the rig-hteous, when only martyrs are mentioned. It makes an obscure passage the key to explain the rest of the Scriptures; the true rule of interpretation is to explain the obscure by the obvious. Its supposed antithesis between the saints and "the rest of the dead" is not so good as appears at first sight; for it does not make "the rest of the dead" to LIVE on earth as it did the saints, but only to be resurrected for judgment. The second view expresses the most that can be claimed for a theory of bodily resurrection. The third view has the weight of honored names and makes a clear antithesis with the expression "the rest of the dead." The saint party did rise and live, the serpent party also rose and lived. No bodily resurrection in either case: that occurs at the end when the dead small and great stand before God. The fourth view makes the antithesis not between the righteous dead and the wicked dead but between a spirit- ual resurrection and a bodily resurrection, the ascension of the soul and the raising of the body. In this connection note what is the antecedent of "this" (this is the first resurrection). Living and reigning with Christ, and not a bodily resurrection is called "the first resurrection." The choice evidently lies between the third and fourth views; but if a bodily resurrection is demanded the second view fills all that can be strictly claimed from a rigid ren- dering of this passage. Section VIII. Christ Already Come the Second Time and Always Present, Another view of the Second Coming is that Christ has come and is now here in his spiritual presence in the world. The time of his coming was at the destruction of Jerusalem. The texts which rightly enough speak of his coming at that time, lend themselves to this view. Also Matt. 28:20, Lo I am with you always even unto the end of the world. Thus the Christian has the comfort and help of Christ's constant presence. This view is not largely held, but is maintained by some scholarly men, and is not to be confused with the view of the Russellites who also hold that Christ has already come. —241 — Section IX. The Non-millennial View. This view is that the Bible predicts no millennium before or after Christ's coming; that there is no program of the ages revealed to man; that Christ will return in visible form but no one knows the time or preliminary events. That coming will be the consummation of earthly- history; and beyond the fact of his coming the Bible does not go into details leading up to it or following from it. Chapter VI. Future Punishment. Various Views. 1. Universalism. Answered thus: Rom. 6:23. The wages of sin is death. Lk. 16:19 ff- Parable of Dives and Lazarus. Jno. 3:36. He that believeth not shall not see life. 2. Restorationism. Proceeds on the ground that reformation is the only purpose of punishment. Premise is false and conclusion also. Punishment is for warning, for vindication, of moral government and justice. Restorationists appeal to Rom. 5:18, II. Pet. 3:9, Acts 3:21, I. Cor. 15:25, Ephes. 1:9, 10, Phil. 2:10, 11. Answer: Lk. 16:26. A great gulf fixed. Mk. 9:46. Where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. Habit tends to fixedness. 3. Annihilation. Based on the view that death means non-existence, and that to destroy means to annihilate. Premise is wrong. Bible teaches the never-dying nature of the soul. 4. The Bible teaches the doctrine of Endless Punish- ment. (a) Not a pleasant doctrine and not taught to gain — 242 — favor with men but because it is the plain teaching of Jesus Christ and the Scriptures, (b) Proof. Matt. 25:46. And these shall go away into everlasting- punish- ment; but the righteous into life eternal. Observe that the same word qualifies the punishment that also qualifies the life of the righteous. Mk. 9:43-48. II. Thess. 1:9. Punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of Lord. Objections: — (i) Not just to inflict endless penalty for temporary sinning-. Endless punishment is the penalty for END- LESS sinning-. (2) Makes God cruel. Ans. — Sin inflicts its own pen- alty. Questions, (i) Is it literal fire? (2) Are there deg-rees of punishment? Chapter VII. Second Probation. (a) Statement. Second probation means a second chance or opportu- nity to accept the offer of salvation between death and the resurrection, especially for those whose opportunities were meag-er in this life. (b) Arguments from the New Testament. Certain passages from the New Testament are quoted to support this view. Lk. 19:10. The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. The inference is that as there are lost ones in the state of the dead, that therefore Christ's mission is as really to them as to the living in this world. I. Tim. 2:4-6. Who would have all men to be saved — who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time. I. Jno. 2:2. He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only but also for the whole world. Matt. 12:32. Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, neither in that to come. The inference is that other sins MAY be forgiven in the world to come. I. Pet. 3:19, 20. Christ preaching to the spirits in prison is also urged as favoring a second probation. This is based on what is probably a wrong interpretation of the text. For an exhaustive discussion of this text see S. D. F. Salmond's "The Christian Doc- trine of Immortality." Answer: It is replied to this argument, that these —243— texts are pressed unduly in order to prove more than they really state. Something more explicit than this must be assigned as a Scriptural proof of the doctrine of Second Probation. (c) Some additional arguments are as follows: — First, Christ raised certain ones from the dead, e.g. the youth of Nairn, showing that the time of grace does not expire at death. Second, If man's destiny is settled at death, then all that die as heathen are under an absolute decree of repro- bation. Third, If destiny is fixed at death, "nothing of essen- tial importance remains for the judgment, and no space left for a progress of believers who are still not sinless at the moment of death. If holy directly after death sancti- fication would be effected by separation from the body; the seat of evil must therefore be found in the body, and sanctification would be realized through a mere suffering of death in a physical process instead of through the will." — Dorner. (d) Criticism and Counter-proof. These arguments are far from convincing. The case -of the youth of Naim and similar examples are entirely exceptional and may be ruled out of the argument. That all the heathen are reprobated without a second probation, the advocates of sovereign election would not admit for an instant, The last argument is a sheer non-sequitur. One can hardly conceive how a serious mind could put it forward. No one ever formulated such a view but be who fabricated a straw man. In all the realm of Christian theology no one ever conceived of death as a sanctifying agency, nor attributed the holiness of saints to a separation from the body. That is Manichaeism pure and simple; but not Christian theology. The Westminster Catechism, question 37, states: "The souls of believers are AT their death MADE perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory," but this in no wise attributes to death efficiency in sanctification. Christ said to the thief on the cross: "This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." The parable of Dives and Lazarus represents each as going immediately to his destiny, and the "great gulf fixed" admits of no transition. Heb. 9:27. It is appointed to men once to die but after this the judgment. —244— Rev. 14:13. Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth. Acts 7:59. And they stoned Stephen calling on God and saying: Lord Jesus receive my spirit. Phil. 1:23. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ which is far better. n. Cor. 5:8. We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. These texts tell strongly for an immediate entrance upon final destiny at the event of death. Chapter VIII. Heaven. 1. A place. Jno. 14:2. I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am. Some think that this renovated world will be heaven. 2. A state. (a) Of holiness. Heb. 12:14. Holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. Rev. 21:27. There shall in no wise enter in anything that defileth. (b) Of happiness. Ps. 16:11. In thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand are pleasures forevermore. Rev. 7:16, 17. They shall hunger no more, etc. 3. The blessedness of the saved will consist in: — (a) Perfection of nature. (b) Indefectibility, or absence of danger of apostasy. (c) The presence of the Lord. (d) The company of the redeemed. (e) Heavenly employments. (f) A thousand things that eye hath not seen nor ear heard. —245—