1 \ V » "I "i ! 1 i_/w \ of God * r,m aaia . .SAHC7BJ on c -IS J. HALL LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. v 1 ....... ©opijri$t f o... Shelf ...M ______ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. v V THEOLOGICAL OUTLINES VOLUME I THE DOCTRINE OF GOD / BY THE / Rev. Francis J. Hall, M. A. Instructor of Theology in THE Western Theological Seminary, Chicago, Illinois. NOV l& 1892 V0^eff7 MILWAUKEE, WIS.: THE YOUNG CHURCHMAN CO. 1892. Copyright. THE YOUNG CHURCHMAN CO. 1892. ^J LIST OF CHAPTERS. PAGE. Chapter I.— The Science of Theology. . . 13 II. — The Dogmatic office of the Church. 26 III. — Holy Scripture 36 IV. — Theism 45 V. — Revelation 66 VI. — Anti-theistic Theories. . . .71 VII. — The Divine Nature. ... 78 VIII.— The Divine Attributes. ... 97 IX. — The Moral Attributes. . . 107 X.— The Trinity 117 XI. —The Divine Economies. . . 136 TO THE RT. REV. WM. E. McLAREN, D.D., D.C.L. Bishop of Chicago, to whom the author is more indebted than he is able to express, this book is respectfully dedicated. PREFACE This volume is intended to be the first of a series of text books, written from the Anglo-Catholic stand point, and covering the field of Positive Dogmatics and Polemics. If this intention is carried out, the following subjects will be treated of in the series: In Positive Dogmatics. — the Science of Theology, the Dogmatic Office of the Church. Holy Scripture. Theism, Anti-Theistic Theories, Theology Proper, Creation, Angelology, Anthropology. Christology, Pneumatoloijy. Ecclesiology, and Eschatology: In Pol- emics, — Anglicanism and the Thirty Nine Articles, the Roman Controversy, the Protestant Controversy, and Church Unity. It is intended to issue one volume each year until the series is completed. There may be four Tolumes. The writer does not know of any similar work suitably adapted to fulfil the end in view. The catechetical method has been adopted because it is the most lucid one, where the statements are so condensed; and condensation is necessary for a theological text book. It is impossible to enter into lengthy arguments or dis- cussions in such Outlines as these, but references will ac- company each important question, so that any student who desires to do so can examine further. These references will, in a majority of instances, be found to establish the position assumed by the writer; but the principle of their 6 Preface. selection is to open the way for further study of the ques- tions with which they are given. The writer will be thankful for any friendly criticisms. He can hardly expect to avoid all mistakes, and his work will, no doubt, have many imperfections. It is his desire to conform, in all respects, to ihe Catholic Faith; — that Faith which was "once for all delivered to the saints," and which is " taught in the Holy Scriptures, summed up in the Creeds, and affirmed by the undisputed General Councils ; ' By that standard he would have his statements criticised and, when necessary, corrected. The writer begs leave to acknowledge the kind assist- ance of the Rev. Wm. J. Gold, S. T. D., and Mr. Thos. J. Curran, for which he feels under much obligation; also the generosity of those friends whose subscriptions have en- couraged him to publish this volume. Almighty God, Who hast built Thy Church upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Head Cornerstone; Grant us so to be joined together in unity of spirit by their doctrine, that we may be made an Holy Temple acceptable unto Thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. INDEX OF AUTHORS Anselm, St.: Proslogium, Migne's Patrol. T. 158. Athanasian, Creed: English Prayer Book. Augustine, St. : Confessions, transl. in ShafE 's Sel. Ly. of Nicene and Post-Nic. Fathers Vol. I, 1886. Augustine St.: on the Trinity, transl. in the above series Vol. Ill, 1887. Barry, Alfred: Boyle Lectures for 1876, S. P. C. K. Basil, St. : On the Holy Spirit, transl. in Christian Clas- sics, Vol. IV, Relig. Tract Soc. Blackie, Jno. S.: Natural History of Atheism, N. Y.. 1878. Blenkinsopp, E. L. : The Doc. of Development in the Bible and in the Church, London, 1869. Blunt, John H. : Die. of Sects, Heres.. Eccles. Parties and Schools, London, 1874. Blunt, John H. : Die. of Doctrinal and Historical Theol. 2nd. ed. London, 1872. Bowen, Francis: Modern Philosophy, N. Y. 5th edit. 1885. Browne, Edw. H.: Expos, of the 39 Arts. Edit, by Bp. Williams, N. Y., 1881. Bull, Geo.: Defence of the Nicene Creed, Ang. Cath. Ly.. Oxford, 1852. Bushnell, Horace: Nature and the Supernatural , N. Y.. 1887. 8 Index of Authors. Butler, Jos.: Analogy of Religion, Bonn's edit., London, 1882. Calderwood, Hy. : Handbook of Moral Philos., 6th edit., London, 1879. Chalmers, Thos. : Works of, 2 Vols. Glasgow, 1835. Cnristlieb, Theodore: Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, transl. N. Y. Clement of Alexandria: Stromata, transl. in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Yol. II, Buffalo, 1885. Didon, H.: Science without God, transl. by Rosa Corder, N. Y., 1883. Dix, Morgan: The AutWty of the Church, N. Y., 1891. Dorner, J. A.: System of Christian Doctrine, trans, by Cave and Banks, 4 Yols. Edinburg, 1880. Emergency Tracts, Milwaukee, 1891, 1892. Ewer, F. C. : The Operation of the Holy Spirit, N. Y., 1880. Farrar, A. S.: Crit. Hist, of Free Thought, N. Y., 1883. Fisher, Geo. P. : Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief, N. Y., 1883. Fisher, Geo. P. : Manual of Christian Evidence, N. Y. 1888. Fleming, Wm. : Vocabulary of Philosophy , 4th ed. by Calderwood, N.Y., 1887. Flint, Rob.: Anti-Theistic Theories, 4th edit. Edinburg, 1889. Flint, Rob.: Theism, 7th edit., Edinburg, 1890. Forbes, Alex. P. : Short Explan. of the Nicene Creed, 3rd. Edit. Oxford, 1881. Garbett, Ewd. : The Dogmatic Faith, new Edit. London, 1879. Gladstone, Wm. E. : Church Principles, London, 1840. Index of Authors. 9 Gore, Chas.: Incarnation of the Son of God, Bamp. Lee, 1891, N. T.,1891. Gore, Chas.: Holy Spirit and Inspiration, 8th paper of Lux Mundi, 6th Edit. N. Y. 1890. Gore, Chas.: Roman Cath. Claims, 2nd Edit. London, 1889. Hodge, A. A. : Outlines of Theology, rewritten and en- larged, N. Y. 1890. Hodge, Chas.: Systematic Theology, 3 vols. N. Y. 1885. Hooker, Rich. : Works of, 2 vols. Oxford, 1845. Iverach, J.: Is God Knowable? Theol. Ly., London, 1884. Jackson, Thos. : Works of, new Edit, in 12 Vols. Oxford, 1844. Jones, Wm.: Cath. Doctrine of the Trinity, Proved from H. S., 8th Edit. London, 1812. Kingdon, H. T.: God Incarnate, Paddock Lee. 1890, N. Y. 1890. Lee, Wm. : Inspiration of Scripture, 5th Edit. London, 1882. Liddon. H. P.: The Divinity of oar Lord, etc., Bamp. Lee. 1866, 9th Edit, London, 1882. Liddon, H. P.: Some Elements of Religion, 6th and cheaper Edit. London, 1889. Liddon, H. P.: Sermons Preached before the Univ. of Oxford, new and cheaper Edit. London, 1891. Lightfoot, J. B.: The Apostolic Fathers, Part II, 2nd Edit. 3 Vols. London, 1889. Luckock, H. M. : After Death, 8th Edit. N. Y. 1890. Lux Mundi: 6th Edit. N. Y. 1890. MacColl, M.: Chrisfy in Re/, to Science and Morals. Lee. on the Creed, 3rd Edit. N. Y. 1890. 10 Index of Authobs. Martensen, H.: Christian Dogmatics, trans, by Urwick, Edinburg. Mason, A. J. : The Faith of the Gospel, N. Y. 1888. McLaren, Wm. E.: Cath. Dogma the Antidote of Doubt, N. Y. 1883. McLaren, Wm. E. : The Liner Proofs of God, N. Y. 1884. Moberly, R. C: The Incarnation as the Basis of Dogma, 6th. paper in Lux Mundi, 6th Edit. N. Y. 1890. Moore, A. : Science and the Faith, 3rd Edit. London 1892. Mozley, J. B.: Miracles, Bamp. Lee. 1865, 5th Edit. N. Y. 1883. Mozley, J. B.: Theory of Development, N. Y. 1879. Mozley, J. B.: Essays Historical and Theological, 2 Vols. London, 1878. Mozley, J. B.: Lectures and other Theological Papers, N. Y. 1883. Mozley, J. B.: On Predestination, 2nd Edit. N. Y. 1878. Mozley, J. B. : Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, 2nd Edit. N. Y. 1883. Mulford, Elisha: The Republic of God, 11th Edit. Boston 1887. Newman, J. H. : Avians of the 4th Century, 4th Edit. London, 1876. Newman, J. H.: Idea of a University, London, 1873. Newman, J. H.: Tracts Theological and Eccles. 7 2nd Edit. London. Norris, J. P.: Rudiments of Theology, N. Y. 1876. Owen, Rob: A Treatise of Dogmatic Theology, 2nd Edit. London 1887. Paley, Wm. : Natural Theology, Hallowell 1819. Palmer, Wm.: The Doctrine of Development and Con- science, London, 1846. Index of Authors. 11 Palmer, Wm. : A Treatise on the Church of Christ, 2 vols. 2nd Edit. London, 1839. Pearson, John : Expos, of the Creed, revised by Burton, 6th Edit. Oxford, 1877. Pearson, John: Lectiones Be Deo et Attributes, in Vol. I of his Minor Works, col. by Churton 2 vols. Oxford 1844. Perrone, Joannes S. J.: Praelectiones Theologicae, 9 vols, Lovanii, 1838. Petavii Dionysii. S. J.: Opus cle Theologicis Dogmatibus, Venetiis, 1757. Porter, Noah: Agnosticism a Doctrine of Despair, 8th paper of Present Day Tracts. Vol. 2. Relig. Tract Soc. 1883. Pusey, E. B.: Responsibility of the Intellect in Matters of Faith, London, 1872. Pusey, E. B.: The Rule of Faith, new Edit. 1879. Pusey, E. B.: On the Clause "And the Son," Oxford 1876. Richey, Thos.: Truth and Counter Truth, N. Y. 1869. Richey, Thos.: What is the Bible etc., N. Y. 1883. Salmon, Geo.: The Infallibility of the Church, 2nd Edit. London, 1890. Schouppe, Francisci Xav. S. J.: Elementa Theologicae Dogmaticae, 2 vols. 18th Edit., Paris. Seminarian 1886, West'n. Theol. Semy. Chicago, 1886. Stanton, Y. H.: The Place of Authority in Matters of Religious Belief, London, 1891. Strong, Aug. H.: Systematic- Theology, 2nd Edit, en- larged, N. Y. 1889. Suarez, R. P. Fr., S. J.: Summa, seu Compendium, Mig- ne's Edit. 2 vols. Paris 1877. Temple, Fred'k.: The Relations between Religion and. Science, Bamp. Lee. 1884, N. Y. 1884. 12 Index of Authors. Tertullian: The Prescription Against Heretics, trans, in Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. III. Buffalo 1885. Thomae, Aquinatis, S.: Siimma Theologica, 9 vols. Paris, 1868. Tracts for the Times, by members of the Univ. of Oxford 6 vols. 1834 et seq. Tullock, John: Modern Theories in Philos. and Religion, Edinburg, 1884. Vincentii, Lirinensis S.: Commonitorium, in No. 9 of Sanctorum Patrum Opuscula Selecta; Hurter, Paris 1880 partly trans, in Records of the Church XXIV, XXV, Tracts for the Times Vol. II. Waterland, Dan: Works of, 6 vols. Oxford 1843. Westcott, Brooke Foss: Introd. to the Study of the Go&jiels N.J. 1882. Westcott, Brooke Foss: Revelation of the Risen Lord, 3rd Edit, London, 1884. Westminster Catechism, in the Constitution ofthePresb. Church, U. S. A., Phila. Wilberforce, Archd.: The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist^ N. Y. 1885. Wordsworth, Chr.: On the Inspiration of the Bible, Lon- don 1874. PART I -INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I. THE SCIENCE OF THEOLOGY. Question 1. What is Theology? — Theology (deo^ God; Aoj/os', discourse) is the science of Divine Things. Hooker's Ec. Pol., III. 8. 11: Fleming's Vocab. of Phil: Pearson, De Deo, p. 1. 2. A science (a.) treats of ascertained facts, — i.e. it is a department of learning: (b. ) its con- tents are arranged systematically, for greater con- venience and for more connected study. Theology is a department of learning, and its contents can be and have been arranged systematically. It is, therefore, a science. Newman's Idea of a Uni- versity, Disc. 2: Seminarian 1886, 3d paper. 3. Theology treats of all things which pertain to God; — His nature and operations; His creatures and providential government; His dealings with creaturehood, and His designs, and the historical 14 The Doctrine of God. facts and institutions which reveal and fulfil them; the future for which He is preparing all things, and the principles and laws of conduct which, as a consequence, it is the duty of man to obey. 4. These elements are partly natural and part- ly supernatural. They lie partly within the range of our natural faculties and partly beyond, so as to require the aid of grace for their proper mastery. Question 2. What is the Supeenatueal ? — The Super- natural, theologically speaking, is that which sur- passes the normal order of the visible universe, including man, being neither a part of it nor subject to its conditions or powers. The natural lies within the visible order, and is subject to its conditions and limited by its powers. 2. There is also a philosophical use of the term supernatural, by which everything which is con- scious and free is included in its application. The natural then signifies that which is unconscious and subject to a law which impels it by necessity, in one determined direction, from without. Man, by original constitution, is therefore supernatural. See BushrelVs Nafl and the SupH, Ch. 2, This The Science of Theology. 15 use of the terms in question is perfectly valid and is common in Apologetics, but it does not apply in Positive Dogmatics, to such phrases as super- natural revelation, supernatural inspiration, super- natural grace, etc., where the thought of some- thing super-human is implied, cf. Gore's Bamp. Lee. II. 3. We mast distinguish between the natural and the supernatural orders of Divine operation, for much Biblical and theological language will otherwise be unintelligible. But there can be no opposition between them. It is God that worketh, whether He employs natural forces, or supernat- ural ones, or both. Question 3. What is a Miracle? — A miracle is a super- natural event which constitutes an exception to the normal order of sensible phenomena, and, for that reason, excites wonder and awe. Mozleifs, Bamp. Lee. esp. I, II: Temple's Bamp. Lee. VII: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 73-77: Fish- er's Grounds of Belief, Ch. IV: Man'l of Evid., Ch. 2. 2. In the New Testament a miracle is called 16 The Doctrine of God. either (irjpieiov, sign; or repots, portent; or dvva/xis, power. Fisher s Evid. p. 10. 3. The exceptional character of a phenomenon called miraculous is not due, properly speaking, to a suspension of the natural order, but arises from the fact that supernatural forces supplement the natural ones and thus produce a phenomenon which the latter could not produce alone. God works in and through nature even when his work transcends its limitations. Fisher s Grounds, pp. 108, 109: Evidences, pp. 11-13 (who points out the analogy between Divine miracles and the free activity of man in nature). 4. The natural manifests a particular stage, of temporary character, in the visible work of God. The supernatural reveals and furthers the. larger plan or moral purpose of God in its progressive fulfilment. The miraculous (a.) vindicates the Divine order, disturbed by sin. Gore's Bamp. Lee. pp. 18-51: (b.) draws attention to and attests the supernatural, and its teaching. Moz- leifs Bamp. Lee, I: Fisher's Evid. pp. 19,20: (c.) Signifies a new step in the accomplishment of God's plan. Gore, pp. 52, 53. The Science of Theology. 17 Question 4. What is natural law? — Natural law signi- fies the observed uniformity in the conjunction and sequence of given groups of phenomena. 2. Natural law does not signify what must happen forever, but what does happen now, so far as experience extends. The "uniformity of na- ture" is a hypothesis which assumes that events will continue to happen as they have happened. There can be no demonstration of this. Temple's Bamp. Lee. I: Mozletfs Bamp. Lee. II: Fisher's Evicl. pp. 13, 14. 3. Historical evidence shows that the present order of phenomena has been subject to miracu- lous exceptions; and we learn from the revela- tions which these miracles attest that this order will, in due time, give place to a new one. Moz- ley's Bamp. Lee. V: McLaren's Cath. Dog. Anti- dote of Doubt, c. 3: Fisher's Evid. c. IV-XI. 4. We learn from revelation and natural ex- perience that the works of God are usually reg- ular both in nature and the supernatural. But the uniformity and unity of the supernatural was appreciated long before that of nature. Theo- logical science is more ancient than physical sci- 2 18 The Doctrine of God. ence — in fact, the mother o£ it. A. Moore's criticism of Drummond's Natfl Law, in Science and the Faith, esp. pp. 13, 14. 5. But theological science dwells upon its uniformities — e. g. the sacramental laws of grace — chiefly with reference to their moral purpose. Physical science is concerned more with the uni- formities themselves. A. Moore, ibid. p. 8. 6. Ascertained uniformities, so long as they continue, represent the conditions under which character is formed and men are to serve their probation in this life. This is true of the laws both of nature and of supernatural grace. Tem- ple's Bamp. Lee. III. pp. 90-96. For the rel. of Prayer to law, see Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 184-187. Question 5. What faculties must be employed by a student of theology? — The faculties of reason and faith must be employed by a student of theology. 2. By reason is not meant the intellect merely, but every psychical faculty. All of them— the intellect, the emotions, and the will — have to do The Science of Theology. 19 with the acquirement of religious knowledge. Flint's Theism, pp. 68-71, 351-355: McLaren's Inner Proof's of God, pp. 10, 11: Cath. Dog. an Antidote of Doubt, c. 2: Gladstone's Church Prin. pp. 40-54. 3. By faith is meant a supernatural endow- ment, by which the mind is enabled to perceive the truth and bearing of those spiritual things which surpass the capacity of man's natural understanding. It is not an independent faculty so much as an elevation of the natural under- standing by Divine grace. Blunt' s Die. of TheoL u Faith:" Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 15-18: Flint 7 s Theism, pp. 356-358: Liddon's Damp. Lee., pp. 346, 347: Elver's Holy Spirit, pp. 103-106. 4. To exercise the faculty of faith is an intel- lectual act, which results — not in mere opinion, but — in the same sort of certainty as do other intellectual acts. The same fundamental assump- tion is present in all cases, viz. that the faculty employed is trustworthy. It is of course, possi- ble to arrive at mere opinions through the super- natural intelligence, as well as through the nat- ural; but knowledge can be distinguished from opinion in one case as well as in the other. Flint's Theism, pp. 85, 86: Seminarian, 3d paper. 20 The Doctrine of God. 5. Faith is not possessed by all, nor in equal measure by those who have it. Its reality can be proved to one who denies its existence by testi- mony only. Lux Mundi, 1st paper, pp. 7-11 Hooker 's Ec. Pol., V. 63. 2: Seminarian 3d paper. 6. The energizing principle of an accurate faith is the supernatural life of Grace. This is given in Baptism, and nourished and developed in the Catholic Church as organized with the Apostolic Ministry and succession. Yet a measure of faith is imparted to all who respond to the motions of prevenient grace, whether they are afforded the opportunity of enjoying any or all of the benefits of God's Kingdom or not. Liddon' s Some Ele- ments, p. 71: Ewer's Holy Spirit pp. 27-31, 125- 149: Stanton's Place of Authority, p. 105. 7. There is a substantial unity of belief in all the widely sundered Communions of the Catholic Church. This unity is so close that Greek, Latin and Anglican alike employ three common Creeds, with but slight verbal variations, to express their faith — the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian symbols. Such a u common consent" is signifi- cant, in view of the diversity of races and usages The Science of Theology. 21 which exists, and the age-long mutual hostility which has prevailed. Such consent is not to be found elsewhere (Q. XI. 2). Question 6. What are the chief sources of theological data? — The chief sources of theological data are (a.) the physical sciences, so far as they indicate the existence and attributes of God and the man- ner of Divine operations. Hooker's Ec. Pol. I. 8. 3: (b.) Anthropology, so far as it treats of the moral and religious nature and history of man : (c.) the testimony of the Catholic Church to revealed truth, contained in her Sacred Scriptures, summed up in the Creeds, and affirmed by the undisputed general councils. Lambeth Conference . 2. The original source of knowledge concern- ing such truths as surpass our natural ability to discover is a series of progressive and supernat- ural revelations from God through His prophets and Incarnate Word, attested by miracles. But the immediate source of such knowledge on our part is the testimony of the Church, which has been constituted "the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 ' This testimony does not take the place of the Sacred Scriptures, but furnishes us with a 22 The Doctrine of God. sure guide to their doctrinal interpretation. Palmer on the Church, Pt. III. ch. Ill, and V. 3. The testimony or "voice" of the Church is to be ascertained primarily from the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Symbols, which furnish the premesis of Christian thought (prceambulce fidei). 4. The Creeds do not set the bounds of Christ- ian thought, but furnish it with proper points of departure. Christian thought is true "free thought," as opposed to all that is falsely so called. Emergency Tracts No. 4: Hooker's Ec. Pol. V. 63. 1: Gladstone's Church Prin. pp. 501- 504. 5. The Creeds do not explicitly contain all that the Church teaches, nor all that her members are under obligations to believe. She utters her u voice" in various wavs, — in the decrees of her undisputed General Councils and at all times, in her unformulated common consent; but especially in her Liturgy ? Ecclesiastical Calendar ? and other permanent institutions. The true theologian must study all of these, and the writings of the great Catholic Doctors of all ages, in order to avoid error. Stanton's Place of Authority, pp. The Science of Theology. 23 175-187 : Pearson, De Deo', I. pp. 3-5: Hooker's Ec. Pol, VIII, 2.17: Owen's Dog. Theol.pp. 50-63. Question 7. What ake the chief divisions of theology? — The chief divisions of theology are Historical, Systematic, and Exegetical Theology. 2. In Historical theology we study the develop- ment of human knowledge concerning Divine things, whether by means of revelation or human effort; the conflict between truth and error; the origin and historical significance of the dogmatic formularies of the Church; and the general course of Christian thought and action. 3. In Systematic theology the materials fur- nished by Historical theology are arranged in log- ical order, for fuller and more connected study and for practical application. It is divided into Dogmatic and Moral theology. 4. In Exegetical theology, the truths and prin- ciples which are taught by the Church and ar- ranged in Systematic theology; are established and illustrated by a critical analysis and interpreta- tion of the contents of Holy Scripture. 24 The Doctrine of God. f Historical. ! Dogmatic. Moral. l^Exegtical. Question 8. What is dogmatic theology? — Dogmatic theo- logy includes the arrangement and logical expo- sition of Divine facts, and the refutation of error and unbelief concerning them. 2. It is called Dogmatic because its premises are the dogmas of the Church. 3. Dogmatic theology has three divisions. Positive Dogmatics, which is concerned with the arrangement and exposition of Divine facts simply; Polemics, which is concerned with the refutation of error concerning these facts; Apo- logetics, which is concerned with the refutation and conviction of infidels. 4. Our present work pertains to Positive Dog- matics, although it will be impossible, of course, to exclude polemical or apologetical material entirely. The Science of Theology. 25 Dogmatic Theology. \ Positive Dogmatics. i Polemics. Apologetics. Introduction. Theology Proper. Cosmology. Angelology. Anthropology. Christology. Pneumatology. Ecclesiology. Eschatology. CHAPTER II. DOGMA. Question 9. What is dogma? — Dogma (doypia, authorita- tive teaching) is an authoritative formulation of truth. Martensen's Dog. §1 : Owen's Dog. Theol. p. VI.: Moberley in Lux Mundi, pp. 220-229: Garbetfs Dogmatic Faith, pp. 13-16. 2. Catholic dogmas are concerned with the facts of revelation, and are framed by the Church for the purpose of affording explicit, accurate, and exclusive statements concerning them, for the guidance of the faithful in the midst of error. They have the authority of the Church which sets them forth or receives them. Liddon ; s Some Elements, pp. 24-29: Bamp. Lee. pp. 3 ; 4, 443-447. 3. Some dogmas are framed by General Coun- cils and thus are decreed by the whole Church. Some are not thus set forth, but are received by the whole Church. In either case the obliga- Dogma. 27 tion to receive them is the same. Gore's Ro. Cath. Claims, pp. 52, 53: Palmer on the Church, Pt.IV.ch. V and VII. 4. It is one thing to hold the faith implicitly and another to state it explicitly, or receive it in the form in which it is explicitly stated. The faithful are under obligation to receive all the teachings of the Church implicitly, however set forth. They must also receive all explicit dog- mas of the Church, so far as they are in a posi- tion to ascertain what those dogmas are. Dix's Authority of the Church, Lee. I. and II: Pusey's Responsibility of Intellect in Matters of Faith. Question 10. What is the basis of the Church's author- ity to exercise her dogmatic office? — The basis of the Church's authority to exercise her dogmatic office is partly her own nature, partly the perpetual guidance of the Holy Ghost vouch- safed to her, and partly the commission which has been given to her Ministers to disciple all nations. 39 Arts. XX: Stanton's Place of Au- th'ty, esp. ch. I, II, IV: Forbes' 39 Arts. XX: Palmer on the Church, Pt. Ill ch. 5: Pt. IV. ch. 28 The Doctrine of God. I-VII: Garbetfs Dogmatic Faith, esp. Lee. I: Sainton's In/all. of the Ch. 2. The Church is the Body of Christ, indissolu- bly united to her Head, the Word of God. She is thus the Word Incorporate, in whom no one who earnestly seeks can fail to find the Word Incar- nate, the Light of the world. Ewer's Holy Spirit r pp. 45-47. 3. Our Lord promised that the Holy Ghost should guide His Church into all truth. It is true that she incorporates fallible men into her- self, and that they do not cease to be fallible, in this life, even when assembled in Ecclesiastical Councils; but, in her corporate capacity, she is always u the pillar and ground of the truth 1 ' to those who are faithful to her life. Multitudes of her members and Ministers may fall away, but the gates of hell can never prevail against her. Stanton's Place of Authority, p. 105 (on the spirit- ual aptitude of Churchmen): Gore's B. Cath. Claims, pp. 69, 70. 4. In order to disciple all nations successfully, the Church must at all times make known the actual contents of her message to those who are ready to receive her teaching. Therefore, when Dogma. 29 the prevalence of error threatens to defeat this object, she is compelled to put forth plain state- ments of the truth and to stamp them with her formal authority. Mozlei/s Lee. and Theol. Papers VL, on the Dogmatic Office: Ewer's Holy Spirit, pp. 62-65. 5. It will be seen that the Church does not ex- ercise her dogmatic office in order to repress or set the bounds of thought, but to protect her faithful ones from erroneous thought. She fur- nishes guides to true thinking, not substitutes for it. Stanton pp. 187-190. 6. The Church was established in order that she might bear witness to the Resurrection and other facts of the Gospel. These facts cannot be known now except by testimony — i. e. on author- ity. The Church is the only living thing capable of giving this testimony. Her life spans the in- terval between the Resurrection and our own day ; and, as the only contemporary witness now sur- viving, she is the only available authority which is sufficient to substantiate our belief in the facts of the Gospel. Stanton, pp. 163-167 : Mason's Faith of the Gospel, VIII. 5. 30 The Doctrine of God. Question 11. What is the Catholic eule of Faith? — The Catholic Rule of Faith, by which the contents of the Church's doctrine necessary to be received are determined, is best stated by St. Vincent of Lerins, as follows: "In the Catholic Church we must take great care to hold what has been be- lieved everywhere, always, and by all." In ipsa item Catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Cornm. c. 3. McLar- en's Cath. Dogma an Antidote of Doubt, Ch. 15, 16: Lackock's After Death, c. 1: Stanton's Place of Auth'ty., pp. 167-175: Puseifs Rule of Faith: Becorcls of the church, XXIV, XXV (in Tracts for the Times Vol. II) : Tracts for the Times, Vol. IV, No. 78: 2. The first mark of any necessary part of the Catholic Faith is universality, by which is meant that it is held in all parts of the Church (Q. V. 7). Ewer's Holy Spirit, pp. 65-72. 3. The second mark is antiquity, by which is meant — not merely that the primitive Church held it, but — that it has been held in the Church from the beginning until now. The Church's Dogma. 31 voice is uttered in every age, and it has the same authority whether the Church collective or the Church diffusive is speaking. But the Church teaches only that which she has received — the Faith once for all delivered — and novelty is a proof of error. Gore's R. Cath. Claims, c. 3. 4. The third mark is consent, by which is meant its reception by all, or nearly all, Catholic theologians. Gore's R. Cath. Claims, pp. 46, 47. Question 12. What aee the essentials of the Faith ? — The essentials of the Faith include every doctrine of the Church, known to be contained or neces- sarily implied in her original despositum of truth, and nothing more or less. 2. The distinction often made between essen- tial and non-essential truth is misleading. The apparent insignificance of a truth cannot make it less essential to be believed, if it is known to have been revealed by God ; nor is the obligation to hold such a doctrine as that of the Incarnation any more imperative than that of accepting any other article of the Catholic Faith. The only cir- cumstance which warrants our calling a doctrine 32 The Doctrine of God. non-essential is its uncertainty. Emergency Tracts No. 23, p. 1: Hooker's Serm. II. 32: Pal- mer on the Church, Pt. I. Ch. V. app. esp. pp. 129, 130. 3. There are certain theories of the schools which are called pious opinions or dubia. These are non-essential because they are uncertain. They may be true or not. They cannot be proved by Holy Scripture, and the Church does not re- quire them of any man that they should be be- lieved as articles of the Faith. Gore's R. Cath. Claims, p. 66: Palmer on the Church, Pt. I. ch. IV. §3: Pt.IV. ch. VI. 4. No one can be justly assailed because of his attachment to a " pious opinion, 1 ' unless it can be demonstrated that that opinion is inconsistent with some portion of the Catholic Faith. Question 13. is a development of catholic doctrine legitimate? — A development of Catholic doctrine is not legitimate, in the sense of an increase in its substance ; but it is both legitimate and necessary in the sense of (a.) profounder analysis: (b.) larger statement: (c.) richer application: and (d.) Dogma. 33 apologetical adjustment of language. S. Vincent Lir. Comm. c. 23: Gore's Rom. Cath. Claims, c. 3, pp. 53-55: Mozley on Development: Blenkinsopp on Development (very suggestive but crude): Stanton's Place of Auth'ty., pp. 128-138,168-170: Liddon's Bamp. Lee, pp. 435- 441, 448-450: Palmer's Doc. of Deveh and Con- science, c. VI- VIII. 2. The Faith once delivered and held by the Church from the beginning contains, either ex- plicitly or by necessary implication, all that man can learn of revealed truth in this life. But the Holy Ghost is ever guiding the Church into a deeper appreciation and fuller consciousness of the truth. The studies of her theologians are continually bringing to light new treasures as well as old, such as were not realized in detail before. The meaning of the Sacred Scriptures can be more fully ascertained now than ever before, but u the latest age has not exhausted the meaning of what was once said." Westcotfs Bevel, of the Risen Lord, p. 160. 3. Ecclesiastical statements of doctrine de- velop along with the development of Christian consciousness. The Church's explicit Faith is continually embracing larger areas of her implicit 3 34 The Doctrine of God. Faith. The growth of the Creeds from the bap- tismal formula illustrates this, as does also the gradual increase in the richness of Catholic the- ology. 4. The relation and application of revealed truth to human life and its conditions cannot but be more adequately understood in the Church as the stores of her practical experience increase. The science of Moral Theology cannot be permanently crystalized. Temple' 's Bamp. Lee, V.pp. 146, 147, Moreover, every development of the sciences of nature and of man must put the Church in a bet- ter position to perceive the bearing of revealed truth. 5. New forms of thought, and, therefore, of unbelief and assault upon the Faith, are continu- ally appearing. In order to meet them, Catholic theologians must translate the old truths into new language, and employ such forms of thought and argument as are likely to meet the difficulties of the willing and the sophistries of the unwilling. This does not involve an adjustment of the Faith but of its presentation. Nor does it justify a sur- render of the Catholic Creeds or Sacred Scriptures, but only an explanation of their meaning, in view of contemporary thought. . Dogma. 35 6. Illegitimate developments arise from (a.) treating as essential what is only " pious opinion:" (b. ) undue emphasis of isolated parts of the Faith. This last is the characteristic mistake of heresy, which signifies making a, private choice of what to accept. It involves necessarily a denial of some other part. Rickey's Truth and Counter Truth, jp. Hi. Blunt 's Die. of Sects, " Heretics." CHAPTER III. HOLY SCRIPTURE. Question 14. What is the Bible? — The Bible is a series of " Sacred Scriptures," written by holy men of old, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ;■ which has been compiled and preserved by the Church for the edification of the faithful, as " the Word of God," and a means by which every doc- trine can be proved which she requires of men as necessary for salvation. 39 Arts. VI: Forbes* 39 Arts., VI; Hooker's Ec. Pol, I. 12-15: Rickey's What is the Bible. 2. The Bible consists of a series of Scriptures which were written under diverse circumstances, by different writers, in different ages, and for a, variety of immediate purposes. But the impulse which moved every writer came from the same source. A unity of purpose governs the whole series. "The Old Testament is not contrary to the^ New * * * everlasting life is offered to mankind. Holy Scripture, 37 by Christ," in both. 39 Arts. VII. Lee on In- spiration pp. 11-17 : Forbes' 39 Arts., VII: 3. The impulse by which the sacred writers were moved is called inspiration, and came direct- ly from the Holy Ghost ; but the authority by which that inspiration is attested is the Catholic Church, without whose aid the Sacred Scriptures could not have been distinguished w T ith certainty from other writings of holy men, nor, in view of the mistakes of copyists, preserved from doctrinal -corruption. The Church is the witness and keep- er of Holy Writ. Lee on Inspiration pp. 33-36 : Stanton's Place of Auth'ty., pp. 74-80: 160-162: Wordsworth on Insp.,pp. 32-69, 82-88: Hooker's Eccl. Pol. III. 8. 13, U. 4. The Sacred Scriptures were written from the point of view of God's Kingdom, and for the members of it ; to establish and strengthen them in the doctrine which they had learned or were in a position to learn in that Kingdom. Tertul. De Prescrip. Her. 19 et seq: Gore's R. Cath. Claims pp. 57, 58. 5. The Bible not only contains the Word of God, but, in its integrity, is the Word of God. Every part is Divinely inspired and is of equal The Doctrine of God. authority, when interpreted in accordance with its organic relation to the whole course of revela- tion. Lee, p. 20. 6. The Bible is not the source of truth for God's kingdom, for the Church's possession of it is more ancient than the Bible, and was derived from direct revelation. But the Bible is useful to prove what the Church teaches. It is often the means also by which individuals discover the true religion. The Church and the Bible are both necessary. Both are Divine and we may not sep- arate or mutually oppose them in our study of theology. Forbes' 39 Arts. VI. pp. 93-95: Gore's R. Cath. Claims, pp. 60-64: S.Basil on the H. Sp. XVII. 66, 67. Question 15. What two elements should be distinguished- in the Sacked Scriptures? — The Divine and the human elements should be distinguished in the Sacred Scriptures : one due to the inspiration of their authors, the other due to the fact that this inspiration did not emancipate the sacred writers from human limitations. Lee on Inspir- ation, pp. 18-21: 141-145: Wordsworth on Insp t> pp. 5-7. Holy Scbiptube. 39 2. The Divine inspiration guarantees the ab- solute trustworthiness of the Sacred Scriptures in all religious and moral questions, and their profit- ableness for doctrine, reproof, correction, and in- struction in righteousness. Moreover the Church is enabled, by the guidance of the Holy Ghost, to preserve the Bible from any corruption which would defeat the purpose for which its authors were inspired. 3. Yet the sacred writers were human even when inspired. They were not universally infall- ible, nor is it necessary to suppose that they re- ceived greater supernatural enlightenment than was needed to enable them to fulfil the religious and moral purpose for which they were inspired. That purpose did not include a revelation concern- ing secular history, physical science, or natural things. Whatever learning of such sort is dis- played is human learning and is subject to its lim- itations. Furthermore, Divine providence has not enabled the Church to preserve or recover the exact letter of the original text, or to provide absolutely accurate translations. The preservation of the Divine element has not required this. 4. The Divine and human elements are insepar- ably united in one Holy Scripture. They cannot 40 The Doctrine of God. be separated, nor is it possible to draw a line be- tween them or say that this passage is human and that Divine. Every part of the Bible, in its proper relation, is divinely inspired, and every part is human. 5. Yet we may not confound the two ele- ments. We may not impute omniscience or uni- versal infallibility to the human writers, nor may we admit the possibility of error in the religious and moral message they were inspired to convey. The religious inspiration and the human limita- tion must both be acknowledged in their integrity. Question 16. What are the chief theories of Inspira- tion, and their sanction? — The chief theories of inspiration are the verbal, the doctrinal, the neologian, and the dynamic. The Church has not formulated or sanctioned any one of them. Lee on Inspiration pp. 18-26. 2. The verbal theory is that God so inspired the sacred writers that every word which they wrote was selected absolutely by the Holy Ghost and not by themselves. Such a theory empties the human element of all reality, and makes it diffi- Holy Scripture. 41 cult, if not impossible, to allow any authority to modern texts and translations. Lee, pp. 18, 19. 3. The doctrinal theory acknowledges that the sacred writers were inspired to write true doc- trine; but denies that the particular form of their writings' had any other than a human source. Against this must be set the evidence that many of the very words of the Bible were Divinely se- lected — e. g. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Messias, ransom, propitiation, and many others. We can- not determine just how far this verbal inspiration extends. Moreover there is often an u inspiration of selection,' 1 by virtue of which human materials are chosen and shaped in the manner best adapted to the Divine purpose. Liddon's Univ. Sermons Second Series, XX: Lee, pp. 32, 33. 4. The Neologist identifies the inspiration of the sacred writers with that spiritual insight and wisdom which is possessed- by all righteous men who possess great natural gifts. Inspiration is attributed to such men as Socrates, Luther, and Keble. Thus inspiration is a matter of degree and is purely natural. This theory empties the word inspiration of all meaning, and is inconsist- ent with the unique and supernatural character of the Bible. Lee, pp. 19-21. 42 The Doctrine of God. 5. The dynamic theory is, that the writers of the Bible had their spiritual faculties quickened and enlarged by the Holy Ghost, without losing their literary freedom or the peculiarities of their style. This undoubtedly represents the truth in many instances, but, in some cases, the nature of the writing appears to require no peculiar illum- ination or spiritual power ; — e. g. the Book of Ruth, where the inspiration seems to have been merely an impulse to write ; and an over ruling of the process so as to impart a meaning to the result which the writer and his contemporaries knew little or nothing of. The Holy Ghost often co- operates, rather than empowers. Lee, pp. 21-26, 141-145: Westcott's Introd. to the Study of the Gospels ; Introd. 6. The variety of the wQrk of the Holy Ghost in inspiration is such that no attempt to general- ize is likely to be successful or lessen difficulties. It is sufficient to insist upon the fact of inspira- tion and its unique and plenary character ; ac- knowledging, at the same time, the reality of the human element. Holy Scripture. 43 Question 17. What should inspiration be distinguished from? — Inspiration should be distinguished from revelation. Lee on Inspiration, pp. 7-9 , 27-31, 145-148: Stanton's Place ofAuth'ty,pp. 71, 72. 2. All parts of the Sacred Scriptures are in- spired, but some portions are not revelations. For example, the greater portion of the Apoca- lypse consists of a revelation concerning the con- summation of things ; but the book of Ezra is not a revelation so much as a narrative of events connected with the return of the Jews from Baby- lon. Yet both books are equally inspired and are given to us for our religious instruction. Lee, pp. 145-148. 3. It is important to notice, in this connec- tion, that the revealer of all things is the Eternal Word, whether those things are recorded in the Old or the New Testament. Lee, pp. 7-9. 4. But the source of inspiration is the Holy Ghost. By His aid the sacred writers were able to give us a true account of the revelations which pro- ceeded from the Son, and to write ichatever scrip- tures were intended to be preserved by the Church for our profit — whether in the form of narrative,. 44 The Doctrine of God. drama, prophecy, parable, exposition, or exhorta- tion. Lee, pp. 9-11, 115-188, 81, 82. 5. An examination of Holy Scripture shows that the revelations which it records were pro- gressive; being adapted to the ability of men to receive them, and becoming more explicit with the lapse of ages and the advance of the religious edu- cation of God's people. Thus it happens that, while the New Testament is latent in the Old and the Old implies the New, some doctrines of the New Testament cannot be proved by the Old Tes- tament alone. Temple's Bamp. Lee. V. pp. 186- 158: Mozley's Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, Lee, X: Gore in Lux Mundi, pp. 828-882. 6. The records of earlier revelations should be read in the light of later and more explicit ones. And, since the contents of all revelations recorded in Holy Scripture are embodied in "the Faith once delivered to the saints," of which the Catholic Church is the teacher and guardian, we should use her teaching as the only true key to the doctrinal interpretation of the Bible. PART II -THEOLOGY PROPER. CHAPTER IV. THEISM. Question 18. What is Theology Proper ? — Theology Proper is that part of Positive Dogmatics which is concerned with the doctrine of God, — His ex- istence, nature, attributes, subsistence, and oper- ations. 2. The following order will be observed in these outlines: (a.) Theism ; or the proofs of the existence of God and their teaching. (b.) Revelation and its relation to Theism. ( c. ) Anti-Theistic theories. (d.) The Quiescent attributes; or the Nature of God. (e.) The active attributes. (f.) The Trinity. 46 The Doctrine of God, (g.) Divine Economy or the external oper- ations of God. Question 19. What is the distinction between demon- stration and moral proof ? — Demonstration proceeds from necessary and universal (a priori) truths, and deduces particular conclusions which necessarily follow. Moral proof, also called prob- able proof, proceeds from premises which are at least credible and exhibits a preponderance of ar- gument in favor of its conclusions. Pearson De Deo } Lee, III. p, 23, 2. Demonstration produces apodeictic (Math- ematical) certainty. Its conclusions cannot be evaded. The opposite of a demonstrated proposi- tion is not only false but impossible to conceive, Fleming's > Vocab. "Demonstration:" Fisher's jEvid., p. 5. 3. Moral proof produces moral certainty. Its conclusions can be evaded, through moral per- versity. The opposite of the morally certain is possible to conceive, but, properly speaking, in- credible. Fleming's Vocab. " Probability : " Fisher's Evid. p. 5. Theism. 47 4. Probable proof is fitly called moral, be- cause its persuasiveness depends upon moral con- ditions. It is rarely successful with the unwill- ing. Yet one becomes responsible, when in pos- session of moral proof, for every evil which re- sults from ignoring its conclusions. Hooker's Ec. Pol., II. 7. 5: Butler's Anal, Introd. p. 72: Pt. II ch. 6, pp. 261, 262. 5. Religious certainty is based upon moral proof. All the faculties of the soul are required for its proper acquirement: — the intellect, or logi- cal faculty; the affections, or sympathetic and ap- preciative faculty; the will or attentive faculty, which also tests by moral experience. A refusal to exercise either faculty renders one accountable for error (Q. V. 2). McLaren's Inner Proofs of God, pp. 9-11 : Liddon's Some Elements, Lee. I: Flint's Theism, pp. 2-4. Question 20. Can the existence of God be demonstkat- ed ? — The existence of God cannot be demon- strated, for there is no prior premise, independ- ently necessary, from which that conclusion can be drawn. Pearson De Deo, II. pp. 12-16: Clem. Alex. Strom. Bk. IV. ch. 12. p. 464. 48 The Doctrine of God. 2. " The being of God is the primal truth .... There is nothing before it nor apart from it, from which it is to be derived ..... In every mode of demonstration whose object is to arrive at it, it is assumed.'" Malford's Re- pub, of God, pp. 1-5. 3. We cannot see God with our unaided fac- ulties (John I. 18). Pearson De Deo, Lee. XII. In the absence of demonstration, therefore, we depend upon moral proof and supernatural reve- lation for our knowledge of Him. S. Thos. Sum. Theol. I. 2. 1. 4. God demands and puts us to the probation of a service which is free — such as free and rational creatures can give. The knowledge of His existence and nature is a primary part of that service and trial. Such knowledge, therefore, de- pends upon moral conditions within ourselves. No demonstration or revelation is given such as would compel us to believe or do away with effort on our part. Butler's Anal. II. c. 6 r esp. pp. 267 et seq: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 231-234. Theism. -49 Question 21. is the existence of grod capable of moral •proof ? — The existence of God is capable of moral proof ; and by means of such proof all can acquire a moral certainty that He exists. Pearson De Deo, II. pp. 17, 18: Flint's Theism, pp. 59-86. 2. This could not be said without qualification, in view of man's fall, did not God extend to all men such measure of prevenient ijrace as enables them to appreciate the proofs of His existence, if they will (Acts XVII. 26, 27). Butler's Anal. II. c 6. pp.264, 265: Liddon's Some Elements, p. 71 # Question 22. What fact does the argument for the ex- istence of God start with? — The argument for the existence of God starts with the fact of com- mon consent. All men have had an idea of a Supreme Being on Whom they depend, and have acknowledged His existence. At least, such ex- ceptions as exist can be accounted for, and are of such sort that they prove the rule. Stanton s Place of Autlity., pp. 56-63: Flint's Theism app. note VIII. pp. 348-350: Pearson Be Deo, II. pp. 16, 17: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 48 , 4 50 The Doctrine of God. 49: Flint's Anti-Theistic Theories Lee. VII. and app. notes XXVI-XXXII. 2. Two sorts of men are mentioned as not acknowledging the existence of the Supreme Be- ing, viz. certain savage races, and certain avowed Atheists. Whatever may be the case with the former (cf. Tylors Prim. Culture I. 377 , 381,418), they are so abnormally degraded as to lack many other ideas which rational men commonly possess. The latter are interested in denying the existence of God. 3. This common consent can only be ac- counted for in four ways: (a.) by connatural ne- cessity of such a belief to one constituted as man is: (b.) by the strength of the evidence furnished through' the common experiences of men: (c.) by primitive tradition. Flint's Theism app. Note IV: (d.) by repeated supernatural revelations. 4. The significance of the fact of common consent is that it shows the onus probandi to be with the Atheist rather than with the Theist. Mason's Faith of the Gospel c. I. §3. The Atheist must prove that God does not exist. To do so he must be omniscient; for, otherwise, it could be alleged that some indication of God's existence Theism. 51 had escaped his notice. In short he must him- self be God, which is an absurdity. Chalmers Nat. TheoL Vol. L, Bk. 1, c. 2: Flint's Anti-The- istic Theories pp. 8-14 3 446-450: Christliel/s Mod. Doubt, pp. 143 , 144. 5. It is however desirable to exhibit the ar- gument for the existence of God for three reasons, (a.) to convince genuine seekers after God: (b.) to strengthen the faith of those who believe: (c.) to enrich our knowledge of the nature of God. Question 23. What sorts of proof have been" employed to prove the existence of God ? — A priori and a posteriori proof have been employed to prove the existence of God. 2. A priori proof reasons from forms of cogni- tion which are seen to be prior to and independent of experience. A posteriori proof reasons from empirical premises — drawn from experience. Fleming 7 s Vocab. " a priori." 3. Our acquaintance with a priori premises is occasioned by experience ; but our assurance of their validity is intuitive and not drawn from experience. 52 The Doctrine of God. 4. Aristotle and the Scholastics applied the phrase a priori to reasoning from cause to effect, and the phrase a posteriori to reasoning from effect to cause. S. Thos. Sum. Theoh I. 2. 2. The definitions here given have prevailed since the time of Kant. Fleming's Vocab. 5. The order of treatment will be, (a.) attempts at a priori proof, especially of S. Anselm and Des Cartes : (b.) a posteriori proofs, including the cos- mological, teleological, historical, and moral. Question 24. What is the Ootological Akgument ? — The Ontological argument, which was first form- ulated by S. Anselm, proceeds as follows: "I have in my mind the idea of the most perfect be- ing conceivable. The most perfect being conceiv- able must have the attribute of necessary existence. One whose existence was contingent would not be the most perfect conceivable. Necessary ex- istence implies actual existence. An absolutely perfect Being therefore actually exists, and He is God. Given in Norris' Rudiments of Theology p. 18; cf S. Anselm' s Proslog. 2 (in Migne's Patrol T. 158, p. 228): S. Thos. Sum. Th. I. 2. 1: Flint's Theism Lee. IX, esp. pp. 278-280 (sustains the Theism. 53 arc/.): Fisher's Grounds of Belief, pp. 39-41: Liddoris Some Elements, pp. 49-51: Pearson De Deo II. p. 12. 2. S. Thomas rejects the argument for the following reasons: (a.) it does not appeal to all, for some regard God as a body — not as the great- est Being conceivable; (b.) it begs the question, for the necessity of thinking that the most per- fect conceivable Being exists is not equivalent to the fact of His existence, nor a demonstration of it. cf Pearson De Deo ; II. 18-21: WaterlancVs Dissert, on Arg. a priori, Vol. III. 321 et. seq. 3. To these objections may be added the further difficulty, that our most perfect concep- tion falls short of the Infinite Being whose ex- istence we desire to prove. Flint p. 280. 4. Des Cartes undertook to employ this ar- gument, but was forced by the exigencies of con- troversy to adopt an a posteriori form (see Q. 25). Many attempts. at a priori proof were also made in the 18th Century. Flint, app. XXXVIII. 5. A priori proof is formally imperfect; but the attempt to employ it brings to light in a forc- ible manner (a.) the connctturalness of our belief in the existence of God: (b.) the fact that we must 54 The Doctrine of God. either believe that God exists or else regard the fundamental conditions of human thinking as delusive. The latter alternative is equivalent to an assertion of universal insanity, which would preclude the possibility of any science whatever. Flint's Theism, pp. 285-288. Question 25. What is the argument of Des Cartes? — The argument of Des Cartes is as follows: u We have the idea of an infinitely perfect Being. As we are finite, that idea could not have originated with us. As we are conversant only with the finite, it could not have originated from anything around us. It must, therefore, have come from God, Whose existence is thus a necessary as- sumption. ,? Med. de Prim. Philos. prop. II: Hodge's Sijst. Theol. Vol. I 205: Pearson De Deo, III. pp. 27-30. 2. Des Cartes says elsewhere {prop. 3, 4.), " Notiones nostras esse aut adventitias, aut facti- tias, aut innatas. Ideam de Deo non esse adven- titiam, Deum enim non experientia duce reperiri; neque f actitiam, nam non arbitrio a nobis affic- tamesse: ergo esse innatam, sive a Deo ipso nobis silpjredi'talam." Theism. 55 3. The difference between the argument of S. Anselm and that of Des Cartes is that the former supposes the existence of God to be in- volved in our idea of Him, while the latter infers the existence of God to account for the idea. Hodge's Syst. Theol. Vol. I. 206. The latter is really a posteriori, and is subject to the. limita- tions of such arguments, cf. Bowen's Mod. Philos. p. 27 et seq. Question 26. What is the Cosmologicul argument? — The Cosmological argument proceeds from the phenomena of the universe and their harmony to an Infinite First Cause to account for them. Licldon's Some Elements, pp. 51-53, 66: Flint's Theism, Lee. IV: Pearson DeDeo, III. pp. 30-32: S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 2, 3. Hodge's Outlines, pp. 33-35. 2. u Finite things have not their origin in themselves. We trace effects back to their causes; but these causes are found to be, also, ef- fects, cf. Flint's Theism, pp. 118-124. The path is endless. There is no goal. There is no satis- faction, save in the assumption of being that is causative without being caused, or being which 56 The Doctrine of God. has the ground of existence in itself. 11 Fisher's Grounds of Belief, pp. 41, 42. 3. The idea of self-caused being causing all other being, including the personal, suggests naturally and logically the ascription of will and personality to that being. Fisher ibid: Flint, pp. 129, ISO 4. Two premises are assumed, (a.) that phe- nomenal events require causality: (b.) that the world is not itself eternal and therefore not self- caused. The former would seem to be axiomatic, but Hume objected that we cannot observe caus- ality. What we actually see is succession. Yes, but we intuitively recognize the difference be- tween mere succession and the succession of cause and effect, and the reality of causality accounts for this discrimination more satisfactorily than any other hypothesis. Mozleifs Essays Hist, and Theol. pp. 415-444: Flint, pp. 97-101. 5. The other premise is disputed by the Pantheist, who regards the universe as self-caused and eternal. But, while it is impossible to dem- onstrate directly the falsity of such a contention, the following considerations militate against its truth: (a.) All history, comparative philology, Theism, 57 and ethnology indicate that the human race is of recent origin: (b.) the evidences of development in nature and of dissipation of heat point back to a beginning of the present order. Chalmers Nat. Theol. Bk. I. c. 5: Flint's Theism pp. 101- 118: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, ch. I. §4. 6. Holy Scripture teaches that God can be known through His works (Acts XIV. 15-17: XVII. 22-29: Rom. I. 19, 20). Question 27. What is the Teleological argument? — The Teleological argument starts with the evidences of design observable in nature and infers the ex- istence of a Designer of sufficient wisdom to ac- count for them. As Fisher says, u We see a thought realized and thus recognize in it a fore thought," — and a Fore-thinker. Grounds of Be- lief, pp. 42-67: Paleifs Nat. Theol., opening chap- ters: Flint's Theism, Lee. V. VI: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 53-55: Hodge's Outlines, pp. 35-41: MacColl's Christianity in Rel. to tic. and Morals, pp. 17-21: Nor r is' Rud. of Theol., pp. 19-21: Mozleg's Essays, pp. 363-413: S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 2, 3, qui i it a. 2. The facts with which this argument 58 The Doctrine of God, starts are (a.) universal order and adjustment, as of means to ends: (b.) the unity of nature as seen in the coincidence and co-operation of physical causes to the production of single results, and in the general harmony of the ends to which all parts of nature are adapted. Fisher, p. 43. 3. Kant raised two objections in his Critique of Pure Reason, (a.) the argument proves the ex- istence of an architect or fashioner of nature, but not a Creator of its material elements. This is true, but all the argument pretends to prove is that the First Cause is intelligent. None the less, it appears propable that He is also the Crea- tor of matter, although for other reasons. Mat- ter cannot be separated from those properties which constitute its adaptibility. Flint, pp. 170- 173. 4. (b). An Infinite Creator cannot be in- ferred, strictly speaking, from finite creation however great and wonderful. All that can be insisted upon is a being of inconceivably great power and wisdom. This is also true, but infin- ity is necessarily involved in the idea of an un- conditioned Being. Fisher, pp. 49, 50. Flint, pp. 174-177. Theism. 59 5. The alternative of Design is Chance. Lu- cretius held that the world is the result of a " for- tuitous concourse of atoms " But one might as reasonably believe that a haphazard collection of small metallic gieces could, by mere accident, fall on some paper in such wise as to print this vol- ume. MacColl, p. 19. 6. The evolutionary hypothesis is not incon- sistent with the Teleological argument. It is concerned with the how — not the why. Gradual- ness of development does not exclude design. Knowledge of the process is not knowledge of the cause. Flint, pp. 189-209: Fisher, pp. 55, 60, 61: Lidclon, p. 54, note: MacColl, p. 20: Temple's Bamp. Lee. IV: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, ch. I. §4. 7. The Psalmist says (XCIV. 9) " He that made the ear, shall He not hear? And He that gave the eye, shall He not see?" Why not add, " He that made the mind shall he not think?' 1 Licldon, p. 53. Question 28. What is the Historical argument? — The Historical argument employs the evidences of de- sign — especially moral design — which are observ- 60 The Doctrine of God. able in the general course of history, to prove the existence of a supreme, wise and righteous Gover- nor of the physical and moral world. Flint's Theism, pp. 227-261: Fisher's Grounds of Belief , p. 69: Hodge's Outlines, pp. 42-44. 2. The theory of evolution, whatever diversi- ties may prevail in the manner of holding and stating it, strengthens this argument greatly; for it indicates that the whole course of nature has been ordered from the beginning with reference to a lofty and spiritual product — the perfect man. 3. In particular, thoughtful men admit that the course of human history exhibits continual progress towards a more and more perfect exhi- bition of righteousness and goodness. The his- tories of social life, nations, crime, law, and relig- ions supply abundant evidence of this. Sacred history, whatever may be thought as to its sacred- ness, reveals the same progress towards the same end. 4. The evidences of physical and moral dis- order in the world do not destroy the force of this argument; for fa.) the most they can be said to prove is, that the complete fulfilment of God's design has not yet been attained: (b. ) whatever Theism. 61 may be the nature and origin of evil, it does not defeat the continual moral progress of the world: (c. ) There are indications that God so over rules the forces of evil that He makes them very in- struments in accomplishing His own good designs. Flint , Lee. VIII: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 142-148: Butler's Anal. Pt. I. ch. VII. p. 182: MacCollonthe Creed, pp. 57-60. Question 29. What is the Moral argument? — The Mor- al argument proceeds from the sense of account- ability and the religious instinct common to all men, and infers that there must be a righteous and personal Ruler and Judge to Whom we are accountable, and Whom we ought to worship. Strong' s Syst. Theol., pp. 45-47 : Flint's Theism, pp. 210-226: Fisher's Grounds of Belief, pp. 67- 69: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, ch. I. §5: Lid- don's Some Elements, pp. 67-71: Hodge 1 % Outlines pp. 41, 42. 2. Men pass judgments upon their neigh- bors on the assumption that they are accountable morally. These judgments are not limited to cases in which the person judging has been in- jured. There are instances in which the account- 62 The Doctrine of God. ability can only be satisfied on the assumption that there is a Judge and Punisher Who is over all. Thus men bear witness to their own ac- countability, and to the existence of Him to Whom they must render account. 3. Butler, in his Sermons on Human Nature ; says of the conscience, u Had it the power as it has manifest authority, it would absolutely gov- ern the world." But authority presupposes pow- er. The conscience has authority because it wit- nesses to a law, a purpose, of One Who has the power upon which its own authority must rest. Strong's Sijst. TheoL, p. 46: Liddon's Some Ele- ments, pp. 66-70. i. Religion in some form or other, however debased, is universal; which bears witness to a sense of dependence upon God equally universal. S. Augustine says, Conf. I. 1, u Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our heart is restless till it find rest in Thee.'" cf. references under Q. 22. Question 30. What is the force of the arguments for God's existence ? — The force of the arguments for God's existence is cumulative , and sufficient to produce, in any unprejudiced mind, a moral cer- Theism. 63 tainty that He exists. Flint's Theism, pp. 62-75: Liddon's Some Elements, p. 70: Barry's Boyle Lee. 1876, Lee. III. 2. Each particular argument is logically im- perfect; but each suggests the hypothesis of God's existence as the true way to account for the phe- nomena of the universe. When this hypothesis is once adopted, innumerable lines of evidence are seen to converge upon and corroberate it. While, therefore, the hypothesis is seen to be the " solu- tion of a problem," rather than the conclusion of a demonstration, the fact that it is the true solu- tion becomes as certain as any scientific convic- tion. Colder wood's Moral Phil. pp. 223-232: Strong's Syst. Theol. p. 50: Masons Faith of the Gospel, eh. I. §2. 3. The hypothesis that God exists is known by all: and the a posteriori evidence which corrob- erates it is everywhere exhibited before the eyes of men. Therefore, the sufficiency of evidence for reasonable assurance, coupled with the fact that the Being Whose existence is at issue is a Moral Governor Who demands our worship and service, renders all men accountable who refuse to believe in Him (Rom. 1. 18 et seq). Chalmer's 64 The Doctrine of God. Nat. Theol. Bk. I. c. I, II esp. c, II §16, pp. 72, 73: Dr. Pusey's Responsibility of the Intdlect in Matters of Faith. Question 31. What do the evidences of God's existence TEACH US CONCERNING HlS ATTRIBUTES ? — The evidences of God's existence teach us that He is the uncaused, eternal and infinite Cause and Orderer of all things, One and unique, intelligent, free, and personal, the beneficent and righteous Governor of the world, Whom we should worship and Whose will we should ascertain and obey. Chalmer's Nafl, Theol, B'k. V. ch. 4, pp. 358- 387: Barry's Boyle Lee. 1876, pp 320 324: Mar- tenser? 8 Dog., §38: S. Thos. Sum, Th., I. 2. 2. ad sec : 2. The arguments for the existence of God do not originate our faith therein. They justify it, and afford points of view from which to con- template its Object. They show, not simply that God is; but, by drawing our attention to certain inferences which can be gathered from His hand- iwork, they help us to see what He is. Fisher's Grounds of Belief, p. 37. 3. The Cosmological argument points to One Theism. 65 uncaused First Cause and Orderer of all things. Such a Being must be without beginning, i. e. eternal; and self-conditioned, i. e. infinite. He must also be unique, as supreme, for to suppose two supremes is absurd. Flint's Theism, pp. 124- 129. 4. The evidences of Design in nature show that this First Cause is intelligent and free, there- fore personal. 5. The Historical argument employs evi- dences which indicate this wise Person to be ben- eficent since He over-rules all things for the ul- timate good of His creatures. 6. The Moral argument draws attention to indications that the Good Being Whom we call God is righteous in all His ways and will not be- hold iniquity. 7. From the universal prevalence of the re- ligious instinct, and the sense of accountability, we are led to infer that our worship is due to God and that our lives must be conformed to His will, however made known. CHAPTER V. REVELATION. Question 32. is man able to acquike sufficient knowl- EDGE of God and His will without Divine aid? — Man is not able to acquire sufficient knowledge of God and His will without Divine aid. Such aid is given, however, and is twofold; (a.) Divine grace, which is an internal gift cor- recting and strengthening the spiritual vision: (b.) supernatural revelation, which is external and objective. Flint's Theism, Lee. X. 2. The term revelation signifies, in Theology, a special and supernatural unveiling of truth by God. The word is also used to signify the con- tents of what is thus unveiled. Lee on Inspira- tion, Lee. I: Stanton's Place of Authority, pp. 29-38. 3. We need supernatural revelation in order (a.) to understand more clearly and with infalli- ble authority what nature itself teaches: (b.) to Revelation. 67 gain additional information concerning God's nature and purposes towards us, and concerning the obligations which arise therefrom, more ex- plicit than is otherwise available. Butler's Anal- ogy Pt. II. c. 1. pp. 193-205: Barry's Boyle Lee. 1876 ; p. 325: Liddon's Some Elements , pp. 72, 73: Fisher's Evid., pp. 22-25: Strong's Syst. Theol.,pp. 58 ; 59: Hodge's Outlines , pp. 58-61: ChristlieVs Mod. Doubt, Lee. II. 4. Revelation does not contradict the indica- tions of Divine truth in nature but gives them articulate expression, and supplements them. Nature without revelation is largely a moral en- igma. Stanton pp. 36-38: Martensen's Log., §43. 5. The science of Theology borrows from the sciences of nature, but only as they are irra- diated and supplemented by revelation (cf. Q. 6.) Martensen's Dog. §44. Question 33. What is Rationalism? — Rationalism is that system or theory which attributes undue authority to reason in matters of religion. It has three forms; (a.) Deistic, which denies both the possibility and fact of revelation, making the 68 The Doctrine of God. unaided reason the ground and source of all re- ligious knowledge: (b.) the theory which admits the possibility and fact of revelation, but asserts that its contents are within the poiver of reason to discover and demonstrate apart from their revelation: (c.) Dogmatism, which admits the necessity and authority of revelation, but claims that what is thus received can be philosophically established and explained so as to elevate the thoughtful believer from faith to knowledge. Hodge's Syst. Theol. Vol I. pp. 34-49: Hodge's Outlines, pp. 56, 57: Christlieb's Mod. Doubt, pp. 190-209. 2. According to Deism, God so made the world that it is subject to certain laws, and is carried on by secondary causes, with which He neither will nor can interfere. An interference would imply some imperfection in the original work of creation. Such a theory assumes that nature, as originally constituted, is sufficient in itself, and represents the finality of God's external operation. But the physical and moral imperfec- tion of nature, thus interpreted, is a frightful en- igma, which must drive the questioner into pes- simism or skepticism. Hodge, pp. 34-39: Christ- lieb: Farrar's Hist, of Free Thought, Lee. IV: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 55-59. Revelation. 69 3. According to the second form of rational- ism, the purpose of revelation is merely to pub- lish more widely and authenticate to the masses, the doctrines of natural religion, discoverable by philosophers without its aid. A cultivated man should believe only what is reasonable, i. e. com- prehensible. Holy Scripture contains a true reve- lation, but other things also which are to be re- jected as unreasonable. But it is to be noted that (a.) assent is based on evidence rather than com- prehension. Even in the natural world we ac- cept what we do not understand: (b.) the multi- tude cannot rationalize and are cut adrift by this theory. Hodge, pp. 39-44. 4. Dogmatism distinguishes between faith, 7ti6Ti$, which is for the common people who de- pend upon authority simply ; and knowledge, yvobGiS, to which philosophers attain through speculative analysis and logical demonstration of the contents of revelation. This theory (a.) assumes that man can exhaustively analyze and demonstrate such doctrines as the Trinity and Incarnation: (b.) exalts the intellect at the ex- pense of the rest of man's spiritual nature: (c.) disparages the faith of the many, and creates a proud religious aristocracy. Hodge, pp. 44-49. 70 The Doctrine of God. 5. All the above forms of rationalism are found among those who affect what is termed " liberal Christianity." 6. Human reason is necessary for religious knowledge (cf. Q. 5), nor ought any thing to be accepted which is really in conflict with it. But (a.) it needs the aid of grace: (b.) it must use all available sources of truth, including revelation: (c.) it must assent, on sufficient evidence, even when comprehension is impossible ; for that which surpasses comprehension is not necessarily in conflict with reason. Christlieb's Mod. Doubt , pp. 70-94: Hodge's Outlines, pp. 62-64. CHAPTER V. ANTI-THEISTIC THEORIES. Question 34. What is Atheism ? — Atheism is an absolute denial that God exists. Flint's Anti-Theistic Theories, Lee. I: Blackie's Natural Hist, of Athe- ism: Hodge's Syst. Theol. pp. 241-243: Christ- UeVs Mod. Doubt, pp. 138-144. 2. There is no reason to charge a man with dishonesty who claims to be an Atheist ; but such a person can never be consistent, for he must act as if there were a God, however unconscious of the fact he may be. Flint, pp. 5-8: Hodge, pp. 242, 243. 3. As has been said already (Q. 22.4), it is impossible for one who is not omniscient — i.e. Divine — to demonstrate the non-existence of God. Furthermore, mere probabilities cannot justify Atheism, for as long as a bare possibility remains that a Moral Governor of the universe exists Whom it is our duty to worship and serve, it is 72 The Doctrine of God. our duty to study further before denying His ex- istence (Q. 30.3). Question 35. What is Agnosticism ? — Agnosticism is that system which denies that God is knowable. Fisher's Grounds of Belief, pp. 85-102: Flint's Anti-Theistic Theories, pp. 14, 15: Iverach's Is God Knowable? Present Day Tracts VIII. by Dr. Porter: Didon's Science without God, Disc. 7. I. 2. Agnosticism, as set forth by Herbert Spencer, does not deny the existence of God but our knowledge of Him. It is not a mere profes- sion of ignorance but denies the possibility of knowledge. This denial is based upon a priori considerations drawn from our idea of the infinite. 3. Agnosticism contradicts itself. We can- not argue that God is unknowable because infinite, until we have acquired that very knowledge of the nature of the Infinite which we deny to be possible. Thus Agnosticism is an offensive form of Dogmatism. Flint, p. 15. 4. We do not, indeed, comprehend the nature of God perfectly ; but, if imperfect comprehension signifies entire ignorance, much of what is called Anti-Theistic Theories. 73 natural science is a delusion. Hodge's Syst. Theol. L.pp. 335-365. Question 36. What is Materialism? — u Materialism is that system which ignores the distinction be- tween matter and mind, and refers all the phe- nomena of the world, whether physical, vital or mental, to the functions of matter." Hodge's Syst. Theol. Vol Lpp. 216-299: Flint's Anti-Th. Theories, Lee. LL-IV (historical): Christlieb's Mod. Doubt, pp. 145-161 : Liddon's Some Elements pp. 43-48: Tuttoch's Mod. Theories, pp. 125-168: Didon's Science without God, Disc. LL. 2. Materialism was first systematized by Epic- urus (342-271 B. C), and modern Materialism has not advanced beyond his position. He taught that (a.) ex nihilo nihil fit, and the universe is without beginning or end: (b.) space and the number of bodies in it are infinite: (c.) matter is made up of atoms, which are simple, invisible, and indivisible: (d.) these atoms are endowed with forces in addition to gravity: (e.) the amount of matter and force is always the same: (f.) atoms are in perpetual uiotion, and their combinations form the cosmos: (g.) the soul is material and 74 The Doctrine of God. mortal, passing into other combinations with the dissolution of the body: (h.) sensation is the only source of knowledge: (i. ) nothing is immaterial except a vacuum. Hodge, pp. 246 , 247. 3. Materialism cannot be true unless the fol- lowing teachings can be accepted: (a.) that God is corporeal. S. Thos. Sum. Th. I. 3. 1: (b.) that the soul is mortal. Strong's Syst. Theol.,pp* 555-562: (c.) that life is fatalistic, a matter of natural and necessary process simply. Fisher's Grounds, pp. 3-18: (cl.) that there is no moral obligation. Conduct should be ruled by science — e. g. the fittest should survive. Hospitals are a mistake. Flint, pp. 500-504. Question 37. What is Positivism? — Positivism is a system formulated by Anguste Gompte (1798-1857) which asserts that no knowledge is possible which does not come through the external senses, and that nothing is or can be known except phenomena and their laws. The ideas of causality and design cannot be established and Theology is a delusion. Flint's Anti-The. Theories, Lee. V. espee. pp. 180- 190: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 46-48: Tulloch's Axti-Theistic Theories. 75 Mod. Theories, pp. 3-88: Didon's Science with- out God, Disc. I. 2. Positivism is Materialistic, but in being so is inconsistent ; for, if our knowledge is confined to phenomena, how is it possible to assert any- thing as to what underlies phenomena, — that it is material, or spiritual, or anything at all. Flint, pp. 180, 181. 3. Furthermore, we are not warranted in calling all phenomena material. We have a know- ledge of internal phenomena, such as thinking, feeling and willing, which is as certain as any portion of our knowledge. Phenomenally speak- ing — i. e. apparently — these are not material phe- nomena but spiritual, and to say othei*wise is to assert more than mere phenomenalism justifies. Flint, pp. 181-184. 4. Positivism leads logically to skepticism. To be consistent it must repudiate, not only all Theistic belief, but also, belief in any thing beyond' mere appearances. That these appearances have any real or permanent basis, or any other founda- tion than subjective delusion is impossible for a consistent Positivist to assert. But Positivists, like Agnostics, are omniscient concerning things which 76 The Doctrine of God. their own principles preclude any knowledge of. Flint, pp. 184-190. Question 38. What is Pantheism? — Pantheism is that system of thought which identifies, or at least confounds, God with the world or totality of being. Flint's Anti-The. Theories, Lee. IX (his- torical) and X: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 59-66: Martensen's Dogmatics, §§ 39-43: Cliristlieb's Mod. Doubt, pp. 161-190: Didon's Science without God, Disc. III. 2. Pantheists agree in the following particu- lars (a.) there is but one substance, universal and eternal, with many modes : (b ) God is immanent in the world but not transcendent. (Some deny all reality to the world — acosmism): (c.) God is impersonal, having neither consciousness nor will : (d.) There is no creation, but only an unending and necessary process in eternal substance : (e.) Men are not individual substances, but passing moments in the life of Diety, which will disappear with the dissolution of the body, never to return : (f.) Human acts are Divine and without freedom : (g.) Evil is a form of Divine activity — really good: (h.) Man is the highest mode in the life of Deity. Anti-Theistic Theories. 77 The Incarnation, when accepted at all, is said to be a revelation of this. Hodge's Syst. Theol. Vol I, pp. 300-309. 3. Pantheism assumes many deceitful shapes, and contaminates the faith of many Christian thinkers and writers who do not suspect the fact. Flint, pp. 391, 392: Emergency Tracts No. 9. 4. The vitality of the system arises from its many-sidedness. It appeals to every type of mind by presenting as Divine those elements of the objective and subjective world to which each individual is attracted. But the religious and moral consequences which Pantheism involves are terrible, (a.) By declaring God impersonal it removes the only sufficient basis of worship and dependence upon Divine providence : (b.) By merging all things into God it deifies man : (b.) By denying the reality of evil and of man's accountability to a personal Judge it destroys the only warrant for praising or blaming anybody, and cuts the ground from under common mor- ality. • CHAPTER VII. THE DIVINE NATURE. Question 39. What is our primary notion of God ? — Our primary notion of God is of the Infinite Being — i.e. not limited in essence except by what is internal to Himself. Strong's Syst. Th., j>p. 122, 123: Pearson De Deo, VI. 60-64: S.Thos. Suwl Th.,L 7: Hodge's Sijst.'Th. Vol I. 380- 384: Suarez Sum. Tr. I. lib. II. c. I: Fisher's Grounds of Belief, pp. 38, 39 : Perrone Tract De Deo, Vol. II. Pars II. c. III. 2. The term infinite is negative (not finite) and escapes positive definition. But, while inde- finable, it is not indefinite. The word represents an idea in our minds which is positive. There is nothing absurd in this. We have a positive idea of sweetness, but we cannot define it because it is unique. There is no basis of comparison. The infinite is also unique, but there is also another Teason for our inability to define it. It transcends The Divine Nature. 79 all things and surpasses our power of comprehen- sion (Psa. CXLV. 3). Strong, p. 122. 3. The infinity of God is not extensive, as if it were a matter of size or quantity. Size is not a Divine attribute. It is intensive and relates to the character and quality of His essence. Hence there is no inconsistency in saying that other be- ings exist which are not included in His sub- stance. They do not limit His substance for it is spiritual, nor His perfection for it is not depend- ent. The Infinite is not the all. Strong, pp. 122, 123. 4. The Infinite is neither the undetermined nor the unconditioned, but the ^//-determined and the ^//"-conditioned. External 9 conditions are unnecessary to Him but not impossible. It is an element in His greatness that He can submit without loss to finite conditions of His own mak- ing, if He wills. He has done this by creating and sustaining the world, and by entering into economic and incarnate relations with His crea- tures. Strong, pp. 123, 124. Question 40. What is the Incomprehensibility of God? — The incomprehensibility of God signifies that 80 • The Doctrine of God. His nature is too great for man to acquire an exhaustive knowledge or understanding of Him or of His ways (Exod. XXXIII. 20 : Job XL 7-9: XXXVL 26: Psa. CXLV. 3: Eccles. XL 5: Is. XLV. 15: Mic. IV. 12: John I. 18: Rom. XL 33, 34: I. Tim. VI. 16: I. John IV. 12). Hooker's Ec. Pol, I. 2. 2: Pearson De Deo, XIII, pp. 128-136: S. Tkos. Sum. Th. I. 12; Suarez Sum. Tract I. lib. 2. c. 5-31. 2. It should not be supposed, however, that no knowledge of God is possible. We have a true and adequate knowledge and understanding of God which will be greater, although not ex- haustive, hereafter. There is a true theologia viatorum et % beatorum. Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib 7 : Suarez c. 8-30. 3. The possibility of revelation depends upon the fact that God is apprehensible and at least partially comprehensible (John XVII. 3: I. Cor. II. 9, 10: XIII. 12: I. John III. 2.) Martensen, §45. Question 41. how do we form our idea of an infinite god ? — We form our idea of an infinite God (a.) by way of negation, denying all external limitation: The Divine Nature. 81 (b.) by way of eminence, ascribed to Him the highest degree of every excellence: (c.) by way of causality , inferring the character of His attrib- utes from the character of His works. Hodge's Syst. Theol. L 339. 2. Our ideas of God are necessarily anthro- pomorphic. Man was made in the image of God and after His likeness (Gen. I. 26, 27). If man is like God in any respect, in that respect God is like i man. There is a true anthropomorphism. False anthropomorphism arises from forgetting that man is not a complete image of God, but inferior to him. The higher cannot be adequately interpreted by means of the lower, but the lower is properly interpreted by the higher. A. Moore's Science and the Faith, pp. 50-53: Hodge's Out- lines, pp. 131-133: Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 41, 42. 3. Holy Scripture uses much language about God which is metaphorical (Gen. VI. 6, 7: Exod. XXXIII. 11, 20: Deut. XXIX. 20: II. Sam. XXII. 9, 16: II. Chron. XVI. 9: Psa. XVIII. 9: XCV. 10: Isa. LII. 10: Jer. XV. 6). False anthropomor- phism interprets such language literally, and attributes body, parts, and passions to God. To do so is to violate the rule of Biblical interpreta- 6 82 The Doctrine of God, tion that one passage should not be so interpreted as to conflict with another. Pearson De Deo,. IV. p. 37. Question 42. What ake some of the most important Names of God in Holy Scripture? — Some of the most important Names of God in Holy Scripture, are Elohim, Jehovah, Adonai, Fathei% and the threefold Name. Hodge's Outlines, pp. 134, 135: Owen's Dog. Theol. ch. 2, § 14: S. Thos. Sum. Th. I. 13: Petav. De Dog. T. 1. lib. 8. ch. 6-9: Suarez Sum., Tr. 1, lib. 2. ch. 32: 2. Elohim is a plural noun, used in the first, chapter of Genesis and in many other places. It signifies the Mighty One, and is employed where the creative power and omnipotence of God are described or implied. Its plural form may be interpreted as a plural of majesty, but most truly as an adumbration of the plural personality of God. Liddon's Bamp. Lee, pp. 49-51. 3. Jehovah signifies the self-existence and eternal unchangeableness of God. It is the in- communicable Name, which the Jews never pro- nounced, but read as if it were Adonai. In the A. V. it is translated Lord, and printed in capitals. The Divine Nature. 83 It occurs frequently in conjunction with Elohim, when the phrase is translated Lokd God. 4. Adokai signifies Lord, expressing possession and dominion over all. Like Elohim it occurs in the plural. 5. Father signifies the Producer of all things and involves the ideas of authority and providence derived from that relation. God is Father of all things as their Creator, and of men as their personal Governor ; but especially of baptized Christians, who have been mystically united with His Only-Begotten, and made His children par excellence by adoption and grace. This Name is also specially applied to the First Person of the Blessed Trinity as the unoriginate source of the Godhead. Pearson on the Creed, pp. 45-50, 52-74, espec. pp. 73, 74. 6. The most perfect Name of God is that of the Blessed Trinity — The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost, which Name is one and singular, though threefold in its articulation. It expresses the internal and personal distinctions in the Godhead, and the eternal relations which are involved in them. Mason's Faith of the Gospel, ch. 2, §2. . 84 The Doctrine of God. 7. The Names of God constitute one of five ways by which Holy Scripture reveals God to us. These ways are the following, (a.) by His Names: (b.) by the works which they ascribe to Him: (c.) by the attributes which they predicate of Him: (d.) by the worship of Him which they prescribe : (e.) by the revelation of "the fulness of the God- head bodily, 1 ' in Christ. Hodge's Outlines, p. 134. Question 43. What ake Divine Attributes ? — Divine at- tributes are certain true and distinct predicates, which our knowledge of God, however derived, enables us to apply to Him. Owen's Dog. Th. ch. 4 , §2: Pearson De Deo y IV. pp. 37-41: Schouppe's EL Th. Dog. Tr. V. §§61-84. 2. To discuss the Divine Attributes in detail is to analyze the contents of our knowledge of the Divine nature. 3. The Divine attributes are true predicates, and not simply " man's modes of apprehending God." They are "objective determinations in His revelation, and as such are rooted in His in- most essence." Martensen, §46. 4. The Divine Attributes express distinct The Divine Nature. 8 D perfections in the Divine essence. They do not indeed differ in re } as if the essence of God could be divided, but in ratione, which means that the Divine attributes are logical distinctions rather than ontological, although necessary and ground- ed in the eternal and immutable essence of God. Hodge's Syst. Theol. I. 373, 374: Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 38, 39: Pearson, pp. 39, 40. 5. The Divine attributes are not adequate ex- pressions of the Divine nature, but such as can be framed in human language. They are true as far as they go, and are sufficient for the correct guid- ance of our apprehensions. But they indicate lines of truth, to the end of which our minds- are unable to travel. Mozleij on Predestination,, pp. 15-21. 6. The Divine attributes are ascertained in three ways: (a.) by analyzing the idea of infinity and absolute perfection: (b.) by inference from the character of those Divine operations which are observable in the physical and moral world: (c.) by studying the indications given in super- natural revelation. This last method is the only one which secures complete and trustworthy re- 86 The Doctrine of God. suits, and it must be employed to correct and supplement the results of other methods. 7. There are many ways of dividing and arranging the Divine attributes. Hodge's Out- lines, pp. 137 ,138. We shall consider the nature of God (a) according to His essence, as self ex- istent, living, perfect, sole and incommunicable : (b.) according to His substance, as spiritual and immense: (c.) according to His life, as eternal, immutable, and eternally active: (d.) according to His action, as omnipotent, omniscient, omni- present, wise, and morally perfect. The first three of these divisions are usually treated under the heading " the Nature of God," the last under the heading "the Attributes of God." This usage is followed here. Question 44. What is the self-existence of God ? — The self-existence of God is that whereby He is with- out origin and uncreate. He simply is (Exod. III. 14: John VIII. 58), cf. Q. 42. 3. Strong's Syst. Theol., pp. 123, 124: Pearson De Deo, V. p. 47: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, I. 9. 2. God is not self-caused, but uncaused. His The Divine Nature, 87 being and mode of subsistence is not the product of His will, but a fact of His essence. By that He is determined since nothing else determines Him and He is not indeterminate. S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 3. 4: Pearson De Deo, IV. pp. 35 , 36. 3. To deny the self-existence of God is to deny that He is supreme, for, if He were not self-existent, His existence would be caused by another, to whom he would be inferior. The cosmological argument for the existence of God is also an argument for His self -existence. 4. God is a Living God, for He is the Authoi of life to His creatures (Deut. V. 26: Josh. III. 10: Gen. II. 7: Acts XVII. 25, 28: Col. III. 3), and since He is self-existent, He has life in Him- self (John I. 4: V. 26). Owen's Dog. TheoL, Ch. 4, §10: Pearson De Deo, XIV. pp. 137-143: S. Thos. Sum. Th.J. 18. Question 45. What is the perfection of God ? — The perfection of God signifies that he comprehends within His own essence every excellency in in- finite degree. Nothing is lacking according to the mode of Divine perfection. S. Thos. Sum. Th. I. 4: Jackson, Vol. V } c. IV: Pearson De Deo y 88 The Doctrine of God. VI. pp. 55-60 : VII. pp. 67-73. Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib. 6. ch. 7: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog.,Tr.V. §§ 105,-110. 2. The perfection of God can be argued from His infinity, for He Who is without external limitation must be perfect in Himself. 3. All the perfections of every creature have God for their Author, and are evidences of His perfection. They are not, however, reproductions of Divine perfection, but shadows of it. The perfection of God is not the totality of creaturely perfection, although the cause of it ; but is pecu- liar to Himself and simple. "Not all the excel- lencies of all (creatures) can so fully represent His nature as an ape's shadow doth a man's body. But * • ' * infinite variety best sets forth the admirable excellency of His indivisible unity. * * * * So all plurality be excluded, we express His being and perfection best by leaving them, as they truly are, without all quantity." Jackson pp. 36 , 37: S. Thos. I. 4. 2. 4. By virtue of His infinite perfection, God is self-sufficient. Nothing is wanting to His essence which is needed for his blessedness. Neither His knowledge, nor his will, nor His The Divine Nature. 89 love, depend upon the existence of the creature, but have sufficient scope for their activity in the eternal relations subsisting between the Persons of the Trinity. Creation is an act of the Divine will, not the result of necessity. Strong's Syst. Th., pp. 125, 126. 5. God is the Summum Bonum, the devout contemplation and enjoyment of which is the true and chief end of man : for, as the infinitely Perfect One, and the source of all good, He comprehends in His own essence all that is needed for our eternal blessedness (Psa. LXXIII. 24-26: John XVII. 22, 24). Westminster Cat. Q. 1; S. Thos. Sum. Th. I. 6. 1, 2 .'Pearson, pp. 70, 71. Question 46. What is meant by the unity of God? — By the Unity of God is meant (a.) His numerical unity, or the fact that He is but one, unus: (b.) His integral unity, or the fact that He is indivis- ible: (c. ) His uniqueness, or the fact that He cannot be classed with any other being in genus or species. He is unus et unicus. S. Thos. Sum. Th. I. 11: Jackson, Vol. V. pp. 24, 25: Mason I. 10: Kingdoms God Incarnate, p. 7 : Strong's St/st. Theol. p. 125: Owen's Dog. Theol. ch. 4. §6: 90 The Doctrine of God. Forbes 7 Nic. Greed, pp, 25-38: Pearson De Deo, XL pp. 109-117. 2. The integral unity of God does not signify the absence of real distinctions in His nature, but the absence of divisions simply. His tri- personal subsistence is not inconsistent with this. Mason I. 10: Strong: 3. That the Lord our God is One Lord is as- serted or implied in every part of Holy Scripture, which also bears frequent witness against poly- theism or idolatry (Exod. XX. 3: Deut. IV. 35: VI. 4: I. Kings XVIII. 27 : Isa. XL1V. 6, 8 et seq: XLV. 22: John XVII. 3: Rom. III. 29, 30: I. Cor. VIII. 4-6: I. Tim. I. 17: II. 5). It is also argued (a.) from His simplicity. The individual- ity and the essence of God are identical, but that which constitutes the individuality of a being can be but one: (b.) from the infinity of His per- fection and His supremacy. There can be but one most perfect and supreme: (c.) from the tel- eological unity of the world. S. Thos. I. 11. 3: Owen: Mason: Pearson, pp. 114, 115. 4. No other being can be comprehended in the same category with God. This fact does not preclude the existence of other beings, but of The Divine Nature. 91 other Divine beings. Moreover all other beings are dependent upon, and owe their existence to, the One, with Whom nothing can be co-ordinated (Exod. IX. 14 : Deut. XXXIII. 26 : II. Sam. VII. 22 : Isa. XL. 18-25: XL VI. 5, 9: Jer. X. 6: Matt. XIX. 17). Domers Christian Doc, I. 230-234: Jackson. Question 47. What is the Simplicity of God ? — The Sim- plicity of God signifies (a.) His spiritual essence (John IV. 24): (b.) that He is pure form: (c.) the identity of His essence and attributes with Himself. S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 3: Forbes' Kic. Creed, pp. 40,41: Owen's Dog. Th., Ch. 4. §4: Pearson De Deo, V. pp. 43-53: Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib. 2, c. 1, 2: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. §§96-104: Perrone Prael. de Deo, Vol. 2. Pars. 2. ch. 1. 2. That God is incorporeal, and therefore without parts or extension is argued because (a.) He is the Prime Mover of all things ; but bodies, in themselves are inert: (b.) He is the most eminent of beings ; but the eminence of bodies is entirely due to the life which is in them. This life is not corporeal. S. Thos. I. 3. 1: Mason I. 8: Pearson, pp. 47-51: Schouppe, §101. 92 • The Doctrine of God. 3. The spirituality of the Divine essence signifies more than the absence of corporeity. It means, positively, that attribute by virtue of which, God is a living God. Because the Spirit is life, it can assume that which is not spirit into hypostatic union with itself. The Incarnation was such an event (Q. 44. 4). 4. By form, forma, is meant the actuality of a thing; by matter, maierja, its potential principle. God is pure form ; actual but not potential. He is, and always has been, in essence what He can be. There is no foundation (prior) for what He is. The distinction between power and energy, 8vvajj.i$ uai evepyeia, is misleading in connection with God. He is absolute energy, par us actus. S. Thos.,1. 3. 2: Pearson, p. 46: Schouppe, §103. 5. The attributes of God, as we have seen (Q. 43. 3, 4), do not differ from each other in re, but in ratione, although they are true distinctions rooted in his inmost essence. His goodness is a distinct reality, as is also His immutability: but the two are one, ontologically speaking, and inseparable. Furthermore, God is not merely good, but more exactly, He is goodness and the The Divine Nature. 93 source of it. When we speak of the Divine Nature, we speak of the Divine Being (I. John IV. 7, 8: I. Cor. I. 24). S. Thos., I. 3. 3, 4, 6, 7: Jackson, pp. 38-42: Pearson, p. 52. Question 48. What is the Immensity of God ? — The Immensity of God is that Divine attribute, of which spatial relations are the finite shadow ; or, Divine infinity as contemplated from the point of view of space (Jerem. XXIII. 23). Athan. Sijmb: Jackson, V. 42-59: Strong' s Sijst. Theol.,p. 131: jSchouppe El. Th. Bog., Tr. V. 118- 121: Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 50 ; 51: Pearson De Deo, VIII. pp. 78-86: Suarez Sum,, Tr. 1. lib. 2.c2. 2. By virtue of His immensity, God is essenti- ally present in all substances (Q. 52. 4-6), but is not comprehended in created things. He is thus both immanent and transcendent (Deut. IV. 39 : cf. w. I. Kings VIII. 27). S. Gregory (in Psa. 139) says, u Deus est intra omnia, non inclusus ; extra omnia, non exclusus; supra omnia, non elatus." To which may be added, u infra omnia, non depressus." A. Moore 7 s, Science and the Faith, p. XLIII. 3. Space is a relation of created substances 94 The Doctrine of God. which came into existence with them. The relations between God and space are therefore voluntary to Him, springing from His act of creation. Question 49. What is the Eternity of God ? — The Eternity of God is that Divine attribute of which temporal relations are the finite shadow ; or, Divine infinity as contemplated from the point of view of time (Exod. III. 14: Deut. XXXIII. 27: Psa. XC. 2-4: XCIII. 2: Isa. XLVIII. 12: LVII. 15: Lam. V. 19: Mic. V. 2: Rom. I. 20: Ephes. III. 11: I. Tim. I. 17: VI. 16: II. Pet. III. 8: Rev. I. 8: XXII. 13). Jackson, V. 60-78: 8. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 10: 8. Aug. Con/., XL 10-31: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. 112-116: Mason I. 11: Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 51, 52: Owen's Dog. Th. ch. 4. §8: Pearson De Deo. X. pp. 96-108: Petav. De Dog., T.l.lib. S.c. 3-6: Saarez, Tr. 1, lib. 2. ch. 4. 2. The word Eternal has three uses: (a.) with beginning but without end — life eternal of the saints: (b.) without beginning or end but unnecessary — the creative act of God: (c.) with- out beginning or end and necessary. The last is The Divixe Nature. 95 peculiar to the life of God, and is not possible elsewhere, even for the saints. Schouppe, 112. 3. Time is a relation of created things and of finite events. When of things, it expresses their duration; when of events, it is the measure of their succession. But Divine eternity is an idea which transcends duration and excludes all but logical succession. Boethius and the Schol- astics describe it as "Interminibilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possession'' S. Thos. I. 10.1: Hookers Ec. Pol, V. 69. % 2. 4. Time and eternity have been illustrated by the circumference of a circle and its center. The center corresponds to every division and motion of the circumference, without being divisible or movable itself. There is a succession of parts in circumference, but none in the center. The cir- cumference may be indefinitely expanded, yet the center will correspond to a larger circle still. Yet eternity is neither an extension nor a modifica- tion of time. Time is nunc volans, eternity nunc stans. Strong's Syst. Th., p. 131: Schouppe, §114. 5. The Eternal One has no involuntary rela- tions to time, but freely enters into temporal re- 96 The Doctrine of God. lations by virtue of creation. He is therefore said to /ore-know and to jpre-destinate. 6. God is immutable — free from the vicissi- tudes of change, although He enters into relations with mutability. This latter truth justifies the metaphorical allusions in Holy Scripture to Di- vine providence, and the delay of the Incarnation until the fulness of time (Num. XXIII. 19: I. Sam. XV. 29: Psa. XXXIII. 11: Eccles. III. 14: Mai. III. 6: Heb. 1. 12: VI. 17: XIII. 8: Jas. 1. 17). Nicene Anathema: Forbes' Nic. Creed , pp. 47,48: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. §§124-131 : Mar- tensen's Dog., §48: Owen's Dog. Th., ch. 4. §7 : Pearson De Deo, IX. pp. 87-95: S. Thos. Stem. Th., I.9:Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib. 3. c. 1,2: Strong's Syst. Th. pp. 124,125. 7. God is described in Holy Scripture as alone Immoktal (Dent. XXXII. 40: I. Tim. VI. 16.: Rev. IV. 9). By this is meant that He is not subject, in His essence, either to development or corruption. The saints are subject to both in this life, and to development in the world to come (I. Cor. XV. 36: II. Cor. III. 18: Heb. IX. 27). Their immortality is also derived, while that of God is underived (Q. 44.4). Martensen, §48. CHAPTER VIII. THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. Question 50. What is the Omnipotence of God? — The Omnipotence of God signifies (a.) His infinite energy and freedom to do all that is consistent with His nature: (b.) His sovereignty over all that is or can be done. (Gen. XVII. 1: XVIII. 14:Psa. CXV.3: CXXXV.6: Jer. XXXII. 17: Matt. XIX. 26: Mark X. 27: Luke I. 37: Ephes. I. 11, 19-22: III. 20: Heb. I. 3: Rev. XV. 3). Pear- son on the Creed, pp. 75-83: S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 25: Schouppe El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. §§ 161-165: Mason, I. 12: Forbes' Nic-Creed, pp. 48, 49, 91- 93: Martensen's Dog., §49: Hodge's Syst. Th., I. 406-413: Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib. 5. c. 5-11. 2. God is not tied to the use of means, nor to any particular use of them, by any principle which is external to Himself (Matt. III. 9). He cannot, however, do anything (a.) which is in- 7 98 The Doctrine of God. consistent with His own holiness (II. Tim. II. 13: Heb. VI. 18): (b.) which would involve a change in His own nature or purposes: (c.) which would be self-contradictory and absurd; e. g. to make a fact not a fact, or to draw a shorter line between two points than a straight one. 3. By virtue of His sovereignty, all creaturely actions, even when free, are done by His per- mission and with power supplied by Him. Evil actions, though designed to thwart His will, are overruled by Him to the accomplishment of it. 4. The exercise of Divine energy is twofold: (a.) internal action of generation and spiration, which is necessary: (b.) external action, which is voluntary and concerned with originating, pre- serving, energizing, and developing, and govern- ing created things. Schouppe, El. Th. Dog. ; Tr. V. §134. 5. Both of these actions are eternal and immutable, but the latter has temporal and mutable relations and aspects, owing to the finite nature which has been imposed upon its results. Thus the action of God is often described in Holy Scripture as if temporal — not in its nature, but in its creature ward relations (Q. 51. 4). The Divine Attributes. 99 Question 51. In what ways is the Will of God dis- tinguished? — The will of God is distinguished as (a.) the will of good pleasure: (b.) the will of the signs. The will of good pleasure is still further distinguished as (a.) antecedent and con- sequent: (b.) absolute and conditional. Schouppe, El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. 155-160: S. Thos. Sum, Th.,L 19: Forbes' Nic. Creed, p. 47, 56-61: Owen's Dog. Th., ch. 4. §13: Pearson De Deo, XX, XXI. pp. 206-231: Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib. 5. c. 1-4: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 56,57, 184-190. 2. The will of God, strictly speaking, is sim- plex and without real distinction. But, as con- templated from a temporal point of view, it ap- pears multiplex. 3. The will of good pleasure, also called in- trinsic, is the volition itself whereby God wills any thing or does not will it (Psa. CXV. 3). The will of the signs, also called extrinsic, and met- aphorical, is not, strictly speaking, the will of God at all, but its external declaration to us (Matt. VII. 21). 4. By His antecedent will God wills any thing 100 The Doctrine of God. secundum se ; without reference to particular cir- cumstances; e. g. the salvation of all men (II. Tim. II. 4). By His consequent will God wills a thing in view of circumstances foreseen ; e. g. the everlasting punishment of obstinate sinners (Rom. IX. 22). Strictly speaking, there can be no temporal development or modification of God's will of good pleasure. But, since His will is ac- complished in time, it exhibits to us the relations of antecedence and consequence. 5. The absolute will of God depends upon no external conditions. Thus, He willed to create. His conditional will depends upon some action on the part of His free creatures. Thus He wills the future glory of those whom He has called in Christ, if they make their calling and election sure. The relation between the will of God and the will of man, is mysterious. The former is eternal and irreversible, the latter real and free, within its proper limits. The appearance of con- tradiction in this, arises from the finiteness of our understandings, and the necessity of contem- plating the infinite and immutable from a finite and mutable point of view (Q. 53.4). This bears upon Divine Predestination, which will be The Divine Attributes. 101 discussed in connection with the doctrine of grace. 6. The will of the signs is divided into five parts : (a.) commandment: (b. ) prohibition: (c.) permission: (d.) counsel: (e.) operation and ex- ample. The latter includes the natural and su- pernatural orders, so far as we know them, and the life of Christ. Question 52. What is the Omniscience of God? — The Omniscience of God is His infinite knowledge of all things which can be objects of knowledge (Psa. XXXIII. 13, 14: CXXXIX. 1-16: CXLVII. 4, 5: Isa. XL VI. 9, 10: Matt. VI. 8: X. 29, 30: Acts II. 23: XV. 18: Kom. XI. 33: Heb. IV. 12, > 13). Strong's Syst. Theol, p. 133: Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 52-56: Owen's Dog. Theol., eh. 4. §11: Pearson De Deo, XV-XIX., pp. 149-205: S. Thos. Sum. Th., 1.14: Petav. De Dog., T.l. lib. 4: Schouppe, Tr. V. §§136-154: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, I. 11. 2. Divine knowledge is (a.) intuitive, without mental process: (b. ) immediate, independent of external media: (c.) eternal, without temporal 102 The Doctrine of God. limitation: (d.) actual, not a mere power of knowing: (e.) universal, including all things in its range, real or possible, internal or external to Himself, general or particular: (i.) perfect, without possibility of development or forgetfulness. 3. God knows all things, past, present, and future, as such, for He has created and entered into real relations with the temporal. But His knowledge of them all is simultaneous. He fore- knows, but there is no temporal interval between His act of knowing and the event known. 4. God also knows things everywhere, and their spatial relations, but there is no spatial separation between Himself and what He knows. The Omnipresence of God is deduced from (a.) His omniscience (Psa. CXI1I. 5, 6): (b.) His immensity (Jer. XXIII. 23, 24): (c.) His op- erations (Psa. CXXXIX. 7-13). Forbes' Nic. Creed, p. 51: Owen's Dog. Th., ch. 4. §9: Pearson De Deo, VIII. pp. 76-86: S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 8: Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib. 3. c. 7-10: Strong's Syst. Th., p. 132. < 5. The Divine omnipresence is (&) free, ior the created things which it presupposes came into existence by the will of God: (b.) actual and not The Divine Attributes. 103 potential merely: (c.) penetrative, hut not diffusive or expansive: (d.) indivisible and entire in every thing. " Though God extends beyond creation's rim, Each smallest atom holds the whole of Him." 6. If God were omnipresent simply, com- munion with Him would be impossible. But He has revealed to us special and limited modes of presence, according to which He wills to be present to His creatures. He is present (a.) in glory, to the adoring hosts of heaven (Isa. VI. 1-3: Rev. VII. 9-12): (b.) with efficiency, in the natural order (Nah. I. 3-5): (c.) providentially, in the affairs of men (Psa. LXVIII. 7, 8): (d.) attentively, to those who seek him (Matt. XVIII. 19, 20: Acts XVII. 27): (e.) judicially, to the consciences of the wicked (Gen. III. 8: Psa. LXVIII. 1, 2): (f.) bodily, in the Incarnate Son: (Col. II. 9): (g.) mystically, in the Church of Christ (Ephes. II. 12-22): (h.) officially, with His Ministers (Matt. XXVIII. 19, 20): (i.) sacramentally and adorably, in the Holy Euchar- ist (John VI. 56: Luke XXII. 19, 20). Marten- sen's Dog., §48. 104 The Doctrine of God. Question 53. What is the Wisdom of God? — The Wisdom of God is His absolute infallibility of judgment, by virtue of which He provides perfectly for all things and cannot err in any question of action, whether that action springs from Himself or the creature, and whether it is past, present, or future (Psa. CIV. 24: Prov. VIII. 11-31: I. Cor. I. 18- 30: I. Ephes. III. 10: Jas. I./5). Schouppe's El. Th.Dog., Tr. V. §§167-170: Martensen's Dog., §50. 2. The wisdom of God combines His omni- potence and omniscience. It is His teleological knowledge, whereby He designs all things, and over rules the course of events to the furtherance of His own ends. This action is called the Providence of God (Gen. XX. 6: L. 20: Exod. XII. 36: II. Sam. XVI. 10: XXIV. 1: Job XXX- VII: Psa. XXXIII. 12-22: CIV: CXXXV. 5-7: Prov. XVI. 1: XIX. 21: Jer. X. 23: Matt. VI. 25-32: X. 30: Rom. XI. 32-36: Ephes. II. 10: Phil. II. 13). Martensen, §50: S. Thos. Sum. Th. y I. 22: Schouppe, El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. 195-201: Strong's Syst. Theol., pp. 207-220: Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 61-63: Hooker's Ec. Pol., I. 3. 4: The Divine Attributes. 105 Pearson De Deo, XXII. 232-242: Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib. 8. c. 1-5. 3. The providence of God is distinguished as general and particular, the former having to do with the teleological government of the uni- verse as a whole, the latter with provisions for its minutest details — e. g. the exigencies arising from the free actions of men. Liddon's Some Ele- ments, pp. 192-194. 4. The relations between Divine sovereignty and creaturely freedom, as has been said (Q. 51.5), are inscrutable ; but we know that God and man co-operate in every human action, whether good or evil, in such wise that the integrity of each is preserved and the holiness of God uncontamin- ated. God supplies the power in evil conduct, but is not so much its Author as its over ruling cause. Strong's Syst. Th., pp. 209, 210: 219, 220. 5. The prayers of men are real moral forces, /ore-seen and/br-seen by God from the beginning, and used as His instruments in accomplishing His designs. If the contents of a prayer are in- consistent with His will, it is none the less a genu- ine moral force, but it will be over ruled to sub- 106 The Doctrine of God. serve Divine ends. Strong, pp. 215-218: Lid- don's Some Elements, pp. 184-190. 6. The wisdom of God is displayed, not only in His ordinary providence, but, pre-eminently, in the Redemption of men from sin, and in the judgment of those who neglect His grace. CHAPTER IX. THE MORAL ATTRIBUTES. Question 54. What is the Mokal Perfection of God ? — The Moral Perfection of God signifies (a.) the absolute integrity of each and every moral attri- bute in all Divine action: (b.) the infinite intens- ity of each attribute. 2. No Divine attribute may be emphasized at the expense of another. For example, God is infinitely merciful and infinitely just in all His actions. His mercy may be most apparent, in His forgiveness of sinners, and His justice in the rep- robation of the obstinate ; but we may not sup- pose that justice is waived or curtailed in the one case, nor mercy shortened in the other. S. Thos., I. 21. 4. 3. The Divine character is as inscrutable as His essence. It is therefore impossible for us to discover or explain the harmony which 108 The Doctrine of God. lies behind the various, and apparently oppos- ing, manifestations of His moral attributes (Q.40). Question" 55. What is the Goodness of God ? — The Goodness of God is that attribute by virtue of which God is communicative of what is desirable (Psa. LXV. 4: CXLV. 7-16: Neh. IX. 35: Jer. XXXI. 12, 14: Zech. IX. 17: Matt. V. 45). Martensen's Dog., §50: Strong's Syst. Th.,p. 138 (b.): Hodge's Syst. Th., I. 427-436: Pearson De Deo, VII. pp. 73, 74: Martensen's Dog., §§50, 51: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. §§173, 177, 179- 194. 2. By virtue of His perfection, God compre- hends in Himself everything which is desirable, and is the source of all good to others. 3. Ad intra, the goodness of the Father moved Him to beget His Beloved Son, to Whom He eternally communicates His Own self-existent essence. By virtue of the same attribute, the Father and the Son eternally communicate their common essence to the Holy Ghost; and all the Blessed Three eternally communicate of their richness to each other. This communication per- The Moral Attributes. 109 tains to the Divine essence and is both eternal and necessary. 4. Ad extra, the goodness of God moves Him to create and communicate being and life to finite things, external to His Own essence, in order that He may impart to them such good gifts as they can receive. This communication is voluntary, and is determined as to its results by finite conditions imposed by the Creator Him- self. The creatures are made indigentia Dei, and satisfaction of the need is made possible. Pear- son, p. 74: Martensen, §50. 5. The goodness of God ad extra includes His Benevolence, by which is meant u the con- stant will of God to communicate felicity to His creatures, according to their conditions and His Own wisdom." (Nah. I. 7: Psa. CXLV. 9). Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. §173. 6. Because of His benevolence, God has de- termined, by His will of good pleasure, to alleviate the miseries of this life which have been caused by the sins of the creature, and to employ such means for the Salvation of mankind as are con- sistent with His Own holiness and creaturely re- sponsibility. Schouppe's, El. Th., Dog., Tr. V. §§177-194. 110 The Doctrine of God. Question" 56. What is the Loye of God? — The Love of God is that appetitive, but passionless and changeless movement of His essence whereby He desires to gather into union with Himself all who are good. S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 20: Mar- tensen's Dog., §51: Strong's Syst. Theol., pp. 127 , 137: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, 1.14. 2. Love pre-supposes a personal subject lov- ing, and discharges itself towards a personal object. Martensen. Ad intra, these condi- tions are satisfied within the Divine essence. The Father loves His Son, and is loved by the Son, and the Holy Ghost is the bond of Divine love. Love is in fact the moral expression of the Divine unity, and is the focus of all Divine at- tributes. God is Love (I. John IV. 16: John XVII. 26: Ephes. II. 4, 7). . 3. Ad extra, the goodness of God moved Him to create objects on whom He might pour forth His love. He loves all His creatures because the nature which he has imparted to them is good. But so far as they depart from righteousness and corrupt their natures, He hates them (Mai. I. 3: The Moral Attributes. Ill Rom. IX. 13). Thus He loves sinners as crea- tures, but hates them as sinners (Deut. VII. 7, 8: X. 15: Job. VII. 17: Isa. XLIX. 15, 16: LIV. 10: Jer. XXXI. 3: Hos. XI. 1, 4: Zeph. III. 17: Mai. I. 1: John III. 16: Rom. VIII. 35, 38, 39: Ephes. I. 4: III. 19: II. Thess. II. 16: I. John III. 1, 16: IV. 7 et seq.). S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 20. 2 ad quart. 4. The Mercy of God is that characteristic of his love which moves Him to plan the salvation of sinners, that they may become worthy of union with Himself. If they take advantage of His salvation, He ceases to hate them and unites them to Himself in everlasting love. To save them, He goes so far as to give His Beloved Son to die for them (Gen. XIX. 16: Exod. XX. 6: XXXIV. 6, 7: Num. XIV. 18: Dent. IV. 31: Judges 11.18: X. 15, 16: I. Chron. XV. 34: II. Chron. XXX. 9: Neh. IX. 17, 31: Psa. XXV. 7- 10: CIII. 2-17: CXXXVI. 1-26: Isa. XXX. 18: LXIII. 9: Jer. III. 12: Lam. III. 22, 23: Dan. VI. 9: Joel. II. 13: Luke I. 50: John III. 16: Rom. V. 8: Ephes. II. 4, 7: Jas. V. 11: II. Pet. III. 9, 15). S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 21. 3, 4: Strong's Syst. Theol., p. 137: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., §§207, 209. 112 The Doctrine of God. 5. The dispensation of God's mercy is em- bodied in a kingdom of Grace, wherein every help and sanctifying instrument which the wisdom of God has devised, is gathered and administered. But the grace of God is not confined to the Church. It is imparted to all men in various measures, under different conditions, and with various possibilities. Question 57. What is the Holiness of God ? — The Holiness of God is His self affirming purity ; the attribute which guards the distinction between God and the creature. It is the ground of rever- ence and adoration (Exod. III. 5: XV. 11: XIX. 10-16: Isa. VI. 3, 5-7: Psa. XCIX. 9: II. Cor. VII. 1: I. Thess. III. 13: IV. 7: Heb. XII. 29). Martensen's Dog., §51: Strong's Syst. Th., pp. 128-130: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. 174- 176: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, I. 13. 2. The Holiness of God involves ( a. ) freedom aud separation from moral evil: (b.) positive moral perfection. God is the source of holiness to His creatures, and can only be seen or ap- proached by the holy. Schouppe: Pearson De Deo, VII. p. 73: Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib. 6. c. 6. The Moral Attributes. 113 3. The Righteousness of God is His relative Holiness, by virtue of which, His treatment of the creature conforms to the purity of His nature. It is legislative Holiness, or the revelation of Divine Holiness in the form of moral require- ment (Matt. V. 48: I. Pet. I. 16). Strong's Syst. Th., pp. 138-140. 4. The Truth of God involves that all His manifestations, whether natural or supernatural, should be consistent with Himself and each other. Earlier and more rudimentary indications are not contradicted, but are illuminated, by later and fuller knowledge (Isa.XL.8: Matt.V.18: John III. 33: XIV. 6, 17: Rom. I. 25: III. 4: I. John V. 6). Strong, p. 137: Schouppe, Tr. V. 202-205. 5. The Faithfulness of God secures the fulfilment of His promises, which are based, not upon what we are or have done, but upon what Christ is and has done. Our sins do not invali- date them so long as we fulfil the conditions of repentance and good works (Num. XXIII. 19: I. Cor. I. 9: II. Cor. I. 20: I. Thess. V. 24: Tit. I. 2: Heb. VI. 18: I. Pet. IV. 19). Strong, p. 137. 8 114 The Doctrine of God. Question 58. What is the Justice of God? — The Justice of God is " His constant and efficacious will of dispensing rewards and punishments to creatures according to the merits of each" (Gen. XVIII. 25: Psa. VII. 9-11: XVIII. 24: LXXXIX. 14: CXIX, 37: Jer. XXIII. 5: Rom. II. 2-11: I. Pet. I. 17: Jas. II. 12 et seq: Rev. XIX. 11: XX. 13). S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 21. 1 ; 2, 4: Schouppe's EL Th. Dog., Tr. V. 208 7 210. 2. The Justice of God is the counterpart of His righteousness, and is sometimes identified with it (Rom. III. 26); Justice being the founda- tion of Divine Law, righteousness the basis of Divine judgment passed ,upon failure to fulfil the law (Heb. X. 30, 31). Strong's Syst. Th., p. 138. 3. The merits of the creature do not, in the first instance, arise from his own efforts, but from the meritorious passion of Christ. But the blood of Christ is the seal of an everlasting covenant, by virtue of which the members of Christ are en- abled to do the will of God and deserve His favor (Rom. IV. 25: Heb. XIII. 20, 21). " God re- wards Christ's work for us and in us" — not, in the first instance, on account of man's works, but, The Moral Attributes. 115 none the less, according to them (cf. Luke XVII. 7-10, w. Acts X. 34, 25: and II. John 8: Tit. III. 4-7, w. Rom. II. 6). 4. The judgments of God are without respect of persons, being simply the expression of His righteousness in the presence of moral evil ; — not vindictive, but vindicative (Rom. II. 11). Strong, p. 139 (e). Question 59. What is the Blessedness of God? — The Blessedness of God is the richness and joy of His life, arising from the internal relations of the Divine Persons, and also from the relations sub- sisting between God and His saints (Psa. CXLVII. 11: CXLIX. 4: Prov. XV. 8: Isa. LXII. 5: John XVII. 5). S.Thos. Sum. Th.,1.26: Marten- sen's Dog., §51. 2. The Blessedness of God is the reflection of Divine love, both within the Trinity and in the Kingdom of God. The latter is conditioned ; arising from the creative activity of God, and His condescension revealed in the Incarnation and the descent of the Holy Ghost. 116 The Doctrine of God. 3. The pity and grief and anger of God, caused by the sins of men, do not interfere with His Blessedness ; for, where sin abounds, His grace abounds much more and renders the Divine dispensation of love fruitful in glory (Luke XV. 7, 10, 22-24: Rom. V. 20, 21). 4. The response of man to the grace of God finds articulate expression in the worship of the faithful; their Eucharistic Oblations here, and the heavenly worship hereafter, which those Oblations anticipate (Rev. VII. 9-17). CHAPTER X. THE TRINITY. Question 60. What is the doctrine of the Trinity ? — The doctrine of the Trinity, as stated in our arti- cles, is, that, There is but one living and true God. And in the unity of this Godhead there be Three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. See Forbes' 39 Arts., I: Nic. Creed, pp. 70-87 : Browne's 39 Arts., I: Newman's Avians, c. II. §2-4: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI: Petav. De Dogmatibus, Tom. 2 et seq: Liddon's Bamp. Lee. I. §1: S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 27-43: Kingdoms God Incarnate, pp. 11-16: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, c. 2: Waterland's Works, 1st 3 vols: Hookev's Ec. Pol, 1. 2. 2: V. 51. 1: Richey's Truth and Counter Truth, ch. 1: S. Augustine on the Trinity. 2. The Athanasian Creed says, that we wor- ship one God in Trinity , and Trinity in Unity ; 118 The Doctrine of God. neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost; but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father * * ' the Son ' * * the Holy Ghost Incarnate ' ' ' incomprehensible ' * * eternal ' ' ' al- mighty ' ' ' God • ■ ' Lord, and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For, like as we are com- pelled by the Christian verity to acknoivledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are ive forbidden by the Catholic religion to say there be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but be- gotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after other, none is greater or less than another; but the whole Three Persons are co-eter- nal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. The Trinity. 119 3. This doctrine is involved in the Baptismal formula, and has been held in its integrity by the Church from the beginning. But its fuller anal- ysis and statement was the fruit of centuries of conflict with error. The history of this conflict can be studied in Browne's 39 Arts., pp. 21-34: Newman's Arians: Bull's Defence of the Nicene Faith: Petavhis, De Dogmatibus Tom. II. Pref. et lib. I. 4. Four truths are involved in the doctrine of the Trinity, (a.) the Unity of essence (Q. 46): (b.) the threefold Subsistence (Q. 64-66): (c.) the Cir- cumcession (Q. 67): (d.) the Divine Monarchy (Q. 68). Newman's Tracts Theol. and Eccl., pp. 160, 161. Question 61. What Biblical proof can be alleged for the doctrine of the Trinity? — Many adum- brations of this doctrine are contained in the Old Testament, and the New Testament reveals dis- tinctly the Divinity of the Three and Their Unity. Jones of Nay. on the Cath. Doc. of the Trinity. 120 The Doctrine of God. old testament adumbrations. 2. The Divine Name, Elohim, occurs many times in the plural number (e. g. Gen. I. 1) — With plural adjectives (Deut. IV. 7: Josh. XXIV. 19)— With plural pronouns (Gen. I. 26: XI. 6, 7: Isa. VI. 8: espec. Gen. III. 2) — With plural verbs (Gen. XX. 13: XXXV. 7). 3. Other names of God appear in the plural (Psa. LXXVIII. 25: Prov. IX. 10: Eccles. V. 8: XII. 1: Isa. LIV. 5: Dan. IV. 17, 26: V. 18, 20: Mai. I. 6). 4. God is spoken of, and speaks of Himself, asmore than one Person (Gen. XIX. 24: Psa. CX. 1: Prov. XXX. 4: Isa. X. 12: XIII. 13: XXII. 19: LXIV. 4: Dan. IX 17: Hos. I. 7: Zech. II. 10, 11: X. 12). 5. Three Divine Persons seem to be implied (Num. VI. 24-26: Psa. XXXIII. 6: Isa. VI. 3. XXXIV. 16). • NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES. 6. Matt. III. 16,17: XXVIII. 19 : John XIV. 16, 17, 26: XV. 26: II. Cor. XIII. 14: Gal. IV. 6: II. Thess. III. 5: [I. John V. 7]. The Trinity. 121 THESE THKEE ABE ONE. 7. Each is the Creator, yet there is but One Creator (cf. Psa. XXXIII. 6 w. Isa. XLIV. 24) — Each is Jehovah (Deut. VI. 4: Jer. XXIII. 6: Ezek. VIII. 1, 3) — the Lord (Rom. X. 12: Luke II. 11: II. Cor. III. 18) —the God of Israel (Matt. XV. 31: Luke I. 16, 17: II. Sam. XXIII. 2, 3)— the Law-giver (Rom. VII. 25: Gal. VI. 2: Rom. VIII. 2: Jas. IV. 12)— omnipresent (Jer. XXIII. 24: Ephes.I. 22: Psa. CXXXIX. 7,8)— the Source of life (Deut. XXX. 20: Col. III. 4: Rom. VIII. 10) — made mankind (Psa. C. 3: John 1.3: Job. XXXIII. 4)— quickens the dead (John V. 21: ibid: VI. 33)— raised Christ (I. Cor. VI. 14: John II. 19: I. Pet. III. 18) — commissions the Ministry (II. Cor. III. 5, 6: I. Tim. I. 12: Acts V. 28)— sanctifies the elect (Jude 1: Heb. II. 11: Rom. XV. 16) — performs all spiritual operations (I. Cor. XII. 16: Col. III. 11: I. Cor. XII. 11). 8. The Biblical proof of the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost will be given when ~we come to Christology and Pneumatology. Question 62. What are the most important technical terms employed in connection with the doc- 122 The Doctrine of God. trine or the Trinity ? — The most important technical terms employed in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity, are essence, nature, sub- stance, existence, subsistence, suppositum, person, procession, notion, relation, and property. Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 20, 21: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI. 6-47. 2. Essence (essentia, ovaia) is that which constitutes a thing what it is. It is expressed by the definition of a thing. 3. Nature (natura, <&v 226 and note. Question 66. What are the Divine Notions ? — The Divine Notions (notiones) ; by which the Persons The Trinity. 131 are described and discriminated (Q. 62.10), are five ; viz. innascibility, paternity, filiation, spira- tion, and procession. S. Thos. Sunt. Th., I. 32. 2-4: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., 161: Forbes" Nic. Creed , p. 124. 2. Innascibility, paternity, and spiration per- tain to the Father, Who is unorginate, begets, and spirates. Filiation and spiration pertain to the Son, Who is begotten and spirates. Proces- sion pertains to the Holy Ghost, Who is spirated. 3. All of these notions except innascibility are called Relations (relationes), because they express the manners according to which the Divine Persons subsist with reference to each other. Paternity and filiation express respectively the active and passive relations existing between the Father and the Son. Spiration and procession express respectively the active and passive rela- tions existing between the Father and the Son on the one hand and the Holy Ghost on the other. A further distinction should be made in spiration and procession, for the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son in the same man- ner in which He proceeds from the Father. Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI. 154-158: S. Thos. Stem. Th., I 28: Owen's Dog. Th., ch. 5. §6. 132 The Doctrine of God. 4. Three of these Relations are called Proper- Ti~E>s(pro2irietates); by which is meant the several characteristics which are peculiar to each, and by which each can be distinguished. They are Pa- ternity, filiation and procession. In other words we distinguish the Father as the unoriginate source of the Godhead; the Son as begotten; the Holy Ghost as proceeding. Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI. 159, 160: S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 40: Owm's Dog. Th., ch. 5. §8: Hooker's Ec. Pol, V. 51. 1. 5. It may aid the memory to notice that there are one Divine Nature, two processions, three properties, four relations, and five notions. Schouppe, 162. Question 67. What is circumcesskw ? — Circumcession (circumcessio, circumincessio, commeatio, nepi- XGoprjGiS, 6V}i7Z£piXGopr)6iS) 7repieyxGopr/&iS) u is that property by which the Divine Persons, by reason of the identity of their natures communi- cate with each other. It is the internal existence of one Person in the other, without confusion of person or of personality " (S.John XIV. 9,11). Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 81-83: S. Thos. Sum. Th., The Trinity. 133 I. 42. 5: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI. 163-165: Liddon's Damp. Lee, p. 34, note g : Owen's Dog. Th., ch. 5. §7. 2. The Divine Persons mutually coinhere in action as well as in essence. Every Divine opera- tion proceeds equally from the Three. The rea- son why it is possible, none the less, to distin- guish, and to speak, for example, of the Father as Creator, of the Son as Redeemer, and of the Holy Ghost as Sanctifier, is that the distinction of Per- sons involves a diversity of relations between each Person and Their common operations. Wilber- force on the H. Euch., pp. 222-228: Hooker's Ec. Pol, I. 2.2. 3. The doctrine of Circumcession is useful (a.) to guard the truth of the Divine Unity: (b.) to teach the moral harmony, or unity of purpose, which must attend Divine activity; — e. g. in the plan of Redemption: (c.) to refute the error that the economy of one Person displaces that of an- other in this world. Wilberforce pp. 227, 228: Question 68. What is the doctrine of Subordination ? — The doctrine of Subordination, also called the doctrine of the Divine Monarchy (jaovdpxia), 134 The Doctrine of God. is that the manner of Divine subsistence requires us to speak of the Father as first in order, the Son as second, and the Holy Ghost as third. Bull's Defence of the Nic. Faith, Bk. IV: Newman's Tracts Theol. and Eccles., pp. 161, 167-191: Forbes' 39 Arts. I. p. 18 : Broivne's 39 Arts. II. p. 67: S. Thos. Sum. Th,, I. 33: 42. 3: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI. 174: Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 140-143: Liddon's Bamp. Lee, pp. 202, note I, 431, 432 note n, 447 : Pearson on the Creed, pp. 64-67, 569,570: Oiven's Dog. Th., ch. 5. §11: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, II. 8. 2. It is to be observed that (a.) this doctrine expresses a truth of the Divine essence. The order is not merely economic, but real and eternal: (b.) the order is one of origin and subsistence. The Father is first because the other Two proceed from Him, and He proceeds from none; the Son second because He is begotten; the Holy Ghost third because He proceeds from the other Two: (c.) No Person is " afore or after other." The order is logical, not chronological. The Three are u co-eternal together": (d.) There is no in- equality involved. "None is greater or less than another, but the whole Three Persons are . . . co- equal." The Trinity, 135 3. The value of this doctrine is that it (a.) emphasizes the Divine Unity by teaching that there is but one principle o£ origin in the Trinity: (b.) guards the distinction of Persons by teach- ing the manner of Divine Unity. CHAPTER XL DIVINE ECONOMIES. Question 69. What is Mission ? — Mission, with reference to the Divine Persons, is the procession of one Person from another, having relation to some temporal effect. Forbes' 39 Arts., I. pp. 19-21: Nic. Creed, pp. 124, 125: S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 43: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI. 166-173: Petav. Be Bog., VIII. 4-7. 2. Two things are involved in Mission: (a.) He Who is sent proceeds from Him Who sends (John VIII. 42). S. Thos. I. 43. 8: (b.) the Per- son sent stands in some new relation to the ob- ject to which, terminus ad quern, He is sent: — not that the Person changes, but the economic relation. 3. All the Divine Persons can come into the world (John XIV. 23). The Father does not pro- ceed and therefore is not sent. Pearson on the Divine Economies. 137 Creed } p. 63. The Father and the Son send, for there is a procession from Both. The Son and the Holy Ghost are sent, because Both proceed. The Holy Ghost does not send, but is sent by the Father and the Son, since He proceeds from Both. 4. The external effect of mission does not pertain to the whole Trinity except by way of efficiency. The relation of each Person to that effect is different, and the difference is such that we attribute the action to one Person. For ex- ample, it is the Son, not the Father or the Holy Ghost, Who became Incarnate. Hooker's Ec. Pol., I. 2. 2: Schouppe, §168. Question 70. What is meant by the Divine economies ? — The Divine economies signify the particular external operations which revelation teaches us to attribute to the several Divine Persons. Thus the economy of the Father is creation of the world: of the Son, redemption of mankind; of the Holy Ghost, sanctification of the elect people of God. Church Catechism: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI. §§201,202: Martensen's Dog., p. 106. 138 The Doctrine of God. 2. The term economy, owovOjiia, was used in sub-apostolic days to signify ( a. ) a dis- pensation or plan of God's government; in which sense it was especially applied to the Incarnation (cf. Ephes. I. 10): (b.) the method of reserve dis- cernible in Divine revelation, adapted to meet the necessities of the slow understandings of men by progressive enlightenment. Light/oofs Apos. F'rs. Ft. II. , Vol. II. , p. 75. 3. In later theology the word has had the following uses: (a.) the progressive method of Divine revelation: (b.) the special work and reve- lation of each Divine Person (so used in this question): (c.) certain successive dispensations or covenants in the history of God's chosen people; e. g. the Mosaic economy: (d.) the "disciplina arcani," or guarded instruction of Catechumens in the ancient Church. Newman's Avians, pp. 49-89. 4. A doctrine is called economic to signify that the truth to which it refers has not been fully revealed, because of the limitations of our under- standings. The revelation is true economically, i. -e. so far as it goes; but it is partial. A doctrine Divine Economies. 139 of this sort is also called a mystery, ^vatrjpwy^ because it is inscrutable. 5. The greater part of Dogmatics is con- cerned with the economies of the Divine Persons. The economy of the Father is treated of in Cos- mology, Angelology, and Anthropology; that of the Son in Christology; that of the Holy Ghost in Pneumatology and Ecclesiology; the consum- mation of them all in Eschatology. CORRIGENDA. Page 14 bottom: Bushnell's instead of Bushrell's. 22, line 6: premises '' 22, " 6: praeambula ' 24, " 3: exegetical ' 31, " 14: depositum 1 58, " 13: probable ' 63, " 9: corroborate ; 63, " 19: corroborates 1 71, top: Chapter VI 1 76, line 21: Deity 1 81, " 1: ascribing 1 118, " 8: uncreate premesis. praeambulae. exegtical. despositum. propable. corroberate. corroberates. Chapter V. Diety. ascribed. Incarnate. SUBJECT INDEX Absolute will of God, . . . . 51.5 Acosmism, . . . . . 38.2b Action of God twofold, .... 50.4,5 Agnosticism, . . . . . .35 Antecedent will of God, . . . . 51.4 Anthropomorphism, .... 41.2,3 Anti-Theistic Theories, . . . Chap. VI Apodeictic Certainty, . . . .19.2 Apologetics, . . . . . 8.3 A posteriori, . . . . . 23.2-4 A priori, ..... 23.2-4 Atheism, ...... 22.4:34 Atheists, ..... 22.1.2:34.2 Attributes of God, .... 43:47.5 Authority of Cath. dogma, . . . .9.2.3 Do. the Church, . . . 6.2.3:10 Benevolence of God, . . . .55.5.6 Bible, 14 Bible and the Church, .... 14.6 Blessedness of God, . . . . .59 Cartesian Arg., ..... 25 Catholic Faith. .... 6.5:9.3.4:11 Causality, arg. from . . . . .26 142 The Doctrine of God. Certainty, .... . 19.2-5 Chance, doctrine of , . 27.5 Church and Bible, 14.6 Circumcession, 60.4:67 Coequality of Div. Persons, 65.3 Common Consent, 22 Communicative goodness of God, 55 Conditional will of God, . 51.5 Conscience, . 29.3 Consequent will of God, . 51.4 Cosmological arg., ' 26:31.3 Creation denied, . 38.2d Do moving cause of 56.3 Creeds, .... 6.3-5 Cumulative force of Theistic proof, . 30 Definition of Trinitarian terms, 62 Deism, .... 33.1,2 Demonstration, 19.1,2 Do of God's existence imposs., 20 Design argument, 27:31.4 Development of doctrine, 13 Divine economies . Chap. XI :Q. 67.2,3c:69.4:70 Divine element in H. S., 15.1,2.5 Divine Nature and attributes, Chap. VII, VIII. Doctrinal theory of Inspiration, 16.3 Dogma, . . 9 Dogmatic office of the Church Chap. II: Q., 9.2,3:10.4,5 Dogmatic Theology, 7.3:8 Dogmatism, .... 33.1,4 Dubia, .... . 12.3,4 Dynamic theory of Inspiration, . 16.5 Subject Index. 143 Economic truth, . . . . 70.4 Economies, Divine . . . 67.2,3c :69.4:70 Economy defined, .... 70.2,3 Elements in H. S., . . . . . 15 Epicurus' materialism, . . . 36.2 Essence, ...... 62.2 Essentials of faith, . . . . .12 Eternity of God, ..... 49 Evil, problem of . . . . .28.4 Do said to be good . . . 38. 2g Evolutionary theory not anti-theistic, . 27.6:28.2,3 Exegetical Theology, . . . . 7.4 Existence, ...... 62.5 Existence of God not demonstrable, . . .20 Do provable morally, . . . 21 Explicit and implicit faith, . . . 9.4:13.3 Faculties employed in theology, ... 5 Faith, . . . . 5.3-7 Do rule of .... 9.3,4:11 Do unity of in the Church,' . . . 5.7 Faithfulness of God, . . . . 57.7 Father, the . . 64.4:66.2-4:67.2:68.1,2:69.3:70.1,5 Fatherhood of God, .... 42.5 Filiation ..... 66.1-4 Filioque controversy, . . . . 65.4 Fore-knowledge of God, . . . .49.4 Form, God pure F. . . . . 47.4 Free thought, .... 6.4:10.5 Goodness, (communicative) of God, . . .55 Good pleasure, will of 51.1,3-5 Grace, ...... 32.1:56.5 144 The Doctrine of God. Hatred of God, 56.3 Heresy, . 13.6 Historical argument, . 28:31.5 Historical Theology, 7.2 Holiness of God, .57 Holy Ghost, . 64.4:65.4:66.2-4:67.2:68.1,2:69.3:70.1,5 Holy Ghost, procession of 65.4 Holy Scripture . Chap. III. Human element in H. S. 15.1,3,5 Hypostasis, 62.8:64.5-7 Idea of God, how formed 41 Immanence of God, 48.2 Immensity of God, 48 Immutability of God, 49.6 Implicit and explicit faith, 9.4:13.3 gj Incomprehensibility of God, 35.4:40:54.3 Infinite, 39 Innascibility, 66.1,2 Inspiration, . 14.3:16 Do how attested . 14.3 Do and revelation, . 17 Inspirer, the 17 Interpretation of H. 8. 6.2:17.6 Judgments of God, 58.4 Justice Do 58 Knowledge of God, our . 20.3:40:41:43.2,5 Law, 4 Liberal Christianity, 33.5 Living God, 44.5:47.3 Love of Gocl, . 56 Materialism, 3 6 Subject Index. 145 Mathematical Certainty, . . . .19.2 Mercy of God, ..... 56.4 Merits of men, . . . . .58.3 Metaphors in H. S., .... 41.3 Miracles, .... . 3:4.3 Mission, ...... 69 Monarchy, Divine, .... 60.4:68 Moral argument, .... 29:31.6 Moral attributes of God, Chap. IX. Moral certainty, . . . . . 19.3 Moral perfection of God, . ; . .54 Moral proof, 19.1,3-5 Moral Theology, .... 7.3:13.4 Mystery, defined .... 40.7 Names of God, ..... 42 Natural, .... 2.1,2:3.4:32.4,5 Natural law, . . . . . .4 Naturalism, . . . . . 33.1, 3 Nature, 62.3 Neologian theory of Insp. . . . 16.4 Non-essentials of faith, . . . 12. 2 4 Notions, 62.10:66 Omnipotence of God, .... 50 Omniscience of God, . . . .52 Ontological argument, . . . . .24 Onus probandi in Theism, .... 22.4 Pantheism, . . . . .38: 63.3^ Paternity, ...... 66.1-4 Perfection of God, . . . . .45 Person, 62.8:64.6 Personality of God, .... 63:64.5 146 The Doctrine of God. Phenomena not all material, 37.3 Pious opinions, . 12 3,4:13.6 Pity, grief and anger of God, 59.3 Plenary inspiration, . 14.5: 16.6 Plural personality of God, 64.2 Point of view of H . S . , . 14.4 Polemics, .... . 8.3 Positive Dogmatics, 8.3 Positivism, .... . 37 Praeambula fidei, 6.3 Prayer, .... 53.5 Predestination of God, 49.5 Presence of God, 52.46 Probable proof, . 19.1,3-5 Probation, conditions of . 4.6 Probation of faith, 20 4 Procession, . 62.9: 65: 66.1-4 Proofs of God's existence, . 22: 24: 25: 26: 27: 28: 29 Do Do, cumulative . 30 Do Do, moral effect of 30.3 Do Do, teaching of 31 Do Do, value of . 225 Proof of revealed truth, 14 6: 17.5 Properties, .... . 6212:66.4 Providence, . 53.2-6 Purpose of H. S. 14.4: 5.2 Rationalism, . . . 33 Reason in religion, . 52:195:33.6 Relations, . . 62.11: 66.3 Religion universal, 29.4: 31.7 Religious certainty, 19.5 Subject Index, 147 Revealer, the . 17 3 Revelation, Chap. V:Q.32 Revelation of God in H. S. . . 42.7 Revelation and inspiration, 17 Revelation progressive, . 17.5 Righteousness of God, . 57.3: 58.2 Rule of faith, 9. 3, 4: 11 Sacramental law moral, 4.5 Sacred Scriptures, . 14 Science, 1.2 Science of Theology, Chap.I. Self-existence of God, . 44 Self-sufficiency of God, 45.4 Signs, will of the . 51.1, 3, 6 Simplicity of God, 47 Son, the . 64.4: 66.2-4: 67.2: 68.1, 2: 69.3, 4: 70.1, 5 Source of revealed truth, 14.6 Sources of theological data, 6: 32.4, 5 Sovereignty of God, 50.1, 3: 53.4 Space, .... 48.3 Spencer's Agnosticism, 35.2 Spiration, . 66.1-3 Spiritual essence of God, 47.2, 3 Subordination, 60.4: 68 Subsistence, . 62.6:63:68 Substance, 62.4 Summum bonum, 45.5 Supernatural, . 2: 3.4 Suppositum, 62.7 Systematic Theology, 7.3 Teaching of Theism, . 31 148 The Doctrine of God. Teleological argument, 27: 31.4 Terms denned, Trinitarian, 62 Testimony of the Church, 6.3: 10.6 Theism, Chap. IV. Theology, 1.4.4,5:7 Theology Proper, 18 Time, 49. 3-5 Transcendence of God, 48.2 Trinity, Chap. X. Do stated, 42.6: 60 Do history of the doctrine, . 60.3 Do Biblical proof of 61 Do Rationale of . 64. 3, 4 Do not contradictory, . 64.5 Tri-personal subsistence of God, 60.4: 61.2-6. 64: 65. 2 b Truth of God, . 57.4 Uniformity of nature and of the supernatural, . 4.2-6 Unity of the Bible, . . . . 14.2 Unity of faith in the Church, ... 5.7 Unity of God, . . 46: 60.4a: 61.7: 67: 68.3a Unity, moral, of Divine operations, . 67.3b Universe began to be, . . . . 26.5 Verbal theory of Insp., . . . .16.2 Will of God, 51 Wisdom of God, . . . . .53 Word of God, H. S. the . . . 14.5 Worship, of the faithful .... 59.4 0r ■ ■ v^*¥ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: July 2005 PreservationTechnologies A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 111 Thomson Park Drive Cranberry Township. PA 16066 (724)779-2111